|

On October 13, 2011 the Georgia Secretary of State published proposed rules under the Georgia Uniform Securities Act of 2008 (“the 2008 Act”). Among the proposed rules are twenty (20) rules governing investment advisers and investment adviser representatives.

Although many of the proposed rules are consistent with the applicable rules under the prior Georgia Securities Act of 1973, quite a few of the proposed rules are new, and are designed to respond to the changing business and regulatory environment, including passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Firms currently registered in Georgia should pay careful attention to the regulatory changes. In addition, formerly SEC-registered advisers that are switching to Georgia registration will find the Georgia regulatory landscape, under both the old rules and the new ones, if adopted, to be quite different than what they are accustomed to.
Continue reading ›

|

Two Parker MacIntyre attorneys — Bob Terry and Steve Parker — attended forums held this week by the Investment Adviser Section of the North American Securities Administrators Association, and by the NASAA members of the Joint NASAA/FINRA CRD/IARD Steering Committee, at the NASAA Annual Conference in Wichita, Kansas. The forums’ panelists included Melanie Senter Lubin, Securities Administrator for the State of Maryland, NASAA General Counsel Joseph Brady, Michigan Securities Director Linda Cena, and other Section and Committee members. Bob Terry, Counsel to Parker MacIntyre, served as Vice Chair of the CRD/IARD Committee for over three years until he left the office of the Georgia Secretary of State in January of 2011.

The hottest topics of both forums were details relating to transitioning to state registration of mid-sized advisers, as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank’) and implementing regulations.

At least 20 states to date have conducted training seminars to investment advisers seeking information about switching to state registration and what to expect from becoming state-registered. NASAA has provided training materials and logistical support to securities administrators in those states. The goal is to introduce the prospective registrants to state-specific issues that may affect their registration process or their ongoing operations, particularly in the areas of regulation that may differ slightly or even significantly from the SEC rule or practice that the adviser to which the adviser is accustomed.
Continue reading ›

|

Now that the effective date of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank) has arrived and the SEC has adopted rules implementing changes to the investment adviser registration regime, the landscape can be relatively confusing. For investment advisers currently registered either with the state in which it maintains its principal office or with the SEC, the new rules are fairly easy to apply, particularly in light of the transition rules adopted on June 22, 2011 by the SEC as explained in Parker MacIntyre’s previous post. For others, however, the application of the new rules will prove more complicated, particularly for those advisers whose principal office and place of business are in states that have unusual registration or regulatory provisions.

Take, for example, Wyoming. Since that state does not provide for investment adviser registration, it has always been somewhat of an anomaly, even before Dodd-Frank. Section 203A(a)(1) of the Investment Advisers Act only prohibits registration with the SEC of investment advisers who have assets under management of less than $25 million and are “regulated or required to be regulated as an investment adviser in the State in which it maintains its principal office and place of business.” Wyoming-based advisers must therefore register with the SEC regardless of their assets under management, unless otherwise exempt from registration under the Investment Advisers Act or a private adviser able to rely upon the transition rule provided in 203-1(e).
Continue reading ›

|

The Virginia State Corporation Commission (Securities and Retail Franchising Division) yesterday adopted a policy statement providing guidance to advisers to private funds in light of the June 22, 2011 adoption of final rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Specifically, the Virginia statement recognizes and addresses the “regulatory gap” created by the SEC Rule 203-1(e), which grants an extension to March 30 2012 for private advisers formerly exempt from registration under Investment Adviser Act Section 203(b)(3), which was repealed by Dodd-Frank, to register with the SEC.

As a consequence of Dodd-Frank, Virginia’s Rule 21 VAC 5-80-210A.7, which excludes from the definition of “investment advisers” certain advisers exempt under Section 203(b)(3) of the Investment Adviser Act, becomes a nullity on July 21, 2011. In the absence of the policy statement, the effect of this would be to require private advisers subject to Virginia registration requirements, and that have no other basis for exemption, to register in Virginia as investment advisers by July 22, 2011.
Continue reading ›

|

On June 22, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted new rules and rule amendments under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Among other things, the rules, as adopted, provided transitional provisions for investment advisers required to switch from SEC to state registration because they fail to meet the new requirement of $100 million in assets under management, require advisers to hedge funds and other private funds to register with the SEC, require reporting by certain exempt investment advisers, and make substantial changes to the Form ADV.

