|

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) showed this week that it may be increasing scrutiny of firms in connection with customer funds. This may be a result of the MF Global collapse last fall, in which the firm had misplaced more than $1 billion in customer funds. Since then, the CFTC has adopted stricter rules designed to better ensure the segregation of client funds from firm money.

On March 13, the CFTC brought numerous enforcement actions against firms to show that it plans to monitor firms’ treatment of customer funds more closely. These actions come during the same week in which the Futures Industry Association conference in Boca Raton was held. A former chief trial attorney for the CFTC, Allison Lurton, stated it has used trade conferences in the past as a means to drive home a point, so it may be no coincidence that the CFTC waited until the week of the conference to bring disciplinary actions. She stated, “They want to make sure that they’re sending the message to the market that they’re still on the beat and serious about protecting customer funds.”
Continue reading ›

|

The Investment Advisers Association (IAA) believes that it needs to become more outspoken and involved in order to deter Congress from passing legislation requiring a self-regulatory organization (SRO) be designated for registered investment advisers. The IAA is concerned because Congress is fully aware of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) position and its desire to become the SRO for investment advisers. IAA vice president for government relations Neil Simon stated, “Despite our best efforts, there is still a woeful ignorance of the role investment advisers play. They’re aware of FINRA. We need to help educate policymakers so they make informed decisions.”

Section 914 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act mandated that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) prepare a report considering whether there should be an SRO for investment advisers, as there is for broker-dealers. The SEC set forth three possible models to help the agency better oversee advisers: (1) allow the SEC to charge user fees for exams, (2) establish a new SRO, or (3) allow FINRA to be the SRO for both registered investment advisers and broker-dealers. The IAA is supporting the user fee approach, while FINRA is aggressively pursuing becoming the designated SRO. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala) previously offered a bill which would provide for an SRO in response to the SEC’s recommendations, which were delivered to Congress in January 2011. Some industry observers believe that Rep. Bachus is likely to release a revised discussion draft of his bill and push it, because he will leave his post of Financial Services Chairman in January 2013 due to term limits.
Continue reading ›

|

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has decided to increase regulation of the private equity industry, which has previously faced less regulatory scrutiny than other industries such as banking and hedge funds. At the end of 2012, the SEC sent several letters to private equity funds as “informal inquiries.” It is unclear which firms actually received the letters. The SEC maintains that its actions are not a result of suspecting any particular wrongdoing by specific firms, and it claims that its goal is to investigate possible violations of securities laws.

In the letter, the SEC requested information from private equity firms in relation to 12 broad areas including:

  • Financial statements;
  • Support for valuations of fund assets;
  • Documents setting forth a value of any assets owned by a fund over the past three years; and
  • Information on agreements between the firms and those that value fund assets.

The SEC is placing greater emphasis on the valuation of private equity firms since the firms are not publically traded and there is no listing price on the stock market. As a result, there is no easily ascertainable price for private companies. This allows for subjective judgments to play a large role in valuation. Private equity managers use varying, complex methodologies to value their holdings, which are often private companies bought using debt.
Continue reading ›

|

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is taking an increased interest in examining chief compliance officers (CCO) to determine whether enforcement action should be taken against them. At the Investment Adviser Association’s annual compliance conference, CCOs were given a number of stern warnings. Director of the SEC’s Division of Investment Management Robert Plaze spoke about changes and improvements being made by the SEC. He warned CCOs that a newly created Asset Management Unit, which is part of the Division of Enforcement, “is dedicated to suing you.” He also claimed that the new unit will be staffed with people who understand the asset management business. It will also collaborate with both the Investment Management Division and the agency’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations. Mr. Plaze stated that the unit will make the SEC’s oversight of registered investment advisers more efficient, allowing it to be able to perform more effective examinations. These warnings should concern CCOs who have taken a supervisory role within their firm.

The SEC has the authority to impose sanctions on people who are associated with a broker-dealer or an investment adviser if those people have reasonably failed to supervise. Both broker-dealers and investment advisers employ legal and compliance personnel to provide advice to them and their firms regarding the application of laws and regulations. One major issue that arises is whether the CCO is considered a supervisor within the firm. If so, the CCO could be subject to sanctions by the SEC for failure to supervise.
Continue reading ›

|

As a result of the financial crisis, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has significantly increased number of enforcement actions and the amount of sanctions imposed on broker-dealers in the previous year. According to Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP’s annual sanctions survey, the 13% increase in disciplinary actions resulted in increased fines of 51%.

FINRA filed 1,488 disciplinary actions in 2011, an increase from the 1,310 actions that it initiated in 2010. This made 2011 the third straight year in which the number of FINRA disciplinary actions has grown. The survey also found that the number of professionals barred by FINRA increased from 288 in 2010 to 329 in 2011.

