Tag Archives: investment adviser

Investment Advisor Barred From IA Industry For Matching Trade Fraud

Leave a reply

Hedge fund managers should not match trades between commonly managed accounts in thinly traded (or illiquid) securities as this may pose potential problems under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.  This holds true whether the hedge fund manager is registered or unregistered.  As the release below shows, the manager may be subject to fines and/or other penalties for such trading.  If a hedge fund manager does wish to engage in such trading, he should discuss this option with a hedge fund attorney.  Please contact us if you have any questions.  Continue reading →

Open Letter to CEOs of SEC-Registered Firms (SEC Release)

1 Reply

Open Letter to CEOs of SEC-Registered Firms
December 2, 2008

Dear CEO of SEC-Registered Firm:

During this time of financial and market turmoil, the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations of the Securities and Exchange Commission reminds leaders of SEC-registered firms, including broker-dealers, investment advisers, investment companies and transfer agents, of the critical role played by your firm’s compliance programs in helping to meet your obligations under the securities laws. Your firm’s compliance function is critical to assure that your operations comply with the law and rules for industry participation and to ensure that the interests of your customers, clients and shareholders are protected. Moreover, compliance is a vital control function that helps to protect the firm from conduct that could negatively impact the firm’s business and its reputation. Continue reading →

SEC Staff Reminds CEOs Of Registered Firms of Importance of Compliance Programs (SEC Release)

Leave a reply

SEC Staff Reminds CEOs Of Registered Firms of Importance of Compliance Programs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2008-283

Washington, D.C., Dec. 2, 2008 — The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations today issued an open letter to chief executives of SEC-registered firms, including broker-dealers, investment advisers, investment companies and transfer agents, to remind them of the critical role played by their firms’ compliance programs in assuring that their operations comply with the law and rules for industry participation and to ensure that the interests of customers or clients are protected. Continue reading →

Withdrawing from Investment Advisor Registration – the Form ADV-W

4 Replies

For many different reasons a hedge fund manager will decide to de-register as an investment advisor.  The manager may no longer be required to be registered or a manager may have registered simply for marketing purposes and has found that it is too much of a hassle (and cost) to be registered.   In such instances a hedge fund manager can withdrawal from registration by filing Form ADV-W through the IARD (Investment Advisor Registration Depository) system.   The process for de-registering is substantially the same whether the manager is registered with the SEC or with the state securities commission.  This article will discuss (i) issues with de-registration for the hedge fund manager and (ii) detail the process of deregistering.  Continue reading →

California Investment Advisor Exemption for Certain Hedge Fund Managers

9 Replies

In the article Connecticut Hedge Fund Registration Exemption, we discussed that certain states like Connecticut provide administrative orders allowing hedge fund managers an exemption from the registration provisions under certain circumstances.

Similarly certain states have provided a similar exemption to hedge fund managers through the securities commission rule making process.  For example, California Rule 260.204.9 provides that hedge fund managers are exempt from registration with the California Securities Commission if (i) the manager has $25 million or more in assets under management and (ii) has less than 15 clients (a hedge fund counts as a single client).  As with all exemptions from investment advisor registration, the hedge fund manager must make sure that it does not hold itself out as an investment advisor.  The California Rule also provides an exemption for managers of venture capital funds. Continue reading →

SEC Chairman Cox Notes Importance of Investment Advisor CCOs

Leave a reply

At a recent speech at the 2008 CCOutreach National Seminar, a seminar for the Chief Compliance Officers of registered investment advisors, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox noted the importance of compliance offices during these volatile times.  Cox noted that CCOs are partners with the SEC to ensure that investment advisory firms remain compliant and follow all investment advisory rules and regulations.  The speech is reprinted below.  Continue reading →

Hedge fund author fined $100k by the SEC for fraudulent hedge fund

Leave a reply

Summary:

Mark J.P. Boucher, the author of the book The Hedge Fund Edge, was involved in a hedge fund scam where he lured investors into a real-estate hedge fund which was was supposed to be secured by real property. The fund was not and investors lost millions of dollars. This underscores the necessity for hedge fund investors to protect themselves from these fraudsters by completing proper hedge fund due diligence. Please contact us if you have questions on hedge fund due diligence.

