Investment Management

Category: SEC

Posted on Wednesday, April 5 2017 at 11:50 am by

This is the short link.">SEC Issues Custody Rule Guidance

By Paul Foley and John I. Sanders

In February, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued two significant pieces of guidance on arrangements that may result in an investment adviser having “custody” of its client assets as that term is defined in Rule 206(4)-2 (Custody Rule)[1] of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act).[2] The first piece of guidance was a Guidance Update issued by the SEC’s Division of Investment Management. The second came in the form of a no-action letter (Letter) issued to the Investment Adviser Association (IAA) on February 21, 2017. This article discusses both and offers practical insight into compliance with the Custody Rule.

Background

Under the Custody Rule, an investment adviser is deemed to have custody of client assets when it or a related person “holds, directly or indirectly, client funds or securities, or has any authority to obtain possession of them, in connection with advisory services” it provides to its clients.[3] Additionally, the term custody includes any arrangement under which an investment adviser is “authorized or permitted to withdraw client funds or securities maintained with a custodian upon [its] instruction to the custodian.”[4] When an investment adviser is deemed to have “custody,” a number of regulatory requirements are triggered, including an independent verification by an accountant (a “surprise examination”).[5] Accordingly, investment advisers must understand when they have custody of client assets. The SEC’s recent guidance addresses instances in which investment advisers may not know that they have custody and, therefore, are subject to the various regulatory requirements of the Custody Rule.

Guidance Update

An IM Guidance Update published by the SEC’s Division of Investment Management stated that investment advisers may “inadvertently have custody of client funds or securities because of provisions in a separate custodial agreement entered into between its advisory client and a qualified custodian.”[6] The Division of Investment Management found that some custodial agreements grant an adviser the broad power “to instruct the custodian to disburse, or transfer, funds or securities.”[7] Where the adviser has that power, it may be deemed to have custody of the assets even though it did not intend to have such power and its contractual agreement with the client directly prohibits it from taking such action.[8]

The Division of Investment Management found that inadvertent custody arose from some commonly observed custodial agreement provisions:[9]

  • A custodial agreement that grants the client’s adviser the right to “receive money, securities, and property of every kind and dispose of same.”
  • A custodial agreement under which a custodian may rely on the “[adviser’s] instructions without any direction” from the client and asks the client to “ratify and confirm any and all transactions with [the custodian]” made by the adviser.
  • A custodial agreement that provides authorization for the client’s adviser to “instruct us to disburse cash from your cash account for any purpose . . . .”

After describing how advisers might have inadvertent custody of client assets, the SEC cautioned that rectifying inadvertent custody could not be accomplished through a bilateral agreement between the adviser and the client as the custody stems from the custodian’s perception of the adviser’s power.[10] The adviser can alter that perception by: (i) delivering a letter to the custodian that limits the adviser’s authority to “delivery versus payment” notwithstanding a greater grant of power in the custodial agreement; and (ii) obtaining written acknowledgement of the limitation from the client and custodian.[11]

After providing common custodial agreement provisions that may create inadvertent custody, the Guidance Update specified one common provision which does not, in itself, create custody. The SEC stated that where a custodial agreement permits merely the deduction of advisory fees, “an adviser may have custody but not need a surprise examination, provided it otherwise complies with the exception under Rule 206(4)-2(b)(3) available to advisers with limited custody due to fee deduction.”[12] A broader grant of power, however, likely constitutes custody.

We believe the Guidance Update may place a substantial burden on investment advisers. It will not be enough for investment advisers to review their own advisory agreements and other form documents. Instead, an adviser must work with all custodians holding its clients’ assets to obtain and examine any custodial agreement provisions that might create inadvertent custody for the adviser. Moreover, the adviser would need to monitor those agreements for material changes in perpetuity. Of course, the simpler, but still burdensome, path to compliance may be to send letters to all clients and their custodians and obtain their acknowledgement of the adviser’s limited power as a preventative measure.

The IAA No-Action Letter

Dovetailing the Guidance Update, in a letter dated February 15, 2017, the IAA asked the SEC staff to clarify that an investment adviser does not have custody under the Custody Rule “if it acts pursuant to a standing letter of instruction or other similar asset transfer authorization arrangement established by a client with a qualified custodian.”[13] In the alternative, the IAA asked the SEC to state it would not recommend an enforcement action under Section 206(4) of the Act and the Custody Rule against an investment adviser acting pursuant to a standing letter of authorization (SLOA), as described in the Letter, without obtaining a surprise examination of the custodied assets as required by the Custody Rule.[14]

The IAA stated that it is common for an advisory client to grant its registered investment adviser the power, through a SLOA, to disburse funds to specifically-designated third parties. Granting such power to an investment adviser is especially helpful where the client owns multiple accounts with different purposes across multiple custodians. Under such an arrangement, the client grants authority to the adviser, then the client instructs the custodian to transfer assets to the designated third parties on the adviser’s command. After issuing a SLOA, the client retains the power to change or revoke the arrangement, and the adviser’s authority is limited by the specific terms of the SLOA.[15] It was the IAA’s positon that such an arrangement did not constitute custody.[16]

The SEC determined that a SLOA, as described by the IAA may, in fact, lead to an investment adviser having custody of its client assets as contemplated by the Custody Rule. The general rule, as articulated by the SEC, is that an “investment adviser with the power to dispose of client funds or securities for any purpose other than authorized trading has access to the client’s assets” and thus has custody of those assets.[17] Because the SLOA or other similar authorization would permit the investment adviser “to withdraw client funds or securities maintained with a qualified custodian upon its instruction,” an investment adviser entering into an SLOA or similar arrangement would have custody of client assets and would be required to comply with the Custody Rule.

