Robert E. Plaze

Subscribe to Robert E. Plaze's Posts
Contact:Read more about Robert E. Plaze

Though SEC scrutiny of performance results in fund marketing materials is nothing new, a recent settlement order suggests that the Commission continues to closely examine representations in marketing materials with respect to past investment performance.

Old Ironsides Energy, LLC, a Boston-based registered investment adviser, agreed to pay a $1 million penalty to settle SEC charges alleging a material misstatement in its fund marketing materials. In particular, the adviser’s marketing materials allegedly “identified a large, legacy investment with strong, positive returns as an early stage direct drilling investment” (“DDI”) over which the adviser “had direct management in partnership with project operators, when it was actually an investment in a private fund advised by a third party.”

Last month the SEC brought an enforcement action illustrating how cross trades can trip up a manager of a private fund.  The SEC’s settlement with investment manager Lone Star Value Management LLC was based on allegations that the manager carried out a series of cross trades among funds it managed without disclosing to the client in writing that it was acting as a principal and obtaining the client’s consent. In addition to Lone Star, the SEC also sanctioned its founder, sole managing member, CEO, and portfolio manager for violations of Section 206(3) under the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder relating to principal transactions.

On January 13, 2020, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari to an appeal of a June 2019 order from the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that dismissed an action seeking to invalidate certain under the First Amendment, among other arguments. This denial leaves in place a ruling in favor of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) authority to prohibit pay-to-play practices in the investment management industry.

Under rule 206(4)-2 of the Advisers Act, otherwise known as the Custody Rule, it is a fraudulent practice for a registered investment adviser to have custody of client funds or securities, unless the adviser takes certain required steps to protect the assets.  Over the past year the SEC’s Enforcement division has been relatively active investigating and enforcing the rule – which, at most, requires a showing of negligence – with a number of complicated provisions that can trip up the uninformed.

Recently, the SEC brought enforcement actions that highlight two key areas under the Custody Rule that can result in liability. First, in addition to maintaining client funds and securities with a “qualified custodian,” advisers with custody of the funds and securities must obtain either (i) a “surprise examination” of those assets annually from an independent public accountant or (ii)  an annual audit of its financial statements by an independent public accounting firm that is registered with (and is subject to regular inspection by) the PCAOB and distribute the financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP to each investor in the fund within 120 days of the fund’s fiscal year end (180 days for fund of funds).  Most registered private fund advisers rely on the annual audit approach.

On July 3, 2019, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton issued a “Statement Regarding Offers of Settlement” (the “Statement”), announcing important changes to how the SEC will consider future requests for waivers from disqualifications in settlements.  The Statement may have been prompted by the Bad Actor Disqualification Act of 2019 recently proposed by Representative Maxine Waters.  Regardless of the impetus, the Statement should provide settling parties with greater certainty regarding the waiver process.  Importantly, the new policy effectively allows a settling party to condition its offer of settlement on whether the SEC grants a requested waiver – if the waiver is not granted, the respondent now is able to retract its offer of settlement. 

Fund managers take note – after over a year of warning, this month the SEC announced a pair of settlement orders with respect to registration requirements for a fund and broker dealer operating in the crypto and digital assets space. It was the agency’s first ever enforcement actions applying the investment company and broker-dealer registration provisions of the securities laws to businesses involved in digital securities. As we’ve written on Proskauer’s Blockchain and the Law blog, we expect to see the SEC continue to expand its oversight of digital assets as securities.

On April 12, 2018, the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations issued a risk alert listing the most common compliance issues concerning fees and expenses charged by SEC-registered investment advisers.  Advisers should review their practices, policies and procedures to ensure compliance with their advisory agreements and representations to clients…

If a team from the SEC arrives at your office and says, “We are conducting an on-site examination and would like to talk to the CCO right now,” are you prepared? A handful of registered investment advisers have faced surprise SEC exams in recent months. These exams come in two flavors: either a “for cause” exam arising from SEC staff concerns relating to a specific ongoing issue, or a standard exam that for some reason has a surprise component.

There are several logistical items that a fund manager might consider before the SEC shows up unannounced in the lobby, regardless of the substance of the SEC’s inquiry. Thinking and planning ahead can minimize unnecessary stress and confusion in the moment. Fund managers should consider the following questions:

The SEC staff recently published an alert highlighting the most common deficiencies seen in investment advisers’ marketing materials.  Based on its recent examinations and initiatives, the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) issued its risk alert to highlight compliance issues relating to Rule 206(4)-1 (the “Advertising Rule”).  Here…

According to recent news reports, the DOJ and the SEC are investigating the possible improper use of third-party broker quotes by hedge fund managers to value illiquid debt securities in their portfolios. Prosecutors are reportedly focused on possible instances where fund managers allegedly solicited predetermined or improper quotes from brokers, and used those estimates to inflate their own valuations of thinly-traded mortgage bonds.

In addition, the co-head of the SEC’s Asset Management Unit recently highlighted that unit’s focus on valuation, particularly where registered advisers failed to follow their own internal procedures when valuing illiquid positions. The SEC’s focus is further demonstrated by a recent action against a fund manager for improperly valuing municipal bonds inconsistently with GAAP.