SEC Release:

Litigation Release No. 20689 / August 27, 2008
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mark Joseph Peterson Boucher and Gary Paul Johnson,, Case No. CV 08-4088 (N.D. Cal. filed August 27, 2008); Securities and Exchange Commission v. John E. Brake,, Case No. CV 08-4089 (N.D. Cal. filed August 27, 2008)

SEC Charges Bay Area Investment Adviser, Others in Real Estate Investment Scam

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Portola Valley investment adviser and newsletter publisher, Mark J.P. Boucher, with misleading clients into investing in two failed real estate development companies.

According to the Commission, Boucher helped raise around $20 million for the companies by falsely representing that the investments were secured by real estate, when in reality one of the companies owned no property, and the other owned a single property that was wholly underwater in debt. The Commission also sued the owners of each company, John E. Brake and Gary P. Johnson (both of Southern California) for misappropriating millions of dollars of investor funds to finance everything from beachfront homes to undisclosed side businesses. Boucher and Johnson have settled with the Commission without admitting or denying the allegations.

According to complaints filed today in federal district court in San Francisco, from 1999 through 2005, the defendants collectively raised about $20 million from investors based upon misrepresentations that the money would be used to fund large-scale real estate development projects and that the investments were secured by real property. In reality, the investments were not secured: one development company never owned property, and by the summer of 2002, the other company’s lone property was so heavily debt laden that its debts exceeded potential profits. In the end, neither company successfully developed a real estate project, and investors lost millions of dollars.

The Commission alleges that many investors became interested because Boucher — a hedge fund manager and the author of the book The Hedge Fund Edge — recommended the investments in a monthly newsletter he circulated to his advisory clients.

The Commission’s complaints allege that the defendants misused investor funds to pay for a wide variety of personal expenses. Among other things, Brake allegedly used investor funds to pay for a beachfront home rental in Carmel, California, luxury automobiles, a personal chauffeur, private jet travel, jewelry and designer clothing, while Johnson used investor funds to launch a failed furniture business. The Commission also alleges that Boucher used investor money to pay a portion of the mortgage on his personal residence.

Boucher, without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, has agreed to a permanent injunction from further violations of Sections 17(a) and 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder (“Exchange Act”), and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Boucher will also pay a $100,000 civil penalty. In addition, Boucher has consented to the institution of public administrative proceedings against him in which he will be barred from serving as an investment adviser with a right to reapply after five years.

Johnson, without admitting or denying the allegations, has likewise agreed to a permanent injunction from further violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Johnson has also consented to an order requiring him to disgorge more than $1.8 million in ill-gotten gains and approximately $700,000 in prejudgment interest, and to pay a civil penalty of $120,000.

Brake is charged with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil money penalties against Brake.

SEC fines adviser and revokes registration

1 Reply

The SEC fined an investment adviser and revoked its registration because of willful refusal to follow simple investment adviser rules such as updating form ADV and submitting to a reasonable examination of its books and records.

From SEC website:

Commission Declares Decision as to Amaroq Asset Management, LLC and Dwight Andre Sean O’Neal Jones Final

The decision of an administrative law judge ordering Amaroq Asset Management, LLC, and Dwight Andree Sean O’Neal Jones to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations or future violations of Section 204 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Advisers Act Rule 204-1 has been declared final. The law judge further ordered that the registration of Amaroq Asset Management, LLC be revoked; that Dwight Andree Sean O’Neal Jones be barred from association with any investment adviser, with a right to apply for association after one year; and ordered that Jones pay a civil penalty in the amount of $15,000.

The law judge concluded that Jones willfully aided and abetted and was a cause of Amaroq’s failure to: (1) file annual amendments to Form ADV; (2) promptly update its Form ADV to reflect its current business address; (3) submit to a reasonable examination and failing to furnish copies of the required books and records in connection with the scheduled examination. The law judge found that Jones showed indifference and/or a series of broken promises, when Commission attorneys repeatedly and explicitly informed him of the law’s requirements, thereby demonstrating extreme recklessness. (Rel. IA-2770) Finality Order; File No. 3-12822)

For final decision, click here.