The SEC then stated that it would not recommend enforcement action under Section 206(4) of the Adviser Act or the Custody Rule against an investment adviser that enters into a SLOA that meets the following requirements and does not obtain a surprise examination:[18]

  1. The client provides an instruction to the qualified custodian, in writing, that includes the client’s signature, the third-party’s name, and either the third-party’s address or the third-party’s account number at a custodian to which the transfer should be directed.
  2. The client authorizes the investment adviser, in writing, either on the qualified custodian’s form or separately, to direct transfers to the third party either on a specified schedule or from time to time.
  3. The client’s qualified custodian performs appropriate verification of the instruction, such as a signature review or other method to verify the client’s authorization, and provides a transfer of funds notice to the client promptly after each transfer.
  4. The client has the ability to terminate or change the instruction to the client’s qualified custodian.
  5. The investment adviser has no authority or ability to designate or change the identity of the third party, the address, or any other information about the third party contained in the client’s instruction.
  6. The investment adviser maintains records showing that the third party is not a related party of the investment adviser or located at the same address as the investment adviser.
  7. The client’s qualified custodian sends the client, in writing, an initial notice confirming the instruction and an annual notice reconfirming the instruction.

We believe few SLOAs or similar arrangements currently in place would satisfy these extensive requirements. The SEC seems to agree. It noted that investments advisers, qualified custodians, and their clients would need “a reasonable period of time” to comply with the relief provided by the no-action letter.[19] Further, the SEC stated that any investment adviser that is party to a SLOA that results in custody would not need to include the affected client assets in its response to Item 9 of Form ADV until the next annual updating amendment after October 1, 2017.[20]

The Letter, on its face, could be construed broadly to cover a number of common arrangements. However, the Letter was limited by a SEC statement published the same day.[21] In that statement, the SEC explained that the limited authority to transfer assets between accounts, whether with the same custodian or different custodian, provided that the client has authorized the adviser to make the transfers between specified accounts and has provided the custodians a copy of the authorization, does not constitute custody.[22] The SEC also noted that an adviser’s ability to transfer client assets between accounts at the same custodian or between affiliated custodians that have access to both account numbers and client account name does not amount to custody.[23] Therefore, the Letter seems to directly affect only SLOAs and similar arrangements under which the adviser has the authority to withdraw and disburse clients assets.

Despite the limiting effect of the SEC’s statement, advisers who are currently parties to a SLOA or similar arrangement should carefully review the terms of those arrangements. Where the arrangements do not meet the seven conditions for relief stated in the Letter, the adviser should work to either: (i) change the terms of the arrangement; or (ii) comply with the terms of the Custody Rule and disclose those assets in the next annual amendment to Form ADV after October 1, 2017.

Conclusion

The SEC’s recent guidance may generate significant anxiety among investment advisers concerned about becoming subject to the requirements of the Custody Rule. In particular, the SEC’s recent guidance raises the specter of custody arising from longstanding SLOA arrangements or even from contracts the investment advisers have not seen or do not regularly review. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have.

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s New York and Winston-Salem offices. John I. Sanders is an associate based in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

13776971v.4

[1] 17 CFR 275.206(4)-2 (2017).

[2] 15 USC 80b et al (2017).

[3] 17 CFR 275.206(4)-2(d)(2) (2017).

[4] 17 CFR 275.206(4)-2(d)(2)(ii) (2017).

[5] 17 CFR 275.206(4)-2 (2017). Under the Custody Rule, among other things, an investment adviser must: maintain client funds and securities with a “qualified custodian” either under the client’s name or under the investment adviser’s name as agent or trustee for the client; notify its clients promptly upon opening a custodial account on their behalf and when there are changes to the information required in the notification; and have a reasonable basis, after due inquiry, for believing that the qualified custodian sends quarterly account statements directly to the client.

[6] SEC, IM Guidance Update: Inadvertent Custody: Advisory Contract Versus Custodial Contract Authority (Feb. 2017), available at www.sec.gov.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] SEC, Investment Advisers Act of 1940 – Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-2; Response to the Investment Adviser Association (Feb. 21, 2017), available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/2017/investment-adviser-association-022117-206-4.htm.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] SEC, Staff Responses to Questions About the Custody Rule (Feb. 21, 2017), available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/custody_faq_030510.htm.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

Posted on Friday, January 27 2017 at 10:34 am by

This is the short link.">Effects of the DOL Fiduciary Rule Reach Mutual Fund Industry

By Andrew Sachs and John I. Sanders

The Department of Labor finalized the so-called “Fiduciary Rule” in April 2016 and announced it would go into effect in April 2017.[i]  Since the finalization of the Fiduciary Rule, the annuities,[ii] brokerage,[iii] and advisory industries[iv] have all seen substantial changes to products or fee structures.  Now, the effects of the rule have reached the mutual fund industry as well, with the SEC’s recent approval of American Funds’ “Clean Shares” – shares stripped of any front-end load, deferred sales charge, or other asset-based fee for sales or distribution that are sold by brokers who set their own commissions in connection with such sales.[v]

On January 11th, the SEC issued a no-action letter to Capital Group, the parent company of American Funds.[vi]  The no-action letter stated that the SEC concurred with Capital Group’s view that Section 22(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”), which prohibits selling securities except at “a current public offering price described in the prospectus,” does not apply to brokers when acting as agent on behalf of its customers and charging customers commissions for effecting transactions in Clean Shares.[vii]

At least one publication predicts that thousands of mutual funds will create similar classes of shares.[viii]  We believe that the ability to replace the distribution fees typically charged by its mutual funds with commissions charged by the broker will give funds a new measure of flexibility to meet the demands of the Fiduciary Rule and competition generally.  For those wishing to more fully understand the costs and benefits of adopting a similar share class, we are here to help.

Andrew Sachs is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s Winston-Salem office. John I. Sanders is an associate in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

 

[i] Department of Labor, Fact Sheet: Department of Labor Finalizes Rule to Address Conflicts of Interest in Retirement Advice, Saving Middle Class Families Billions of Dollars Every Year, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/fact-sheets/dol-final-rule-to-address-conflicts-of-interest.

[ii] Greg Iacurci, Insurers Developing Fee-Based Fixed-Index Annuities Post-DOL Fiduciary Rule, INVESTMENT NEWS (July 14, 2016), http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160714/FREE/160719964/insurers-developing-fee-based-fixed-indexed-annuities-post-dol.

[iii] Katherine Chiglinsky and Margaret Collins, AIG CEO Blames Obama Retirement Rule for Broker-Dealer Exit, BLOOMBERG (Jan. 27, 2016), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/aig-broker-dealer-exit-fueled-by-obama-retirement-rule-ceo-says.

