Investment Adviser

KENTUCKY COURT HOLDS THAT INVESTMENT MANAGER IS “INVESTMENT ADVISER” UNDER KENTUCKY SECURITIES ACT

October 30, 2014 | Steve Parker

Mark Twain is alleged to have said, “When the end of the world comes, I want to be in Kentucky because everything happens there twenty years later than it happens anywhere else.”

That bit of “wisdom” is more than a bit unfair to Kentucky, but it has proven true in connection with investment adviser law. In an interesting judicial opinion earlier this year, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion that the federal courts reached over thirty years ago on essentially the same issue. The Kentucky Court held that an investment manager who was paid to manage the brokerage accounts of two clients was “an Investment Adviser” under the Kentucky Securities Act (“KSA”), even though he never discussed with or recommended securities transactions to the clients.The case demonstrates how concepts that are taken for granted and seem to be well-settled and beyond dispute by financial professionals, regulators and seasoned professionals in the investment adviser arena can sometimes lead to protracted and uncertain litigation.

The case is Lawrence Rosen v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Financial Institutions, et al.. At issue were enforcement charges by Kentucky’s Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”) against one Lawrence Rosen (“Rosen”) who operated a sole proprietorship under the name Larry Rosen Company out of his home in Louisville, Kentucky. Rosen had entered into contracts with two clients under which Rosen would be compensated by payment of 10% of the gross proceeds of option sales, dividends, and interest received for all transactions that he made in the course of managing the accounts of the two clients. The contracts gave Rosen complete discretion over all securities traded in the accounts, meaning that he was not required to obtain any approval prior to implementing a transaction. Rosen performed both contracts by purchasing and selling securities in both clients’ accounts and by receiving the compensation as set forth in a contract. He conducted all these activities without registering under the KSA.
Continue reading ›

New Registration Requirements for Non-U.S. Advisers

February 15, 2012 | Steve Parker

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act passed on July 21, 2010, there have been significant reforms applicable to non-US advisers conducting business in the United States, including new registration requirements under the Advisers Act (the “Act”).

Non-U.S. advisers may need to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in order to conduct future business within the United States. A non-U.S. adviser is defined in the Advisers Act as an investment adviser that:

Has no place of business in the United States;
Has a total of less than 15 U.S. clients and investors in private funds;
Has less than $25 million in assets under management associated with the U.S. clients and investors; and
Does not hold itself out generally as a U.S. investment adviser.

FINRA Wants Heightened Supervision of Complex Products

February 8, 2012 | Steve Parker

In a move that signals the need for heightened due diligence and supervision among financial advisory firms, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released Regulatory Notice 12-03 in relation to complex products last month. It is intended to guide firms to increase their supervision of activity involving complex products such as structured notes, reverse convertibles, inverse or leveraged exchange traded funds, hedge funds and securitized products. FINRA has already brought a number of enforcement actions against firms relating to complex products, charging inadequate supervision, unsuitable recommendations and misleading price sales.

Among the problems noted by FINRA is the uncertainty of how these products will behave in the market, as opposed to theoretical projections. The notice states, “Regulators have expressed concern about complex products because the intricacy of these products can impair the ability of registered representatives or their customers to understand how the product will perform in a variety of time periods and market environments, and can lead to inappropriate recommendations and sales.”

FINRA chose not to define a complex product in the notice due to the ever changing innovation in the marketplace; however, the notice states that “any product with multiple features that affect its investment returns differently under various scenarios is potentially complex.” The notice goes on to give a non-exhaustive list of examples of complex products. FINRA advises firms that are unsure whether a product is complex to err on the side of applying their procedures for enhanced oversight to the product.
Continue reading ›

Georgia Securities Commissioner Proposes Rule Amendments

February 3, 2012 | Steve Parker

The Georgia Commissioner of Securities has proposed twelve amendments to investment adviser and broker-dealer rules it promulgated late last year under the Georgia Uniform Securities Act. Although some of the amendments deal with housekeeping issues and typographical errors, several are substantive and of interest to industry participants and their counsel.

A proposed change to Rule 590-4-2-.03 would clarify that Rule 505 Form D filings under the Uniform Limited Offering Exemption must be made within 15 days after the first sale of securities in the state, rather than 15 days prior to the sale, as required by the rule as originally adopted.

The second proposed amendment applies to registration of securities by non-profit entities under Rule 590-4-2-.07, often used for so-called “church bonds.” Under the rule as originally adopted, the application of NASAA Statements of Policy relating to church bonds was permissive rather than mandatory: “The Statements of Policy … may be applied, as applicable, to the proposed offer or sale of a security …” and “may serve as the grounds for the disallowance of the exemption” provided by the Act. Under the amendment, the use of the NASAA Policies is now mandatory, the “may” having been replaced by “shall” in both cases.
Continue reading ›

SEC Postpones “Fiduciary Duty Rule” Again

February 1, 2012 | Steve Parker

One year ago, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff recommended that a uniform fiduciary standard be applied to both broker-dealers and investment advisers. Recently, however, the SEC postponed a corresponding rule proposal for a second time.

In January, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro sent a letter to Congressman Scott Garrett, Chairman of the House Capital Markets Subcommittee, stating that it needs to gather additional information for an economic analysis of the impact of a standard of care regulation. Although the SEC had previously set it for action in 2011, that time frame has now been changed to “date to be determined.” The SEC has already designated specific time frames for 51 other rules and reports required by the Dodd-Frank Act.

