CAN A FINANCIAL ADVISER BE SUED BY A NON-CLIENT FOR NEGLIGENCE?

The answer to that question is “probably.” At least in Missouri, New York, and Iowa.

            Missouri courts apply a balancing test when determining if a “non-client” intended beneficiary of professional services can sue for negligence despite a lack of privity. The leading case in Missouri, at least as to accountants, is Aluma Kraft Manufacturing Co. V. Elmer, 493 S.W.2d 378(1973). The Aluma court stated: 

“The determination of whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of several factors: (1) the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff; (2) the foreseeability of harm to him; (3) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury; and (4) the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered. Westerhold, supra, 419 S.W.2d at 81. We believe that these policy factors are satisfied with this case.” 

Aluma at 383. The court relied in part upon a New York accountant case, quoting the infamous Justice Cardozo.

The same principles of non-privity professional liability have been applied to attorneys in Missouri. See Donahue v. Shugart, 900 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. 1995). In Donahue the intended beneficiaries of a decedent’s trust that was declared invalid brought a legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claim against the decedent’s attorneys. Id. At 626. Prior to the decedent’s death he directed Stamper, his attorney, to ensure that a specified sum of monies from his trust account be paid to Mary Donahue and Sundy McClung upon his death. Id. at 625. Donahue and McClung were not beneficiaries of Stockton’s trust. Id. Stockton also directed Stamper to prepare a deed to his home transferring a fifty percent interest in the home to Mary Donahue, effective on Stockton’s death. Id. Upon learning that Stockton’s death was imminent, Stamper sought advice from others in his law firm on how to make the checks and deed effective in accordance with Stockton’s wishes. Id.

Stamper attempted to effectuate the transfers, but they were later declared to be invalid by the Missouri Court of Appeals. Donahue, 900 S.W.2d at 625. The Court determined that the plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim was properly dismissed as being “dependent on the existence of attorney negligence, not on the breach of trust” because the conduct complained of was merely negligence in the performance of legal services. Id. at 630. 

But the Donahue court stated that the “Determination of whether attorney owed legal duty to non-clients so as to be liable to non-clients in legal malpractice action is determined by weighing factors in balancing test, including: existence of specific intent by client that purpose of attorney’s services were to benefit plaintiffs, foreseeability of harm to plaintiffs as result of attorney’s negligence, degree of certainty that plaintiffs will suffer injury from attorney misconduct, closeness of connection between attorney’s conduct and injury, policy of preventing future harm, and burden on profession of recognizing liability under circumstances. Pleadings were sufficient to establish that attorneys owed duty to non-clients who were intended recipients of client’s gifts causa mortis.”

Finally, the Supreme Court of Iowa applied these same basic principles to an insurance agent to allow a non-client to proceed against the agent. There is no reason to believe that the courts would not apply the same public policy to financial advisers and the intended beneficiaries of their services. Food for thought.

Get Your Own Lawyer, Darn It!

Financial advisors facing an arbitration claim or regulatory inquiry often count on their broker-dealer or registered investment advisor for legal counsel. These “employers” will frequently provide them with an ostensibly independent “conflict counsel” after they retain their own counsel. Unfortunately, however, it is arguably little more than a charade when the “independent” attorney either has, or one day hopes to represent the broker-dealer or registered investment advisor.

Consider viewing the situation in the context of an attorney's ethical duty of loyalty, her fiduciary duty to put the client's interests first, and her obligation to avoid even the appearance of failing to do so. If you (the attorney) have been hired and paid by a large client that you covet to represent an individual financial advisor that you will never see again, would you not be hesitant to suggest the financial advisor save herself – even if it injures the interests of the large corporate client? Would you really warn the advisor if you caught wind of the broker-dealer's or registered investment advisor's intention to throw him or her under the bus, or even put their interests before your client's in just a small way? And these are not mere hypotheticals. I have seen these situations, and even been caught up in them.

Loyalty and independent judgment are essential elements in the lawyer's relationship to a client. Concurrent conflicts of interest can arise from the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person or from the lawyer's own interests. For specific Rules regarding certain concurrent conflicts of interest, see Rule 4-1.8. For former client conflicts of interest, see Rule 4-1.9. For conflicts of interest involving prospective clients, see Rule 4-1.18¹.

Many years ago, I was in a fairly “steady relationship” with a large broker-dealer. But my firm was more like a second fiddle to a larger law firm they had used for years. Upon the advent of a large regulatory action, the broker-dealer hired me to represent some of their former advisors and executives. I became uncomfortable with this arrangement when it became apparent to me that many of my clients had a strong defense to the allegations, in that the broker-dealer was in large part responsible for my clients' alleged omissions. But before that day of reckoning arrived, something happened. The broker-dealer's primary attorney decided to file what appeared to me to be a frivolous motion that would not be in the best interests of my individual clients. I informed the primary attorney that my clients would not be joining the motion as he had directed. I received a major ass-chewing from him, and an order to get in line. Long story short is that I did not comply with that demand, and the broker-dealer got sanctioned for the motion. My individual clients were relieved, and ultimately dismissed from the case for zero fines or sanctions. But the broker-dealer never hired me again.

In another case, a financial advisor hired me to file a breach of fiduciary duty action against his former broker-dealer's attorney. That attorney initially represented both the broker-dealer and the advisor during a regulatory investigation. That same attorney then proceeded to play an instrumental role in throwing that financial advisor under the bus. When the dust had settled, no pun intended, the broker-dealer and attorney paid almost $4,000,000 to my client for their respective roles in the subsequent U-5 defamation and breach of fiduciary duty.

Finally, in a more recent situation, the attorneys for a broker-dealer's employee never even broached the subject of a resolution between my client and her individual client. Her firm covets their relationship with the broker-dealer far more than I had even dared to imagine. Things went south fast in our previously cordial relationship when I had the audacity to raise the “appearance” issue with her. Nothing changed in terms of proper legal representation, other than the tenor of the relationship.

The moral of these stories is this: if you are in hot water together with your employer, avoid the temptation of having your employer pay your legal bills and pick your lawyer for you. And if you are representing a broker-dealer and they ask you to serve as an unbiased loyal counsel for an employee or independent contractor, “just say no." Food for thought.

1 Comment to: RULE 4-1.7: CONFLICT OF INTEREST: CURRENT CLIENTS (https://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/ClerkHandbooksP2RulesOnly.nsf/c0c6ffa99df4993f86256ba50057dcb8/d06710dff1830d2686256ca600521205?OpenDocument)

David Cosgrove Interviews the Chair of NASAA'a Investment Adviser Section

Earlier this month, David Cosgrove of Cosgrove Law Group and The Investment Adviser Rep Syndicate interviewed Ms. Patricia Struck, Chair-Person of the Investment Advisor Section for the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) and the Administrator of the Division of Securities of the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions.  The interview, relevant to state and SEC registered Investment Adviser Representatives and Registered Investment Advisers is posted below. 