The final rule relating to transition differed somewhat from the rule originally proposed by the SEC. The final rule requires that any “mid-sized” registrant with the SEC (defined as any firm with between $25 million and $100 million under management) that is registered as of July 21, 2011 (Dodd-Frank’s effective date) must remain registered with the SEC through the transition. New applicants that meet the definition of mid-sized advisers and who seek to apply between January 1, 2011 and July 21, 2011 can apply either with the SEC or the state or states in which it must register.
Continue reading ›

|

In a rule adopted yesterday, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted a rule defining “family offices.” “Family offices” are entities established by wealthy families to manage their wealth and provide other services to family members, such as tax and estate planning services. Family offices were exempt from registration as investment advisers with “fewer than fifteen clients” prior to passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, but when that act goes into effect on July 21, 2011, they will no longer be able to claim that broad exemption because it will be repealed.

In its place, as authorized by Congress, the SEC has exempted a new category of advisers that constitute “family offices.” A family office (1) provides investment advice only to “family clients,” as defined by the rule; (2) Is wholly owned by family clients and is exclusively controlled by family members and/or family entities, as defined by the rule; and (3) Does not hold itself out to the public as an investment adviser.
Continue reading ›

|

Although the US Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) has publicly stated that the July 21, 2011 deadline for “Mid-Sized Investment Advisers” to register with the States will likely be moved, as of yet there is no rule formally postponing the deadline. The same looming deadline applies to hedge funds required to register for the first time.

The switch delay is thought to have been driven primarily by Investment Advisor Registration Depository (IARD) programming delays and the logistical issue of collecting asset under management data from all firms in order to qualify them for the switch. Some advisers, out of caution, are registering dually with the SEC and the states so as to cover their bases; they plan on de-registering with the SEC at the appropriate time.

The deadline may be formally moved at the upcoming June 22 SEC meeting, whose agenda identifies consideration of adoptions of new rules and amendments to implement Dodd-Frank; considering Investment Adviser Act exemption rules for venture capital funds and advisers with assets under management of less than $150 million; and considering the proposed rule defining “family offices” that will be excluded from the definition of an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act.

Continue reading ›

|

568219_wall_st__and_broadway.jpgHedge funds will be impacted by the Dodd-Frank Act in numerous ways, some more well-known than others. Some of the better known examples of such impact are the repeal of the private adviser exemption, thus requiring registration for hedge fund managers that do not qualify for other exemptions. Among the exemptions added, of course, is the much-publicized exemption for private funds with less than $150 million in annual assets under management.

Other areas of impact on the hedge fund industry are not as widely discussed. As the SEC Commissioner Troy A. Paredes highlighted in his June 8, 2011 address at The George Washington University Law School, other aspects of Dodd-Frank have less direct, but no less significant, impact on the hedge fund industry.

For example, Dodd-Frank directs the SEC to adopt regulations or guidelines that prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements that might “encourage inappropriate risks” by financial institutions. This would prohibit investment advisers with $1 billion or more under management from paying excessive compensation that could lead to material financial loss.
Continue reading ›

|

More and more brokers and investment advisers are becoming familiar with the applicable social media regulations, including those described in FINRA Regulatory Notice 10-06, to put into place procedures that permit the wide use of social media for marketing purposes. These social media sites are proving an invaluable way to create and build client relationships, referral networks and other marketing opportunities. While this guidance was welcomed by firms, much of FINRA’s guidance is proving incomplete, as broker-dealers struggle to find ways, for example, to implement procedures to comply with FINRA’s record-keeping and other requirements.

Subject firms wishing to employ greater social media need to make sure that they follow FINRA’s requirements and those of the Exchange Act, the Investment Adviser’s Act and applicable state law. The most important factor is, of course, full, accurate, fair, complete and honest disclosures particularly on those pages that are permanent as opposed to transient messages. As FINRA made clear, all social media records, even Tweets and Facebook wall postings, must be maintained by the firm as part of their supervision. Additionally, a firm needs to set a written social media policy and follow the policy thoroughly.

From a compliance standpoint, for entities subject to FINRA rules, it is important to realize that blog posts, websites, banner ads, bulletin boards and static content on social media sites are considered advertisements under Rule 2210 and thus subject to the detailed requirements of that rule, including principal review or approval prior to posting for publication. This includes profile, background and wall information.
Continue reading ›

|

The latest financial debacle has done more than drain retirement accounts, it has caused investors to lose faith and trust in their financial advisers.

Investors are encouraged to plan for the future. Common wisdom dictates that someone who knows the business, an “expert,” is the best one to turn to for advice. During the 1990s when times were good investors could not lose with the market climbing ever higher. Then came, in succession, 9/11, the housing bubble, the crash of 2008 and the resulting financial scandals in brokerages large and small.

This was apparently a real wake up call to investors. A recent survey reveals that, as a result, over one-half of all investors fear that their financial advisers are taking unfair advantage of them!
Continue reading ›

Contact Information
2302 Parklake Dr NE
#420
Atlanta, GA 30345
Toll Free: (855) 322-2057Local: (404) 490-4060Fax: (404) 490-4058 jsparker@parkmac.com

Attorney Advertising

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Parker MacIntyre
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design