United States Securities and Exchange Commission Tag Archives

Advisers Who Did Not File 13F Reports Face SEC Scrutiny

October 3, 2024 | Charlie Jarrett

Last month, the SEC announced a series of settled enforcement actions against investment advisers who routinely failed to file 13F and 13H reports with the Commission. The actions are tied to the SEC’s announced examination priority to assess the accuracy and completeness of regulatory filings.

Depending on the frequency, aggregate amount of transacted securities, types of securities, or value of securities an investment adviser advises, advisers registered with the SEC are subject to many filing requirements. Of these, the most common are the 13F and 13H reports required pursuant to Section 13 of the Exchange Act.

FinCEN Adopts Rules AML Rules for Investment Advisers

September 10, 2024 | Charlie Jarrett

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) adopted final rules to bring the majority of the investment advisory industry under the reporting requirements for illicit finance activity. The update brings “investment advisers,” as defined under the new rule, within the definition of “financial institution” for regulation under the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”).

The BSA has long attempted to safeguard the US financial system by monitoring and reporting certain activities and transactions. Under the new FinCEN Rule, certain investment advisers have the same regulatory requirements historically reserved for banks, broker-dealers, money transmitters, and casinos.

First Circuit Ruling Gives SEC Victory in Long Fought Case

August 8, 2024 | Charlie Jarrett

Earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a unanimous decision upholding a circuit court’s ruling in SEC v. Navellier & Associates, Inc.[i] This ruling granted the SEC summary judgment finding that Navellier & Associates, a Nevada based investment adviser, violated Section 206 of the Adviser’s Act.

For the past ten years, we have written about a series of SEC enforcement actions centered around the advertisement of performance returns tied to F-Squared, previously the U.S. largest marketer of ETF-based index products. The F-Squared and related cases not only established the SEC’s position regarding the publication of performance advertising but also recognized an investment adviser’s fiduciary duty when adopting statements made by third parties in advertisements. The SEC’s positions were codified under the new Marketing Rule adopted in 2021.

SEC Fines 5 RIAs Under New Marketing Rule

April 18, 2024 | Charlie Jarrett

On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced they had settled charges against 5 registered investment advisers for violations of the SEC’s Marketing Rule. The announcement follows prior enforcement actions for similar violations, which we have previously addressed: SEC Fines 9 RIAs for Marketing Rule Violations, SEC Fines Adviser Under New Marketing Rule, and SEC Announces Examinations Under New Marketing Rule.

Collectively, the 5 investment advisers, GeaSphere LLC; Bradesco Global Advisors Inc.; Credicorp Capital Advisors LLC; InSight Securities Inc., and Monex Asset Management Inc., were censured, ordered to cease and desist from further violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and pay civil penalties ranging from $20,000 to $100,000.

SEC Announces Enforcement Action Against Investment Adviser for Custody Violations

February 8, 2023 | Charlie Jarrett

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced a settled enforcement action against a registered investment adviser for violating the Custody Rule and for compliance violations associated with custody. The enforcement action, coupled with the SEC’s announcement, shows the significance that the SEC places on the safeguarding of client assets.

An investment adviser has custody when it holds client funds or securities or has the ability to obtain possession of such assets, directly or indirectly. In general, the custody rules and regulations are intended to protect client assets from misappropriation or misuse by their investment adviser. As a result, it is considered a prohibited act for an investment adviser to have custody of client funds or securities without implementing policies and procedures specifically designed to comply with the rules and regulations and prevent misuse of the assets. These policies and procedures include notice to client in certain situations, identification of the qualified custodian, and obtaining an audit or verification by an independent CPA of the client assets subject to custody. Custody can be further imparted to an investment adviser through a related party of the investment adviser.

SEC Announces Enforcement Actions Concerning Electronic Records

October 27, 2022 | Charlie Jarrett

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently announced a series of enforcement actions centered on several of the largest broker-dealers in the financial sector. The enforcement actions addressed longstanding failures of the firms and their employees to preserve certain electronic communications. The 15 broker-dealers, and one affiliated investment adviser, admitted to the facts as stated, acknowledged their actions violated the securities laws, and agreed to pay a combined $1.1 billion in penalties.

Under the various securities rules, including recordkeeping provisions, broker-dealers and investment advisers are required to maintain and preserve electronic communications of business-related matters. Regulators expect that the written policies and procedures address this requirement and set forth a framework for the firm and firm employee’s compliance with the policies and procedures. To meet the regulatory expectations, firms traditionally have set out parameters for both internal and external communications and prohibited communications outside of those parameters. The goal of this method is to limit the forms of communications to those that the firm can monitor and preserve.

Do U.S. Securities Laws Apply to Your Transaction?

August 27, 2018 | Steve Parker

This can be a crucial question. U.S. Securities laws are manageable with guidance from an experienced U. S. Securities lawyer, but if you are involved in a transaction and do not realize it is subject to the U. S. Securities laws, you are headed for big trouble.

Recent Cases Provide Insight Into Applicability of United States Securities Laws to International Transactions

In recent years, the question of when the United States’ securities laws may apply to international transactions has been a prominent topic for various United States courts. Until a few years ago, questions of whether United States Securities laws apply to international transactions were primarily determined by two tests:

(1) the “effects test,” which asked whether any wrongful conduct, like fraud, had a substantial effect in the United States or upon United States citizens; and

(2) the “conduct test,” which asked whether the wrongful conduct had taken place in the United States.

In 2010, however, the Supreme Court of the United States propounded entirely new methodology for determining whether United States Securities laws are applicable to international transactions in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.[1] Continue reading ›