[iv] Darla Mercado, How the New “Fiduciary” Rule Will Actually Affect You, CNBC (Oct. 13, 2016), http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/13/how-the-new-fiduciary-rule-will-actually-affect-you.html.

[v] John Waggoner, Brace for Thousands of New DOL Fiduciary-Friendly Mutual Fund Share Classes, INVESTMENT NEWS (Jan. 6, 2017), http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20170106/FREE/170109955/brace-for-thousands-of-new-dol-fiduciary-friendly-mutual-fund-share.

[vi] SEC, Response of the Office of Chief Counsel Division of Investment Management, available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/2017/capital-group-011117-22d.htm.

[vii] Id.

[viii] Waggoner, supra note 5.

Posted on Tuesday, January 24 2017 at 3:08 pm by

This is the short link.">Constitutionality of SEC Judges Questioned

By Paul Foley and John I. Sanders

Among the many provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act were some that gave the SEC greater ability to hear cases and levy punishments in internal administrative courts without resort to ordinary federal courts.[i]  These provisions resulted in alarming results, including a 90% success rate for the SEC in front of its own newly-minted administrative law judges.[ii]  For comparative purposes, the SEC’s previous success rate was below 70%.[iii]

A legal challenge brought against the SEC argued that these judges are “inferior officers” that, pursuant to the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution,[iv] must be appointed by an executive branch member and approved by the Senate.  Because such steps were never taken, the judges’ actions would be unconstitutional if they are, in fact, found to be “inferior officers”.  The 10th Circuit has agreed with the plaintiffs, but the SEC is expected to appeal.[v]

If the challenge is ultimately successful, there will be two significant impacts.  First, the cases decided by the SEC’s judges may be void.  Second, the SEC will be forced to use the old, less certain procedure of bringing enforcement actions in federal district court.  If you’d like to know more, I encourage you to read a succinct review of the matter in today’s Wall Street Journal.[vi]

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s New York and Winston-Salem, North Carolina offices.  John I. Sanders is an associate based in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

[i] Giles D. Beal IV, Judge, Jury, and Executioner:  SEC Administrative Law Judges Post-Dodd Frank, 20 N.C. Banking Inst. 413 (2016), available at https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=20+N.C.+Banking+Inst.+413&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=e7ef73edd6e64a6ec56e122360340a35.

[ii] Jean Eaglesham, SEC Wins with In-House Judges, Wall St. Journal (May 6, 2015), http://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-wins-with-in-house-judges-1430965803.

[iii] Id.

[iv] U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2.

[v] Alison Frankel, 10th Circuit Strikes Down SEC ALJ Regime, Debates Reach to Other Agencies, Reuters (Dec. 28, 2016), http://www.reuters.com/article/otc-sec-idUSKBN14H1S3.

[vi] David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman, When is a Judge Not Really a Judge?, Wall St. Journal (Jan. 23, 2017), http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-is-a-judge-not-really-a-judge-1485215998.

Posted on Tuesday, January 17 2017 at 8:39 am by

This is the short link.">SEC Announces 2017 Exam Priorities

By Paul Foley and John I. Sanders

Each year, the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (the “OCIE”) releases its priorities for the upcoming year.  For regulated entities such as investment companies and investment advisers, the release of the OCIE’s priorities is highly significant.  The reason, simply put, is that your regulator’s priorities must also be your own priorities.

Among the OEIC’s newly-released examination priorities for 2017 are the following:[i]

  • Never-Before Examined Investment Advisers
  • Cybersecurity compliance procedures and controls
  • Robo-advisors’ marketing, recommendation formulation, and security procedures
  • ETF exemptive relief compliance, sales practices, and risk disclosures
  • Elder abuse detection and prevention practices
  • Money market funds’ compliance with the newly effective rules
  • FINRA oversight

We agree with the OCIE Director who stated earlier this week that the release of examination priorities is an important opportunity for regulated entities to evaluate their own compliance programs and make the necessary enhancements prior to examinations.[ii]  Therefore, we encourage you to read the full text of the SEC announcement, consider your compliance programs in the prioritized areas, and contact us with any questions you may have.

 

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s New York and Winston-Salem, North Carolina offices.  John Sanders is an associate based in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

[i] SEC, SEC Announces 2017 Examination Priorities (Jan. 13, 2017), https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2017-7.html.

[ii] Id.

Posted on Friday, December 16 2016 at 11:51 am by

This is the short link.">7 Securities Law and Regulatory Changes Likely to be Considered During the Trump Administration

By Paul Foley and John Sanders

On November 8, 2016, political power in United States shifted in an unexpected and unprecedented way.  As of January 20, 2017, Republicans will hold the White House and both Houses of Congress.[1]  President-elect Donald Trump will also have the opportunity to appoint two SEC Commissioners and a new Chair.[2]  He and his party will have the ability to reshape securities law and regulation.  As this was unanticipated, there was little discussion before the election as to what it would mean for securities law and regulation.  We believe the following seven issues are likely to be part of the discussion in the weeks and months ahead.

1. Dodd-Frank Act – Volcker Rule

The Volcker Rule, a 900-plus-page rule adopted in December 2013, was intended to limit proprietary trading by banks.[3]  Championed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, the rule was a last-minute addition to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.  For years, it stalled as regulators and commentators tried to distinguish between speculation (deemed bad) from investment (deemed good).  Few believe that the regulators were successful in properly drawing this distinction.[4]  Making the rule more susceptible to criticism, many experts have determined the rule “would have done nothing to mitigate [the Great Recession,] the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.”[5]

President-elect Trump’s nominee for Secretary of the Treasury has promised “strip back” elements of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the Volcker Rule.[6]  If the new administration is dedicated to repealing the Volcker Rule, something that isn’t quite clear,[7] repealing it won’t be easy.  Legislative action would likely require bipartisan support in the Senate.[8]  Eliminating the rule through agency rule making, like adopting the rule, would require coordination between multiple independent agencies,[9] an opportunity for public comment,[10] and time.[11]  The easier (but less permanent) solution is for the new President to appoint agency heads who will interpret the rule differently or deemphasize its enforcement.[12]  The discussion of whether, and how, to repeal the Volcker Rule should be followed closely.