David Cosgrove:    Let's start with the basics - What is NASAA?

Patricia Struck:   The North American Securities Administrators Association is oldest international organization devoted to investor protection. It’s a voluntary association whose membership consists of 67 state, provincial, and territorial securities administrators in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Canada, and Mexico.

DC:                 For how long have you been the administrator of the Wisconsin Division of Securities?

PS:                   I’ve been the administrator since 1995.

DC:                 What advisers do the states regulate as opposed to the SEC?

PS:                   Generally, the states regulate “small” (with assets up to $25 million) and “mid-sized” (with assets up to $100 million) advisers.  Of the 28,366 advisers currently on IARD, more than 17,000 are state advisers. The rest of the universe – nearly 11,000 advisers – are SEC advisers.

DC:                 It is my understanding that NASAA has different "working groups". Is there a working group focused on the advisory as opposed to the broker industry?

PS:                   NASAA has “sections” divided into 5 subject matter areas; one of the five is the investment adviser section and another is the broker-dealer section. But while the sections are separate on paper, they work very closely together – especially the investment adviser and broker-dealer section.

DC:                 For how long have you been the head of NASAA's Investment Advisor Section?
           

PS:                   I just became chair of the section in October of 2013. This is my third term as chair.

DC:                 Can you give me some examples of some of the positions held by the folks in this section?  What exactly does this section seek to accomplish and how does it go about meeting those goals?

PS:             The section includes nearly 50 volunteers from across the US and Canada with vast expertise in the whole range of regulatory issues relating to investment advisers. Some are the administrators in their jurisdictions. Some are registration chiefs or lead examiners in their states. Many are examiners who perform exams in advisers’ offices. All have specific subject matter expertise in issues 

DC:                       As you know, the Investment Adviser Rep. Syndicate focuses on the training, compliance, and business goals of the representative rather than the RIA. What observations did you make in 2013 that would be of interest to advisory representatives? 

PS:             In 2013, as state securities regulators assumed the increased regulatory oversight of investment advisers managing under $100 million in assets, NASAA released an updated series of recommended best practices that investment advisers should consider to minimize the risk of regulatory violations. These recommendations were based on the sample data reported by examiners in 44 state and provincial securities agencies between January and June 2013. The 1,130 reported examinations uncovered 6,482 deficiencies in 20 compliance areas, compared to 3,543 deficiencies in 13 compliance areas identified in a similar 2011 examination of 825 investment advisers.

As regulators, we are concerned about investor confusion stemming from the blurred lines between traditional brokerage, investment advisory, and financial planning services; partially because of the expectations the brokerage industry has set, and partially because of the marketing approach the industry uses – the proverbial ‘financial adviser’ who is your partner in retirement every step of the way. As long as the broker-dealer industry continues to engage in advice driven marketing the confusion will persist. That’s one reason why state securities regulators have long advocated that broker-dealers must be held to the fiduciary duty standard of care currently applicable to investment advisers and be required to place retail investor interests ahead of their own.

DC:                       What are the section's goals for 2014? 

PS:             The section always strives to look for ways to enhance uniformity in investment adviser firm and investment adviser representative registration practices. We also will continue our ongoing efforts to support states in conducting investment adviser exams. And of course, we will review our existing “best practices” for IA firms to consider while developing their own compliance programs and evaluate whether additional practice areas are necessary.

DC:                       How is the migration of RIA's pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act going? 

PS:             The IA Switch, involving the transfer of more than 2,100 investment advisers from federal to state oversight, was one of the most significant achievements in the history of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA).

The Switch stemmed from Section 410 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act), which raised the assets under management (AUM) threshold for state regulation of investment advisers from $25 million to $100 million. 

This report documents the work that went into the successful completion of the Switch.

http://www.nasaa.org/?s=switch+report

DC:                       If there were three things you would like to see the Syndicate accomplish what would they be?  

PS:             1. Helping IARs have a better understanding of the role of their state regulator

2. Helping to create an ongoing dialogue between the IAR and regulatory communities

3. Helping IARs appreciate investor confusion stemming from the blurred lines between traditional brokerage, investment advisory, and financial planning services – and work to cut through that confusion

DC:                       What is the one thing you would be grateful to see investment adviser representatives take away from this interview?

PS:                   I would like them to appreciate that we are their partners in putting investors first. State       securities regulators are accessible, both to investors and to the people we regulate. We work closely with     the IAR communities in our states and appreciate the value and importance of communication. We share       the same goal of providing the best level of service to investors. We’re in this together. 

TWEETING, POSTING, and FRIENDING: Social media’s two-edged sword for Investment Advisers

Regulators and compliance departments alike have been shaking their heads at the potential pitfalls of social media. How to support and allow Investment Adviser’s to use social media tools and still protect the investor from bad actors and misinterpreted posts or tweets is no easy task. The rapid fire tweets and the “share everything” mentality become permanent, potentially discoverable, records. But Investment Advisers are finding that social media provides valuable avenues never before available to share and gain information, to find new clients, and to better understand existing clientele.

This week, the Wall Street Journal had an article on this very subject. While little official guidance has been provided to Registered Investment Adviser firms on proper social media policies, reviewing the current guidelines for client communication can offer guidance to compliance and legal departments when they are requested to develop a road map for their firm and its social media policies. The potential pitfall in having a detailed policy is that once it is in black and white, it must be followed, and either an individual or a department must be charged with ensuring this—quite a task for a such a vast medium. However, given the free-range but permanent aspects of social media, RIA’s of all sizes should begin discussing and seeking legal counsel on how they will address this matter given the current regulations in place that govern client and potential client communications. The alternative--waiting for a post or a tweet to cause a problem--can be a dangerous course to take.

Additionally, many employees may appreciate the guidance and opportunity to hear and be heard on this matter as they try to use social media to the best use without exposing their record or license to unnecessary risk. Part of being in a highly regulated industry is staying ahead of the curve so that potential problems don’t become actual ones.

FINRA has provided Broker Dealers with specific guidelines regarding social media. Using these rules as a framework for RIA’s social media policies may be another helpful tool when the RIA firm is looking for a place to start the discussion on this topic.

Cosgrove Law, LLC offers consulting to RIA firms on a wide range of compliance matters.

New Form ADV Part 2 “Plain English Rule” Deadlines Fast Approaching

In July 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted changes to Form ADV, Part 2, which became effective October 12, 2010. This section is commonly referred to as the “brochure” and explains an investment adviser’s qualifications, investment strategies, and business practices to investors. Essentially, the amendment requires registered investment advisors to now make disclosures in plain English, as opposed to a fill-in-the blank and check box form. To learn more about the substantive changes of the amendment, please visit our previous securities and investment blog regarding these changes.

