Investment Management

Posted on Monday, November 27 2017 at 5:46 pm by

Another Shoe Drops: UBS Withdraws from the Broker Protocol

By Paul Foley, John I. Sanders, and Lauren Henderson

Only one month after Morgan Stanley withdrew from the Protocol for Broker Recruiting (the “Protocol”), a second major brokerage firm has announced its intention to withdraw effective December 1st. UBS says it is withdrawing as part of a strategy to focus on retaining its current brokers instead of recruiting brokers from competitors. [i] Still, many observers believe Morgan Stanley’s and UBS’s withdrawals are meant “to stanch the flow of brokers and client assets.”[ii] This flow, of course, has quickened in recent years as advisers have left traditional, large brokerage firms to form independent advisory firms.[iii]

When Morgan Stanley withdrew from the Protocol, many speculated as to whether the Protocol would survive.[iv] Such speculation has only increased as sources have confirmed that Morgan Stanley’s withdrawal was the catalyst for UBS’s departure.[v] We expect more firms are currently considering how to respond to two of the largest brokerage firms withdrawing from the Protocol, and we would not be surprised to see similar announcements before year-end.

If you have questions about the recent withdrawals from the Protocol or general questions about the complexities that arise in establishing an independent advisory firm, please feel free to contact us directly.

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

[i] Lisa Beilfuss, UBS to Pull Out of Pact on Broker Recruiting, WALL ST. J., Nov. 27, 2017, available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-to-pull-out-of-pact-on-broker-recruiting-1511799020 .

[ii] Id.

[iii] Neil Weinberg, Broker Protocol Reduced to a Sell Game, OnWallSteet, Oct. 18, 2016, available at https://www.onwallstreet.com/news/broker-protocol-reduced-to-a-shell-game.

[iv] Lisa Beilfuss, Morgan Stanley to Exit Accord on Broker Recruiting, WALL ST. J., Oct. 30, 2017, available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/morgan-stanley-to-exit-accord-on-broker-recruiting-1509380038

[v] Beilfuss, supra note 2.

Posted on Friday, November 17 2017 at 8:38 am by

SEC Announces Enforcement Results, Sets New Priorities

By Paul Foley, John I. Sanders, and Lauren Henderson

On November 15, 2017, the SEC announced the results of its enforcement actions for fiscal year 2017 and stated its enforcement priorities for fiscal year 2018.

During fiscal year 2017, the SEC brought 754 enforcement actions, returned $1.07 billion to harmed investors, and obtained judgments and orders totaling $3.789 billion in disgorgement and penalties.[i] Of the 754 enforcement actions, 446 were standalone cases.[ii] Investment advisory issues, securities offerings, and issuer reporting each accounted for 20% of the standalone cases, roughly in line with fiscal year 2016 results.[iii]

In the current fiscal year, the following five core principles will guide the SEC’s enforcement actions:[iv]

  • Focus on Main Street (i.e., unsophisticated) investors
  • Focus on individual accountability (as opposed to organizational accountability)
  • Keep pace with technological change
  • Impose sanctions that most effectively further enforcement goals
  • Assess the allocation of resources

Both the enforcement results for the recently completed fiscal year and the stated priorities for the current fiscal year reflect Chairman Clayton’s oft-articulated dedication to the SEC’s mandates: protect investors, maintain fair and efficient markets, facilitate capital formation.

If you have any questions about the SEC enforcement actions or enforcement priorities, please feel free to contact us directly.

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

[i] SEC, SEC Enforcement Division Issues Report on Priorities and FY 2017 Results (Nov. 15, 2017), available at https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-210.

[ii] Id.

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id.

Posted on Thursday, November 9 2017 at 11:10 am by

Four Key Takeaways for Investment Advisers from Chairman Clayton’s PLI Address

By Paul Foley and John I. Sanders

On November 8, 2017, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton gave the keynote address at the Practicing Law Institute’s 49th Annual Institute on Securities Regulation.[i] Chairman Clayton’s remarks shed considerable light on the SEC’s priorities in the near-term. We believe there are four key takeaways from the address for investment advisers:

  • The SEC will deemphasize formal rulemaking and focus instead on enforcement actions that will improve “transparency in our securities markets”;[ii]
  • The SEC will scrutinize whether investment advisers’ proxy voting decisions are maximizing value for their clients;[iii]
  • The SEC will prioritize enforcement actions related to “complex, obscure, or hidden fees and expenses that can harm investors” (e.g., investing client assets in a mutual fund share class that charges a 12b-1 fee when a lower-cost share class of the same fund is available);[iv] and
  • The SEC will help investors track bad actors by creating a website with a searchable database of “individuals who have been barred or suspended as a result of federal securities law violations.”[v]

Chairman Clayton is clearly signaling to investment advisers that the SEC, in the near-term, will focus its energy on whether they are making complete and accurate disclosures to their clients.