In the letter to Rep. Garrett, Chairman Schapiro wrote, “SEC staff are drafting a public request for information to obtain data specific to the provision of retail financial advice and the regulatory alternatives. In this request, it is our hope commentators will provide information that will allow commission staff to continue to analyze the various components of the market for retail financial advice.”
Continue reading ›

FINRA Amends Proposed Social Media Rule

January 26, 2012 | Steve Parker

In a previous blog, we discussed the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA’s) proposed Rule 2210 regarding social media. FINRA responded to comments by amending the proposed rule, and filing it with the SEC for approval. The amended rule was designed to respond to concerns about whether certain types of communications should be considered correspondence or public appearances.

In the rule as originally proposed, interactive social media communications would be classified as public appearances such as television interviews, and would have to be filed with regulators. As a result of comments to the proposal, FINRA amended the rule to exclude messages on online interactive forums from a post-use filing requirement.

FINRA explains that the reasoning behind this change is due to the belief that participation in online forums occur in real-time, that it is not practical to require pre-use approval of such postings by a principal, and that these types of communications should be classified as retail communications. According to FINRA, “retail communication would include any written (including electronic) communication that is distributed or made available to more than 25 retail investors within any 30 calendar-day period. ‘Retail investor would include any person other than an institutional investor, regardless of whether the person has an account with the member.'” This means that the retail communication category would instead be supervised by broker-dealers in the same manner as correspondence.
Continue reading ›

BCG Report Claims FINRA Cost Will Exceed SEC Cost as RIA SRO

January 17, 2012 | Steve Parker

Boston Consulting Group (BCG) released a report last month comparing the cost of the various possible options of different agencies examining investment advisers. This report was conducted as a follow-up to a study released by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in January 2011, which created these scenarios based on Section 914 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The three possible options would be:

Authorizing the SEC to conduct the examinations and fund them by collecting user fees;
Authorize a new self-regulatory organization (SRO) to examine the advisers; or
Authorize the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to examine the advisers

The economic analysis of the options was based on public research along with more than 40 in-depth interviews with various investment advisory firms. The SEC and FINRA were not interviewed or consulted in this analysis. The report concluded that the creation of enhanced SEC capabilities would cost $240-$270 million, while setting FINRA up as the investment adviser SRO would cost $550-$610 million, and creating a new SRO would cost $610-$670 million. These estimates were developed by projecting setup costs, ongoing mandate costs, and the cost associated with SEC oversight of an SRO.
Continue reading ›

New “Invest Georgia Exemption” Helps Small Businesses Raise Capital

January 10, 2012 | Steve Parker

The Georgia Commissioner of Securities recently adopted the “Invest Georgia Exemption,” which will make it easier and less expensive for almost any small business located in Georgia to raise capital from fellow Georgians. Unlike most other securities registration exemptions, the Invest Georgia Exemption allows businesses to engage in public solicitations of investors, provided certain conditions are met.

Any business wanting to raise capital using this new exemption must be a corporation or limited liability company (LLC) organized in Georgia and registered with the Secretary of State. In addition,

The offering of securities must meet the federal exemption for intrastate offerings requirements, Rule 147, meaning all investors must be Georgia residents;
The total amount raised cannot exceed $1,000,000, not including investments from control persons of the business;
Unaccredited investors (as defined by the SEC) may not invest more than $10,000 each. However, there is no investment limitation for accredited investors;
All investments received must be deposited in an institution authorized to do business in the state of Georgia;
The issuer must file a form of notice with the Commissioner briefly explaining the offering. The notice may be filed after sales have been made, unless there is any general solicitation, in which case the notice must be filed prior to the solicitation; and
The issuer must inform the purchaser that the securities have not been registered and that there are resale restrictions.

Financial Advisors Should Note More Restrictive Accredited Investor Definition

January 6, 2012 | Steve Parker

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has adopted a new rule that redefines the standard for “accredited” investors. Required by the Dodd-Frank legislation enacted in 2010, the accredited investor standard is intended to protect less sophisticated investors in less regulated investments. The rule change, which eliminates an investor’s principal residence from consideration in determining accredited status, may dramatically affect whether some potential investors remain eligible for Regulation D offerings.

Most of the accredited investor qualification criteria remain the same, but the net worth criteria has changed. In order to qualify as an accredited investor, the qualifying net worth amount remains $1,000,000; however, the value of the investor’s principal residence must now be excluded from the calculation of the investor’s assets. In addition, subject to some exceptions, the amount of the mortgage debt on the principal residence is also excluded from the investor’s liability calculation. The overall purpose of the changes is to insure that accredited investor status is determined without regard to the value of any equity in the principal residence.
Continue reading ›

SEC Hits Mid-Sized RIA’s for Compliance Violations, Signaling Continued Interest

December 6, 2011 | Steve Parker

The Securities and Exchange Commission Enforcement Division last week settled enforcement actions against three mid-sized registered investment advisors for failing to establish, maintain and follow written compliance procedures. Two of the firms had assets under management less than the new $100 million cutoff for federal registration, and the other firm’s assets were just over that amount.

OMNI Investment Advisors, Inc., was a two-advisor firm with 190 accounts and $65 million under management. The SEC found that it had no compliance program in place for over two years, during which time the owner and CCO was out of the country and not actively engaged in the firm’s business. When the SEC announced an examination of the firm in late 2010, the firm apparently purchased an “off-the-shelf” compliance manual designed for both broker-dealers and investment advisors, but did not customize it for its own advisory business. No annual compliance reviews were conducted, and the firm’s advisors were apparently not supervised. The firm’s owner was also found to have backdated and failed to review a number of documents containing his signature, including client advisory agreements. As a sanction, the SEC barred the firm’s owner from the securities industry and fined him $50,000, in addition to censuring the firm.
Continue reading ›