Investment Advisers

SEC Roundup: Massachusetts Investment Adviser Gets $1.78M Judgment and Allianz to Pay $12.3M to Settle Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Lawsuit

Published on: January 5, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Massachusetts Investment Adviser Gets $1.78M Judgment

In a final judgment, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts says that EagleEye Asset Management LLC and its principal Jeffrey A. Liskov must pay a $1.78M judgment for using a foreign currency exchange trading scam to defraud clients. The Securities and Exchange Commission contends that Liskov fraudulently got several of his investment advisory clients to liquidate securities investments and place the money in forex trading. While EagleEye and Liskov made about $300,000 in performance fees, their clients allegedly lost $4M.

Liskov is accused of perpetuating the investment adviser fraud by issuing material misrepresentations about forex investments, their risks, and his track record. Also per the SEC’s complaint, Liskov more than once took old forms that advisory clients had signed and changed the dates, asset transfer amounts, and other information, and, without their knowledge, opened forex trading accounts.

SEC Intends to Examine 25% of Investment Advisers That Had To Register, Per Dodd-Frank Act, by End of 2014

Published on: December 26, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations Director Carlo di Florio, by December 31, 2014, the Commission plans to have examined 25% of the investment advisers that had to register with it after the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 issued its mandate. This will be done via “presence exams” at these investment firms.

The exams will concentrate on the issues of marketing, valuation, conflicts of interest, portfolio management, and asset verification. Also, the agency’s enforcement division will focus on private fiduciary duties.

According to di Florio, based on “preliminary observations” from initial presence exams it appears that even though a lot of longtime private investment firms have done a good job in constructing compliance risk management and control programs that work, OCIE examiners still noticed that there were numerous issues when they conducted initial exams, such as deficiencies related to conflicts of interest mismanagement. One example of this is the inflation of certain fees to conceal losses. Also, examiners found that some expenses, such as property rent and salaries, were inappropriately charged to funds instead of to the fund manager.

SEC’s Investment Management Division Considers Applying 1940 Advisers Act to Private Fund Advisors

Published on: December 19, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Securities and Exchange Commission Division of Investment Management Director Norm Champ, consideration is being given toward how the 1940 Investment Advisers Act might be applicable to private fund advisors. Champ spoke at an American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education Group in New York earlier this month.

One reason for this closer scrutiny is that because of the Dodd-Frank Act, advisers to certain private funds that previously didn’t have to must now register with the SEC. Currently, about 40% of SEC-registered advisors work with private funds. Hence, noted Champ, the need to view our regulatory framework from a wider perspective and “how that fits” with these advisors.

It was just recently that the division began taking a more risk-based approach toward how it determines which regulator initiatives are priority. This means that before starting a project, the way it might impact capital formation, investors, regulated entities, and the needed resources are taken into consideration. Champ said that the issue of whether/not to apply the Investment Advisers Act to private fund advisers is up for consideration as a priority. (He made clear that the remarks he made at the event are his own and don’t necessarily reflect that of his employer.)

Champ also discussed exchange-traded funds and how his division will no longer delay considering exemptive relief for ETF funds that invest a lot in derivatives. (Such requests had been placed on hold by the SEC in 2010 while it reviewed how these funds used the derivatives.)

Exchange traded funds (ETFS) are investment companies that can be legally classified as Unit Investment Trusts and open-end companies but are different from these two in that ETFs don’t sell individual shares straight to investors and instead issue shares in “Creation Units,” which are big blocks. Typically, it is institutions that buy these blocks.

That said, any relief request for ETF funds has to come with “two specific representations,” noted Champ: A) An ETF has to attest that the board will review and approve not just the derivatives investment of the funds but the way that the ETF’s investment manager handles risk related to derivatives and B) AN ETF has to represent that its derivative investments-related disclosures in periodic reports and offering documents are in line with staff and commission guidance. Champ acknowledged that there were still some concerns about leveraged ETFs and that the commission would not “support new exemptive relief” for the funds.

Leveraged ETFs, also called ultra short funds, try to deliver multiples of the performance of the benchmark or index they are tracking. They look to reach a return that is a multiple of the inverse performance of the index that is underlying.

Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs), SEC

Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Holding Brokers to Investment Adviser Accountability Standards is a Bad Idea, Say Some Wall Street Executives, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 16, 2011

Morgan Keegan Founder Faces SEC Charges Over Mortgage-Backed Securities Asset Pricing in Mutual Funds, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 17, 2012

Investment Advisor Securities Roundup: Two Firms Settle SEC Claims That They Impeded with Examinations, FINRA Defends SRO Model, IA Allegedly Duped Private Equity Investors, & CDO Misrepresentation Accusations Against GSCP Executive Are Dismissed

Published on: December 10, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Investment advisory firms EM Capital Management and Barthelemy Group have settled SEC administrative charges that they got in the way of Commission staff examinations. Both cases were settled without the parties involved denying or admitting to the allegations.

According to the SEC, Barthelemy Group and Evens Barthelemy allegedly misled examiners by inflating claimed assets under management to make it appear as if the firm qualified for SEC legislation. To settle the claims, Barthelemy has consented to a securities industry bar. He can reapply for admission again in two years. His firm consented to a censure.

As for the proceedings against Em Capital Management and Freeman, they allegedly waited a year and a half to produce the records and books for the firm’s mutual fund advisory business. Both have consented to pay a $20,000 penalty and be censured.

FINRA Provides Guidance As It Opens Up Arbitration Process to Investment Advisers

Published on: November 9, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is now making its arbitration process available to all registered investment advisers. The SRO’s arbitration forum has in the past been for member broker-dealers, but not IA’s, to resolve disagreements. (That said, IAs that are dually registered with FINRA have had to arbitrate via the SRO’s arbitration process if the disagreement pertained to the adviser’s activities as a member of FINRA or as an associated person.) Now, however, FINRA is ready to take arbitration cases against investment advisers as long as the parties involved are both amenable to this.

Some people have expressed concern that opening up FINRA’s arbitration process to these advisers could create problems. For example, seeing as broker-dealers and investment advisers are upheld to different standards under federal law, there has been the worry that FINRA arbitrators might get confused as to which standard applied to a case.

FINRA arbitration lawyer William Shepherd, however, disagrees: “It is true that financial advisors are held to a fiduciary standard by statute, but securities brokers are often held to a ‘common law’ fiduciary standard. For example, brokers are held to a fiduciary standard when they use discretion to invest their clients’ money (either with or without written permission). As well, for decades the FINRA Arbitration Code has allowed cases to be filed for ‘any dispute, claim or controversy.’ Current FINRA arbitrators are savvy enough to make any distinction in the responsibilities of different investment professionals and are likely the most capable persons in existence to decide cases concerning financial advisors.”

FINRA’s decision to open its arbitration process comes during the ongoing discussion about possible self-regulatory oversight for advisers. Bill H.R. 4624 proposes bringing advisers under the supervision of at least one SRO, with FINRA as the potential watchdog. There has, however, been strong opposition to the legislation, and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), who ushered H.R. 4624, has decided not to keep pushing it forward until a committee consensus is reached.

Meantime, FINRA has put out guidance on how investment advisers who are not members of the SRO can use its mediation and arbitration forum to resolve disagreements with employees and members. Per the guidance on disputes between IAs that are firms not regulated by FINRA and investors/investment adviser employees, the SRO will accept disputes by parties seeking this forum as long as the investor and IA turn in a post-dispute agreement to arbitrate, the IA or other parties consent to pay arbitration surcharge fees, and the investor submits a written submission agreement to send the dispute to FINRA Dispute Resolution (the agreement has to be signed by all parties involved in the arbitration and the signatures need to have been written after the events that led to the dispute happened). FINRA mediation services will be offered for investment adviser disagreements on a voluntary basis.