2. Delegated Authority for Enforcement

In 2009, the SEC delegated authority to the Director of Enforcement to open formal orders of investigation of persons and entities.[13]  The Director of Enforcement then took the unprecedented step of sub-delegating authority to Regional Directors, Associate Directors, and Specialized Unit Chiefs.[14]  The delegation supports Chair White’s “broken windows” approach by which deficiencies and misconduct of every size and nature are addressed.[15]  This approach has resulted in a record number of enforcement proceedings.[16]  However, many commentators have raised concerns about the ease with which proceedings can be brought and subpoenas issued and whether enforcement is now less effective because it is uncoordinated.[17]  If the new administration wishes to end the delegation, it can appoint SEC Commissioners and a Chair that will withdraw the delegation with an order[18] not subject to the lengthy formal rule making process.[19]

3. Fiduciary Rule

The Department of Labor (the “DOL”) finalized the so-called “Fiduciary Rule” in April 2016 and announced it would go into effect in April 2017.[20]  According to the DOL, investors lose billions of dollars in fees each year because their advisors are not acting in their best interests.[21]  The goal of the Fiduciary Rule, therefore, is to “stop advisers from putting their own interests in earning high commissions and fees over clients’ interests in obtaining the best investments at the lowest prices.”[22]  However, the net effect of the rule is unclear.  Among the potential negative effects of the rule are investors losing access to competent advice,[23] skyrocketing costs for affected accounts,[24] decreases of 25 to 50% in annuities sales,[25] and unnecessary corporate restructuring.[26]

If lawsuits aimed at preventing the rule from going into effect fail, those who advocate repealing the rule will find the job challenging.  First, the rule isn’t within the reach of the Congressional Review Act[27] and isn’t likely to be suspended by the Secretary of Labor who oversaw its creation.[28]  That means a lengthy formal rule making process would be required to repeal the rule.[29]  It is uncertain whether this is an effort the investment advisory industry would welcome after spending the past year working toward compliance, which included spinning off business units[30] changing long-standing pricing models,[31] and jettisoning certain clients.[32]

4. Consolidated Audit Trail

In 2010, as the SEC and CFTC attempted to trace the root cause of the Flash Crash, it became abundantly clear that the financial market regulators were ill-equipped to police modern markets.  Out of this realization came the idea for the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT”).[33]  CAT is conceptualized as a market-wide system that tracks equity and option trades.[34]  It would help in both investigations and monitoring.  Proving manipulation and fraud, as well as identifying systemic risk, should become easier with CAT in place.  However, despite years of work, “a fully baked, centralized trail is still years away.”[35]  Given the benefits of an operational CAT to each of the SEC’s mandates, including maintaining the investor confidence that drives investment into our public markets, getting it up and running may be a priority.  However, many commentators argue that CAT would be a hacker’s dream.[36]  The new administration will signal its where it stands on CAT with its appointment of SEC commissioners and Chair.

5. Pay Ratio Disclosures

The Dodd-Frank Act instructed the SEC to adopt a rule requiring each publicly traded company to disclose “the ratio of the compensation of its chief executive officer (CEO) to the median compensation of its employees.”[37]  The ratio would appear in registration statements, proxy and information statements, and annual reports that call for executive compensation disclosure.[38]  This seemingly simple calculation may “actually entail herculean bookkeeping for large, diverse companies.”[39]

The compliance date for the pay ration rule is January 1, 2017.[40]  Once the new Congress and SEC commissioners are in place, authorities should consider whether the rule serves any of the SEC’s three mandates: protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation.[41]  If the rule is deemed inappropriate under those mandates, Congress may amend the Dodd-Frank Act and instruct the SEC to engage in a formal rule making process aimed at repealing the rule.  If the rule is deemed appropriate, or the political will to repeal the rule is lacking, it may remain in place with the SEC allowing companies “substantial flexibility in determining the pay ratio.”[42]

6. Political Contributions Disclosures

In 2011, a group of college professors argued that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United[43] ruling necessitated an SEC rule requiring public companies to disclose their political expenditures.[44]  The SEC received more than 1 million public comments – a record.[45]  Yet, the SEC did not act.  Senator Elizabeth Warren, less than a month before the recent election, openly urged President Obama to remove SEC Chair Mary Jo White for refusing “to develop a political spending disclosure rule despite her clear authority to do so.”[46]  This was perhaps a bit unfair.  Not only was the SEC restricted by law from working on the rule at that time,[47] but the rule has faced tremendous opposition.[48]  Business groups and Republicans have long argued that “a company’s political contributions are not related to its financial performance and that the disclosures are unnecessary.”[49]  A Republican Congress or appointments to the SEC may find 2017 is an ideal time to revisit this issue.

7. Liquidity Risk Management

On October 13, 2016, the SEC announced that it had finalized a rule that would require open-ended investment companies to develop liquidity risk management programs and make additional disclosures related to liquidity.[50]  The rule, among other things, requires an investment company’s board of directors to adopt a formal plan for managing liquidity risk and make disclosures classifying fund investments into one of four categories according to liquidity.[51]  In a letter to the SEC supporting the rule, Senator Sherrod Brown cited several sources for the proposition that the fund industry was growing and offering investments in less-liquid assets.[52]  Tellingly, Senator Brown cited widely-available public sources such as Barron’s and Bloomberg articles.[53]  If the public has access to multiple news stories about liquidity risk, risk disclosures in regulatory filings, and lists of fund holdings online, it is fair to ask whether the rule carries a benefit to investors along with its cost.  If the determination is made the costs of this rule substantially outweigh the benefits, then the SEC may engage in a formal rule making process to repeal the rule.

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s New York and Winston-Salem, North Carolina offices.  John Sanders is an associate based in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

[1] Richard Cowan and Susan Cornwell, Republicans Defend Grip on U.S. Congress as Trump Wins Presidency, Reuters (Nov. 9, 2016), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-congress-idUSKBN13317Z.

