Investment Advisers

SEC Proposes Business Continuity and Transition Plan Rule for RIAs

July 15, 2016 | Steve Parker

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has frequently said that an investment adviser’s fiduciary duty requires an adviser to plan for unexpected disruptions in business. Consequently, advisers have developed business continuity plans as a “best practice” without necessarily being required to do so by rule. Recently, however, the SEC proposed a rule that would require all SEC-Registered investment advisers to adopt and implement written business continuity and transition plans and to review them no less often than once per year. The SEC also issued guidance for the baseline requirements that such plans should contain.

SEC Charges Private Fund Administrator with Failure to Satisfy Gatekeeper Responsibilities

June 28, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently settled charges against a New Jersey private fund administrator, Apex Fund Services (“Apex”), for failing to notice or correct what it contended were clear indications of fraud by two of its clients, ClearPath Wealth Management (“ClearPath”) and EquityStar Capital Management (“EquityStar”). The SEC’s Division of Enforcement noted that Apex failed to “live up to its gatekeeper responsibility” and thereby enabled the fraudulent activities of these two investment advisers.

Apex provided accounting and administrative services to various private funds, including several managed by ClearPath and EquityStar. Its duties as fund administrator included keeping records, preparing financial statements, and preparing investor account statements. The SEC charged both ClearPath and EquityStar with securities fraud in enforcement actions, finding that ClearPath had allegedly misappropriated fund assets and used fund assets for unauthorized investments, and that EquityStar had allegedly made materially false and misleading statements to investors and prospective investors of its funds regarding undisclosed withdrawals of fund assets.

SEC Charges NC Investment Adviser Selling Real Estate-Related Investments with Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Duty

June 16, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently filed suit against a North Carolina investment adviser for allegedly defrauding investors in the sale of certain real estate-related investments in unregistered pooled investment vehicles. The adviser, Richard W. Davis Jr., solicited investors primarily from the Charlotte, North Carolina region and was able to raise approximately $11.5 million from 85 investors, the majority of which were individuals with retirement accounts. However, he allegedly failed to disclose to clients that the money in the funds was being steered towards several other entities beneficially owned by himself.

Davis allegedly told investors in one of his funds that the fund’s capital would be invested in short term fully secured loans to real estate developers. He allegedly failed to mention, however, that many of the real estate developers receiving these loans were companies owned and operated by himself, creating an inherent conflict of interest. Furthermore, the companies never repaid the loans in full and Davis allegedly failed to inform his investors of this or reappraise the value of the fund’s investment. Instead, Davis allegedly misrepresented the value of the pooled fund by repeatedly stating that it had not lost any value.

Investment Adviser Accused of Raising Operating Capital From Clients by False and Misleading Statements

May 26, 2016 | Steve Parker

Earlier this month, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) instituted an administrative proceeding against Blue Ocean Portfolios, LLC (“Blue Ocean”), an SEC-registered investment advisor with approximately $106 million in regulatory assets under management, and its Principal, CEO and Chief Compliance Officer, James A. Winkelmann, Sr. According to the allegations, Blue Ocean and Winkelmann began raising capital from clients of Blue Ocean in order to generate business proceeds for Blue Ocean in April, 2011. The adviser raised the funds by issuing a number of what it called “Royalty Units,” which were in fact interests that paid a minimum return to the investors with the prospect of a higher return if Blue Ocean’s advertising investment yielded successful new customers with annually recurring revenue.

CFPB Issues First Cybersecurity Order Against Payment Platform for Deceptive Practices

March 18, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) recently instituted a cybersecurity enforcement action against an online payment platform, Dwolla, Inc., in the form of a consent order. This consent order is significant because it is the first time the CFPB has sought to institute an enforcement action in the cybersecurity arena after it was given the authority to do so under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), highlighting the increasing emphasis being placed by financial regulators on cybersecurity practices. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), among others, have all been quite active in policing data security practices of financial institutions in recent years. The SEC even listed cybersecurity control procedures of registered broker-dealers and investment advisers as one of its examination priorities for 2016.

The Dodd-Frank Act gives CFPB supervisory authority over providers of consumer financial products or services. It also authorizes CFPB to take enforcement action to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices from these providers. In this case, Dwolla allegedly made several exaggerated claims regarding the strength of its data security practices that the CFPB found to be deceptive within the meaning of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Final DOL Fiduciary Rule Predicted to Significantly Alter Sale of Annuity Products

March 8, 2016 | Patricia Klusmeyer

As the Department of Labor’s (“DOL’s”) proposed fiduciary rule awaits final adoption, market participants are starting to predict how it will affect retirement investment advice given that financial advisers such as broker-dealers, investment advisers, insurance companies, and other financial institutions, as well as their representatives, may soon be subjected to heightened fiduciary standards. Specifically, the sale of annuity products is predicted to face a large amount of change given its commission-based nature.

