SEC Tag Archives — Page 18 of 23

SEC Enforcement Action Against Former Wells Fargo Advisor for Altering Requested Documents

November 17, 2014 | Chadd Reynolds

In a case that underscores the importance of maintaining thorough and contemporaneous records of compliance reviews of trading records of firm personnel for both broker-dealers and registered investment advisers, on October 15th, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Enforcement Division instituted an administrative proceeding against a former compliance officer at Wells Fargo Advisors for allegedly altering documents requested by the SEC during an insider trading investigation.

The Wells Fargo Advisors’ compliance officer was responsible for identifying suspicious trades by Wells Fargo personnel and determining, after a thorough analysis, or what was called a “look back review,” whether such trading was based on material non-public information. On September 2nd, 2010, the compliance officer began review on a set of trades in Burger King securities made by a registered representative of Wells Fargo Advisors, prior to an announcement that the private equity firm, 3G Capital Partners Ltd. (“3G Capital”), was to acquire Burger King at take it private. The findings contained within the compliance officer’s review confirmed that the registered representative and his customers bought Burger King securities ten days prior to the announcement. However, the compliance officer failed to make any additional inquiries into the trades and closed the review with “no findings.” The registered representative was later criminally charged in September of 2012, and subsequently was convicted of trading in Burger King securities on the basis of material non-public information.
Continue reading ›

SEC Institutes Charges Against Fund Manager for Custody Rule Violations

November 3, 2014 | Steve Parker

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced last week that it has charged Sands Brothers Asset Management, LLC and three of its officers with violating the custody rule as it relates to firms who manage funds in which their clients invest. Investment advisers who have custody, as defined by Rule 20642, must engage in certain “safekeeping practices.” If the adviser has custody by virtue of any reason other than the mere authority to deduct client fees from advisory accounts, one of the safekeeping requirements is that of obtaining an independent audit of fund assets. In the case of a private fund, that requirement can be met by the employment of an auditor approved by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board who audits and reports to shareholders, (i.e., investors in the funds), annually and reports to shareholders within 120 days from the end of the fiscal year.

In its recent enforcement action, the SEC enforcement division alleged that Sands Brothers had been late in providing investors with audited financial statements. According to the Order instituting administrative proceeding, Sands Brothers was 40 or more days late in distributing the financial statements for ten different private funds for the fiscal year 2010. In the following year, the financial statements for those same funds were between six and eight months past due. In 2012, the financial statements for those funds were distributed approximately 90 days late.
Continue reading ›

SEC fines RIA for failure to disclosure conflicts of interest on Form ADV

July 14, 2014 | Bryan Gort

In a consented-to Administrative Order dated July 2, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission fined a Missouri-based Registered Investment Adviser, SignalPoint Asset Management (“SignalPoint” or “SAM”), $215,000 for breaching its’ fiduciary duty to clients.

Prior to the formation of SignalPoint, the Principals of SignalPoint were registered as registered representatives and investment adviser representatives for a dually-registered broker-dealer and investment adviser. In 2008, the principals asked the dually-registered broker-dealer and investment adviser to allow them to have ownership and control of SignalPoint but were told that they could not have an ownership in an outside RIA.
Continue reading ›

SEC Approves FINRA Self-Trading Rule

May 28, 2014 | Steve Parker

Earlier this month, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved a change to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rule 5210. The rule now requires member broker-dealers to implement and enforce policies and procedures “reasonably designed” to monitor and prevent “self-trading” activity. See SEC Release No. 34-72067.

The rule, in its amended form, is designed to provide FINRA with increased ability to monitor and limit the “unintentional” interaction of orders that come from the same firm. This issue is distinct from any self-trading that are the products of fraudulent or manipulative design. Rather, FINRA’s rule will attempt to limit the misleading impact that this unintentional self-trading has on marketplace data and trade volume of a security.

The rule change will place new restrictions on self-trading activity that occurs as a result from one or related algorithms or that originate in one or related trading desks. Self-trading, as used by FINRA, does not result in a change in beneficial ownership and may or may not be a bona fide trade. The agency believes that self-trading, even conducted without fraudulent or manipulative intent, may be disruptive to the marketplace and distort information on a given security. The agency points to data it has collected that show self-trading of this kind may account for five percent or more of a security’s daily trading volume.
Continue reading ›

FINRA Addressing Self-Trading in New Rule

May 28, 2014 | Parker MacIntyre

Earlier this month, the SEC approved FINRA’s rule change addressing the limitation and monitoring of self-trading in SEC Release No. 34-72067. FINRA Rule 5210 will put restrictions on self-trading activity that occurs as a result from one or related algorithms or that originate in one or related trading desks. Self-trading, as used by FINRA, does not result in a change in beneficial ownership and may or may not be a bona fide trade. The agency believes that self-trading, even conducted without fraudulent or manipulative intent, may be disruptive to the marketplace and distort information on a given security. The agency points to data it has collected that show self-trading of this kind may account for five percent or more of a security’s daily trading volume.

The rule, in its amended form, is designed to provide FINRA with increased ability to monitor and limit the “unintentional” interaction of orders that come from the same firm. This issue is apart from any self-trading that are the products of fraudulent or manipulative design. Rather, FINRA’s rule will attempt to limit the misleading impact that this unintentional self-trading has on marketplace data and trade volume of a security.
Continue reading ›

Target Date Mutual Funds: Proposed Rules and Recommendations

April 16, 2014 | Parker MacIntyre

On April 3, 2014, the SEC asked for comments on proposed Rule 33-9570, titled “Investment Company Advertising: Target Date Retirement Fund Names and Marketing.” The SEC had originally proposed and accepted comments on this rule in 2010, but it never took action on the proposal. “Target date funds” are a hybrid of stocks, bonds and cash, designed for a specified time-frame which is dependent on the particular investor. For example, someone planning for retirement in 2030 might have a target date fund set for that date.

