Category Archives: Compliance

12 Things You Need to Know about Adviser Referral Arrangements and the Cash Solicitation Rule

OCIE recently issued a Risk Alert on common exam deficiencies in complying with the Cash Solicitation Rule, Rule 206(4)-3, of the Advisers Act. It is not surprising that OCIE decided to highlight referral arrangements since this is an area fraught with regulatory risk. So in addition to OCIE’s insights, we’ve included some other traps for the unwary.

OCIE reviewed deficiency letters from the past three years and cited four common mistakes:

1. Disclosure Documents Failure: Advisers make two common errors. The first is a failure to provide the disclosures required under Rule 206(4)-3 to clients. The second is providing incomplete disclosures.

2. Failure to Have Acknowledgements from Solicited Clients.

3. No Agreement or Inadequate Agreement. OCIE also found that advisers paid fees to solicitors without a written agreement, or using an agreement that did not contain the provisions required by the rule.

4. Failure to Check if Solicitor is Complying with the Agreement. Another common deficiency is the failure of an adviser to follow up to determine whether the solicitor is complying with the terms of the solicitation agreement.

OTHER TRAPS FOR THE UNWARY

In addition to the Risk Alert, we’ve pulled together a hit list of common issues faced by investment advisers when entering into referral arrangements.

Time to Pay Your Dues, Increase Cross Trade Testing and Disclose Your Conflicts

November Regulatory Updates from Jaqueline Hummel at Hardin Compliance Consulting LLC.

Topics include:

Read the full post here.

One-Two-Three Punch: SEC and FINRA Announce Actions Against Unregistered Broker, Digital Asset Manager and FINRA Registered Person

On September 11, the Securities and Exchange Commission and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority separately announced three “first of their kind” enforcement actions related to digital assets. Over the past year, regulators have repeatedly stressed the need for compliance with the securities laws when transacting in digital assets that are securities. These actions emphasize the need for all market participants — not just issuers — to comply with the securities laws, and further underscore that compliance with the securities laws extends beyond avoiding fraudulent conduct.

Read More Here

Additional contributors to this post:

Nathan A. Howell

Verity A. Van Tassel Richards,

Daniel EngorenDENGOREN@SIDLEY.COM

 

 

Susan Schroeder: Avoiding Regulation by Enforcement

FINRA’s head of enforcement’s speech yesterday at SIFMA AML was noteworthy.  Schroeder signaled a commitment by FINRA to avoid regulation by enforcement.  She said “(t)ransparency is particularly important in Enforcement. In order for the industry to be able to follow a rule, FINRA’s expectations have to be clear and rule violations have to be foreseeable. We want to avoid any perception of “rulemaking by enforcement.” That is why as we continue to integrate two enforcement teams, we are also thinking about our internal processes when we bring a case. In particular, we are considering how to identify any novel issues early, and ensure that we flag and discuss these issues with the rest of FINRA to develop the most effective regulatory response on behalf of the organization. Enforcement actions are one type of tool that FINRA can use to effect compliance. Other departments have other tools, and we want to make sure that we consult and collaborate early and often with our FINRA colleagues to consider issues holistically, and to think about the range of actions we might take, from an enforcement action to a Regulatory Notice or even a new rule.

Susan Schroeder’s SIFMA AML Remarks