The Old Deadlines

When the amendments were adopted, the SEC established two separate deadlines for delivering brochure supplements for existing investment adviser registrants (“Existing Registrants”). Originally, Existing Registrants were required to provide brochure supplements to new and prospective clients upon filing their annual updating amendment to Form ADV for the fiscal year end 2010, and to existing clients within 60 days of filing the annual updating amendment. Noting that most Existing Registrants have a fiscal year end on December 31, existing registrants would be required to deliver their first brochure supplements no later than March 31 and to deliver to existing clients no later than May 31.

New investment adviser registrants (“New Registrants”) applying for registration on or after January 1, 2011 would be required to provide brochure supplements to clients upon registration.

The New Deadlines

However, based on concerns expressed about the deadlines, on December 28, 2010, the SEC extended compliance dates for portions of Form ADV, Part 2. Specifically, the compliance date for Form ADV, Part 2B and the provisions of Rule 204-3 concerning the delivery of brochure supplements is extended approximately four months. Note the extension does not apply to the annual updating amendment deadline.

For Existing Registrants with a fiscal year ending on December 31, 2010 through April 30, 2011, delivery of the brochure supplements to new and prospective clients must occur by July 31, 2011. Delivery to existing clients has been extended to September 30, 2011.

For New Registrants filing applications between January 1, 2011 and April 30, 2011, delivery to new and prospective clients must occur by May 1, 2011. New Registrants have until July 1, 2011 to deliver brochure supplements to existing clients.

Important Dates
March 31, 2011	Filing deadline for all applicants for Form ADV annual updating amendment, including the new Part 2A brochure
May 1, 2011	Delivery deadline for new registrants to deliver brochure supplements [Form ADV, Part 2B] to new and prospective clients
July 1, 2011	Delivery deadline for new registrants to deliver brochure supplements to existing clients
July 31, 2011	Delivery deadline for existing registrants to deliver brochure supplements [Form ADV, Part 2B] to new and prospective clients
Sept. 30, 2011	Delivery deadline for existing registrants to deliver brochure supplements to existing clients

The North American Securities Administrators Association has recommended that state securities authorities provide the same extension for state-registered investment advisors. However, state-registered advisers should contact the states where they are registered to confirm compliance dates. The attorneys at Cosgrove Law, LLC have experience with investment adviser registration matters, including annual and as-needed Form ADV updates and reviews. If you or your company has concerns regarding these amendments to ADV Part 2, please do not hesitate to contact us.

New Year, New Fiduciary Standard?

It has been about six months since the passing of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law—and that means the results from the many studies commissioned by the Act will begin to be released. Dodd-Frank specifically required the Securities and Exchange Commission to look into regulatory standards and oversight gaps between investment advisors and brokers. Last week, the SEC released the results of its study on Section 913 and 914 dealing with the fiduciary duty issue and stricter investment-adviser examinations, respectively.

The issue of whether to impose a uniform fiduciary standard has been met with both fierce support and opposition. Currently, advisers are held to a fiduciary standard that requires them to act in the best interest of their clients, while brokers are only required to offer suitable products to retail customers. The problem with the dual standard arises where brokers offer advice and sell investment products—blurring the lines for retail investors and making it hard to tell when they are receiving sound investment advice or just a sales pitch.

However, last Friday, the SEC handed over its staff study to Congress recommending a uniform fiduciary standard. The study, if implemented as is, would hold brokers to the same fiduciary level as investment advisers under the Advisers Act when brokers are providing personalized investment advice about securities to retail investors. Therefore, under this study, brokers would only be held to a higher fiduciary duty when acting like an investment advisor.

Justification for a uniform standard stems from the issue of retail investors being unable to distinguish between a broker and an investment advisor. According to the SEC, if consumers are receiving investment advice, regardless of the source—broker or advisor—retail consumers should be protected uniformly. Accordingly, such a standard would achieve that goal. The SEC study also states that it attempted to balance retail investors’ need for protection with their ability to have access to various investment products. Because the standard only applied to brokers when giving investment advice, the SEC takes the position that a wide array of products will continue to still be available.

Further, in an attempt to close oversight gaps and keep implementation costs “to a minimum,” the SEC study also “recommends that when broker-dealers and investment advisers are performing the same or substantially similar functions” the regulatory protections should be “harmonized”, but the study lacks specific details on how to achieve this “harmonization.”

Ultimately, however, the staff study suggests additional research and analysis into this area before any implementation. Additionally, there is no statutory deadline for any follow-up rulemaking pursuant to this study, so it seems unlikely that much will be done without further research and analysis. SEC Commissioners Kathleen Casey and Troy Paredes share this view in their Statement Regarding Study on Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers and emphasized the need for further research before any uniform fiduciary standard rulemaking begins.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: STATES WITH EXPANDED INVESTMENT ADVISER REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES LIKELY TO RECEIVE STAGNANT OR REDUCED FUNDING

This coming summer over 4,000 mid-size investment advisory firms will fall under the auspices of a new regulator: their home state. No longer will they be regulated by the SEC, which managed to conduct regulatory examinations of less than 15% of the approximately 12,000 investment advisers it regulated in 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act's shift of a segment of this nearly unregulated group was intended to improve this situation. But over one-third of the 4,100 investment advisers making the migration will have a new state regulator with either no regular examination program or with an umbilical cord to one of the worst budget crises in the nation: New York, California, Illinois and Massachusetts. And while the regulatory staffs in each of these states are among the best of the best, the situation begs for an answer better than: “we will be able to handle it.” Not only does this answer strain credulity, it seems to ignore the initial premise behind the regulatory shift and expansion of power advocated by state regulators: that they would improve investor protection by doing more and by doing it better than the SEC in the area of regulatory audits for mid-market advisers.

The current lack of a convincing and comprehensive public answer or plan by state regulators in response to the skeptics left the door open for the brokerage industry's self-regulatory organization to insert its foot. Apparently FINRA has recommended that it, or a SRO sister-to-be-created, should fill the feared void. Trade associations haven't missed the opportunity to join the turf war either, with the Financial Services Institute backing FINRA and the Investment Adviser Association siding with the state regulators. This author for one, has no interest in joining the fray and is confident that the data for a more informed evaluation and decision making process will be available in a year or two.

Assuming the states will find a way to digest the new regulatory burdens on the way, investment advisers should begin preparing for the advent of more frequent exams, audits, follow-up inquiries, remedial plans and enforcement actions. Lest I miss the opportunity for a plug – Cosgrove Law, LLC has experience assisting mid-market advisers with compliance issues, regulatory inquiries and enforcement actions.

