|

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) Rule 5123 on June 7, 2012. The text of the final rule can be found here. The rule is creates some obligations for broker-dealers when they are engaged in selling private placements of securities. Due to a number of concerns, the SEC did not approve the rule until FINRA made a number of changes to the originally proposed rule. The final rule, which includes three amendments, was approved on an accelerated basis. The rule does not apply to all private placements. Sales to institutional accounts, qualified purchasers, investment companies, and other classes of purchasers are excluded.

The original proposal would have required broker-dealers involved in a private placement transaction to disclose to each of the investors prior to the sale the anticipated use of the proceeds from the offerings and the amount and type of offering expenses and offering compensation. If the disclosure documents did not include this information, the broker-dealer would have had to create a document for the investor containing the information. The proposal also required each broker-dealer to file the document with FINRA within fifteen days of the date of the first sale. If there were any amendments to the documents, then the amendments would also have to be filed with FINRA within fifteen days.
Continue reading ›

|

Rhode Island has substantially adopted its proposed private fund adviser exemption, which we previously discussed in a posting dated April 10, 2012. The new rule became effective on May 17, 2012. To qualify for the exemption, the adviser must advise only private funds as defined under SEC Rule 203(m)-1. Furthermore, if it advises non venture capital 3(c)(1) funds, for each such fund:

  • The fund’s beneficial owners must meet the definition of a “qualified client” as defined in SEC Rule 205-3 after deducting the value of the primary residence;
  • The private fund adviser has to disclose the following information in writing to each beneficial owner: (1) all service, if any, to be provided to beneficial owners, (2) all duties owed to beneficial owners, and (3) any other material information affecting the rights or responsibilities of the beneficial owners; and
  • The adviser, on an annual basis, must obtain audited financial statements of each fund and provide a copy to the beneficial owner.

Continue reading ›

|

The Financial Services Institute (FSI) Chair, Joe Russo, recently released a letter stating that the FSI supports the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as the new self-regulatory organization (SRO) for investment advisers. Russo stated that the FSI has conducted two polls of its financial adviser members to determine whether they support FINRA as the SRO and 75% agreed that FINRA should become the SRO.

FSI has been asked by a number of critics why it has not advocated repealing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In response, FSI says that the act will likely not be repealed as a practical matter. Therefore, FSI has decided to focus its legislative efforts on securing for its members the least intrusive of the three options for investment adviser regulation posed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Those options are (1) the SEC charging user fees to fund more examiners, (2) FINRA becoming the dual SRO for broker-dealers and investment advisers, or (3) creating a new SRO.
Continue reading ›

|

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a non-partisan investigative agency of Congress, conducted a study which criticized the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) oversight of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). The purpose of the study was to determine how the SEC has conducted its oversight of FINRA, including the effectiveness of FINRA rules, and how the SEC plans to enhance its oversight.

The GAO found that both the SEC and FINRA do not conduct retrospective reviews of the impact of FINRA’s rules. As a result, the GAO believes that “FINRA may be missing an opportunity to systematically assess whether its rules are achieving their intended purpose and take appropriate action, such as maintaining rules that are effective and modifying or repealing rules that are ineffective or burdensome.” The GAO also noted that the SEC does not conduct sufficient oversight over FINRA’s governance and executive compensation. The SEC has responded to the survey by saying that it is focused primarily on oversight of FINRA’s regulatory departments, which the SEC claims has the biggest impact on investors.
Continue reading ›

|

Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) spoke at the recent NASAA/SEC Rule 19(d) Conference in Washington D.C. He addressed the importance of cooperation and collaboration between federal and state securities regulatory agencies in order to improve investor protection. Commissioner Aguilar also expressed a desire to have a continuing collaborative relationship between the SEC and the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA). “I continue to be interested in exploring more opportunities and avenues for the SEC and NASAA to partner and leverage our collective resources to protect investors,” Commissioner Aguilar said, “At a time when regulators are under greater constraints than ever, it makes sense for us to come closer together to further our common goals.”

