The SEC recently finalized a new rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to govern advertisements by registered investment advisers and payments to solicitors. The amendments create a single marketing rule that (i) revises the definition of an “advertisement,” (ii) sets forth seven general principles governing the use of
Asserting Reliance on Compliance Consultants as a Defense: Admissibility and Effectiveness
Asset managers commonly engage regulatory compliance consultants to aid them in addressing regulatory requirements and implementing compliance programs. The work of those compliance professionals can be drawn into SEC enforcement actions in various contexts. See, e.g., ZPR Investment Mgmt. Inc. v. SEC (compliance consultant resigned when advice not followed and testified in proceeding). One such context is when a fund manager asserts reliance on advice of the compliance consultant as a defense to fraud charges. Earlier this year, a district court opinion addressed that very issue. Although the opinion received little attention, it could have major implications if its analysis is broadly adopted.
DC Circuit Opinion Reaffirms Fiduciary and Disclosure Obligations of Advisers While Rejecting SEC Finding of “Willful” Violations
The DC Circuit recently released an opinion addressing the SEC’s administrative findings against registered investment adviser The Robare Group (TRG) for failure to disclose alleged conflicts of interest. Although the court affirmed the SEC’s finding of a violation of Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act, it held that Commission could not find willful violations under Section 207 based on the same negligent conduct.
The court’s analysis of 206(2) of the Advisers Act, the key negligence-based antifraud provision for investment advisers, is instructive. The court affirmed that, as a fiduciary to its clients, the adviser was required to make full and fair disclosure of all material facts, including conflicts of interest.