[2] Mark Shoeff Jr., Where Donald Trump Stands on Top Financial Adviser Issues, Investment News (Nov. 9, 2016), http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161109/FREE/161109909/where-donald-trump-stands-on-top-financial-adviser-issues.

[3] SEC, Final Rule: Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests In, and Relationships With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds (Dec. 10, 2013), https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2013/bhca-1.pdf.

[4] The Volcker Ambiguity, The Wall Street Journal (Dec. 11, 2013), http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304744304579250393935144268.

[5] Ben Steil, Beyond the Volcker Rule: A Better Approach to Financial Reform, Council on Foreign Relations (April 2012), http://www.cfr.org/financial-crises/beyond-volcker-rule-better-approach-financial-reform/p27894.

[6] Jacob M. Schlesinger, Trump Treasury Choice Steven Mnuchin Vows to ‘Strip Back’ Dodd-Frank, The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 30, 2016), http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-treasury-choice-steven-mnuchin-vows-to-strip-back-dodd-frank-1480513188.

[7] Emily Stephenson, Trump Calls for ‘21st century’ Glass-Steagall Banking Law, Reuters (Oct. 26, 2016), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-banks-idUSKCN12Q2WA.

[8] Ryan Tracy and John Carney, How to Kill the Volcker Rule? Don’t Enforce it, The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 28, 2016), http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-kill-the-volcker-rule-dont-enforce-it-1480329002.

[9] Id.

[10] 5 U.S.C. 553 (2016), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/553 (Outlining the process for rule making, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 551 (2016)).

[11] Tracy and Carney, supra note 8.

[12] Id.

[13] SEC, Final Rule: Delegation of Authority to Director of Division of Enforcement (Aug. 5, 2009), https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2009/34-60448.pdf.

[14] Bradley J. Bondi, A Questionable Delegation of Authority: Did the SEC Go Too Far When It Delegated Authority to the Division of Enforcement to Initiate an Investigation?, Center for Financial Stability (Sept. 20, 2016), http://centerforfinancialstability.org/wp/2016/09/20/a-questionable-delegation-of-authority-did-the-sec-go-too-far-when-it-delegated-authority-to-the-division-of-enforcement-to-initiate-an-investigation/

[15] Jean Eaglesham, SEC Breaks Record for Number of Enforcement Cases, The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 11, 2016), http://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-on-track-to-break-record-for-number-of-enforcement-cases-1476198436.

[16] Id.

[17] Bondi, supra note 14.

[18] 17 CFR 200.30-4 (2016), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/200.30-4.

[19] 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) (2016), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/553.

[20] Department of Labor, Final Rule: Conflict of Interest Rule (April 8, 2016), https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/completed-rulemaking/1210-AB32-2.

[21] Id.

[22] Liz Skinner, Figuring Out Fiduciary: Now Comes the Hard Part, Investment News (May 9, 2016), http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160509/FEATURE/160509939/the-dol-fiduciary-rule-will-forever-change-financial-advice-and-the.

[23] Robert Litan & Hal Singer, Obama’s Big Idea for Small Savers: ‘Robo’ Financial Advice, The Wall Street Journal (July 21, 2015), http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-big-idea-for-small-savers-robo-financial-advice-1437521976.

[24] Jed Morowitz & Mason Braswell, Exclusive: Merrill to End Commission-Based Retirement Business on Retail Accounts, AdvisorHub (Oct. 6, 2016), http://advisorhub.com/exclusive-merrill-end-commission-based-retirement-business-retail-accounts/.

[25] Skinner, supra note 22.

[26] Christine Idzelis, Sale of AIG Advisor Group May Signal Wave of Mergers Ahead, Investment News (Jan. 29, 2016), http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160129/FREE/160129906/sale-of-aig-advisor-group-may-signal-wave-of-mergers-ahead.

[27] 5 U.S.C. 801 (2016), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/801.

[28] Aaron Back, Eliminating Obama’s Fiduciary Rule Easier Said Than Done, The Wall Street Journal (Dec. 5, 2016), http://www.wsj.com/articles/eliminating-obamas-fiduciary-rule-easier-said-than-done-1480976385.

[29] 5 U.S.C. 553 (2016), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/553 (Outlining the process for rule making, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 551 (2016)).

[30] Greg Iacurci, Insurance Based Broker-Dealers Plan to Use BICE Under DOL Fiduciary Rule, Investment News (July 7, 2016), http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160707/FREE/160709959/insurance-based-broker-dealers-plan-to-use-bice-under-dol-fiduciary.

[31] Id.

[32] Andrew Welsch, Raymond James follows Morgan’s Lead in Keeping Commissions Under Fiduciary, OnWallStreet (Oct. 27, 2016), http://www.onwallstreet.com/news/raymond-james-follows-morgans-lead-in-keeping-commissions-under-dol; See also Robert Powell, New Rules Force Financial Advisers to do What’s Best for their Clients, USA Today (April 6, 2016), http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/powell/2016/04/06/investors-new-fiduciary-rule-protection/82661384/.

[33] SEC, Final Rule: Consolidated Trail (July 18, 2012), https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2012/34-67457.pdf.

[34] Nick Fera, What New Developments in the Consolidated Audit Trail Spell for Broker-Dealer Compliance, The Street (June 13, 2016), https://www.thestreet.com/story/13604582/1/what-new-developments-in-the-consolidated-audit-trail-spell-for-broker-dealer-compliance.html.

[35] Id.

[36] Dave Michaels, SEC Approves Consolidated Audit Trail to Detect Market Manipulation, Wall Street Journal (Nov. 15, 2016), http://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-to-vote-on-consolidated-audit-trail-to-detect-market-manipulation-1479240411.

[37] SEC, SEC Adopts Rule for Pay Ratio Disclosure (Aug. 5, 2015), https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-160.html.

[38] Id.

[39] Richard Levick, The Pay Ratio Rule:  Businesses Face Unprecedented Executive Pay Disclosure Burden (Feb. 9, 2016), http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardlevick/2016/02/09/the-pay-ratio-rule-businesses-face-unprecedented-executive-pay-disclosure-burden/#a044585cf077.