Commissioner Aguilar discussed four areas in which the SEC and NASAA have worked together to improve investor protection. These areas include the transition of advisers to state regulation, crowdfunding, financial exploitation of the elderly and the creation of the Investor Advisory Committee.
Continue reading ›

|

The Project on Government Oversight (POGO), on May 29, wrote to Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) opposing the self-regulatory organization (SRO) bill that was reintroduced in the House of Representatives in April. We discussed the bill in a previous post, SRO Redraft Bill Reintroduced. POGO joins a long list of groups, including the Investment Advisers Association, the Financial Planning Coalition and the American Institute of CPAs, opposing the bill. POGO is particularly opposed to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) becoming the SRO because it believes that “FINRA’s regulatory effectiveness is undermined by its inherent conflicts of interest, its lack of transparency and accountability, its lobbying expenditures, and its executive compensation packages, among other issues.”

The letter addresses each area of concern POGO has relating to FINRA becoming the SRO for investment advisers. First, POGO states that FINRA’s “conflicted mission” will lead “to cozy ties with the industry.” POGO says the conflict arises because FINRA collects fees from member firms and is also charged with regulating the investment adviser industry. POGO believes that FINRA’s “inherently conflicted self-funding model has contributed to an incestuous relationship between FINRA and the industry it is tasked with regulating.” In contrast, POGO contends that government agencies are not conflicted because they must comply with federal ethic laws and agency regulations designed to alleviate the conflicts.
Continue reading ›

|

The Missouri Securities Commissioner, Robin Carnahan, issued an advisory release to alert entrepreneurs of the impact of the new crowdfunding exemption contained in the recently passed Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act. The exemption will allow entrepreneurs to use crowdfunding over the Internet to raise capital for small businesses. The purpose of the alert is to inform entrepreneurs of the changes and issues that arise with the passage of the exemption.

The purpose of the exemption is to allow small business owners to raise $1 million in a 12-month period through any medium, including the Internet. Under the exemption, investors whose net income is less than $100,000 can only invest the greater of $2,000 or 5% of their annual income, while investors whose net income is greater than $100,000 may not invest more than the greater of 10% of their annual income or $100,000. The crowdfunding exemption also requires that crowdfunding securities be sold through a broker or a “funding portal,” which will be defined by rules to be adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Also, the broker or “funding portal” and the small business will still be responsible for making proper disclosures to the SEC and potential investors.
Continue reading ›

|

Another large group in the financial service industry has come forward to oppose authorizing the Federal Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to become the self regulatory organization (SRO) for investment advisers. The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has voiced its desire to keep the oversight of investment advisers with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The AICPA is the world’s largest association representing the accounting profession. It is interested in the oversight of investment advisers because a number of its members work for firms that are registered or affiliated with a registered investment adviser. Members also provide audit, tax, retirement consulting, plan administration and financial planning services to their clients.
Continue reading ›

|

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has proposed a rule which would allow individuals who are not named as parties to a customer-initiated arbitration case to seek expungement relief by initiating “In re” expungement proceedings. Currently, unnamed persons do not have a prescribed way to seek these types of expungements, and must seek relief by:

  • Asking their current or former firm that is a party to the arbitration to request expungement on their behalf;
  • Seeking to intervene in the arbitration filed by the customer; or
  • Initiating a new arbitration case in which the unnamed person requests expungement relief and names the customer or firm as respondent.

According to Regulatory Notice 12-8, “FINRA believes that the current options do not always adequately address a number of issues that can arise in connection with expungement requests.”
Continue reading ›

|

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has responded to the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) study that estimated the cost of FINRA becoming the investment adviser self regulatory organization (SRO). The BCG study, which we have discussed in a previous blog, was sponsored by the Financial Planning Coalition, comprised of the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc., the Financial Planning Association and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisers. The Financial Planning Coalition, along with a number of other groups, is urging Congress to maintain investment adviser oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The BCG study concluded that, if FINRA were to become the investment adviser SRO, the one-time start-up cost would be between $200 million and $255 million, and the annual cost would be about $550 million to $610 million. In response to the BCG study, last month FINRA released its own cost estimates. According to FINRA, its start-up cost would be approximately $12 million to $15 million, with annual cost of about $150 million to $155 million. FINRA contends that the BCG projection is inaccurate because “BCG used as its base the costs for establishing the PCAOB (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) and the CFPB from scratch. BCG used figures – set up costs for organizations that didn’t even have one desk or employee to start with – and provided for only a 20% discount off the from-scratch start-up costs to allow for efficiencies in FINRA’s existing infrastructure.”
Continue reading ›

Contact Information
2987 Clairmont Rd
#200
Atlanta, GA 30329
Toll Free: (855) 322-2057Local: (404) 490-4060Fax: (404) 490-4058 jsparker@parkmac.com

Attorney Advertising

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Parker MacIntyre
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design