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 ›
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 ›
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently released the 2022 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 during the coming year.
While the SEC notes the continued impact of COVID-19 on investment advisers and the investment industry, the SEC reported an increase in examinations conducted during FY21, with the total number of completed examinations close to the pre-pandemic levels of FY19.
For FY22 examinations, the SEC will place a significant focus on (1) private funds; (2) environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing; (3) standards of conduct: Regulation Best Interest (Regulation BI), fiduciary duty, and Form CRS; (4) information security and operational resiliency; and (5) emerging technologies and crypto-assets. Many of these focus areas, such as ESG and Regulation BI, are carried over from previous years and mark a multi-year emphasis for the SEC.
The SEC, on June 5th, adopted a comprehensive set of rules and interpretations that will have a profound effect on the brokerage and advisory industries going forward, first and foremost by revising the standard-of-conduct applicable to broker-dealers and their registered representatives in dealings with retail customers. Even casual observers will likely be familiar with the various proceedings just concluded at the SEC, which resolve debates that have raged in the investment industry for decades as to the need to align the higher fiduciary “standard-of-conduct” applicable to investment advisers with the lesser suitability standard applicable to broker-dealers. While the June 5th releases do not equalize the two standards—as many commentators would have desired—they do significantly raise the standard applicable to broker-dealers from suitability to “best interests.” The SEC’s releases number four separate documents, each covering a distinct aspect of the standard-of-conduct controversy, and run over 1200 pages. Accordingly, this note will seek to identify the major headlines from the various releases. Look for future writings, wherein we will explore the nuances of the June 5th releases in greater detail.
As noted, the SEC released a package of Final Rules and Interpretive Releases comprising four separate components: (1) Final Rules implementing Regulation Best Interest (“Reg BI”), the new enhanced standard for brokers; (2) Final Rules implementing a new Form CRS Relationship Summary (“Form CRS”), a new disclosure document applicable to both brokers and advisers (that, for advisers, will function as a new Part 3 to Form ADV); (3) an Interpretive Release clarifying the SEC’s views of the fiduciary duty that investment advisers owe to their clients; and (4) an Interpretive Release intended to more clearly delineate when a broker-dealer’s performance of advisory activities causes it to become an investment adviser within the meaning of the Advisers Act. All four components of the regulatory package were approved by a 3-1 vote of the SEC’s Commissioners, with Commissioner Robert Jackson being the sole dissenter.
While the June 5th releases are the culmination of a decades-long controversy, they are the proximate result of a formal rulemaking commenced on April 18, 2018, at which time the SEC published initial proposed versions of Reg BI, Form CRS and the advisory interpretations. The Final Rules for Reg BI and Form CRS will become effective 60 days after they are formally published in the Federal Register; however, firms will be given a transition period until June 30, 2020 to come into compliance. The two Interpretive Releases will become effective upon formal publication. Continue reading ›
The North American Securities Administrators Association—also known as “NASAA”—a cooperative association consisting of the chief securities regulators for each of the 50 United States, as well as Canadian and Mexican jurisdictions, has recently voted to adopt a model information security rule. NASAA’s new model information security rule could—if widely implemented by the individual NASAA Member jurisdictions—ultimately have a broad impact on the compliance programs of state-registered investment advisers.
Among its many roles as a confederation of individual regulators, NASAA frequently drafts and circulates “model rules” to its Members, who eventually vote on and adopt these draft rules for use by the various Member jurisdictions. A “model rule” is a familiar regulatory tool, which essentially provides a template upon which laws, rules, and other regulations can be drafted. For example, many of the individual states’ securities acts are variants of the Uniform Securities Act of 2002, a model act created by a group of legal scholars, regulators and veteran attorneys. NASAA’s new model rule is just such a template for regulators. Individual states and other jurisdictions may—at their discretion—adopt it in whole, in part, or not at all. That said, we believe that, especially given the growing importance of cybersecurity issues, it will be used more likely than not as the states come around to developing rules to parallel those already in place at the federal (SEC) level. Continue reading ›
In its latest Risk Alert, the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) heeds advisers and broker/dealers to take a fresh look at their policies and procedures in the area of electronic customer record storage in light of shortcomings discovered by OCIE’s staff as part of recently-conducted regular examinations. These shortcomings include weak or misconfigured security settings on a network storage device that, in the worst-case event, could result in unauthorized access to customer information.
OCIE Risk Alerts are highly useful resources for compliance professionals to consider as these published notices serve as a window into not only the recent experiences of OCIE staffers out in the field, but also the thinking of OCIE management as to where it will be directing its staff to focus on in future examinations. In other words, if the management of OCIE warrants it important enough to publish a Risk Alert on an particular topic, registrants can be assured that future exams will likely focus on deficiencies in that area.
This most recent Risk Alert zeros-in on deficiencies uncovered by examiners with respect to how advisers and brokers are protecting their customers’ electronic records—specifically, records kept in the “cloud” or on other types of networked storage solutions. OCIE defines cloud storage as the “electronic storage of information on infrastructure owned and operated by a hosting company or service provider.” Obviously, such storage systems may be especially vulnerable to hacking or other nefarious activities, and as such, warrant robust protections. Continue reading ›
RIA Compliance Blog