If you have questions about Chairman Clayton’s keynote address or the regulations that govern investment advisers generally, please feel free to contact us.

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

[i] SEC Chairman Jay Clayton, Remarks at the PLI 49th Annual Institute on Securities Regulation – New York, N.Y. (Nov. 8 2017), available at https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-clayton-2017-11-08.

[ii] Id.

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] Id.

Posted on Monday, October 30 2017 at 8:39 am by

Advisers Trading in Europe or Advising E.U. Clients Must Prepare for MiFID II

By Paul Foley, John I. Sanders, and Lauren Henderson

On January 3, 2018, the European Commission’s sweeping reform, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (“MiFID II”), will become effective. MiFID II applies to firms providing investment services or performing investment activities in the European Union (the “E.U.”).[1] E.U. investment advisers, naturally, will be among those effected. However, U.S. investment advisers who transact in European financial markets or offer investment advice to E.U. citizens through separately managed accounts (“SMAs”), pooled products (e.g., hedge funds), or indirectly through sub-advisory arrangements may be effected as follows:

  • Trading Equities and Derivatives: Under MiFID II, equity trading must occur on regulated markets, multilateral trading facilities, systematic internalisers, or equivalent third country venues.[2] Accordingly, over-the-counter trading of European equities may be severely restricted and the cost of trading certain securities may increase substantially. In addition, derivatives are subject to new reporting requirements and national regulators are empowered to set position limits for certain derivatives.[3]
  • Marketing Separately Managed Accounts: Each U.S. investment adviser must review licensing requirements in each jurisdiction where an E.U. client or potential client resides to determine whether the adviser must establish a branch or obtain a license to do business in the jurisdiction.[4]
  • Marketing Pooled Products: U.S. investment advisers that offer alternative investment funds (“AIFs”) will be governed by the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (“AIFMD”) and jurisdiction-specific private placement rules, not MiFID II, when engaging in marketing activities for an AIF.[5] Likewise, U.S. investment advisers offering Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (“UCITSs”) are not directly subject to MiFID II when marketing a UCITS to E.U. clients, but will be indirectly impacted by MiFID II’s investor protection regime.[6]
  • Providing Sub-Advisory Services to E.U. Firms: E.U. firms subject to MiFID II may attempt to delegate compliance obligations to U.S. investment advisers serving as their sub-advisors. Among compliance obligations likely to be passed to the U.S. sub-advisor are those related to transparency and reporting.[7]

We invite you to contact us directly if you have any questions about the application of MiFID II to U.S. investment advisers.

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

[1] Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on Markets in Financial Instruments and Amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU, 2014 O.J. (L 173) 349, 374.

[2] Id. at 409.

[3] Id. at 440, 444.

[4] Christopher D. Christian & Dick Frase, MiFID II: Key Considerations for US Asset Managers, 23 The Investment Lawyer. 1, 4 (May 2016).

[5] Id. at 5.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 4.

Posted on Friday, October 13 2017 at 11:35 am by

Regulation S-K Amendments Promise FAST Relief for Advisers and Funds

By Paul Foley, John I. Sanders, and Lauren Henderson

On October 11, 2017, the SEC issued a Proposed Rule to modernize and simplify disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K.[1] The Proposed Rule, authorized by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (the “FAST Act”), is intended to reduce the costs and burdens on registrants while still providing investors with disclosures that are user friendly, material, and free of unnecessary repetition.[2]

The Proposed Rule, if adopted, would amend rules and forms used by public companies, investment companies, and investment advisers.[3] The most notable provisions of the Proposed Rule include the following:

  • Eliminating risk factor examples from Item 503(c) of Regulation S-K because the examples do not apply to all registrants and may not actually correspond to the material risks of any particular registrant;[4]
  • Revising requirements related to descriptions of property owned by the registrant in Item 102 of Regulation S-K to emphasize materiality;[5]
  • Eliminating undertakings that are unnecessarily repetitious from securities registration statements;[6]
  • Changing exhibit filing requirements and allowing flexibility in discussing historical periods in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis;[7]
  • Permitting registrants to omit confidential information (e.g., personally identifiable information and material contract exhibits) from Item 601 without submitting a confidential treatment request;[8] and
  • Using hyperlinks in forms to help investors access documents incorporated by reference.[9]

The SEC will accept public comments on the Proposed Rule for sixty days before determining whether to issue a final rule or amend the proposal and seek additional public comment.[10] We are hopeful the Proposed Rule will be well-received by all stakeholders and be finalized relatively quickly.

We invite you to contact us directly if you have any questions about the SEC’s Proposed Rule or Regulation S-K generally.

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

[1] SEC, SEC Proposes Rules to Implement FAST Act Mandate to Modernize and Simplify Disclosure (Oct. 11, 2017), available at https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-192.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] SEC, Proposed Rule: FAST Act Modernization and Simplification of Regulation S-K,

Release No. 33-10425; 34-81851; IA-4791; IC-32858, available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2017/33-10425.pdf.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

Posted on Thursday, August 31 2017 at 5:45 pm by

DOL’s Proposed Rule Would Extend the Transition Period for Certain Fiduciary Rule Exemptions to July 2019

 By Paul Foley and John I. Sanders

Today, the text of a Department of Labor (the “DOL”) Proposed Rule we have been anticipating for several weeks was made available to the public.[i] The Proposed Rule would “extend the special transition period” for certain components of the Best Interest Contract Exemption (the “BIC Exemption”) and certain other exemptions to the Fiduciary Rule.[ii] Perhaps the most important aspect of the Proposed Rule is that it would maintain the current version of the BIC Exemption, which requires fiduciaries relying on it to merely “give prudent advice that is in retirement investors’ best interest, charge no more than reasonable compensation, and avoid misleading statements.”[iii] In making the proposal, the DOL stated that its purpose was to give the DOL “time to consider possible changes and alternatives” to the exemptions.[iv] If finalized, the Proposed Rule would extend the transition period of the effected exemptions to July 1, 2019.[v]

Please contact us if you have any questions about this article or the DOL Fiduciary Rule generally.

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

[i] DOL, Notice of proposed amendments to PTE 2016-01, PTE 2016-02, and PTE 84-24, 82 Fed. Reg. 41365, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/08/31/2017-18520/extension-of-transition-period-and-delay-of-applicability-dates-best-interest-contract-exemption-pte.

[ii] Id.

[iii] Id. at 41367.

[iv] Id. at 41365.

[v] Id.

Posted on Friday, August 25 2017 at 9:51 am by

Second Circuit Clarifies its Post-Salman Position, Affirms Insider Trading Conviction

By Paul Foley and John I. Sanders

On August 23rd, the Second Circuit issued its much-anticipated opinion in U.S. v. Martoma, affirming the 2014 insider trading conviction of S.A.C. Capital Advisors portfolio manager Matthew Martoma.[1]  In doing so, it clarified an important point regarding what is required to convict a person who trades on a tip received from an insider.  We believe this decision will have an immediate impact on how hedge fund portfolio managers and other investment advisers interact with third party resources.

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.

Under the classic theory of insider trading, a corporate insider trades in shares of his employer while in possession of material, non-public information (e.g., advance notice of a merger).  In addition to the classic theory of insider trading, case law has extended the 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, but those to whom they pass tips, either directly (tippees) or through others (remote tippees) may be liable if they trade on such tips.

The seminal case involving tippee liability is Dirks v. SEC.[4]  In Dirks, the U.S. Supreme Court held the following:

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.[5]

The question of what constituted a “personal benefit” was left ill-defined until the Second Circuit gave it shape in U.S. v. Newman.[6]  Newman held that a tipper and tippee must have a “meaningfully close personal relationship” and that the insider information be divulged in exchange for “a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature” for the court to find the tipper had breached his fiduciary duty to the source.[7]  For a period of time after the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Newman, it seemed that Martoma’s conviction was likely to be overturned.