For more information, or a different take on what I discussed in this entry, see The Wall Street Journal's January 3^rd article on the issues and NCSL.org.

SEC APPROVES AMENDMENTS TO FORM ADV, PART 2 TO ENHANCE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR INVESTMENT ADVISERS

On July 21, 2010, the SEC unanimously approved amendments to Form ADV, Part 2, the disclosure document investment advisers are required to provide to clients. ADV Part 2 is a detailed document, explaining investment advisers’ qualifications, investment strategies and business practices.

For more than 30 years, the SEC has required registered investment advisers to deliver this written disclosure statement to clients. In 2000, the SEC proposed a complete overhaul of Form ADV. However, the overhaul did not result in a change to Part 2. Accordingly, in 2008, the SEC proposed additional amendments to ADV Part 2, which they finally approved on July 21st.

SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro commented that “[i]n its current form, [ADV Part 2] requires advisers to respond to a series of multiple-choice and fill-in-the-blank questions organized in a ‘check-the-box’ format. But, the format frequently does not correspond well to an adviser's business. And, in some cases, the required disclosure may not describe the adviser's business or conflicts in a way that is truly accessible to the investor.”

The new amendments will require investment advisers to provide a narrative that is “well-suited to serve investors’ needs.” The narrative will include the investment advisers’ conflicts, compensation, business activities and disciplinary history. The amendments will further require that ADV Form 2 be available electronically through the SEC website, thereby providing investors with greater and more easily attainable access to investment adviser disclosures.

Chairman Schapiro expressed the utmost confidence in the new amendments at a recent SEC open meeting, stating that the new changes “will allow clients ready access to information about advisers of a wholly different character and quality than is available under the current regime. It will enable investors to better evaluate their current advisers, or comparison shop for a new adviser that best serves an investor's needs.” Chairman Schapiro even went so far as to predict that the new disclosure requirements “may result in advisers modifying business practices and compensation policies which might pose conflicts, in ways that better serve the interests of clients.”

The amended rules will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, and investment advisers should begin distributing and publicly posting new ADV Form 2 disclosure in early 2011.

Our attorneys have experience with investment adviser and broker state registration matters, including annual and as-need ADV updates and reviews. If you or your company has concerns about the new amendments to ADV Part 2, please do not hesitate to contact us.

A copy of the SEC press release detailing the ADV Part 2 amendments is available here.

The Uncertain Future of Mandatory Arbitration Provisions

On May 20, 2010, the U.S. Senate passed its version of the financial reform bill. The U.S. House of Representatives passed its financial reform legislation earlier this year. The two bills have varying degrees of regulation and differences on how to regulate. One such difference involves mandatory arbitration provisions included in brokerage firm and investment advisory contracts. Currently, most brokerage or investment advisory firms require customers sign a contract in order to open an account. The contract usually requires all claims arising out of or related to the contract to be submitted to arbitration. These mandatory arbitration provisions often specify the arbitral venue and the arbitration rules that will apply.

According to Senate Bill 3217, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) would be given the authority to determine the permissibility of mandatory arbitration provisions to govern the arbitrability of securities claims. The Senate specifically gives the SEC the option to reaffirm, prohibit, or impose certain conditions on the use of mandatory arbitration provision in broker-dealer and investment advisor agreements.

On the other hand, the House legislation does not give the SEC the authority to reaffirm current practices regarding mandatory arbitration. Rather, HR 4173 only permits the SEC to restrict or prohibit the use of mandatory arbitration provisions in such contracts. Therefore, without the ability to reaffirm the status quo, it would seem that mandatory arbitration provisions included in brokerage and advisory contracts would no longer restrict a defrauded investor from choosing to seek redress in a judicial forum. Further, the House legislation requires the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) to report to Congress on the costs to parties in an arbitration proceeding versus the costs to parties in litigation and the percentage of recovery in both forums. The inclusion of the GAO report is to address concerns that arbitration may not be less costly to the parties or more expedient than litigation and that arbitration may actually undermine investor interests.

The U.S. Department of Treasury in its report last June takes the most stringent approach to mandatory arbitration provisions in brokerage agreements. In its financial reform proposal, the Treasury recommends that legislation should be enacted to prohibit mandatory arbitration provisions in these contracts and that the SEC should be given “clear authority” to enforce arbitration provision violations. Like the House, the Treasury proposal also suggests that a study should be conducted to determine whether investor rights are undermined because of an inability to seek redress in court.

Historically, violations of federal securities laws were considered a non-arbitrable issue. In 1953, the U.S. Supreme Court articulated this view in Wilko v. Swan when it held that an agreement to arbitrate a claim under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 was unenforceable. 346 U.S. 427 (1953). Over 35 years later, the Supreme Court overruled its position in Wilko in Rodriguez v. Shearson/American Express, Inc. 490 U.S. 477 (1989). The Court in Rodriguez held that a predispute agreement to arbitrate claims under the Securities Act of 1933 is enforceable and resolution of the claims only in a judicial forum is not required because arbitration does not inherently undermine a person’s substantive rights under federal securities laws. Id. at 485-86. It is important to note that since the decision in Wilko, arbitration had become more common and the Federal Arbitration Act had been significantly amended strengthening judicial and legislative favor toward the use of arbitration to settle disputes, which further justified the Supreme Court’s overruling. Id. However, the Supreme Court has also held that a predispute arbitration agreement that effectively deprives a claimant of statutory remedies violates public policy and is unenforceable, thus limiting the scope of Rodriguez. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 637, n. 19 (1985).

Supreme Court Decides Mutual Fund Fees Case, Rejects Test Adopted By 8th Circuit

Last April, the issue of mutual fund adviser’s fiduciary duties concerning fees was before the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in the case Gallus v. Ameriprise. Gallus considered the scope of a mutual fund adviser’s fiduciary duties under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”) codified as 15 U. S. C. §80a–35(b).

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota holding that an inquiry into Section 36(b) does not rely solely on the Gartenberg factors laid out by the Second Circuit in Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc. The Gartenberg test looks at whether the “fee is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.”

The Court explained that while Gartenberg provides a “useful framework for resolving the claims of excessive fees”, the size of the fee should be considered alongside the mutual fund adviser’s conduct. Thus, the Eighth Circuit read the plain language of Section 36(b) to impose a “duty to be honest and transparent throughout the negotiation process.” In its decision, the Court heavily relied on the decision reached by the 7th Circuit in Jones v. Harris Associates L.P. In Jones, Chief Judge Easterbrook also rejected the proposition that Gartenberg should be the sole test applied to determine the reasonableness of an adviser’s fee. Instead, the Seventh Circuit declared that the focus should be on the fairness and transparency of the process for approving mutual fund adviser fees.

