Custody presents a compliance danger for investment advisers, including advisers to private funds. Three recent enforcement cases illustrate the importance of diligent compliance for fund advisers with custody of client assets.
According to the Advisers Act, an investment adviser has custody of client assets if it holds, directly or indirectly, client funds or securities, or if it has the authority to obtain possession of those assets. See Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-2(d)(2). Continue reading ›
Two recent enforcement cases highlight the pitfalls of conversion from broker-dealer accounts to investment adviser accounts. In both cases, client accounts were converted from broker-dealer to advisory accounts, leading to a change in client fees. In both cases, the adviser was penalized for mismanaging the change in fee arrangements.
The first case relates to One Oak Capital Management, LLC (“One Oak”), a registered investment adviser, and its dually registered investment adviser representative, Michael DeRosa. DeRosa, who was simultaneously employed at a separate broker-dealer, counseled several clients to convert their accounts from broker-dealer accounts and products to advisory accounts with One Oak. Continue reading ›
The SEC recently charged New York-based investment advisers Two Sigma Investments LP and Two Sigma Advisers LP (collectively, “Two Sigma”) with breaching their fiduciary duties for failing to reasonably address known vulnerabilities in their investment models. In its Order, the SEC also found compliance and supervisory failures related to those violations, plus violation of the Commission’s whistleblower protections via Two Sigma’s employee separation agreements.
Two Sigma is a large quantitative-analytics-based hedge fund manager using computer-based algorithmic investment models when managing or advising client investments. The SEC claims that, by March 2019, multiple Two Sigma employees had informed senior management that various Two Sigma personnel could freely change variable inputs of their algorithmic models. These unchecked input modifications would alter the algorithm’s predictions and trades without notifying the firm, its representatives, or its clients. This autonomy of various personnel to rewrite the models’ data could materially impact investment decisions for Two Sigma clients. Continue reading ›
The SEC recently announced its annual Examination Priorities for the 2025 year. This annual release provides insight into the areas that the SEC plans to highlight when inspecting investment advisers, investment companies, broker-dealers, and other entities subject to examination by the SEC’s Division of Examinations. For investment advisers, the 2025 priorities largely are unchanged from the announced 2024 priorities, which we have previously discussed.
For FY25, the SEC again intends to focus on investment advisers who have never been examined, newly registered investment advisers, and investment advisers who have not been examined recently.
Last week, the SEC announced a series of enforcement actions tied to its ongoing sweep of investment adviser compliance with the new Marketing Rule. In total, nine firms settled claims that they violated Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-1, the “new Marketing Rule,” resulting in $1,240,000 in civil penalties.
We have previously written about the implementation of the new Marketing Rule, the announcement of the corresponding examination sweep program, and the subsequent enforcement actions that have resulted. While the previous enforcement actions have largely centered around investment advisers who have failed to adopt policies and procedures designed to prevent violations of the new Marketing Rule, the recent enforcement actions give greater insight into the real-world application of the new Marketing Rule. Namely, the actions detail marketing violations due to the use of third-party ratings by the investment advisers.
In September 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a complaint against Lufkin Advisors, LLC, a now de-registered Registered Investment Adviser, and its President, Chauncey Forbush Lufkin, III (collectively, “Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The SEC first alleged an ongoing fraudulent course of conduct for multiple years. To support this claim, they alleged that the Defendants
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a final rule that drastically changes the employment landscape by banning most types of noncompete provisions nationwide and rendering some existing ones unenforceable. The rule was adopted following a review of the non-competition landscape by the FTC. That review of noncompetes and their impact on the employment market and US economy was extensive. The FTC estimated that 1 in 5 Americans are subject to noncompetes as part of their employment.[i] In total, the FTC received over 26,000 comments regarding the proposed ban on noncompetes, over 25,000 commentors supported the proposed ban on noncompetes.[ii] Continue reading ›
With the end of the federal government’s fiscal year, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) once again recently released results from the enforcement program, covering November 2022 through October 2023. The release included cumulative totals and highlighted individual cases and enforcement areas of concentration. The annual release serves as a roadmap for where the SEC is spending its resources, and what conduct will likely lead to enforcement actions.
During fiscal year 2023, the SEC’s Enforcement Division filed 3% more total enforcement actions than during 2022. This included an 8% increase in “stand-alone,” or original actions, along with increases in the number of “follow-on” administrative proceedings. These “follow-on” actions are typically filed after an associated criminal, civil, or other regulatory action, and look to impact an individual’s ability to conduct business in the securities industry.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently released the 2024 Examination Priorities from the Division of Examinations, formerly known as the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations. This annual release provides insight into the areas that the SEC plans to highlight when examining investment advisers, investment companies, and broker-dealers during the coming year.
As more advisers have returned to the office, the SEC has ramped up its in-person examinations while also leveraging technologies and virtual options to increase the efficiency of the examination program. Going forward, many advisers may experience a blend of in-person and virtual portions of an examination.
For FY24 examinations, the SEC will place a significant focus on how advisers abide by their duty of care and duty of loyalty under their fiduciary standard. Under this focus, the SEC will place an emphasis on (1) the advice provided to clients for complex or illiquid products, (2) the adviser’s process for ensuring that advice is provided in the client’s best interest, (3) how the adviser addresses conflicts of interests, including economic incentives, and (4) how disclosures are made to clients and prospective clients regarding all materials facts necessary for the clients to make informed decisions. Continue reading ›
On August 26, 2022, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued an order settling charges against Kovak Advisors, Inc. (“Kovak”), for compliance failures related to its wrap fee program. The case highlights how important it is for an investment adviser to adopt and follow policies and procedures relating to any wrap fee program, to ensure that the adviser’s services are in the client’s best interest.
From 2015 through August 2018, Kovak offered advisory services to clients through a wrap fee program. Clients that participated in the wrap fee program paid a fee that included asset management, trade execution, and other costs. The SEC made three findings during the time Kovak offered the wrap fee program.
Continue reading ›
RIA Compliance Blog