Unfortunately for Martoma, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in U.S. v. Salman while Martoma’s appeal was pending.[8]  In Salman, the U.S. Supreme Court flatly rejected certain aspects of the Newman holding and called others into question.[9]  Accordingly, the Second Circuit held in Martoma that “Salman fundamentally altered the analysis underlying Newman’s ‘meaningfully close relationship’ requirement such that the ‘meaningfully close personal relationship’ requirement is no longer good law.”[10]

In Martoma, the court held that rather than looking at objective elements of the relationship between tipper and tippee, the proper inquiry is now whether the corporate insider divulged the relevant information with the expectation that the tippee would trade on it.[11]  This is “because such a disclosure is the functional equivalent of trading on the information himself and giving the cash gift to the recipient.”[12]

Please contact us if you have any questions about the Second Circuit’s opinion in Martoma or the law concerning insider trading generally.

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

[1] U.S. v. Martoma, available at http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/71a89161-eec1-457e-b79b-a0d9503765c1/2/doc/14-3599_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/71a89161-eec1-457e-b79b-a0d9503765c1/2/hilite/.

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

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

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

[5] Id. at 647.

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

[7] Id. at 452.

[8] Salman v. U.S., available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/580/15-628/opinion3.html.

[9] Id. at 10.

[10] U.S. v. Martoma, supra note 1, at 24.

[11] Id. at 25.

[12] Id.

Posted on Tuesday, August 22 2017 at 2:05 pm by

Adviser Settles with SEC over Insider Trading Controls for Political Intelligence Firms

By Paul Foley and John I. Sanders

Yesterday, the SEC announced a settlement under which Deerfield Management Company L.P. (“Deerfield”), a hedge fund adviser, agreed to pay more than $4.6 million.[i]  The SEC charged Deerfield with failing to “establish, maintain and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the illegal use of inside information”[ii] as required by Section 204A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”).[iii]

The SEC cited Deerfield for failing to tailor its policies and procedures “to address the specific risks presented by its business.”[iv]  In particular, Deerfield’s reliance on third-party political intelligence firms to provide insight into upcoming legislative and regulatory action created the risk that Deerfield would receive and illegally trade on inside information (e.g., a regulator’s unannounced decision to finalize a rule that would materially affect certain industries and publicly traded companies).[v]

The SEC’s settlement with Deerfield serves as a warning for advisers utilizing investment strategies dependent on obtaining or correctly predicting non-public information (e.g., unannounced mergers and acquisitions or the governmental approval of a pharmaceutical product), particularly those advisers partnering with third party consultants and analysts.  Such advisers should consider whether their current policies and procedures address the specific risks likely to arise under such strategies and partnerships.

Please contact us if you have any questions about the SEC’s recent settlement with Deerfield or an adviser’s obligations under the Advisers Act generally.

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

[i] SEC, Hedge Fund Adviser Charged for Inadequate Controls to Prevent Insider Trading (Aug. 21, 2017), available at https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-146 (hereinafter SEC Release).

[ii] Id.

[iii] 15 USC 80b-4a (2017).

[iv] SEC Release, supra note 1.

[v] Id.

Posted on Monday, July 24 2017 at 2:41 pm by

Wyoming Mid-Sized Advisers Can No Longer Register with the SEC

By Paul Foley and John I. Sanders

Wyoming required investment advisers to register with the state for the first time on July 1, 2017.[i]  Wyoming’s decision primarily affects those Wyoming-based advisers with between $25 million and $100 million in assets under management (“Mid-Sized Advisers”).  Generally, Mid-Sized Advisers may not register with the SEC.[ii]  However, Wyoming-based Mid-Sized Advisers were required to register with the SEC pursuant to an exception to the general rule.[iii]  That exception requires a Mid-Sized Adviser to register with the SEC if its principal office or place of business is in a state that does not require it to register.[iv]  Wyoming’s lack of a registration requirement for Mid-Sized Advisers and the SEC’s exception made Wyoming a destination for Mid-Sized Advisers who wanted to tout SEC registration.[v]  Some Mid-Sized Advisers went as far as to fraudulently claim to be based in Wyoming so that they could boast SEC registration.[vi]  Wyoming’s decision to require investment advisers to register with the state means that Wyoming-based Mid-Sized Advisers (real and fictitious) are no longer permitted to register with the SEC.  Instead, they must register with Wyoming and comply with its new regulatory regime.[vii]  This continues a shift, which we first noted in 2011, of primary responsibility for the regulatory oversight of Mid-Sized Advisers to the states.[viii]

Please contact us if you have any questions about the new law or its potential impact on your investment advisory business.

