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.

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.

FINRA revises and restructures registration and exam requirements

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-49
Author(s):  
Edward J. Johnsen ◽  
John H. Grady
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Regulatory Authority ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Securities Industry ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Limited Period

Purpose To explain a new set of rules, detailed in FINRA Regulatory Notice 17-30, proposed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and approved by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), that revise and streamline the number and types of proficiency exams broker-dealer personnel must take in order to become registered, as well as the categories of registration. Design/methodology/approach Discusses the background, including FINRA’s consolidation of National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) rules; the new registration regime; conditions for waivers; criteria for “permissive” registration; firms’ requirement to designate “Principal Financial Officers” and “Principal Operations Officers”; new categories of principal registration; FINRA’s elimination of certain registration categories; research analyst, research principal and supervisory analyst exam requirements; the ability of a registered representative to function as a principal for a limited period; the prohibition of unregistered persons to accept orders from customers; and the Securities Industry Essentials (SIE) Examination Content Outline. Findings The new structure is intended to bring greater consistency and uniformity to the qualification process. Among other changes, it eliminates several registration categories that either have become outdated or have limited utility, permits persons not yet associated with a broker-dealer or employed in the securities industry to take a preliminary registration exam prior to entering the securities industry, and makes other changes intended to modernize the registration and examination regime for broker-dealer personnel. Originality/value Practical guidance from lawyers with broad stock brokerage, investment management and related financial services experience.

SEC charges “ICO Superstore” as unregistered broker-dealer

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-43
Author(s):  
John J. Sikora Jr. ◽  
Stephen P. Wink ◽  
Douglas K. Yatter ◽  
Naim Culhaci
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Securities Laws ◽  
Enforcement Activity

Purpose To analyze the settled order of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against TokenLot LLC (TokenLot), which was the SEC’s first action charging a seller of digital tokens as an unregistered broker-dealer. Design/methodology/approach Analyzes the SEC’s order within the context of other recent actions by the SEC on cryptocurrencies and digital tokens and discusses future implications of the order in this area. Findings The SEC’s order against TokenLot as an unregistered broker-dealer was a logical next step in its enforcement activity in the cryptocurrency and digital token space.The order demonstrates that the SEC expects firms in the cryptocurrency space to use the well-established constructs of federal securities laws to evaluate their business activities to ensure those activities are legally compliant. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers analyzing recent developments in a nascent area of SEC enforcement.

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.

SEC targets investment adviser community

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-47
Author(s):  
Robert P. Bramnik ◽  
Mauro M. Wolfe
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Practical Advice ◽  
Compliance Programs ◽  
The Us ◽  
Investment Advisers

Purpose – To draw attention to the US Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) disciplinary focus on the investment adviser community Design/methodology/approach – Describes six recent enforcement cases for disclosure, custody, supervisory, procedural, and other rule violations and compliance failures; explains changes in registered investment adviser (RIA) exemptions following enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act; discusses recent SEC announcements concerning inspections and examinations of RIAs. Findings – The SEC's recent announcements and enforcement actions signal that all advisers (both registered investment advisers and exempt reporting advisers) may want to pay particular attention to their compliance programs and supervisory procedures. Originality/value – Practical advice from experienced financial services lawyers.

SEC flexes its muscle on accounting fraud and targets more individuals

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 50-53
Author(s):  
David Woodcock ◽  
Joan McKown
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Accounting Fraud ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
A Priority

Purpose To note the increase in accounting and financial reporting matters at the Securities and Exchange Commission by highlighting a number of recent cases filed by the agency. Design/methodology/approach The SEC recently announced the settlement or filing of a number of significant accounting fraud cases. Coupled with recent statements by the SEC and the Department of Justice, it is clear that accounting fraud is a priority and that individuals are in the cross-hairs. This article discusses a few of the recent cases and the trend toward more financial reporting and issuer disclosure cases. Findings The number of financial reporting and issuer disclosure cases will likely continue to increase. Individuals will be targeted in more of those cases, internal controls will be a focus, whistleblowers will continue to be important in this area, and SOX 304 clawbacks will continue to be a weapon for the SEC. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

SEC approves amendment to FINRA IPO allocation rule 5131, easing compliance for fund investors

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles S. Gittleman ◽  
Russell D. Sacks ◽  
Jennifer D. Morton
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Allocation Rule ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Guidance

Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to describe the recent amendments to FINRA's IPO Allocation Rule that were approved by the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a description of the IPO Allocation Rule and its operation, followed by a description of the IPO Allocation Rule amendments recently amended. Findings – On November 27, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved a change to FINRA's IPO allocation rule 5131 (the “amendment”). The amendment allows a fund of funds or other collective investment account that is investing in an IPO to rely on a written representation from an unaffiliated private fund investor that does not look through to its beneficial owners, provided that such unaffiliated private fund is managed by an investment adviser, has assets greater than $50 million, and meets certain other indicia of independence that are described. Originality/value – The paper provides practical guidance from experienced regulatory lawyers regarding an amendment to an important rule governing IPO sales and allocation practices.

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.

No more bullsh*t: securities opinions after Omnicare

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 6-13
Author(s):  
Aegis Frumento ◽  
Stephanie Korenman
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Pension Fund ◽  
Content Type ◽  
District Council ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Securities Laws

Purpose – To review and analyze the implications for rendering opinions in connection with the sale of securities in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Omnicare, Inc. et al. v. Laborers District Council Constr. Ind. Pension Fund, et al. Design/methodology/approach – Analyzes the Omnicare holding and dissent in light of past practices and decisions and discusses how the case changes the risks of liability for rendering opinions in registration statements, and by necessary implication in other contexts where the securities laws proscribe either the statement of untrue “facts” or, by omissions, the making of misleading “statements.” Findings – Omnicare opens issuers and securities professionals to liability for rendering opinions that are not reasonably based in facts and rationality. Because the measure of such reasonableness depends on the reasonable investor, makers of opinions will need to take more matters into consideration in rendering opinions than they might have previously, when the only test of an opinion was whether it was genuinely believed by its maker. This creates a number of unresolved issues, but it also suggests that prudence will dictate more detailed disclosure and documentation of the bases of opinions than has been thought necessary until now. Originality/value – Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

What is a Regulation SHO bona-fide market maker?

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Bergmann ◽  
James P. Dombach
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Market Maker ◽  
Market Making ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
Administrative Proceeding ◽  
Practical Guidance

Purpose To summarize and analyze guidance provided by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on what constitutes “bona-fide market making” for purposes of Regulation SHO’s exception to the locate requirement. Design/methodology/approach Explains SEC guidance on this subject, focusing on statements by the SEC and its staff related to Regulation SHO and SEC enforcement matters, including a recent SEC administrative proceeding providing concrete examples of activity that does not constitute bona-fide market making. Findings While there is still a lot of room for additional SEC guidance on what constitutes bona-fide market making, the SEC has provided some details on the specific type of trading that would not fall within the Regulation SHO exceptions applying to bona-fide market making activities. However, there is still a large gap between the type of activity that most likely falls within the exception and the concrete examples analyzed by the SEC. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers that consolidates SEC guidance on the bona-fide market making exception.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document