The SEC brings its first enforcement action under the identity theft red flags rule

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Vincente L. Martinez ◽  
Julia B. Jacobson ◽  
Nancy C. Iheanacho
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Identity Theft ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Red Flags ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers

Purpose To explain the significance of the first enforcement action under the Identity Theft Red Flags Rule by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which was announced on September 26, 2018. Design/methodology/approach Explains how the SEC’s order not only cites violations of the Safeguards Rule under Regulation S-P (a staple of SEC cybersecurity enforcement actions against broker-dealers and investment advisers) but also is the SEC’s first enforcement action for a violation of the Identity Theft Red Flags Rule under Regulation S-ID, which requires certain SEC registrants to create and implement policies to detect, prevent and mitigate identity theft. Findings Cybersecurity policies and procedures must match business risks and change as business risks change. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced cybersecurity and privacy lawyers.

A review of the SEC Participating Affiliate No-Action Letters’ relief from Investment Advisers Act of 1940 registration for foreign investment advisers

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 22-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy E. Cohen ◽  
David Y. Dickstein ◽  
Christian B. Hennion ◽  
Richard D. Marshall ◽  
Allison C. Yacker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Information Update ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers

Purpose To explain the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) staff’s (the “Staff”) participating affiliate exemption from investment adviser registration for foreign advisers set forth in a line of Staff no-action letters issued between 1992 and 2005 (the “Participating Affiliate Letters”) and to discuss recent guidance issued by the Staff in an information update published in March 2017 (the “Information Update”) with respect to complying with requirements of the Participating Affiliate Letters. Design/methodology/approach Reviews the development of the Staff’s approach regarding the non-registration of foreign advisers that rely on the Participating Affiliate Letters from prior to the issuance of those letters through the Information Update and sets forth recommendations for registered investment advisers and their participating affiliates. Findings While there are arguments that the Information Update goes beyond restating established standards and does not clearly explain whether submission of all listed documentation is required, the Information Update will likely standardize the information submitted to the SEC. Originality/value Practical guidance for advisers relying on the Participating Affiliate Letters from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

OCIE to investment advisers: focus on these five problem areas

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 16-18
Author(s):  
Brynn D. Peltz ◽  
Ilan S. Nissan ◽  
Evyn W. Rabinowitz
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Funds Management ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose To explain a Risk Alert published on February 7, 2017 published by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) describing the five compliance topics most frequently identified in deficiency letters sent to investment advisers after the completion of an OCIE examination. Design/methodology/approach Discusses deficiencies noted by the OCIE relating to the Compliance Rule, required regulatory filings, the Custody Rule, the Code of Ethics Rule, and the Books and Records Rule. Findings The OCIE published the Risk Alert with its noted deficiencies only one month after releasing its exam priorities for the year. Practical implications All investment advisers should consider reviewing their compliance practices, policies and procedures in light of the deficiencies and weaknesses identified in the SEC Risk Alert. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced lawyers specializing in asset and funds management.

SEC issues Staff Legal Bulletin after four-year comprehensive review of proxy system

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-65
Author(s):  
John E. Sorkin ◽  
Abigail Pickering Bomba ◽  
Steven Epstein ◽  
Jessica Forbes ◽  
Peter S. Golden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose – To provide an overview of the guidance for proxy firms and investment advisers included in the Staff Legal Bulletin released this year by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after its four-year comprehensive review of the proxy system. Design/methodology/approach – Discusses briefly the context in which the SEC’s review was conducted; the general themes of the guidance provided; the most notable aspects of the guidance; and the matters that were expected to be, but were not, addressed by the SEC. Findings – The guidance does not go as far in regulating proxy advisory firms as many had anticipated it would. The key obligations specified in the guidance are imposed on the investment advisers who engage the proxy firms. The responsibilities, policies and procedures mandated do not change the fundamental paradigm that has supported the influence of proxy firms – that is, investment advisers continue to be permitted to fulfill their duty to vote client shares in a “conflict-free manner” by voting based on the recommendations of independent third parties, and continue to be exempted from the rules that generally apply to persons who solicit votes or make proxy recommendations. Practical implications – The SEC staff states in the Bulletin that it expects that proxy firms and investment advisers will conform to the obligations imposed in the Bulletin “promptly, but in any event in advance of [the 2015] proxy season.” Originality/value – Practical guidance from experienced M&A lawyers.