Guidance on Disputes between Investors and Investment Advisers who are not FINRA-regulated firms, FINRA

FINRA Opening Arbitration Process To Investment Advisers, Spokeswoman Says, Bloomberg/BNA, October 29, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Court Upholds Ex-NBA Star Horace Grant $1.46M FINRA Arbitration Award from Morgan Keegan & Co. Over Mortgage-Backed Bond Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 30, 2012

Plaintiff Must Arbitrate Faulty Investment Advice Claim With TD Ameritrade But Can Proceed With Litigation Against Oakwood Capital Management, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 29, 2012

Citigroup Ordered by FINRA to Pay $1.2M Over Bond Markups and Markdowns, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 27, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Institutional Investment Fraud Roundup: Ex-Hedge Fund Managers’ Guilty Plea Over Bilking Investors of Almost $1M Get 3-Year Prison Term, SEC Sues Investment Adviser Over Alleged $37M Ponzi, and SEC Files Lawsuit Over Purported “Fund of Funds” Scam

Published on: September 26, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ex-hedge fund managers Christopher Fardella and Michael Katz have been sentenced to three years in prison after they pleaded securities fraud and conspiracy charges for defrauding investors of nearly $1 million. Per court documents, between April 2005 and November 2006, the two men, along with two co-conspirators, were partners in KMFG International LLC, which is a hedge fund.

They cold called investors throughout the US and provided them with misleading information about the fund, its principals, and financial performance even though KMFG actually lacked a track record and never generated any profit for investors. The defendants and co-conspirators lost and spent $981,000 of the $1,031,086 that was given to them by investors.

Meantime, another hedge fund manager, Oregon-based investment advisor Yusaf Jawad, is being sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission over an alleged $37 million Ponzi scam. The securities lawsuit against him and attorney Robert Custis was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

SEC Securities Law Roundup: First Whistleblower Award Under New Program is Announced, Internet-Based Investment Adviser Seeks Regulator’s Recognition, & the Commission Stops Alleged $600M Online Ponzi Scheme

Published on: August 29, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has made its first award to a whistleblower under its new program created under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Informants who give the commission “original information” leading to action resulting in $1 million or greater in penalties are entitled to receive 10-30% of whatever sanctions the regulator collects.

The SEC announced that it would pay $50,000 to this particular tipster for assistance provided in stopping a “multi-million dollar fraud.” This person gave “significant information” and documents, which helped speed up the agency’s probe. Now, the defendants in the securities case must pay about $1 million in penalties, of which the Commission has collected about $150,000. The $50,000 is about 30% of that amount. If a final judgment is issued against other defendants, the whistleblower could receive a larger amount.

In other SEC-related news, Larry Eiben the co-founder of Moxy Vote, an investment web site, wants the Commission to put into effect rules that recognize a new investment adviser category. He wants investors to be able to use a “neutral Internet voting platform” to get information about investments, as well as be able to not just vote shares during corporate meetings, but also “designate as the recipient of proxy materials” for transmission by companies with SEC-registered stock.

Eiben believes the rule changes is necessary because under existing regulations, retail investors cannot use the Internet to vote their shares or collect and get information through means that they might find most helpful when determining how to vote. He says the change will tackle what he considers an ongoing issue: “low participation by retail investors in voting shares of their portfolio companies.”

Unfortunately, the Internet continues to prove an effective tool for perpetuating financial fraud. Earlier this month, the SEC obtained an emergency asset freeze order stopping an alleged $600 million Ponzi scam that was about to collapse. The defendants are Rex Venture Group and its owner Paul Burkes, who is an online marketer.

Per the Commission, the two of them raised money from over one million clients on the Internet using ZeekRewards.com. They allegedly gave customers several options for earning money through a rewards program. Two of them involved the purchase of investment contracts. However, none of these securities were SEC registered, which they are required to be under federal securities laws. Meantime, investors were promised up to half of the company’s daily net profits via a profit sharing system. Also, despite the defendants’ allegedly giving them the impression that the company was profitable, investors received payouts that were unrelated to such profits, and instead, in typical Ponzi scam fashion, the money paid to them came from the newer investors.

The SEC said its order to freeze assets will allow the Ponzi scam victims to recoup more of their money so whatever is left of what they invested with ZeekRewards can be used as payouts to them. Burkes has agreed to settle the Commission’s allegations without denying or admitting to wrongdoing. He will, however, pay a $4 million penalty.