[40] SEC, Final Rule: Pay Ratio Disclosure (Aug. 5, 2015),  https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-160.html.

[41] SEC, What We Do, https://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml.

[42] SEC, SEC Adopts Rule for Pay Ratio Disclosure (Aug. 5, 2015), https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-160.html.

[43] Citizens United v. Federal Election Com’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

[44] Committee of Corporate Political Spending, Rulemaking Petition to SEC (Aug 3, 2011), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/petitions/2011/petn4-637.pdf.

[45] Ranee Merle and Jim Tankersley, Elizabeth Warren Urges President Obama to Remove the Head of the SEC, The Washington Post (Oct. 14, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/14/elizabeth-warren-asks-president-obama-to-remove-the-head-of-the-sec/.

[46] Id.

[47] Pub. L. No. 114-113, 129 Stat. 3030 (2016), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2029/text (stating that no funds made available under the Consolidated Appropriations Act would “be used by the [SEC] to finalize, issue, or implement any rule, regulation, or order regarding the disclosure of political contributions.”)

[48] Andrew Ackerman, Elizabeth Warren to Obama: Fire SEC Chief Mary Jo White, The Wall Street Journal,  (Oct. 14, 2016), http://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth-warren-to-obama-fire-sec-chief-mary-jo-white-1476439200.

[49] Merle and Tankersley, supra note 45.

[50] SEC, Final Rule: Investment Company Liquidity Risk Management Programs (Oct. 13, 2016), https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2016/33-10233.pdf.

[51] Id.

[52] Letter from U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown to SEC Chair Mary Jo White (July 6, 2016), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-24-15/s72415-247.pdf.

[53] Id.

Posted on Thursday, December 15 2016 at 9:28 am by

This is the short link.">Supreme Court Confirms Expansive View of Insider Trading

By Paul Foley, Clay Wheeler, and John Sanders

Perhaps the most serious charge that could be leveled against a reader of this blog is that of being engaged in or associated with “insider trading.”  The allegation alone is enough to derail or end a promising career.  Successful compliance requires an understanding of the law and your obligations under it.  In light of recent developments regarding insider trading, including the first Supreme Court decision to address the crime in 20 years,[1] we encourage you to read this article in its entirety and contact us with any questions you may have.

Insider Trading:  The Tradition

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934[2] and Rule 10b-5[3] promulgated thereunder prohibit insider trading.  The basic elements of insider trading are:  (i) engaging in a securities transaction, (ii) while in possession of material, non-public information, (iii) in violation of a duty to refrain from doing so.

The paradigm case discussing the so-called “classical” theory of insider trading is Chiarella v. U.S.[4]  In Chiarella, an employee of a publishing firm was charged with insider trading after using advance notice of a takeover bid to trade.  Chiarella’s conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court after the Court focused on the requirement of a duty running from the trader to the shareholders of the corporate entity “owning” the material, non-public information.  Thus, a successful prosecution under the classical theory usually involves a corporate insider trading in shares of his or her employer while in possession of material, non-public information (e.g., advance notice of a merger).

After Chiarella, an important development in the law has been the extension of liability to persons who receive tips from insiders, i.e., individuals whose duty to refrain from trading is derived or inherited from the corporate insider’s duty.  Thus, not only may insiders be liable for insider trading under rule 10b-5, but those to whom they pass tips, either directly (tippees) or through others (remote tippees) may be liable if they trade on such tips.  Because tippee and remote tippee liability is more difficult to grasp and more likely to affect our readers, this article will primarily, but not exclusively, focus on individuals in those circumstances.

In a pattern that has repeated itself over the years, courts broadened the scope of insider trading by developing a second, “complementary”[5] theory of insider trading – the “misappropriation” theory.  This theory “targets person[s] who are not corporate insiders but to whom material non-public information has been entrusted in confidence and who breach a fiduciary duty to the source of the information to gain personal profit in the securities market.”[6]  The seminal case in the articulation of the misappropriation theory is U.S. v. O’Hagan.  In O’Hagan, a partner at a large law firm (but not ours) obtained and traded on information given to attorneys in the firm who were representing a client in a tender offer.  The Supreme Court held that “A person who trades in securities for personal profit, using confidential information misappropriated in breach of a fiduciary duty to the source of the information, may be held liable for violating § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.”[7]  In practical terms, under the misappropriation theory, individuals who come into possession of material, non-public information while providing services to corporate clients, such as the attorney in O’Hagan [8] may be held liable.

Joining Chiarella and O’Hagan in making up the traditional core of insider trading law is Dirks v. SEC.[9]  In Dirks, the Supreme Court attempted to set a limit on the scope of insider trading.[10]  Dirks was a securities analyst who learned from a former insurance company insider that the company was committing fraud and was on the verge of financial ruin.[11]  Dirks investigated and disclosed this information to several people, including a reporter and clients who traded on the information.[12]  Dirks was held liable for insider trading, but appealed.[13]  The overturning of Dirks’s liability centered on the fact that the corporate insider had disclosed the fraud to Dirks purely by a desire to expose the fraud, rather than to obtain any financial or other personal benefit.  The Court held:

In determining whether a tippee is under an obligation to disclose or abstain, it is necessary to determine whether the insider’s “tip” constituted a breach of the insider’s fiduciary duty.  Whether disclosure is a breach of duty depends in large part on the personal benefit the insider receives as a result of the disclosure.  Absent an improper purpose, there is no breach of duty to stockholders.  And absent a breach by the insider, there is no derivative breach.[14]

Furthermore, Dirks introduced the idea that a tippee has to be actually aware of the tipper’s breach or presented with sufficient facts so that the tippee will be deemed aware.  In this way, Dirks created a “personal benefit” element related to the tipper.  After Dirks, prosecutors were generally confident they could prove this benefit existed as long as there was a quid pro quo or a moderately close relationship between tipper and tippee.