SEC publishes important guidance on the Custody Rule, participating affiliate arrangements, robo-advisers, Form PF and certain compliance topics

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 34-40
Author(s):  
Joyce E. Larson ◽  
Kara J. Brown ◽  
Ivet A. Bell
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Investors ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Regulatory Filing

Purpose To highlight guidance issued by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the benefit of investment advisers regarding certain obligations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) and the rules thereunder. Design/methodology/approach Summarizes recent guidance regarding issues related to several challenging Advisers Act requirements, including inadvertent custody and client account transfers under Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-2, the use of participating affiliate arrangements pursuant to the “Unibanco” no-action letters, unique considerations affecting automated advisers (i.e., “robo-advisers”), the top five most frequently identified compliance topics identified in examinations conducted by the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE), and recent guidance regarding the private fund regulatory filing Form PF. Findings This guidance may assist advisers in preparing for regulatory examinations and questions from institutional investors. While the recent guidance addresses important topics, the guidance also raises some practical questions. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

2018 SEC enforcement actions reinforce the importance of effective supervision, policies, and procedures for broker-dealers and investment advisers

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 20-23
Author(s):  
Alec Koch ◽  
Russell G. Ryan ◽  
Laura K. Bennett
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Securities Laws ◽  
Effective Supervision

Purpose To provide analysis on several SEC enforcement actions of interest to broker-dealers and investment advisers. Design/methodology/approach The article is organized chronologically based on the dates of the SEC enforcement actions discussed. Findings The SEC enforcement actions discussed in the article demonstrate that broker-dealers and investment advisers must maintain and enforce compliance and supervision policies and procedures reasonably designed to detect and prevent violations of the securities laws. When firm personnel commit violations (either intentionally or inadvertently), the SEC will evaluate whether firms could have been more effective in detecting and preventing those violations.Some of these cases also serve to remind firms that the SEC will often take enforcement action even when there is no evidence of customer harm. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers that consolidates and analyzes several recent SEC enforcement actions.

Cybersecurity enforcement actions: is the SEC bringing strict liability cases?

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-116
Author(s):  
Brian Rubin ◽  
Amy Xu
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Cyber Attack ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
The Us ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose To analyze how the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has sanctioned broker-dealers (BDs) and registered investment advisers (RIAs) when cybersecurity breaches have occurred and to discuss whether the SEC is imposing a strict liability approach. Design/methodology/approach Describes the cyber-attack of a small RIA, the remedial steps the RIA took after the attack, the SEC’s enforcement action, why this particular case is noteworthy, and the case’s implications for RIAs and BDs. Findings RIAs and perhaps BDs may face strict liability from the SEC if they are victims of cybersecurity attacks. Practical implications Firms may want to address the likelihood of an SEC enforcement action if a breach occurs by reviewing recent enforcement actions, SEC reports and statements, and FINRA reports and statements. Originality/value Discusses the possible future of SEC enforcement actions regarding cybersecurity breaches.