The Dodd-Frank act, passed by Congress in 2012, created an Investor Advisory Committee within the SEC to offer recommendations to the SEC on various issues such as regulation of securities products, regulatory priorities, fee structures, and other initiatives to protect investor interests. The committee is authorized to submit their findings to the SEC for review and consideration. On April 11, 2013 the Committee issued recommendations regarding target date funds.

The recommendations suggested by the Committee include:

i) alterations to the fund’s “glide path illustration;”
ii) adoption of a standard methodology for designing these illustrations;
iii) increased prospectus disclosures;
iv) marketing materials requirements; and
v) expanded fee disclosures.
Continue reading ›

SEC Investment Advisor 2014 Compliance Outreach Program

March 25, 2014 | Parker MacIntyre

On January 30, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission hosted a compliance outreach program for investment companies and investment advisors. The national seminar, which was jointly sponsored by the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations and the Asset Management Unit of the Division of Enforcement, was held at the SEC headquarters in Washington, D.C.

The seminar outlined the priorities of SEC Divisions or Programs as well as general regulatory priorities of the SEC in the coming years. These priorities included the Wrap-Fee Programs, General Solicitation under the JOBS Act, Cybersecurity, and IABD Harmonization. One program of note that will be taking on more importance over the next two years is the Examination Initiative. The National Examination Program intends to review a substantial percentage of registrants that have not had an examination in the last three years. These examinations will take the shape of either a Risk Assessment Exam or a Presence Exam.
Continue reading ›

SEC Announces Plans to Examine Never-Before Examined RIAs

March 13, 2014 | Steve Parker

On February 20, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it is launching an initiative, through its Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”), to conduct examinations of investment advisers that have been registered with the SEC for 3 or more years but who have never been examined. That same day, OCIE sent letters to all RIAs that have never been examined in order to provide them with information about the new initiative, which is being conducted under the National Exam Program (“NEP”).

The notice letter describes the two distinct approaches of the initiative as “risk assessment” and “focused reviews.” The former approach is designed to allow OCIE to obtain a better understanding of a particular RIA, and may include an overall review of the adviser’s activities with focus on the firm’s compliance program and disclosure documents and underlying facts. The latter, or “focus review” approach, includes a comprehensive risk-based examination of those advisers identified as having a higher risk area of business or operations. The focus-review examinations will focus on one or more of the firm’s compliance program, filings and other disclosure documents, marketing, portfolio management, and/or safety of client assets.

OCIE disclosed that not all RIAs receiving the letter would, in fact, be examined. Firms that receive the letter, however, would be well advised to prepare for an examination in any event, which usually means nothing more than maintaining and sharpening, where necessary, their policies and procedures so that they are adequate to assure compliance with SEC regulations, and contain clear and well-defined processes and responsibilities.
Continue reading ›

Public Solicitations on Rule 506 offerings

February 7, 2014 | Bryan Gort

Several Congressmen and an SEC Commissioner have independently urged the SEC to move forward with adopting proposed rules that impose additional requirements on public solicitations of Rule 506 offerings. At the same time that the SEC finalized its initial rulemaking on the subject last September, it proposed additional rules that would require filing Form D prior to any general solicitation and would impose advertising restrictions, among other things. We discussed that action and the proposed rules in two earlier posts.

Rule 506 was adopted as a safe harbor under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, which provides that securities sold “by an issuer not involving any public offering” are exempt from registration under the Act. However, under Title II of the JOBS Act, passed in 2012, Congress required the SEC to adopt a rule allowing for the use of public solicitation in those offerings under conditions to be prescribed by the SEC. The initial rule adopted last September – requiring enhanced verification of accredited investor status – was the Commission’s first small step on the issue.

The comment period on the simultaneous rule proposal imposing additional requirements expired on November 4, 2013, but the Commission has taken no further action to date. On December 5, 2013, however, SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar, speaking at a Consumer Federation of America conference, forcefully called upon the rest of the Commission to move forward in adopting the strengthened rules. “Every day that these proposals are not adopted is another day that investors face great harm. I’m frustrated because investors are going to be damaged” said Commissioner Aguilar. “Unfortunately, it’s been almost five months since those proposals have been issued for comment.”
Continue reading ›

SEC Enforcement Actions in 2013

January 27, 2014 | Bryan Gort

The SEC has released the results of the 686 2013 enforcement actions it filed in federal court, which resulted in $3.4 billion in sanctions against offenders. Of the $3.4 billion, securities violators were required to disgorge illegal profits of approximately $2.257 billion and pay penalties of approximately $1.167 billion. The chairperson of the SEC, Mary Jo White, stated, “A strong enforcement program helps produce financial markets that operate with integrity and transparency, and reassures investors that they can invest with confidence.”

The 2013 total sanction amount is 10 percent higher than 2012 and 22 percent higher than 2011. In 2013, the SEC pursued many categories of enforcement actions including:

– Broker-dealers (121)
– Delinquent Filings (132)
– Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (5)
– Financial Fraud/Issuer Disclosure (68)
– Insider Trading (44)
– Investment Adviser/Investment Co. (140)
– Market Manipulation (50)
– Securities Offering (103)
– Other (23)

The SEC highlighted certain enforcement programs on which they had focused in 2013 and programs that they will emphasize for the foreseeable future. The SEC is focused on making sure gatekeepers, people that have special duties to ensure that the interests of investors are protected, safeguard and protect investors’ rights.
Continue reading ›