Newman:  A Disruption

Chiarella, O’Hagan, and Dirks guided the law of insider trading largely uninterrupted for nearly 20 years.  Then came a decision from the Second Circuit, the so-called “Mother Court”[15] of securities law, but an underling of the Supreme Court, called U.S. v. Newman.[16]

Newman involved a hedge fund portfolio manager who was part of an information-sharing cohort of analysts and portfolio managers.[17]  By the time Newman received the tip, he was “four levels removed from the insider tippers,” (i.e., a remote tippee).[18]  The tippers were insiders at technology companies who had provided information to what the court termed “casual acquaintances,” who in turn passed those tips on.  Citing Dirks repeatedly for support, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized that government must prove the tipper received “a personal benefit” and that the tippee knew of that benefit.[19]

In Newman, the Second Circuit concluded that “the mere fact of friendship” was insufficient to give rise to the required personal benefit to the tipper.  Instead, the court required “proof of a meaningfully close personal relationship that generates an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature.”  Despite the fact that the 2nd Circuit cited its adherence to Dirks in overturning Newman’s conviction, it was clear to all that by raising the bar for the evidence required to meet the Dirks “personal benefit” requirement, the opinion suggested a serious new limitation on insider trading law.  Moreover, the prosecutors were denied a rehearing en banc and a Supreme Court writ of certiorari.  This meant Newman would remain law in the most significant federal circuit for securities law until further notice.

One attorney called Newman “a well-deserved generational setback for the Government.”[20]  The predicted effect of Newman was that the government would be forced to prove that someone charged with insider trading knew that she was trading on non-public, material information and that “the tipper’s goal in disclosing information is to obtain money, property, or something of tangible value.”[21]  This heightened burden led to the reversal of more than a dozen insider trading convictions,[22] and pending cases were dropped.[23]

Salman:  The Expansive View of Insider Trading Strikes Back

Newman’s holding concerning what qualifies as a personal benefit to the tipper was reversed last week when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Salman v. United States.[24]  Before the Supreme Court issued its opinion, in Salman, only the most ardent securities law gurus followed the case.  So, some background may be helpful.  Salman was convicted after trading on material, non-public information received from a friend, who had received the information from Salman’s brother-in-law.  Thus, Salman was prosecuted as a remote tippee.  He argued that he could not “be held liable as a tippee because the tipper (his brother-in-law, who worked on M&A matters at an investment bank) did not personally receive money or property in exchange for the tips.”[25]

In a strong rebuke, the Supreme Court held, “To the extent that the Second Circuit in Newman held that the tipper must also receive something of a “pecuniary or similarly valuable nature” in exchange for a gift to a trading relative, that rule is inconsistent with Dirks.[26]  Justice Alito succinctly explained “a tippee’s liability for trading on inside information hinges on whether the tipper breached a fiduciary duty” and that duty is breached “when the tipper discloses the inside information for a personal benefit.”[27]  Such a personal benefit can be inferred where the tip is made “to a trading relative or friend.”[28]

Why Salman Matters

By allowing a generous inference of a benefit to the tipper based on a personal relationship alone, the Supreme Court in Salman reestablished the old order of things – an expansive scope for insider trading prosecutions.  We understand that investment advisers are more likely than others to come into contact with corporate insiders, as well as those with whom corporate insiders speak in confidence.  You know these individuals as professionals, former schoolmates, and even friends and family members.  In discussing your work, it is quite possible that non-public, material information may be intentionally or inadvertently tipped to you.  Your livelihood and liberty may depend on how well you understand your legal obligations when that happens.  Fortunately, when you have questions about the rules regarding insider trading, we’re here to assist.

 

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s New York and Winston-Salem offices. Clay Wheeler is a partner in Kilpatrick’s Raleigh and Winston-Salem officesJohn Sanders is an associate based in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

 

[1] Greg Stohr and Patricia Hurtado, The Supreme Court Will Hear Its First Insider-Trading Case in 20 Years, Bloomberg (Oct. 4, 2016), https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-04/wall-street-watching-as-u-s-high-court-tackles-insider-trading.

[2] 15 U.S.C. 78j (2016).

[3] 17 CFR 270.10b-5 (2016).

[4] Chiarella v. U.S., 445 U.S. 222 (1980).

[5] U.S. v. O’Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 643 (1997).

[6] SEC v. Obus, 693 F.3d 276, 284 (2d Cir. 2012).

[7] O’Hagan, at 642.

[8] Id.

[9] Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983).

[10] Id. at 646.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id. at 647.

[15] James D. Zirin, American Bar Association, The Mother Court: A.K.A., the Southern District Court of New York, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/tyl/topics/legal-history/the-mother-court-aka-southern-district-court-new-york.html

[16] U.S. v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014)

[17] Id. at 443.

[18] Id.

[19] Id. at 450.

[20] Jon Eisenberg, How the United States v. Newman Changes the Law, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (May 3, 2015), https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2015/05/03/how-united-states-v-newman-changes-the-law/.

[21] Salman v. U.S., available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwihloXYvu_QAhVBjpAKHflsCIIQFggjMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F16pdf%2F15-628_m6ho.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGY28IXIk-a-h-Nuvi5EXSHC6XW6g&sig2=Ydo5oy44CzIMDuCxjMluzA&bvm=bv.141320020,d.eWE (The opinion presents and rejects this argument from Salman before stating that the rule from Newman is inconsistent with precedent)

[22] Greg Stohr and Patricia Hurtado, The Supreme Court Will Hear Its First Insider-Trading Case in 20 Years, Bloomberg (Oct. 4, 2016), https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-04/wall-street-watching-as-u-s-high-court-tackles-insider-trading.

[23] Patricia Hurtado, SAC Capital’s Steinberg Gets Insider Trading Charges Dropped, Bloomberg (Oct. 23, 2015), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-22/u-s-drops-charges-against-sac-capital-s-michael-steinberg.

[24] Salman, supra note 21.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Id.

[28] Id.

Posted on Friday, October 14 2016 at 1:05 pm by

This is the short link.">SEC Reports on Fiscal Year 2016 Enforcement Actions

On October 12, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC), announced its enforcement results for the 2016 fiscal year.[1]  For all but the most dedicated followers of the SEC’s recent uptick in enforcement activities, the results are eye opening.

