1 / 17

Regulatory Update

Regulatory Update. Todd Cipperman, Esq. Cipperman & Company Philadelphia Compliance Roundtable December 2, 2008. Overview. Core Initial Request List SEC Exams and Priorities Personal Liability Conflicts of Interest Marketing and Solicitation Customer Data Trading Valuation

Download Presentation

Regulatory Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Regulatory Update Todd Cipperman, Esq. Cipperman & Company Philadelphia Compliance Roundtable December 2, 2008

  2. Overview • Core Initial Request List • SEC Exams and Priorities • Personal Liability • Conflicts of Interest • Marketing and Solicitation • Customer Data • Trading • Valuation • Operations and Technology • ERISA Developments • Funds and ETFs • Financial Crisis 2008 • Jurisdictional Issues

  3. Core Initial Request List (OCIE) • First comprehensive (and official) effort to define what is required by 206(4)-7 • Holistic approach to understanding business and compliance program • Risk assessments, testing results, remedies (work paper focus) • General: sub-advisory agreements, powers of attorney, JVs, service providers, threatened litigation • Compliance Program: tests, risk inventory, internal audit plan, supervision, valuation, customer information • Testing: trade blotter, client data, brokerage, soft dollars, trade allocation, code of ethics • Specific areas: performance, marketing, solicitors, financial records, custody, AML • More information if sponsoring funds, participating in wrap, brokerage • Cf: NYRO Examination Request List • Focus on personal responsibility • Required certain data presentation • Work papers including risk assessment • Very comprehensive: due diligence/audit

  4. SEC Exams & Priorities • Compliance Alert (OCIE, July 2008): Code of Ethics, oversight of third party proxy voting, illiquid securities holdings, soft dollar credits, free lunch seminars • Joint exams of dual registrants (Richards speech) • Expand books/records rule (Donohue speech) • All correspondence • re: clients, advice, performance, compliance, commissions, audits • to/from clients, regulators, marketers, BDs • Searchable electronic records for trading data, client lists, COE violations • Joint regulatory action on spreading false rumors • Reviewing personal e-mail accounts and IMs • Internal reviews and investigations

  5. Personal Liability • Personal liability under 206(4)-7. See In re CapitalWorks: • First (only) case under 206(4)-7 • Correnti headed Marketing and Compliance • RFP responses said that CapitalWorks never had a deficiency • SEC warned the firm to implement P/P • Firm violated 206(4)-7 • Correnti personally liable as CCO for aiding/abetting violations of 206(4)-7 • Merely having P/P not sufficient. See In re Martinez: CCO did not execute insider trading policies. • Aiding/Abetting. See In re Trautman Wasserman: BD CCO sanctioned for aiding and abetting market timing • CCO helped create multiple dummy accounts • Another example of CCO undertaking several roles • Defenses. See In re Murray: CCO can’t use “following orders” defense • Don’t need to know that acts were illegal, although high standard for CCOs • But cf In re Monson: In-house lawyer not liable for drafting late trading agreement • Responsible for drafting contracts, not regulatory compliance • General practice background, not securities • Standard of Care for CCOs (Thomsen speech): • “egregious misconduct usually involving knowing and intentional inaction” • “sustained attention”; good faith effort • Policies and procedures not enough

  6. Conflicts of Interest • Receipt of Compensation • Failure to disclose compensation received from recommended products (SEC v. Wealthwise) • Solicitation rule not applicable (See Goldstein) • Payments from a fund administrator (In re AmSouth) • Code of Ethics. See SEC v. Donovan et. al.: Front-running by mutual fund trader in mother’s account • N.B.: firm avoided liability • Portfolio Pumping. See In re Medcap: Using offshore fund to pump securities held by affiliated hedge fund • Cherry-picking. See SEC v. Dawson: Hedge fund manager’s personal account bettered hedge fund account • Recommendations. See In re Banc of America Investment Services: Wrap sponsor recommended underperforming proprietary funds

  7. Marketing and Solicitation • Past specific recommendations (TCW NAL) • 5 most positive and negative contributors • Weighted performance • Mathematical tool • Unregistered fund mangers need not comply with solicitation rule (Mayer Brown NAL) • Anti-fraud rules? • Intermediaries need not review mutual fund sales literature (FINRA proposal) • Obtain FINRA review letter • No changes to material • SEC publishes PAUSE list of unregistered solicitors • Subject of investor complaints • 2 days to respond

  8. Customer Data • Selling customer data to insurance agents as sales leads (SEC v. Mondschein) • BD referral arrangements • Conflict of interest not disclosed • Rep transition programs (In re Next Financial) • Pre-populating customer database • Whose client is it, anyway?