Whistleblower Program, SEC

S.E.C. Pays Out First Whistle-Blower Reward, The New York Times, August 21, 2012

Read Eiben’s Petition to the SEC (PDF)

MoxyVote (PDF)

Read the SEC complaint in its case against Rex Venture Group (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Merrill Lynch Agrees to Pay $40M Proposed Deferred Compensation Class Action Settlement to Ex-Brokers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2012

Majority of Non-Traded REITs Underperform Compared to Benchmarks, Reports New Study, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 25, 2012

Ex-Fannie Mae Executives Have to Defend Against SEC Lawsuit Over Their Alleged Involvement in Understating Mortgage Company’s Exposure Risk, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 25, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Securities Roundup: Court Says Investors’ American Funds Securities Litigation Claims Were Timely, Nasdaq Proposes $62M Fund to Repay Facebook IPO Participants, Indictment Made in Alleged Muni Bond Rigging Plot, & Investment Advisers Could Pay User Fees

Published on: July 31, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, a lower court was in error when it dismissed on the grounds of timeliness investors’ putative securities fraud class action lawsuit accusing the American Funds mutual fund family of charging marketing and management fees that were too high and giving brokers improper kickbacks. Now, the plaintiffs have the opportunity to amend their case to remedy scienter pleading-related deficiencies.

The district court had found the investors’ securities claims untimely because it said that the defendants provided evidence establishing that the media and regulatory agencies had already looked at the alleged financial scam in question at least three years before the plaintiffs filed their securities complaint. The appeals court, however, said none of the sources (from 2003 and 2004) that had implied that the defendants acted with the intent to deceive could have caused a plaintiff that was “reasonably diligent” to discover this intention (if it even existed). Because of this, the 9th circuit said that the two-year statute of limitations didn’t start running more than two years before the complaint was filed, which means that the lower court made a mistake when it said the case was time-barred.

In an unrelated securities fraud case, this one involving criminal charges, federal officials indicted ex-financial services executive Phillip Murphy over an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the bidding process for multiple finance contracts, including those involving municipal bonds. He is charged with one count of wire fraud, two counts of conspiracy, and one can of conspiring to falsify bank records.

House Financial Services Committee Hears Arguments Over Who Should Oversee Investment Advisers

Published on: June 9, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Last week, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing about the Investment Adviser Oversight Act of 2012, a bill introduced by the committee’s chairman, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.). The two lawmakers had come up with (HR 4624) because they believe that the US Securities and Exchange Commission, which has been supervising investment advisers, doesn’t have the resources to do this job effectively.

While there has long been discussion over this issue, the 2008 financial crisis and the discovery of Bernard Madoff’s multibillion-dollar Ponzi scam, which had been going on for years, served to some as evidence that the SEC wasn’t doing a thorough enough job of detecting financial fraud. Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a study acknowledging that its resources were limited. It too recommended that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or a new SRO be given the responsibility of overseeing investment advisers. Or, if it were to continue this oversight, then the Commission suggested that it work with an enhanced oversight program paid for with user fees.

While all sides involved in the debate are in agreement that registered investment advisers are not being examined on a regular basis, they can’t seem agree on how to make additional exams happen or on who should facilitate them. Unlike broker-dealers, investment advisers don’t have a self-policing group. They are usually examined by the states or the US.

Private Fund Advisers Have Fiduciary Duty to Client Funds, Says SEC’s Di Florio

Published on: May 10, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Speaking before the Private Equity International Private Fund Compliance Forum, Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations Director Carlo di Florio reminded the audience that investment advisers are fiduciaries to advisory clients, including client funds. He made his comments just as the SEC is preparing to start overseeing large private equity firm advisors. Di Florio was careful to emphasize that the views he was sharing were his own.

Per the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, private equity fund advisors must now register with the SEC. In the wake of this requirement, there are now nearly 4,000 investment advisers registered with the SEC. These private fund advisers offer advise on nearly 31,000 private funds with $8 trillion in assets.

Di Florio talked about how it was the responsibility of advisors of private equity firms to fairly allocate their expenses and fees. He said must pinpoint any conflicts related to the structure and kinds of investments that their funds usually make and ensure that these conflicts are correctly “mitigated and disclosed.” Regarding the need for pooled investment vehicle advisors to make sure that material facts are disclosed to current and potential investors, he said that to do otherwise could constitute securities fraud.