Currently, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (“Code”), financial advisers are generally only fiduciaries if they provide investment advice or recommendations for compensation to employee benefit plans or participants and such advice is given on a regular basis and pursuant to a mutual understanding that the advice will serve as the primary basis for investment decisions and will be individualized to the particular needs of the plan. While investment advisers already have fiduciary duties under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the current narrow definition of fiduciary under ERISA and the Code generally does not encompass broker-dealers.

Investment Adviser Charged with Misleading SEC Regarding Examination

November 12, 2015 | Steve Parker

In August of this year the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) settled an administrative proceeding that related to statements an investment adviser made during the SEC’s on-site examination. The adviser at issue, Parallax Capital Partners, LLC, is a registered investment adviser that focuses primarily on mortgage-backed bonds and other similar fixed income securities. Parallax also advises a private fund in addition to providing advisory services to individuals and other entities. During an examination of Parallax that the SEC conducted in April 2011, the firm’s Chief Compliance Officer represented to the examination staff that he had performed and documented the annual compliance review required by Adviser’s Act Rule 206(4)-7 for the year 2010. The CCO further represented that the review and documentation had been conducted in February 2011, and provided the examination staff with a memorandum purportedly documenting the compliance review for 2010 that stated: “This memo documents that I have performed the review and reported significant compliance events and material compliance matters.”

The SEC examination staff was able to determine, by a review of the metadata attached to the compliance memorandum, that it had not been drafted in February 2011 as the CCO had represented, but instead that it had been created and completed in April 2011, just three days prior to the onsite examination and after Parallax received notice of the impending examination.
Continue reading ›

SEC Announces Cybersecurity Enforcement Action Against RIA

October 27, 2015 | Alison Burns

On September 22, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced an important cybersecurity enforcement action that has broad implications to registered investment advisers. In a Settlement Order, the SEC found R.T. Jones Capital Equities Management, a St. Louis-based investment adviser, “willfully violated” the Safeguards Rule. From September 2009 through July 2013, the firm stored unencrypted, sensitive personally identifiable information (“PII”) of clients and others on its unencrypted, third party-hosted, web server.

In requiring that brokers-dealers, investment companies, and registered investment advisers guard against cybersecurity breaches, the SEC has relied on its authority under Sections 501, 504, and 505 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, to create the new regulations. The “Safeguard Rule” is Rule 30(a) of Regulation S-P (17 C.F.R. § 248.30(a)). Enforcement actions initiated by the SEC relating to computer security are often grounded in violations of the Safeguard Rule.
Continue reading ›

OCIE Announces 2015 Priorities in Second Round of Cybersecurity Examinations: New Risks for Securities Firms in Cybersecurity Compliance

October 1, 2015 | Alison Burns

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) on Sept. 15, 2015 issued Risk Alert to announce its new focus on cybersecurity of securities firms and registered investment advisers. Cybersecurity programs of securities firms had best be strengthened, otherwise they may be subject to additional regulatory scrutiny according to the Risk Alert, which is meant to serve as helpful guidance for firms that need to create or heighten a cybersecurity program. The National Exam Program in 2014 conducted cybersecurity examinations on 106 securities firms. As a follow-up to the 2014 SEC security examinations The Risk Alert highlights certain additional measures the national registered entities need to be aware of when the SEC is conducting examinations.

A sample examination request with a list of information that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations may review in conducting examinations of registered entities regarding cybersecurity matters may be viewed here.
Continue reading ›

SEC Charges Three Investment Adviser Firms with Improper Registration in Wyoming

March 23, 2015 | Chadd Reynolds

On February 4, 2015, the SEC issued cease and desist orders against three investment advisers that fraudulently maintained registration with the SEC by listing Wyoming as their principal place of business on their Forms ADV. These three incidences highlight Wyoming’s unusual landscape for investment advisers.

In order to explain the uniqueness of these orders, some background on investment adviser regulation will be provided. Originally, investment advisers were prohibited from registering with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act if it managed under $25 million in assets or met a designated exemption. In July 2011, that threshold was increased to $100 million. If an investment adviser does not meet or exceed the $100 million threshold, it is still required to register with the states in which they maintain their principal place of business. Wyoming is unique in that it does not regulate investment advisers. Any investment adviser with its principal place of business in Wyoming must therefore, according to the amendments to Section 203A of the Investment Advisers Act, register with the SEC.
Continue reading ›