The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently settled with an investment adviser firm which allegedly had improperly refused to refund $131,000 in unearned advisory fees to 63 departing investment advisory clients. The SEC censured the investment adviser firm and imposed a $100,000 civil penalty on it. The SEC also imposed a $50,000 penalty on the investment adviser firm’s majority owner.
Category Archives: Enforcement
SEC Enforcement Action: Investment Adviser Fails to Disclose Affiliate Broker-Dealer Conflicts of Interest
March 14, 2017
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued an enforcement action recently against an investment adviser firm for its alleged failure to disclose fee sharing arrangements that the investment adviser firm entered with its third-party broker dealer. The investment adviser firm consented to the order without admitting or denying the SEC findings, except as specified within the SEC’s Order. Click here to read the full SEC Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-And-Desist Proceedings.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a press release announcing that an investment adviser, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, agreed to pay an $8 million penalty to settle charges under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 relating to single inverse ETF investments it had recommended to investment advisory clients. Click here to for the entire press release and here for the SEC’s order.
A former investment adviser firm and its principal recently settled claims by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), admitting that the investment adviser firm principal cherry picked profitable trades for a select number of favored friends, clients, and family members of the firm’s principal.
SEC Enforcement Action Alleges Cherry-Picking, Double-Dipping, and Fund Mismanagement
October 25, 2016
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently instituted administrative cease-and-desist proceedings against a Washington-based registered investment adviser. The SEC alleges the investment adviser engaged in several schemes meant to defraud clients and unjustly enrich the investment adviser’s personal accounts. Among the alleged wrongdoing was the investment adviser’s scheme to “cherry pick” favorable trades for his personal accounts while allocating unfavorable trades to client accounts. During one relevant period, the SEC claims the investment adviser’s accounts showed a return of 1.39% while the affected client accounts had a -0.78% return. In total, the SEC asserts that the investment advisor profited almost $500,000 while client accounts suffered losses of more than $2 million.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently fined thirteen investment adviser firms for promoting performance information for a third party investment product that the SEC alleges the investment adviser firms knew, or should have known, was false. At the heart of the enforcement actions were claims made by a third party money manager who purported to have a time tested investment program that consistently and greatly exceeded standard market returns. The SEC alleged that in fact, the mathematical algorithm underlying the investment program had only been in existence a short period of time and the third party money manager was using selective, back-tested (“hypothetical”) data to promote its new program. Compounding the problem, the investment performance calculations contained an error that further inflated the product’s artificial performance statistics. Despite being notified of the calculation error and knowing the algorithm’s investment performance data was not from actual accounts, the SEC alleged that third party money manager claimed in marketing materials given to investment adviser firms and investment adviser firm clients that the data was genuine. Click here to read the SEC enforcement action on the third party money manager.
SEC Continues to Focus on Cybersecurity for Investment Advisers
August 02, 2016
As in 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Examination Priorities for 2016 identify cybersecurity as an area of “potentially heightened [market-wide] risk.” Citing the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) 2015 Risk Alert, the SEC promised to continue using its exams to evaluate investment adviser firms’ cybersecurity preparedness. Click here to read our blog on the OCIE Cybersecurity Risk Alert.
SEC Examination Priorities for 2014
February 19, 2014
On January 9, 2014, the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) National Examination Program (“NEP”) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) published its examination priorities for 2014. This report is published to “communicate with investors and registrants about areas the that the staff perceives to have heightened risk and to support the [SEC] mission to protect investors; to maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and to facilitate capital formation.”
Marketing materials can be very helpful in attracting business for an investment advisor, but investment advisors should be aware of the regulatory requirements that apply to the use of marketing materials. Common issues with investment advisory marketing materials include using marketing materials that include testimonials (which investment advisors are generally prohibited from using); publishing past recommendations (without following the restrictions and disclosure requirements for publishing past recommendations); using language that makes promises or guarantees; and making untrue or misleading statements.
SEC Brings Enforcement Action for Misrepresentations on Form ADV
January 11, 2012
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently issued an Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings against Calhoun Asset Management, LLC (“Calhoun”) and its principal for, among other things, making false and misleading statements on Calhoun’s Form ADV.