Question: can my firm have a “silent owner”

2 Replies

Question: I am a manager registered as an investment adviser in [State]. Can I have a “silent owner” who solicits clients for the management company or the fund? Also, since the owner is only a “silent owner” who does not do any of the trading, will the “silent owner” need to be registered as an investment adviser representative and have to take the Series 65?

Answer: Maybe surprisingly, this is a question which comes up on a very regular basis. In many situations, the manager will have some friends with a great network of high net worth individuals and these friends think they will be able to help the manager raise assets. As noted in my previous article on the broker-dealer issues, there is a potential broker-dealer issue if the person will be compensated for helping to sell interests in a hedge fund. Additionally, there is a potential state investment adviser representative registration issue.

As mentioned in a previous aritcle, almost all of the state securities laws are based off of the Uniform Securities Act, which has a general definition of what constitutes an “investment adviser representative.” Generally, each “investment adviser representative” will need to be registered as such at the state level.

The definition form Uniform Securities Act (Last revised or Amended in 2005), Section 102(16) (emphasis added) provides:

“Investment adviser representative” means an individual employed by or associated with an investment adviser or federal covered investment adviser and who makes any recommendations or otherwise gives investment advice regarding securities, manages accounts or portfolios of clients, determines which recommendation or advice regarding securities should be given, provides investment advice or holds herself or himself out as providing investment advice, receives compensation to solicit, offer, or negotiate for the sale of or for selling investment advice, or supervises employees who perform any of the foregoing. The term does not include an individual who: (A) performs only clerical or ministerial acts; (B) is an agent whose performance of investment advice is solely incidental to the individual acting as an agent and who does not receive special compensation for investment advisory services; (C) is employed by or associated with a federal covered investment adviser, unless the individual has a “place of business” in this State as that term is defined by rule adopted under Section 203A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. Section 80b-3a) and is (i) an “investment adviser representative” as that term is defined by rule adopted under Section 203A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. Section 80b-3a); or (ii) not a “supervised person” as that term is defined in Section 202(a)(25) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. Section 80b-2(a)(25)); or (D) is excluded by rule adopted or order issued under this [Act].

http://www.uniformsecuritiesact.org/usa/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=2&tabid=48

From the plain language of the statute (if adopted in substantially the same manner as above), a “silent owner” will generally fall within the definition of investment adviser representative. This means that the investment adviser representative will need to be registered as such with the state unless the state has an exemption from the registration provisions. While maybe contrary to what one would expect, it seems that some states may be willing to go along with an investment manager. I have heard of some states informally (over the phone) taking the position that when a “silent owner” merely tells people about the IA firm and does not involve himself further in the negotiation process, then such a “silent owner” would not be deemed to be an investment adviser representative. However, managers should consult with legal counsel if they would like to take this aggressive position. It is also highly recommended that before proceeding without registration, the IA firm should seek a no-action letter from the state on this topic. The no-action letter can be drafted by your attorney. There will probably be a filing fee at the state (around $100) in addition to any legal fees you may incur; generally answers can be received within 30 days.

A manager should also be aware that the firm can be fined if an employee acts in the capacity of an investment adviser representative without being registered. On February 4, 2008, the Kentucky Office of Financial Services levied a $54,668.53 fine against an investment advisor for failing to properly supervise the activities of an employee who was acting in the capacity of an investment adviser representative. Office of Financial Institutions v. Questar Capital Corp., Case No. 2008-AH-008, 2008 Ky. Sec. LEXIS 3 (Feb. 4, 2008). In this case, an unregistered employee of an investment fund was soliciting clients to a hedge fund. As a result of these referrals, the management company received compensation totaling $54,668.53. The Kentucky Office of Financial Institutions ruled that the investment advisor who oversaw the employee to be violation of KRS 292.330(1), and fined the fund $54,668.53 to disgorge its illicit profit. The investment adviser representative was to be put on heightened supervisory status and was also barred from receiving any compensation relating to advisory accounts until he was registered as an investment adviser representative.