  9. Trading • Best execution analysis must consider alternative trading venues such as algos and dark pools (Donohue speech) • Transparency, cost • Unbundling • Fund directors must consider best execution (SEC proposal) • Part of 15(c) review • Consider BDs used, allocation, commissions, venues, soft dollars, sub-adviser trading • In re Morgan Stanley: Trading system failed to ensure best execution • Embedded mark-ups/downs • Delayed settlement • In-house system replaced commercial applications • No compliance review of in-house system • In re Folger Nolan: Use of BD affiliate to execute trades without demonstrating best execution • 2006 Soft Dollar Interpretive Release • Narrowed scope to advice, analysis, reports • Computer hardware out • Clear allocation of mixed use items • Defines “effecting a trade”

  10. Valuation • FASB staff guidance on 157 • Inactive market: widening of bid/ask spreads, decrease in trading volume, stale prices, wide price variations • May use unobservable inputs (e.g. management assumptions about discount rates, cash flows, etc.) • Mutual fund manager should not have relied on pricing service where he knew muni bonds were over-valued (In re Hearland Advisors) • Responsibility for valuation • In re McCurdy: concurring audit partner knew financials were incorrect • In re Seghers: delivering inflated valuations to administrator • Private Equity Firm BDC did not value portfolio companies as required by ASR 118 (In re Allied Capital) • Valuation committee was not independent • No books and records • IOSCO valuation principles: documentation, consistency, independent review, vendor due diligence, transparency

  11. Operations and Technology • Inflating assets and performance to database services used by consultants (In re Warwick Capital) • ADV had much lower asset figures • Full SEC added more charges after appeal • Where was the data scrubbing? • Disabling trading software to allow short sales (SEC v. Beardsley) • Violations of uptick rule • Driving down price of thinly-traded stock to cover shorts • Collusion with pricing service (SEC v. Lee et. al.) • Hacker cost clients following internal audit report warned of deficiencies (In re LPL) • Portfolio Manager bypassed internal compliance re: SRI investing (In re Pax World Management) • E-Mail Administrator bought target company stock ahead of tender offer (SEC v. Suman) • Using Fund/SERV to late trade for hedge fund clients (In re Byck et. Al.)

  12. ERISA Developments • New proxy voting guidelines (DoL Interpretive Bulletin) • “economic value of the plan’s investment” • no legislative, regulatory, or public policy issues • Fund managers can require benefit plans to adopt fund’s proxy voting guidelines (sub-docs) • Cross-trading permitted • Policies/procedures to ensure fair and equitable allocations • 17a-7 pricing

  13. Funds and ETFs • Exemptive order allows ETF of ETFs (iShares Trust) • New ETF rule allowing plain vanilla ETFs without exemptive relief • Seventh Circuit rejects Gartenberg standard in 15(c) review (Jones v. Harris Associates) • Boards should rely on the competitive marketplace more than their own assessment of reasonableness of fees • Cox attacks 12b-1 fees (Cox speech) • Call distribution fees “loads” or “sales charges” • Who will compensate distribution? Back to front-end loads? • New summary prospectus for mutual funds by 2010 (SEC rule) • Full prospectus on line and available for delivery • SEC reviewing web sites (Donohue speech) • Consistency with regulatory filings • Financial statements, fund holdings • XBRL and the Mutual Fund Reader

  14. Financial Crisis 2008 • Schapiro calls for systemic regulation • Similar to banking and insurance • The Paulson plan • Regulate unregulated markets (e.g. CDS) • Product agnostic • Merging of SEC and CFTC, etc. • Short-selling ban • Is short selling bad? (SEC: efficient price discovery, mitigating bubbles, liquidity, hedging, limiting upward manipulation) • Reporting of short positions • Public information subject to FOIA requests?

  15. Jurisdictional Issues • SEC jurisdiction extends to non-US plaintiffs and non-US defendants (Morrison v. National Australia Bank) • US conduct material to fraud’s success and forms a substantial component of the scheme • Anti-fraud rule applicable to unregistered advisers • States seeking consequential damages in ARS cases • Unable to access funds • Not just rescission • New York State announces intent to regulate CDS as insurance

  16. Final (Discomforting) Thoughts • SEC exams have become increasingly comprehensive and forensic; everything is a “priority” • Regulation through enforcement action • Focus on personal liability • Conflicts of interest may not necessarily be cured with disclosure • State regulators very active • Lacking clear guidance on valuation • Technology-savvy bad actors have increased systemic risk • Distribution and disclosure uncertain • Complete regulatory overhaul • New sheriffs in town in 2009

  17. Cipperman & Company is a unique law firm devoted exclusively to the investment management industry. Our lawyers have spent their careers in the investment management industry, including significant experience at major industry players. Our shared heritage and experience make our lawyers unique and creative industry partners who can give you practical, real-world advice for making informed business decisions and controlling your legal risk. We have worked on a wide range of transactional and regulatory matters, but we concentrate on four core areas – Compliance, Distribution, Fund Formation, and Technology: Compliance: Policies/Procedures, Compliance Manuals for RIAs, BDs, and Funds, Annual Reviews, Regulatory Exams, Testing Distribution: Broker-Dealer Regulatory Matters, Dealer, Solicitation, and Referral Agreements, Asset-Gathering Strategies and Structures, Wrap Programs, Marketing Materials Fund Formation: Hedge Funds, Fund-of-Funds, Institutional Products, ETFs, Variable Insurance Products, Cash Sweep Vehicles Technology: Licensors and Licensees, Installed and ASP, Portfolio Management Systems, Trading Utilities and Platforms, Compliance Tools 150 S. Warner Road, Suite 140, King of Prussia, PA 19406, 610.687.5320, tcipperman@cipperman.com, www.cipperman.com

More Related