SEC requires hedge funds to prevent insider trading despite unsettled legal definition

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-64
Author(s):  
Nicolas Morgan ◽  
Art Zwickel ◽  
Thomas A. Zaccaro ◽  
Jenifer Q. Doan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Insider Trading ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Legal Definition ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Definition Of

Purpose To explain the import of a recent enforcement action by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against an investment adviser for failing to prevent insider trading against the context of an unsettled legal definition of “insider trading” as evidenced by the issue presented in a recent case before the US Supreme Court. Design/methodology/approach Reviews the principal issues raised by the SEC in its enforcement action, legal requirements imposed on investment advisers, and the insider trading issues presented by the US Supreme Court case. Findings Because the legal concept of insider trading has developed through case law and is not defined by statute, it remains uncertain, and therefore the practice of insider trading will be difficult to prevent without restricting activities that could ultimately be determined to be legal. Practical implications In light of the SEC’s high threshold for investment advisers to prevent insider trading and the uncertain legal definition of that concept, investment advisers should review their insider trading policies and err on the side of caution. Originality/value Practical guidance from an experienced former SEC counsel and SEC practitioners offers new insights into the steps investment advisers should take in response to SEC enforcement activities and nebulous legal definitions.

SEC adopts rules and interpretive guidance designed to enhance and clarify the obligations of financial professionals

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 35-44
Author(s):  
Michael R. Rosella ◽  
Vadim Avdeychik ◽  
Justin R. Capozzi
Keyword(s):  
Historical Context ◽  
Legal Counsel ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
Extensive Experience ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose This article provides an overview of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recent approval of a package of rulemakings and interpretations designed to enhance the quality and transparency of investors’ relationships with investment advisers and broker-dealers. Design/Methodology/Approach The article provides legal analysis for and historical context of the requirements of the SEC’s adopted rules, Regulation Best Interest and Form CRS in addition to the two separate interpretations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers; and the Broker-Dealer Exclusion from the Definition of Investment Adviser. Findings The SEC’s adopted regulatory package does not adopt a uniform fiduciary standard for broker-dealers and investment advisers but instead promulgates legal requirements and mandated disclosures in order to conform to the SEC’s perceived expectations for reasonable investors. Practical implications Investment advisers and broker-dealers should consult with their legal counsel in assessing how and to what extent the new regulatory package is applicable to them. Originality/Value This article provides practical guidance from lawyers who have extensive experience with the Investment Company Act, Investment Advisers Act, and the Securities Acts.

The Use and Abuse of Definitions in Constitutional Law

ICL Journal ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alec Walen
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Constitutional Meaning

AbstractJustice Roberts′s dissent in Obergefell v Hodges - the case in which the US Supreme Court found a constitutional right for same sex couples to marry - rested on the premise the Court cannot invoke the right to marry as a basis for changing the definition of marriage. But his argument works only if the Court has no obligation to find a constitutional meaning for the term. I argue here that it has such an obligation. I argue further that an analogy with the concept of ‘person’ throws light on how that obligation should work. And finally, I argue that the most plausible constitutional definition would include same sex couples.

US Supreme Court clarifies liability standard under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for statements of opinion in registration statements

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-42
Author(s):  
Richard Parrino ◽  
Douglas Schwab ◽  
David Wertheimer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Pension Fund ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to examine the US Supreme Court’s much anticipated decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Const. Indus. Pension Fund. In this 2015 case, the Supreme Court announced important principles for interpreting the application of the two bases for liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 to statements of opinion expressed in registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with public securities offerings. Design/methodology/approach – The article examines the Supreme Court’s articulation of the standards federal courts must apply under Section 11 to determine if opinion statements were untrue statements of a material fact or misleading because they omitted material facts necessary to make the statements of opinion not misleading. The paper identifies a number of the complexities involved in the Supreme Court’s approach and emphasizes the nuanced assessment of the facts surrounding opinion statements courts will be required to undertake by Omnicare. Findings – The Omnicare decision has significant implications for the litigation of Section 11 claims challenging statements of opinion and for the preparation of registration statement disclosures. The Omnicare decision dramatically alters the standards for reviewing Section 11 claims premised on opinions long applied in a number of US federal appellate circuits. The decision is likely to result in more Section 11 claims based on supposedly misleading opinion statements, and potentially in a greater number of Section 11 claims that survive at least an initial motion to dismiss. Omnicare highlights the importance of including in registration statement disclosures meaningful cautionary statements identifying important facts that could cause actual outcomes to differ materially from views expressed in an opinion. Originality/value – Expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

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.

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.

US Supreme Court hears carefully chosen gun case

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
The People ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
The Right ◽  
State Restrictions

Significance The case, which concerns the power of a state to prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns, involves the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. The outcome may see the Court restrict state regulatory power in unprecedented ways. Impacts This case could continue a trend begun in 2008 that has broadened the scope and applicability of the Second Amendment protections. The Court could adopt an ends-and-means evaluation that would permit greater variability for state restrictions on guns. Other interest groups will pursue well-chosen cases before the newly conservative court.

SEC proposes rules on adviser business continuity and transition plans

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 65-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kay Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Business Continuity ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Record Keeping ◽  
Transition Plans ◽  
The Us ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose To discuss the requirements and implications of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) proposed new Rule 206(4)-4, which would require all SEC-registered investment advisers to adopt and implement written business continuity and transition plans (BCPs) reasonably designed to address operational and other risks related to a significant disruption in the investment adviser’s operations. Design/methodology/approach Explains the proposed rules’ definition of and specific requirements of BCPs, other requirements relating to annual reviews and record-keeping, practical considerations including advisers’ need to update and revise their BCPs, and the SEC’s request for comment on issues including possible additional obligations for certain types of clients, reporting of incidents to the SEC, and filing of BCPs with the SEC. Findings By arguably broadening its approach to the universe of risks that should be addressed in a BCP, the SEC potentially places a higher burden on the advisers to design their BCPs to anticipate all material risks that may become applicable or be responsible for a violation of their fiduciary duties to clients. Practical implications Given the detailed requirements of the Proposed Rules, including as interpreted by the Proposing Release, it is likely that most registered advisers would have to revisit and revise their BCPs if the rules are adopted. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities, fund management, regulatory and compliance lawyer.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document