A Compilation of Enforcement and Non-Enforcement Actions

by Foley & Lardner LLP
Contact

Non-Enforcement

  • Cost of Proposed User Fees by Registered Investment Advisers Further Discussed
  • SEC Valuation Guidance for All Funds
  • Update on Insider Trading in Mutual Fund Shares

Enforcement

  • Failure to Disclose Conflict of Interest to Clients Results in SEC Enforcement Proceeding Against Registered Investment Adviser
  • Adviser’s Non Compliance With SEC Subpoena Settled by Court

Non-Enforcement

Cost of Proposed User Fees by Registered Investment Advisers Further Discussed

As most of our readers are aware, there has been a proposal advocated by various parties, including certain members of Congress, that a funding source to pay for the increase of SEC examinations over registered investment advisers be provided by imposing user fees on registered advisers. You probably wonder, if such proposals are placed into law, what the typical adviser would have to pay for its portion of the user fees.

According to a recent study authorized by Congress, the typical SEC examination of an investment adviser costs about $27,000 and the estimated annual cost for registered advisers for the user-fee funded examinations would be about $310 million. However, it is estimated that a majority of the 32,000 registered advisers may not have to pay any user fee due to the manner in which user-fees would be levied per registrant. It is assumed that the SEC would levy an annual user fee on those advisers with a higher than average amount of assets under management.

The study helps to put some numbers behind the costs of the increased number of examinations and possible user fee costs for the registrants. More information about the consultant’s study results may be found online.


SEC Valuation Guidance for All Funds

Tucked away in the SEC adopting release for the new money market rules is valuation guidance for all registered investment companies and business development companies (referred to herein as “funds”).

Use of Amortized Cost Valuation

Key Take Away: When a fund uses amortized cost valuation, the guidance requires the fund to actively monitor both market and issuer-specific developments that may indicate that the market-based fair value of a portfolio security has changed, resulting in the use of amortized cost valuation no longer being appropriate.

The SEC generally believes that a fund may only use the amortized cost method to value a portfolio security with a remaining maturity of 60 days or less when it can reasonably conclude, at each time it makes a valuation determination, that the amortized cost value of the portfolio security is approximately the same as the fair value of the security as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Existing credit, liquidity, or interest rate conditions in the relevant markets and issuer specific circumstances at each such time should be taken into account in making such an evaluation.

Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for a fund to use amortized cost to value a debt security with a remaining maturity of 60 days or less and thereafter not continue to review whether amortized cost continues to be approximately fair value until, for example, there is a significant change in interest rates or credit deterioration. Instead, the SEC believes the fund should evaluate the amortized cost each time it calculates its net asset value or otherwise values its portfolio securities.

A fund’s policies and procedures should be designed to ensure that the fund’s adviser is actively monitoring both market and issuer-specific developments that may indicate that the market-based fair value of a portfolio security has changed, and therefore the use of amortized cost valuation for that security may no longer be appropriate.

Other Valuation Matters

Key Take Away: When a fund holds securities that do not have readily available market quotations because they are not actively traded in the secondary markets, such securities are generally valued based upon “mark-to-model” or “matrix pricing” estimates.

In matrix pricing, portfolio asset values are derived from a range of different inputs, with varying weights attached to each input, such as pricing of new issues, yield curve information, spread information, and yields or prices of securities of comparable quality, coupon, maturity, and type. A fund might also consider evaluated prices from third-party pricing services, which may take into account these inputs as well as prices quoted from dealers that make markets in these instruments and financial models.

Fair Value for Thinly Traded Securities

Key Take Away: This portion of the guidance makes it clear that thinly traded securities need to be fair valued by taking into account market conditions existing at the time of valuation because the fair value of a security is the amount that a fund might reasonably expect to receive for the security upon its current sale. So, for example, a fund holding debt securities generally should not fair value these securities at par or amortized cost based on the expectation that the fund will hold those securities until maturity, if the fund could not reasonably expect to receive approximately that value upon the current sale of those securities under current market conditions.

The SEC acknowledged that matrix pricing and similar pricing methods involve estimates and judgments, which might introduce some “noise” into portfolio security prices, and therefore into a fund’s NAV per share when rounded to one basis point. However, the SEC continues to believe that market-based prices of portfolio securities provide meaningful information, and does not believe that amortized cost generally provides better or more accurate values of securities that do not frequently trade or that may or may not be held to maturity given a fund’s statutory obligation to investors to satisfy redemptions within seven days (and a fund’s disclosure commitment to generally satisfy redemptions much sooner).

The SEC has concerns about the use of the amortized cost method in valuing portfolio securities because its use may result in overvaluation or undervaluation in comparison to the actual markets. For this reason, there is a preference embodied in the Investment Company Act that funds value portfolio securities taking into account current market information. This ties to fair value for thinly traded securities because as a general principle, the fair value of a security is the amount that a fund might reasonably expect to receive for the security upon its current sale. So, fair value by its very nature requires taking into account market conditions existing at that time.

Use of Pricing Services

Key Take Away: This part of the guidance makes it clear that a board of directors needs to take special care when it approves the use of a pricing service because the board has a non-delegable responsibility to determine whether an evaluated price provided by a pricing service, or some other price, constitutes a fair value. So, in approving a pricing service, a board should consider, among other things, the following:

  • The inputs, methods, models, and assumptions used by the pricing service to determine its evaluated prices.
  • How the inputs, methods, models, and assumptions used by the pricing service are affected (if at all) as market conditions change.
  • The quality of the evaluated prices provided by the pricing service.
  • The extent to which the pricing service determines its evaluated prices as close as possible to the time as of which the fund calculates its net asset value.
  • Whether the board has a good faith basis for believing that the pricing service’s pricing methodologies produce evaluated prices that reflect what the fund could reasonably expect to obtain for the securities in a current sale under current market conditions.