Total fines jumped from $45 million in 2010 to $68 million in 2011, which is a 51% increase. The survey report stated, “While the $68 million reported in 2011 is still a far cry from the $184 million and $111 million that FINRA fined firms and representatives in 2005 and 2006, respectively, it may signal continued enforcement efforts for the near future.”
Continue reading ›

|

The Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC) has adopted a final rule that makes several amendments to Regulation 4.5, which relates to commodity pool operators. The amendments add new limitations to an exclusion from the definition of a commodity pool operator (CPO) upon which registered investment companies have commonly relied. Currently, the rule excludes from the CPO definition entities that operate under other regulatory regimes, such as registered investment companies, banks, certain pension funds and insurance companies.

The amended regulations now impose two restrictions on registered investment companies that seek to use this exclusion. The first restriction is a trading threshold which would require an adviser to a registered investment company to either certify in a notice of eligibility filed with the NFT that it uses commodity futures, options or swaps only for “bona fide hedging purposes,” or, alternatively, that it meets one of the following two tests:

  • Five percent test: In relation to positions in commodity futures, commodity option contracts or swaps, the aggregate initial margin and premiums required to establish those positions will not exceed five percent of the liquidation value of its portfolio, after taking into account unrealized profits and unrealized losses; or
  • Net notional value test: the aggregate net notional value of commodity futures, commodity option contracts or swap position not solely used for “bona fide hedging purposes,” determined at the time the most recent position was established, does not exceed 100 percent of the liquidation value of the registered investment company’s portfolio, after taking into account unrealized profits and unrealized losses. The net notional value is calculated as described in CFTC Regulation 4.13(a)(ii)(B)(1) and 4.13(a)(ii)(B)(2).

Continue reading ›

|

With an overwhelming majority, 390 to 23, the House of Representatives passed another crowdfunding bill on March 9, 2012. The House had previously passed a similar bill in November 2011 called the “Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act” which we previously discussed in a blog, New “Invest Georgia Exemption” Helps Small Businesses Raise Capital. That Republican bill stalled in the Democratic-controlled Senate, as did another bill related to crowdfunding requirements which included lower investment amounts and the requirement to use a “crowdfunding intermediary.” The Senate currently has three crowdfunding bills before it, although none of the bills have yet to move out of committee. The Senate Banking Committee did hold another hearing on the topic of crowdfunding earlier this week.

The bill that passed most recently in the House was originally introduced by Representative Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and was rolled into a broader package called the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS), which included six bills bundled together. Rep. McHenry stated, “Crowdfunding is a key component of the JOBS Act. Economists predict the legislation will lead to a ten percent increase in new business startups, helping to create at least 170,000 jobs in the next five years. The bill is critical in getting our economy back on the right track.”
Continue reading ›

|

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a Risk Alert on February 27 designed to help firms detect and prevent unauthorized trading in brokerage and advisory accounts. Carlo di Florio, director of the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examination, stated, “Unauthorized trading is not a new problem, and the risks it poses should be a perennial concern to financial firms as well as to regulators. We hope that the observations shared in the Risk Alert will be helpful for firms as they review their compliance and supervisory controls to detect and deter unauthorized trading.”

The Risk Alert defines the term “unauthorized trading” as a broad range of activities, including: (1) rogue or other unauthorized trading or trade execution in customer or client or propriety accounts, (2) exceeding firm limits on position exposures, risk tolerances and losses, (3) intentional mismarking of positions, and (4) creating records of nonexistent (or sham) transactions. If a firm notices a change in trading patterns, a high volume of trade cancellations or corrections, manual trade adjustments, or unexplained profits for a particular trader or client, then the firm may need to apply additional scrutiny.
Continue reading ›

|

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a joint proposed rule and guidelines to help protect investors from identity theft enacted by Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This proposal currently does not apply to registered investment advisers. The SEC has recognized that registered investment advisers are unlikely to hold transaction accounts and thus would not qualify as a “financial institution.” The SEC is requesting comments on the proposed rule asking whether the rule should “omit investment advisers or any other SEC-registered entity from the list of entities covered by the proposed rule?” When the proposal is published in the federal register there will be a 60-day comment period.

Section 1088 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred authority over parts of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the SEC and the CFTC. The provisions amended section 615(e) by adding the CFTC and SEC to a list of federal agencies required to create identity theft regulations. The purpose of an identity prevention program is to detect, prevent and mitigate identity theft.
Continue reading ›

|

Virginia’s previous private fund adviser exemption could be short-lived because it may be replaced by a new proposed rule. The previous rule was effective September 7, 2011 and the current proposed rule is expected to be effective on May 1, 2012. Interested persons may submit their comments on the proposed rule on or before April 12, 2012. This new rule is also currently being considered by California, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. We previously discussed the California proposed exemption rule in a blog, California Extends Comment Date on its Proposed Private Fund Exemption Rule.

Currently, the rule provides for an exemption for any adviser where the adviser advises only clients that are either a corporation, general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, trust or other organization that:

  • Has assets of $5,000,000 or more and
  • Receives investment advice based on the investment objectives of the entity instead of individual investment objectives, provided that the adviser was exempt from registration pursuant to §203(b)(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the adviser is subject to SEC rule 203 1(e).

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