Articles Tagged with SEC Enforcement Actions

Earlier this year, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton appointed Stephanie Avakian and Steven Peikin as co-directors of the SEC’s Enforcement Division.  In an interview with Reuters, Avakian and Peikin expressed particular concern about cyber threats and how the SEC should make cybersecurity an enforcement priority.  According to Peikin, “The greatest threat to our markets right now is the cyber threat… That crosses not just this building, but all over the country.”

The SEC has expanded of investigations relating to cybercrimes.  There also appears to be an increase in incidents of hackers attempting to gain access to brokerage accounts.  In response, the SEC has begun obtaining statistics about cybercrimes to assess market-wide issues. Continue reading

On June 5, 2017, the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that disgorgement, a remedy that the SEC frequently utilizes to recover so-called “ill-gotten gains” from respondents in enforcement proceedings, is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2642’s five-year statute of limitations for “an action, suit, or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture.”  As discussed previously, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the underlying case, SEC v. Kokesh (“Kokesh”), after a split in the appellate judicial circuits over whether SEC disgorgement was a “penalty” subject to the five-year statute of limitations.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kokesh is not the first time that the Supreme Court has placed limitations on the SEC’s enforcement powers.  In Gabelli v. SEC, a case from 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that civil monetary penalties were subject to the five-year statute of limitations.

Continue reading

On April 10, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced that it brought enforcement actions against 27 firms and individuals.  According to the SEC, these firms and individuals published articles on investment websites about various companies’ stock.  The articles did not disclose to investors, however, that they were not “independent, unbiased analyses,” and they allegedly gave investors the opinion that they were.  The articles also did not have any disclaimers stating that the authors were being paid for promoting various companies’ stock.

The SEC conducted investigations through which it found that public companies engaged promoters or communications firms to create publicity for their stocks.  The promoters and communications firms then employed writers to write articles about the companies.  These articles, however, did not inform the public that the writers were receiving compensation from the public companies.  The SEC claims that, because these articles did not disclose the compensation arrangement, they created the impression that they were impartial when in fact they were “nothing more than paid advertisements.”  Moreover, the SEC found that more than 250 articles contained untrue statements that the writers were not being paid by the companies that their articles were discussing.  As a result, the SEC is alleging that the relevant firms and individuals committed fraud. Continue reading

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