As noted above, many funds use evaluated prices provided by third-party pricing services to assist them in determining the fair values of their portfolio securities. With regard to such pricing services, the SEC noted that the evaluated prices provided by pricing services are not, by themselves, readily available market quotations or fair values. So, reliance on a pricing service must be done with care.

Care must be taken because a fund’s board of directors has a non-delegable responsibility to determine whether an evaluated price provided by a pricing service, or some other price, constitutes a fair value for a fund’s portfolio security. In this regard, directors are required to satisfy themselves that all appropriate factors relevant to the value of securities for which market quotations are not readily available have been considered, and to continuously review the appropriateness of the method used in valuing each issue of security in a fund’s portfolio.


Update on Insider Trading in Mutual Fund Shares

As we reported in 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit left open the possibility that insider trading prohibitions may apply to trading in mutual fund shares, and remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the insider’s alleged conduct properly fit under the misappropriation theory of insider trading. Now the district court has weighed in and declined to extend the misappropriation theory to the insider trading claim in the case because the theory was never raised with the court. (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bauer, U.S. District Court, E.D. Wisconsin, Aug. 29, 2014) This result should allow mutual fund chief compliance officers to breathe a little sigh of relief.

The court noted in dismissing the allegations and counts that there is no authority to extend the misappropriation theory to a corporate insider trading mutual fund shares, and that it was not aware of any authority extending the misappropriation theory to a situation where the insider was a corporate insider at all times. Expressing further doubt about the application of insider trading theories to mutual funds, the court stated that no court has addressed whether insider trading theories apply to mutual fund redemptions, and that the SEC has never brought a claim under Section 10(b) in the mutual fund context.

Key Take Away: The SEC remains focused on insider trading.

While the SEC may not be inclined to bring another insider trading case related to trading in mutual fund shares in the near future, the SEC will not hesitate to bring an insider trading case related to trades by insiders related to portfolio securities. So, be extra vigilant in developing and adhering to insider trading policies.

Items like a fund freezing redemptions and selling off portfolio securities at discounted prices to generate cash are most likely material to investors, and care should be taken to disclose such material information to shareholders on a timely basis.

Enforcement

Failure to Disclose Conflict of Interest to Clients Results in SEC Enforcement Proceeding Against Registered Investment Adviser

The SEC has made it abundantly clear to registered investment advisers that failure to disclose conflicts of interest to clients will continue to be a basis for SEC enforcement action. A recent example is In the Matter of the Robare Group, Ltd., Mark L. Robare, and Jack L. Jones Jr. (Investment Advisers Act Release No 3907, Sept. 2, 2014). In this enforcement matter, the SEC alleges that the investment adviser failed to inform clients during the period of 2005 through 2011, that it was receiving compensation from a broker-dealer for client assets that were invested in certain mutual funds sponsored by the broker-dealer.

The Robare Group, Ltd., located in Houston, Texas reportedly has about 350 separately managed client accounts with about $150 million of assets under management. The advisory firm primarily services retail clients and utilizes the broker-dealer for, among other things, executive and custody services for its clients. A significant amount of client assets that are invested in mutual funds are invested, via discretionary authority by the adviser, in funds offered on the broker-dealer’s platform.

The SEC, in the complaint, alleges that the adviser and two of its limited partners, Messrs. Robare and Jones, violated the “anti-fraud” provisions under Sections 206(1) and (2) and 207 of the Advisers Act in failing to disclose the conflict of interests to the adviser’s clients. The SEC is asking the court to order the respondents to cease and desist from further violations of the anti-fraud provisions under the Advisers Act.


Adviser’s Non Compliance With SEC Subpoena Settled by Court

The SEC’s subpoena powers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 were recently affirmed by a court over the objections of the owner and operator of a SEC registered investment advisory firm (see SEC v. Stilwell, 2014 BL252718, S.D.N.Y., 1:14-mc-257 (ALC), 9/11/14).

The owner and operator of the advisory firm objected to the issuance of the SEC’s subpoena which required his testimony about, among other things, allegedly false statements made by his firm in connection with certain investment funds under its management. Because a member of the SEC’s staff told the owner that the SEC would be initiating enforcement proceedings in the matter, the owner objected to the subpoena because the SEC did not need his testimony and the subpoena served no “legitimate investigatory purpose.”

The SEC argued to the court that it had reached only “tentative conclusions” whether or not to proceed with enforcement proceedings against the advisory firm and needed additional evidence via the owner’s testimony to make a “final” enforcement decision. The court agreed with the SEC and ruled that the SEC showed that its subpoena was not issued for wrongful purposes. According to the court, the owner failed to refute the presumption that the subpoena was issued for appropriate purposes.

Although the SEC’s subpoena authority generally is unquestioned, it is likely, as a result of this matter where a U.S. court was required to weigh in on the SEC’s subpoena authority, there will be a directive sent out by the SEC to staff, to keep their comments to themselves as to whether enforcement proceedings will be brought prior to the completion of the SEC’s investigation and gathering of evidence.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Foley & Lardner LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Foley & Lardner LLP
Contact
more
less

Foley & Lardner LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.