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

[i] Wyoming Secretary of State, FAQs (March 14, 2017), available at http://soswy.state.wy.us/Investing/Docs/investment_faq_final.pdf.

[ii] 15 USC 80b-3a (2017); see also SEC, Division of Investment Management: Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Mid-Sized Advisers, available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/midsizedadviserinfo.htm (providing additional commentary related to the effect of certain Dodd-Frank Act provisions on Mid-Sized Advisers).

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] See Danielle Andrus, ThinkAdvisor, Wyoming to Begin Registering RIAs (July 13, 2016), available at http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2016/07/13/wyoming-to-begin-registering-rias; see also Christine Idzelis, Investment News, Wyoming poised to scrutinize its RIA industry for the first time (July 6, 2016), available at http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160706/FREE/160709978/wyoming-poised-to-scrutinize-its-ria-industry-for-the-first-time.

[vi] See In re Matter of New Line Capital, LLC and David A Nagler, IA-4017 (February 4, 2015), available at https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/ia-4017.pdf; and In the matter of Wyoming Investment Services, LLC and Criag M. Scariot, IA-4014 (February 4, 2015), available at https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/ia-4014.pdf.

[vii] Wyoming Secretary of State, Proposed Rules, available at http://soswy.state.wy.us/Investing/Docs/WyomingProposedRulesforIA.pdf.

[viii] Paul Foley, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP Investment Management Blog, Deadline for Meeting the New Investment Adviser Regulatory Requirements Under the Dodd-Frank Act is Quickly Approaching (Sept. 20, 2011), available at http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/en/Knowledge_Center/Alerts_and_Podcasts/Legal_Alerts/2011/09/Deadline_for_Meeting_the_New_Investment_Adviser_Regulatory_Requirements.aspx.

Posted on Friday, July 14 2017 at 12:01 pm by

Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers Exempted from CFPB’s Arbitration Agreement Rule

By Paul Foley and John I. Sanders

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) issued a final rule on July 10, 2017 that has received widespread attention.[1]  The rule, promulgated pursuant to section 1028(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, generally regulates “arbitration agreements in contracts for specified consumer financial products and services.”[2]  More specifically, the rule prohibits the use of arbitration agreements by providers of certain financial products and services “to bar the consumer from filing or participating in a class action.”[3]  Despite the apparent wide sweep of the rule, it includes important exemptions for broker-dealers and investment advisers.

First, the rule expressly exempts from its prohibitions “broker-dealers and investment advisers, as well as their employees, agents, and contractors, to the extent regulated by the SEC.”[4]  Also, the rule exempts those “regulated by a State securities commissioner as a broker-dealer or investment adviser.”[5]  As a result of these exemptions, the use of arbitration agreements by broker-dealers and investment advisers will continue to be regulated by the SEC and state regulators.  So far, the SEC has not exercised its authority under section 921 of the Dodd-Frank Act to restrict the use of arbitration agreements as the CFPB has done, and there is no indication it will do so soon.[6]

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

[1] See e.g., Megan Leonhardt, Money Magazine, CFPB Just Issued a New Rule That Would Protect Consumers From Predatory Fine Print (July 11, 2017), available at http://time.com/money/4852123/cfpb-mandatory-arbitration-rule/; Maria LaMagna, MarketWatch, CFPB Announces Rule That Could Help Consumers Sue Financial Firms for Millions (July 11, 2017), available at http://time.com/money/4852123/cfpb-mandatory-arbitration-rule/; and Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Michael Corkery, The New York Times, U.S. Agency Moves to Allow Class-Action Lawsuits Against Financial Firms (July 10, 2017), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/business/dealbook/class-action-lawsuits-finance-banks.html.

[2] CFPB, Final Rule: Arbitration Agreements (July 10, 2017), available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking/final-rules/arbitration-agreements/ (hereinafter “Arbitration Rule”).

[3] Id. at p. 1.

[4] Id. at p. 478.

[5] Id. at p. 479.

[6] 15 U.S.C. 78o(o) (authorizing the SEC to regulate broker-dealer arbitration agreements) and 15 U.S.C. 80b-5(f) (authorizing the SEC to regulate investment adviser arbitration agreements).