On March 30, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the test proposed in the 7th Circuit (and subsequently adopted by the 8th Circuit). The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that Section 36(b) does not extend a duty to the negotiation process between mutual fund advisers and their clients. In addition to reinforcing the Gartenberg test as the appropriate approach in resolving Section 36(b) claims, the Court also clarified several points to create uniform application amongst the Circuits. Namely, the Court explicitly stated:

§ The weight given to comparison of fee size will depend on the circumstances surrounding the parties.

§ It is appropriate for a court to look at the fees an investment adviser charges a captive mutual fund versus the fees charged to independent clients.

§ Courts should give deference to the fee size because pursuant to the ’40 Act, fees must be approved by a “fully informed mutual fund board.” However, the level of deference may vary depending on the approval procedure of the board.

To read the Supreme Court’s full opinion, please click here.

NEW PROPOSED SECURITIES RULES IN FLORIDA

The Florida Office of Financial Regulation (“Office”) recently updated some of its securities rules. The Office submitted notice for several proposed rule changes that are primarily to keep its rules up-to-date with the most current federal laws and cross references. For example, references to NASD had to be switched to FINRA after the SEC approved their consolidation back in 2007. Despite these “housekeeping” changes, there are a few noteworthy proposals that are substantive in nature. The substantive proposals come pursuant to House Bill 483 that passed during the 2009 Florida legislative session. The purpose of the bill was to increase investor protection through an expansion of certain agency powers. House Bill 483 became effective July 1, 2009, but the Office of Financial Regulation is beginning to submit its proposals for the supplementary rules.

One such substantive change is Proposed Rule 69W-1000.001, which creates a set of disciplinary guidelines in accordance with House Bill 483. The rule expands the disciplinary power of the Office of Financial Regulation to impose additional sanctions against individuals and firms that are subject to regulation under the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (“Securities Act”). Under the new rule, the Office has the power to impose cease and desist orders in conjunction with any sanction laid out in the Securities Act and raises the levels of minimum fines. The rule also sets out an extensive and comprehensive factors list to determine the appropriate sanction.

Proposed Rule 69W-600.0011 was also added pursuant to House Bill 483. Under this proposed rule, applicants could be subject to registration disqualifying periods for dealers, issuer dealers, investment advisors, as well as “relevant persons.” “Relevant persons” for purposes of the rule include “any direct owner, principal, or indirect owner that is required to be reported on behalf of the applicant on a Form BD or a Form ADV.” A Form BD is required for the application for broker-dealer registrations, and a Form ADV is required for applications for investment advisor registration. Grounds for disqualifying periods are based upon criminal convictions, pleas of nolo contendere, and pleas of guilt, regardless of whether there was an adjudication. The disqualifying periods range from five years to fifteen years depending on whether the crime is a classified as “Class A” or “Class B.” Class A crimes are felonies involving an act of fraud, dishonesty, breach of trust, money laundering, and any other crime involving a question of “moral turpitude.” Class B crimes are misdemeanors involving “fraud, dishonest dealing or any other act of moral turpitude.” Pleas receive a disqualifying period of three years. There is also a provision allowing registrants to submit any evidence of mitigating factors that may reduce the length of disqualification.

The Office of Financial Regulation is charged with safeguarding private financial interests of the public through licensing, chartering, examining, and regulating depository and non-depository financial institutions and financial service companies in Florida. It also serves to protect consumers from financial fraud and preserve the integrity of Florida’s markets and financial service industries.

SEC CHAIRMAN SCHAPIRO ACKNOWLEDGES FINANCIAL SERVICES REVOLUTION

On December 3, 2009, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro spoke at the Consumer Federation of America's 21st Annual Financial Services Conference. Ms. Schapiro noted that as a result of last year's financial turmoil the country is undergoing a "financial services revolution." While the market has improved in recent months, the SEC Chairman reminded the audience that this does not mean that the weaknesses in our financial regulatory system have been resolved. To the contrary, Ms. Schapiro urged that the country must continue efforts to reform the financial regulatory system - both at the Congressional level and at the agency level.

On the legislative front, Ms. Schapiro noted that the regulatory regime needs to focus on identifying and minimizing systematic risk. In this regard, the Chairman identified a number of areas where regulations are being reinforced or need to be reinforced by proposed legislation: 1) the creation of a regime that permits large institutions to fail without taking the system or taxpayers down with them; 2) a need to bring managers of hedge funds and other private funds under the regulatory umbrella; 3) a strong fiduciary standard for all securities professionals; and 4) greater transparency and stability to the over the counter derivatives markets - including real-time data on securities-related OTC derivatives.

Ms. Schapiro also identified that regulatory reform does not exist solely at the Congressional level. She noted that the SEC must put thought and energy into how to protect individuals who are entrusting their money to the capital markets. Ms. Schapiro discussed initiatives underway at the SEC to address issues encountered by individual investors - and she did so by discussing them from the perspective of such an investor.

First, Ms. Schapiro addressed the move to a singular standard for brokers and investment advisors. She noted that when an investor steps into the office of a local securities professional, he does not often look to see whether it says broker-dealer or investment advisor. All he wants is helpful, investor-focused advice. However, currently the duty owed to an investor is different depending on the securities professional's designation. If it is a broker-dealer, the investor is sold a product that is "suitable" for him. If it is an investment adviser, he gets treated under the higher "fiduciary duty" standard.

Ms. Schapiro stated that she is of the belief that all securities professionals should be subject to the same fiduciary duty, same licensing and qualification requirements, and the same oversight regime. Although this may disrupt a number of entrenched interests, Ms. Schapiro noted that the SEC is doing no service to retail investors by continuing with a different regulatory approach for professionals who perform virtually the same or similar services.

Second, Ms. Schapiro addressed the disclosures made by securities professionals with regard to compensation and conflicts. She noted that after an investor sits down with a securities professional, he is not always provided with understandable information about the products that his securities professional is trying to sell him. Ms. Schapiro stated that retail investors should be provided clear, simple, and meaningful disclosure at the time they are making an investment decision.

This should include information about the product being sold, including the compensation being received by the professional and information regarding any conflicts that may be causing the advisor or salesman to steer the investor to a certain investment. Directly related to this is the issue of 12b-1 fees which are automatically deducted from mutual funds to compensate securities professionals for sales and services provided to mutual fund investors. Ms. Schapiro stated that she believes these fees must be rethought not just with respect to their disclosure, but also with respect to whether they continue to be appropriate. This is an area Ms. Schapiro has asked the staff for a recomendation on the 12b-1 fees for SEC consideration in 2010.