The Numbers

In 2016, the SEC filed a record 868 enforcement actions against a wide-range of actors.[2]  This represents a jump of over 7.5% from 2015 and 15% from 2014.[3]  The Wall Street Journal linked the record-breaking year to SEC Chair Mary Jo White’s “broken windows” strategy of pursuing “the smallest legal violations” as well as the serious, headline-grabbing frauds.[4]  The effect, Chair White says, “makes you feel like we are everywhere.”[5]

Not only was the SEC able to increase the number of enforcement actions filed in 2016, it also was successful in obtaining over $4 Billion in disgorgements and penalties through favorable orders, settlements, and judgements.[6]

Insider Trading

Several of the highlighted enforcement actions for the year involve a point of perpetual emphasis for the SEC: insider trading.[7]  In 2016, nearly 10% of all enforcement actions brought were related to insider trading.  Several of those stemmed from what the SEC described as “complex insider trading rings” uncovered through “innovative uses of data and analytics.”[8]

One illustration of a complex insider trading ring involves two hedge fund managers and a former government official.[9]  The former government official allegedly used deception, concealing his role as a hedge fund consultant, to obtain confidential information about upcoming approvals of generic drug applications from former colleagues at the Food and Drug Administration.[10]  The SEC alleged that one of the hedge fund managers made unlawful profits of nearly $32 million by insider trading on tips he received from the scheme.[11]

Investment Advisers

The SEC also revealed that investment advisers were a primary target of SEC enforcement actions in 2016.[12]  In fact, nearly 20% of enforcement actions brought during the year, were brought against investment advisers and investment companies.[13]  This was another SEC record.[14]

Those who have been following the SEC under Chair White are not surprised by the surge in enforcement actions against investment advisers.[15]  Chair White has moved examiners from the broker-dealer unit to the investment adviser unit of the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations in recent years.[16]  Chair White has directed the enlarged staff to examine issues that generate conflicts of interest, such as cybersecurity policies and financial incentives.[17]

In a special section of the press release, the SEC highlighted some of its enforcements actions against advisers.[18]  Among the highlights are eight actions related to private equity fund advisers.[19]  Some of the entities and individuals involved are giants in the private equity industry:  Blackstone Group,[20] Fenway Partners,[21] and WL Ross & Co.[22]  Each paid fines related to its failure to adequately disclose certain fee arrangements.

The SEC also brought an enforcement action against three AIG affiliates which earned fees for steering clients into share classes of mutual funds that charged 12b-1 fees when the clients were eligible for share classes that did not charge such fees. In a release announcing the settlement of those claims, the SEC warned that “investment advisers must be vigilant about conflicts of interest when selecting mutual fund share classes.”[23]  This mix of actions against investment advisers is an example of how the SEC’s broken windows approach creates the appearance of comprehensive enforcement.

New Tools

In reviewing the results of this record-setting year, industry participants should note what the SEC credits for its success. Chair Mary Jo White states that the SEC is “using new data analytics to uncover fraud, enhancing [the SEC’s] ability to litigate tough cases, and expanding the playbook bringing novel and significant actions to better protect investors and our markets.”[24]

Analytical technology is something that the SEC has been developing for several years.[25]  The Market Information Data Analytics System (MIDAS), introduced in 2013, gives the SEC greater ability to reconstruct market data time-stamped to the micro-second.[26]  Efforts to build the Consolidated Order Trail are still ongoing.[27]  However, once that is on-line, the SEC should become even better at selecting and winning enforcement actions.

Conclusion

It is understandable if securities professionals reading these results do, in fact, feel that the SEC is everywhere these days. These results should trigger a recommitment to regulatory compliance that includes doing the little things right.  We’re here to help.

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s New York and Winston-Salem offices. John Sanders is an associate in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

[1] SEC, SEC Announces Enforcement Results for FY 2016 (Oct. 12, 2016), https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-212.html.

[2] Id.

[3] Jean Eaglesham, WALL ST. J., SEC Breaks Record for Number of Enforcement Cases (Oct. 11, 2016), http://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-on-track-to-break-record-for-number-of-enforcement-cases-1476198436.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Thomas O. Gorman, LEXIS NEXIS, Priorities for the SEC’s Enforcement Division (March 23, 2015), https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/securities/b/securities/archive/2015/03/23/priorities-for-the-sec-s-enforcement-division.aspx.

[8] SEC, supra note 1.

[9] Id.

[10] Jonathan Stempel, REUTERS, Visium’s Valvani Charged With Insider Trading (June 16, 2016), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fraud-insidertrading-idUSKCN0Z11TB.

[11] SEC, supra note 1.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Eaglesham, supra note 3.

[15] Kenneth Corbin, FINANCIAL PLANNING, SEC Brings Record Number of Enforcement Actions Against Advisers (Oct. 12, 2016), http://www.financial-planning.com/news/sec-brings-record-number-of-enforcement-actions-against-advisers.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] SEC, supra note 1.

[19] Id.

[20] SEC, Blackstone Charged With Disclosure Failures (Oct. 7, 2015), https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-235.html.

[21] SEC, SEC Charges Private Equity Firm and Four Executives With Failing to Disclose Conflicts of Interest (Nov. 3, 2015), https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-250.html.

[22] CNBC, SEC Fines Wilbur Ross’ Firm $2.3 Million Over Fees (Aug. 25, 2016), http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/25/sec-fines-wilbur-ross-firm-23-million-over-fees.html.

[23] SEC, AIG Affiliates Charged With Mutual Fund Shares Conflicts (March 14, 2016), https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-52.html.

[24] SEC, supra note 1.

[25] Elisse Walter, Chairman, SEC, Harnessing Tomorrow’s Technology for Today’s Investors and Markets (Feb. 19, 2013), https://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1365171492300.

[26] SEC, MIDAS: Market Information Data Analytics System, https://www.sec.gov/marketstructure/midas.html.

[27] Rob Tricchinelli, BLOOMBERG BNA, SEC Releases Consolidated Audit Trail Plan (April 28, 2016), http://www.bna.com/sec-releases-consolidated-n57982070430/.

Subscribe to Kilpatrick Townsend's Legal Alerts to help you stay current of new and noteworthy legal issues that may affect your business.