RIA Compliance BlogTwo recent SEC enforcement cases highlight the importance of registered investment advisers presenting true and accurate records to the Commission. While the facts of each case differ, they show that the documents’ falsification is worse than their insufficiency. Continue reading ›
Articles Posted in Books and Records
NASAA Proposes Changes to Advertising Rules
On July 29, the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) proposed amendments to four model investment adviser rules and requested comments, with the comment period ending August 28, 2025. NASAA’s model rules are not binding until formally adopted by the individual state securities administrator.
With this proposal, NASAA intends to “more closely align” state rules with the SEC’s investment adviser advertising rules. In 2020, the SEC amended Rule 206(4)-1, its investment adviser marketing rule, to, among other things, allow testimonials, endorsements, third-party ratings, and performance advertising so long as certain restrictions and/or conditions are met. NASAA’s proposal mirrors the SEC marketing rule by permitting the following marketing activities: Continue reading ›
SEC Announces Examination Priorities for 2025
The SEC recently announced its annual Examination Priorities for the 2025 year. This annual release provides insight into the areas that the SEC plans to highlight when inspecting investment advisers, investment companies, broker-dealers, and other entities subject to examination by the SEC’s Division of Examinations. For investment advisers, the 2025 priorities largely are unchanged from the announced 2024 priorities, which we have previously discussed.
For FY25, the SEC again intends to focus on investment advisers who have never been examined, newly registered investment advisers, and investment advisers who have not been examined recently.
Advisers Who Did Not File 13F Reports Face SEC Scrutiny
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.
SEC Announces Enforcement Activity Under New Marketing Rule
Last week, the SEC announced a series of enforcement actions tied to its ongoing sweep of investment adviser compliance with the new Marketing Rule. In total, nine firms settled claims that they violated Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-1, the “new Marketing Rule,” resulting in $1,240,000 in civil penalties.
We have previously written about the implementation of the new Marketing Rule, the announcement of the corresponding examination sweep program, and the subsequent enforcement actions that have resulted. While the previous enforcement actions have largely centered around investment advisers who have failed to adopt policies and procedures designed to prevent violations of the new Marketing Rule, the recent enforcement actions give greater insight into the real-world application of the new Marketing Rule. Namely, the actions detail marketing violations due to the use of third-party ratings by the investment advisers.
FinCEN Adopts Rules AML Rules for Investment Advisers
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.
State-Registered RIAs Preparing for Compliance with the Corporate Transparency Act
The Corporate Transparency Act (“Act”) became effective January 1, 2024. The goal of the Act is to provide a framework for the collection of beneficial ownership information from non-exempt entities in order to protect national security interests and bring the United States up to international standards.
The Act requires that all non-exempt corporations, limited liability companies, and similar entities report beneficial ownership information to the Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). Under the Act, SEC-registered investment advisers are exempt entities. However, state-registered investment advisers are non-exempt under the current framework. State-registered investment advisers created before January 1, 2024, must file the report by January 1, 2025. State-registered investment advisers created on or after January 1, 2024, but before January 1, 2025, have 90 days after receiving notice of their creation to file the initial report. State-registered investment advisers created after January 1, 2025, will have 30 days after receiving notice of their creation to file the original report. Once submitted, there is no regular reporting requirement. However, you must report changes to beneficial ownership on an ongoing basis, in a timely manner, within 30 days of the change. Continue reading ›
Investment Adviser Fined and Ordered to Deregister for Fraud and Failure to Produce Records to SEC
In September 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a complaint against Lufkin Advisors, LLC, a now de-registered Registered Investment Adviser, and its President, Chauncey Forbush Lufkin, III (collectively, “Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The SEC first alleged an ongoing fraudulent course of conduct for multiple years. To support this claim, they alleged that the Defendants
- Failed to manage assets entrusted to them,
- Lost control–due to a lost or forgotten password–of cryptocurrency assets valuing an estimated $10 million for at least a year without notification to the client(s),
- Made investments with Mr. Lufkin’s spouse’s company without the appropriate conflict of interest disclosures,
- Failed to account for withdrawals from private funds, and
- Failed to monitor the value of investments in private funds.
First Circuit Ruling Gives SEC Victory in Long Fought Case
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
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.