Finally, Ms. Schapiro noted that while the SEC has the will to succeed, it is stretching existing resources and will not likely be able to achieve all it seeks to do without additional funding. As an example, Ms. Schapiro noted that the examination staff numbers less than 500, but is tasked with inspecting 11,000 investment advisory firms and 8,000 mutual funds. As a result, she noted that an investor has about a 10% chance of walking into an investment adviser who has been inspected by the SEC in the previous year. For this reason, Ms. Schapiro has been advocating for the SEC to be able to fund its own operations through fees it currently collects. The amount of these fees currently surpasses the amount appropriated by Congress to the SEC each fiscal year.

Ms. Schapiro wrapped up by noting that 2010 will be another year in which the SEC will pursue an ambitious reform agenda in order to restore confidence and provide the protections investors expect and deserve. We at Cosgrove Law, LLC will continue to monitor the steps taken by the SEC in carrying out this agenda. A complete copy of Ms. Schapiro's speech can be found here.

SEC's OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ISSUES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SELECTION OF INVESTMENT ADVISORS AND INVESTMENT COMPANIES FOR EXAMINATION

The SEC's Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report making recommendations to improve the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations’ (OCIE) process for selecting investment advisers and investment companies for examination. The report focused on the reasons OCIE did not perform an examination of Bernard Madoff Investment Securities, LLC’s (BMIS) investment advisory business soon after the firm registered as an investment adviser in 2006.

The OIG noted that OCIE’s practice is to assign each registered investment adviser a “low,” “medium,” or “high” risk rating, which is initially based on each adviser’s response to certain questions in Part 1 of the Uniform Application for Investment Adviser Registration (Form ADV). When BMIS registered as an investment adviser in 2006, BMIS was classified as “medium risk,” based on its answers to the questions provided on its Form ADV Part 1. BMIS filed two subsequent Form ADVs in 2007 and 2008. Each of the three Form ADVs received by the Commission resulted in BMIS being assigned a “medium risk” designation in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The OIG found that only firms categorized as “high risk” trigger routine OCIE examinations within three years of receiving the “high risk” rating.

The OIG found that a contributing factor to OCIE’s failure to conduct an examination of BMIS’s advisory business was Enforcement’s and OCIE’s broker-dealer examination unit’s failure to communicate with OCIE’s investment adviser unit. An OCIE Branch Chief testified that BMIS might have been subject to a “cause exam” immediately after it registered had the investment adviser examination staff been informed that Madoff had made misrepresentations to Enforcement and OCIE broker-dealer examination staff.

The OIG also found that OCIE’s risk rating process did not adequately weigh an investment adviser’s level of assets under management and the number of clients that receive investment advisory services. The OIG’s belief is that advisers with more assets under management and more clients who receive advisory services should receive progressively higher risk scores.

The report presents 11 specific recommendations designed to improve OCIE’s process for selecting investment advisers and investment companies for examination:

1. OCIE should implement a procedure requiring, as part its process for creating a risk rating for an investment adviser, that OCIE staff perform a search of Commission databases containing information about past examinations, investigations, and filings related to the investment adviser.

2. OCIE should change the risk rating of an investment adviser based on pertinent information garnered from all Divisions and Offices of the Commission, including information from OCIE examinations and Enforcement investigations, regardless of whether the information was learned during an examination conducted to look specifically at a firm’s investment advisory business.

3. The Division of Enforcement and OCIE should establish and adhere to a joint protocol providing for the sharing of all pertinent information (e.g., securities laws violations, disciplinary history, tips, complaints and referrals) identified during the course of an investigation or examination or otherwise.

4. OCIE should establish a procedure to thoroughly evaluate negative information that it receives about an investment adviser and use this information to determine when it is appropriate to conduct a cause examination of an investment adviser. OCIE should ensure its procedure provides for timely opening of a cause examination.

5. When the OCIE becomes aware of negative information pertaining to an investment adviser, OCIE should examine the investment adviser’s Form ADV filings and document and investigate discrepancies existing between the adviser’s Form ADV and information that OCIE previously learned about the registrant.

6. OCIE should establish a procedure to thoroughly evaluate an investment adviser’s Form ADVs when OCIE becomes aware of issues or problems with an investment adviser. OCIE should document areas where it believes a Form ADV contains false information and initiate appropriate action, such as commencing a cause examination.

7. OCIE should re-evaluate the point scores that it assigns to advisers based on their reported assets under management. OCIE should assign progressively higher risk weightings to firms that have greater assets under management.

8. OCIE should re-evaluate the point scores that it assigns to firms based on their reported number of clients to which they provide investment advisory services. OCIE should assign progressively higher risk weightings to investment advisers that serve a larger number of clients.

9. OCIE should recommend to the Chairman’s office that it institute a Commission rulemaking that would require the following additional information to be reported as part of Form ADV: Performance information; A fund’s service providers, custodians, auditors and administrators, and applicable information about these entities; A hedge fund’s current auditor and any changes in the auditor; and the auditor’s opinion of the firm.

10. The Commission should finalize the proposed rule titled Amendments to Form ADV [Release No. IA-2711; 34-57419]. In finalizing this rule, the Commission should consider what, if any, additional information investment advisers should include in Part II of Form ADV by consulting with OCIE and the Division of Investment Management (IM). Further, the Commission, in consultation with OCIE and IM, should consider provisions that would assist OCIE to efficiently and effectively review and analyze the information in Part II of Form ADV.

11. OCIE should develop and adhere to policies and procedures for conducting third party verifications, such that OCIE verifies the existence of assets, custodian statements, and other relevant criteria.

A complete copy of the OIG's report can be found here.

FINANCIAL PLANNING COALITION SEEKS TO CURTAIL FINRA'S OVERSIGHT OF INVESTMENT ADVISORS

On November 3, 2009, the Financial Planning Coalition sent a letter to members of the House Financial Services Committee expressing the Coalition's concern regarding an amendment to the Investor Protection Act of 2009 (“IPA”), which was passed by the Committee on October 25, 2009. The amendment would extend FINRA’s authority to cover investment advisors who are associated with broker-dealers already under FINRA’s authority.

The Coalition, made up of the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc., the Financial Planning Association, and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors, is concerned with how the amendment extends FINRA’s authority to approximately 88 percent of investment adviser representatives and implicates application of the fiduciary duty to investment advice. The members and stakeholders of the Coalition’s respective organizations believe that the issue warrants greater deliberation and through the letter are urging the committee to conduct a more thorough examination before allowing the delegation of authority from the SEC to FINRA, a self-regulatory organization ("SRO") that has no experience overseeing advisers or enforcing the provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The Coalition believes that the amendment would be inconsistent with the Committee’s intent with respect to the IPA because, among other things, the Committee has already approved an amendment that would change the assets under management threshold for SEC registration of advisers which would shift responsibility for the oversight of some 4,200 advisers from the SEC to the states, freeing up substantial SEC resources to enhance oversight of advisers under its jurisdiction. Moreover, the IPA allows the SEC to collect user fees from advisers to cover the costs of compliance examinations. This, along with the IPA’s authorization for a doubling of the SEC’s budget over the next five years and the shifting of the oversight burden to the states, would provide the SEC the funding necessary to oversee advisers.