SEC publishes guidance on mutual fund distribution and sub-accounting fees

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 39-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Adelfio ◽  
Paul J. Delligatti ◽  
Jason F. Monfort
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Funds ◽  
Mutual Fund ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Investment Management ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers

Purpose To explain the guidance published on January 6, 2016 by the SEC’s Division of Investment Management containing its views and recommendations relating to mutual fund distribution and sub-accounting fees. Design/methodology/approach Explains the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations focus on “distribution in guise” payments, its 2013 “sweep exam,” an enforcement action against a fund’s adviser and affiliated distributor related to payments for distribution-related activities outside of a 12b-1 plan, lists SEC staff recommendations with respect to mutual fund distribution and sub-accounting fees, summarizes the SEC’s guidance on board oversight of sub-accounting fees, provides indicia that a payment may be for distribution-related activities, and points to the need for mutual funds to have policies and procedures designed to prevent violations of Section 12(b) and Rule 12b-1. Findings The guidance is an outgrowth of the staff’s observations from a three-year “distribution in guise” sweep exam of mutual fund complexes, investment advisers, broker-dealers and transfer agents conducted by the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations and other offices and divisions of the SEC to identify whether firms were using fund assets to directly or indirectly finance any activities primarily intended to result in the sale of fund shares outside of an approved Rule 12b-1 distribution plan. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

OCIE issues risk alert on the most frequently identified advisory fee and expense compliance issues

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert Van Grover
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Investment Management ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Informed Decisions ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
The Us ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose To summarize and interpret a Risk Alert issued on April 12, 2018 by the US SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) on the most frequent advisory fee and expense compliance issues identified in recent examinations of investment advisers. Design/methodology/approach Summarizes deficiencies identified by the OCIE staff pertaining to advisory fees and expenses in the following categories: fee billing based on incorrect account valuations, billing fees in advance or with improper frequency, applying incorrect fee rates, omitting rebates and applying discounts incorrectly, disclosure issues involving advisory fees, and adviser expense misallocations. Findings In the Risk Alert, OCIE staff emphasized the importance of disclosures regarding advisory fees and expenses to the ability of clients to make informed decisions, including whether or not to engage or retain an adviser. Practical implications In light of the issues identified in the Risk Alert, advisers should assess the accuracy of disclosures and adequacy of policies and procedures regarding advisory fee billing and expenses. As a matter of best practice, advisers should implement periodic forensic reviews of billing practices to identify and correct issues relating to fee billing and expenses. Originality/value Expert guidance from experienced investment management lawyer.

Are your customer accounts in order? – SEC announces sweep of broker-dealers and implementation of the customer protection rule initiative

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-74
Author(s):  
Melissa Beck Mitchum ◽  
Bob Xiong
Keyword(s):  
Current Account ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Reporting Mechanism

Purpose To explain the Customer Protection Rule Initiative announced by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and offer practical guidance for complying with Rule 15c3-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Design/methodology/approach This article discusses Rule 15c3-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, related interpretative guidance, and the Customer Protection Rule Initiative announced in June 2016 by the SEC. Findings This article concludes that broker-dealers should take advantage of the Customer Protection Rule Initiative’s self-reporting mechanism and use this time to review their current account arrangements with banks, existing internal policies and procedures, and account documentation. Originality/value This article contains valuable information about the SEC’s Customer Protection Rule Initiative and practical compliance guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

Bringing order to non-GAAP financial measures: SEC sues to enforce “equal-or-greater-prominence” requirement

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 51-57
Author(s):  
Richard J. Parrino
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Financial Measures ◽  
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Accounting Principles ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The Us ◽  
Earnings Releases

Purpose This article examines the first action by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to enforce the “equal-or-greater-prominence” requirement of its rules governing the presentation by SEC-reporting companies, in their SEC filings and earnings releases, of financial measures not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Design/methodology/approach This article provides an in-depth analysis of the equal-or-greater-prominence rule and the SEC’s enforcement posture in the context of the SEC’s concern that some companies present non-GAAP financial measures in a manner that inappropriately gives the non-GAAP measures greater authority than the comparable GAAP financial measures. Findings Although the appropriate use of non-GAAP financial measures can enhance investor understanding of a company’s business and operating results, investors could be misled about the company’s GAAP results by disclosures that unduly highlight non-GAAP measures. The SEC’s enforcement action signals a focus on the manner in which companies present non-GAAP financial measures as well as on how they calculate the measures. Originality/value This article provides expert guidance on a major SEC disclosure requirement from an experienced securities lawyer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document