The Coalition also states that the SEC is more appropriate as a primary regulator for advisers for several reasons. First, the SEC has been overseeing advisers for seven decades under a principles-based approach designed to regulate those providing advice, while FINRA has no experience in regulating investment advice. FINRA’s rules-based regulatory approach and focus, while fine for the brokerage community, is not readily adaptable to advisers. Moreover, FINRA oversight of advisers who are associated with broker-dealers would create a new, parallel system of regulation for advisers. The Coalition argues that this could create a new opportunity for regulatory arbitrage, with advisers and brokers making decisions on their business models based on a preferred regulatory model. Finally, FINRA is an SRO comprised of broker-dealers and would be inclined to bring a broker’s perspective to adviser regulation. The Coalition believes that this conscious or subconscious conflict of interest could result in a broker bias in FINRA oversight of advisers, and otherwise increase the differences in how broker-associated advisers are regulated versus independent advisers.

A copy of the Coalition's letter to the House Financial Services Committee can be found here.

FINRA CHAIRMAN RICK KETCHUM SPEAKS ON NEW FINANCIAL INDUSTRY PATTERNS

During the financial industry meltdown over the last two years, countless individuals have witnessed their life savings and retirement funds dwindle. At the SIFMA annual meeting on October 27, 2009, FINRA Chairman Rick Ketchum addressed these concerns and discussed some of the new patterns emerging within the financial industry, including proposed regulations and emerging business practices. The highlights of Chairman Ketchum’s address are set forth below:

Regulatory Shift

One of the main points of emphasis with regard to regulatory reform over the past few months has been the harmonization of the standard of care for broker-dealers and investment advisers. As Chairman Ketchum noted, most investors cannot distinguish between the two, in part because their services have begun to overlap each other in many respects. Accordingly, FINRA “whole-heartedly embraces” the Obama administrations goal of harmonizing the fiduciary standard for broker-dealers and investment advisers.

In addition to reforming the standard of care, the financial industry must find a way to harmonize the oversight and enforcement of that standard to ensure compliance by industry professionals. As Chairman Ketchum emphasized, for such a reformation to be effective, compliance “must be regularly and vigorously examined and enforced to ensure the protection of investors.”

Fraud Detection

Chairman Ketchum also discussed FINRA’s renewed focus on detecting and combating fraud. Namely, FINRA has enhanced its examination programs, procedures and training to help deter fraudulent conduct. In addition, FINRA recently established an Office of the Whistleblower—which handles high-risk tips—and announced the creation of an Office of Fraud Detection and Market Intelligence—which will in essence provide FINRA with a centralized anti-fraud division.

Technology Shift

With the emergence of social networking as a means to keep in contact with friends and interact with potential customers, FINRA is facing new regulatory challenges. As Chairman Ketchum noted, many younger registered representatives use sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter as part of their everyday lives, and financial institutions cannot easily supervise their employees’ communications on these sites. As such, most firms have established rules prohibiting their employees from using these sites for business purposes. In reality, however, there is no cost-effective way to enforce these rules.

Accordingly, FINRA recently formed a Social Networking Task Force to “explore how regulation can embrace technological advancements in ways that improve the flow of information between firms and their customers.”

As is evident, the financial industry is currently facing an emergence of new patterns and challenges, both in regulation and in business practices. FINRA, as a self regulatory organization, is charged with embracing these paradigms and enacting regulations to ensure that investors stay protected. Click here for a complete copy of Chairman Ketchum’s address at the SIFMA annual meeting.

2009 SECURITIES SYMPOSIUM

Members of Cosgrove Law, LLC recently attended the 2009 Securities Symposium, which included discussions with the Missouri Commissioner of Securities, Matthew D. Kitzi, and various other local and national securities industry leaders. The symposium covered a broad range of topics, including the current and anticipated trends in securities regulation and important issues facing Compliance Professionals today.

According to Commissioner Kitzi and his staff, the Missouri Securities Division is currently experiencing the most active period in its 80 year history in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Specifically, the Securities Division is on pace to receive over 2300 complaints this year, well above the previous one year high. According to the Securities Division, the most frequent complaints it has received from investors in 2009 have been in the following areas: (1) activity on accounts; (2) annuities; (3) complex products; (4) non-real estate business opportunities; and (5) real estate.

Along with an increased number of complaints, the Securities Division emphasized its commitment to step up its enforcement actions. In that regard, the Securities Division is on pace to set a record for the highest ratio of complaints vs. enforcement actions in its long history.

In addition, as we discussed on September 21, 2009, NASAA, with the help of the states, conducted a comprehensive audit sweep of Investment Advisers in 2008. Upon review of Missouri’s audit sweep, Missouri found that the most frequent deficiencies were as follows: (1) dearth of suitability on customers; (2) incomplete or out of date customer contracts; (3) incomplete or out of date ADVs; (4) inadequate computer back-up systems and poor books and records retention; and (5) financial deficiencies.

Are you concerned about the recent spark in enforcement activity from state and federal securities regulators in the wake of the Obama administration’s proposed regulatory overhaul? If so, contact a member of our firm to review and analyze your firm’s registration practices to ensure that your current practices are compliant with state and federal regulations.

THE SEC AND CFTC TO ISSUE A JOINT REPORT ADDRESSING HARMONIZATION OF FUTURES AND SECURITIES REGULATION

On September 2-3, 2009, pursuant to the recommendation of the Obama administration, the SEC and CFTC held joint meetings to discuss assessments of the current regulatory schemes for futures and securities, a first for the two agencies. Within the next two weeks, the chairmen of the SEC and CFTC plan to issue a joint report to Congress addressing the differences between the regulatory schemes for futures and securities and recommending legislative and regulatory actions to close the regulatory gaps and address the inconsistencies.

A release by the SEC indicated that the report will likely discuss the following issues:

• Product listing and approval
• Exchange/clearinghouse rule approval under rules—versus principal-based approaches
• Risk-based portfolio margining and bankruptcy/insolvency regimes
• Linked national market and common clearing versus separate markets and exchange-directed clearing
• Market manipulation and insider trading rules
• Customer protection standards applicable to broker-dealers, investment advisors and commodity trading advisors
• Cross-border regulatory matters

The upcoming report will surely verify the SEC and CFTC’s efforts during recent months to harmonize the two agencies and “reduce regulatory arbitrage, avoid unnecessary duplication and close regulatory gaps.” We will provide a further update once the report is issued.

For a complete reading of the SEC’s press release, click here.

NOTES FROM NASAA ANNUAL CONFERENCE

Cosgrove Law members attended the North American Securities Administrators (NASAA) annual conference last week. The conference provided us with great opportunities to interact with state regulators from around the country and directly hear from these regulators about their issues. They focused on a wide variety of topics involving broker-dealers and investment advisers because the regulatory changes being discussed at the federal level was on everyone’s mind. Where these discussions will lead and what effect any regulatory changes might have on everyone is not known at this time. What we did take away is that all of us need to be aware of the changes being proposed e.g. the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, understand the implications to our businesses, and be ready to implement best practices to ensure compliance.

Blue Sky Compliance for Investment Advisers-NASAA’s findings from Audit Sweep

NASAA coordinated a comprehensive audit sweep by the states of Investment Advisers this year. At the conference, they presented their findings and the deficiencies they most often found. Registration, Books and Records, Unethical Business Practices, Supervision, Privacy policy and Fees and Custody were the most frequent violations uncovered, but inaccurate ADV filings were the number one deficiency found. We can assume that States will now be closely looking at Investment Adviser ADV filings. Are your ADV filings compliant? Is your firm ready to face a regulator’s scrutiny? Are you aware of FINRA’s recent releases for changes to the IARD/CRD system? If not, or you just want to ensure your current practices are compliant, contact us to review and analyze your firm’s registration practices.

NEW REGULATIONS FOR SOLICITORS

NASAA proposed a new model rule today pertaining to solicitors. The stated goal of the Proposed Rule is to keep intact the increased investor protection standards presently required by the states and at the same time it seeks to limit or clarify the conditions under which investment advisors, their representatives, and solicitors must operate.

This rule should be examined by investment advisors who use solicitors to help in their business as well as investors or potential investors who have been contacted by others on behalf of an investment advisor or investment firm.

The Proposed Rule defines a “Solicitor” as an individual or entity who, either directly or indirectly, receives a fee or economic benefit for referring, offering, or otherwise negotiating for the sale of investment advisory services to clients on behalf of an investment advisor.

This rule offers exemptions for a solicitor who provides impersonal services such as written marketing materials or statistical information that is not directed towards the needs of a specific client. An additional exemption exists where there is a written agreement between the investment advisor and the solicitor for the solicitor to provide services and this relationship is disclosed in writing to the client prior to the time the client signs a written investment advisory contract. The rules for solicitors do not apply to a partner, officer, director or employee of an investment advisory firm. This Proposed Rule does not relieve a person of any fiduciary duties or other obligations to which they may be subject to under any law.

NASAA is accepting comments on the Proposed Rule until Monday, August 17. A complete copy of the proposed rule can be found at this website: http://www.nasaa.org/issues___answers/regulatory_activity/11095.cfm#

This Proposed Rule follows the SEC’s announcement on July 22, 2009 that it has proposed a rule aimed to end “pay to play” practices by investment advisors who seek to manage public funds for state and local governments. The overall goal of this proposed rule is to restrict the use of campaign contributions in exchange for the opportunity to manage such funds. One of the provisions of the proposed rule specifically bans the use of solicitors to act directly or indirectly on their behalf in securing an opportunity to manage funds for state and local governments.

The full text of this Proposed Rule has not yet been released by the SEC.

SEC REGULATORY OVERVIEW: COMPLIANCE EXAMINATIONS

Through routine compliance examinations, the SEC keeps a close eye on SEC-registered investment advisors, investment companies, broker-dealers, and other types of registered firms to ensure that these firms are maintaining compliance with federal securities laws, and also to identify any potential weaknesses in the SEC’s compliance and supervisory controls.

In June 2007, the SEC for the first time issued its "ComplianceAlert," which provides financial firms with a periodical summary of select compliance areas the SEC examiners are concerned with, thereby providing firms with a forewarning of these problem areas so that they can review and modify their practices where necessary. In its most recent ComplianceAlert, dated July 2008, the SEC noted concern over the following selected practices by SEC-registered firms:

(a) Investment Advisors/Mutual Funds

a. Personal Trading by Advisory Staff—SEC compliance examiners reviewed advisors’ international compliance controls surrounding their employees’ trading and trading by the firms for their own proprietary accounts.

b. Proxy Voting and Funds’ Use of Proxy Voting Services—SEC compliance examiners reviewed practices with respect to the use of third-party proxy voting services, including oversight and operational aspects of mutual funds’ proxy voting, and how advisors managed conflicts of interest in proxy voting.

c. Valuation and Liquidity Issues in High Yield Municipal Bond Funds—SEC compliance examiners reviewed the portfolio composition, valuation and transaction activity of high yield municipal bond funds.

d. Soft Dollar Practices of Investment Advisors—SEC compliance examiners reviewed the soft dollar arrangements maintained by registered investment advisors, including the arrangements these advisors may have with both third-party and proprietary providers.

(b) Broker-Dealers

a. Examinations of Securities Firms Providing “Free Lunch” Sales Seminars—SEC, compliance examiners, in coordination with FINRA and NASAA, performed over 100 examinations of broker-dealers, investment advisors and other financial services firms that offer “free lunch” sales seminars targeting seniors in particular.

b. Valuation and Collateral Management Processes—SEC compliance examiners, in coordination with FINRA, reviewed large broker-dealer firms to assess their valuation and collateral management practices as they related to subprime mortgage-related products, including the firms’ controls around the valuation process.

c. Broker-Dealers Affiliated with Insurance Companies—SEC compliance examiners conducted targeted reviews of a number of broker-dealer subsidiaries of insurance companies.

d. Supervision of Solicitations of Advisory Services—SEC compliance examiners reviewed broker-dealer firms that had designated their registered representatives as “solicitors” for an investment advisor, including how supervision was implemented for these registered representatives’ activities as solicitors.

e. Mortgage financing as Credit for the Purchase of Securities—SEC compliance examiners conducted risk-targeted examinations of broker-dealer firms to evaluate their practice of recommending that their customers finance the purchase of their securities by obtaining a second or reverse mortgage on their home through a bank affiliated with the broker-dealer.

f. Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction Supervisory Structure—SEC compliance examiners reviewed broker-dealer firms’ supervisory and compliance controls under an Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJ) structure, including each firm’s supervisory structure and practices, and its supervision of its branch offices.

(c) Transfer Agents

a. Practices with Respect to “Lost SecurityHolders”—SEC compliance examiners reviewed transfer agents in order to understand current practices with respect to the search process performed for “lost” securityholders and the use of third-party “search firms” that search for lost securityholders.

Notably, not all of the above-referenced practices are legal requirements, but instead some are merely suggestions by the SEC compliance examiners. Based upon the SEC’s June 2007 and July 2008 release dates for its prior ComplianceAlert letters, it is likely that the 2009 alert will be released shortly. We will provide you with a summary of the SEC’s most recent compliance concerns at that time.