+1.866.723.2287

+1.866.723.2287

This is the development site for Scherzer International and the information may not be accurate.
Please visit our production website.

SEC

The Significance of Background Screening in SEC’s Proposed Rule for Private Fund Managers

In an ever-evolving financial landscape, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) last year proposed a new rule for regulating and monitoring the activities of investment advisors and private fund managers. The reforms, which are pending, are designed to protect private fund investors by increasing their visibility into certain practices, establishing requirements to address practices that have the potential to lead to investor harm, and prohibiting adviser activity that is contrary to the public interest and protection of investors.

The rule aims to impose stricter requirements on private fund advisors, including more comprehensive reporting and disclosure mandates, risk management measures, and operational safeguards. Although not mentioned specifically, it can easily be inferred that background screening will play an integral part in complying with the rule.

Background screening serves as an essential risk management tool that allows investment firms and the SEC to assess the integrity and competence of individuals seeking to become private fund advisors. By conducting thorough background checks, potential red flags can be identified early on, ensuring that only qualified and trustworthy professionals are entrusted with managing private funds. The following are some key reasons why background screening is relevant to the SEC’s proposed rule:

      • Investor Protection – Private fund advisors hold significant influence over their clients’ investment decisions and assets. Background screening helps identify any past misconduct or disciplinary actions, safeguarding investors from potential fraudulent schemes or unethical practices.
      • Regulatory Compliance – The rule demands increased compliance from private fund advisors. Implementing stringent background screening procedures will facilitate adherence to these regulations and ensure the eligibility of those operating within the private fund industry.
      • Market Integrity – A robust background screening process strengthens market integrity by weeding out bad actors who could potentially tarnish the reputation of the private fund industry. This fosters trust among investors and stakeholders, promoting a healthy and sustainable financial ecosystem.
      • Risk Mitigation – Background screening helps mitigate operational risks associated with hiring individuals with questionable backgrounds. Identifying potential risks early can prevent potential legal and financial liabilities that may arise due to non-compliance or misconduct.
      • Risk Management – For private fund advisors, maintaining a positive reputation is critical for attracting new investors and retaining existing clients. Background screening assists in upholding a firm’s reputation by ensuring the integrity of its team members.
      • Consistency with Other Industries – Background screening is a standard practice in many sectors of the financial industry, such as banking and accounting, and extending background screening to private fund advisors aligns this sector of the financial industry with prevailing best practices in risk management and compliance.

    As the SEC finalizes its proposed rule, it is essential for private fund advisors to adopt background screening as a proactive measure that not only aligns with regulatory expectations but also contributes to their reputation as responsible and reliable investment professionals. In doing so, the private fund industry can continue to thrive and attract investors with the assurance of a well-regulated and trustworthy financial environment.

    July 26th, 2023|Compliance Corner|

    Securities class actions remain popular

    For regulated entities, an enforcement action by a government agency is practically guaranteed to result in a parallel consumer class action.

    Nowhere is that more clear than for publicly traded companies regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Securities class actions were considered to be so rampant that in 1995, Congress enacted the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLR) to curb what the industry believed were abusive practices.

    While the statute raised the bar for private enforcement actions, it certainly did not close the courtroom doors to plaintiffs. Although there are fewer suits brought today, complaints are still filed lockstep with an agency enforcement action and in significant enough numbers to keep companies on their toes.

    Industry watchers predicted that a seminal case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last term, Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund (Halliburton II), would result in a decrease in class actions filed. That case involved a popular theory known as “fraud on the market,” where plaintiffs were not required to demonstrate that each individual class member relied on any allegedly misleading statements if the security at issue could be shown to be “efficient,” or with a market price reflecting all of its publicly available information.

    While the Court did not toss the theory, the justices held that defendants can rebut the presumption prior to class certification. The June decision appeared to have little impact on the figures for 2014 filings. For example, NERA Economic Consulting reported that 221 securities class actions were filed last year, compared to 222 in 2013 and 212 in 2012.

    Interestingly, although the number of complaints in securities class actions has not fluctuated much over the last few years, the aggregate amount of investor losses has declined, NERA found. 2014 saw a drop to $154 million from $159 million in 2013, down significantly from $243 million in 2012 and $248 in 2011. Are certain industries facing more lawsuits than others? NERA reported that one quarter of all of the securities class actions were filed against companies in the health technology and services area. Other major players: the finance industry, in second place with 19 percent of the suits, followed by the electronic technology and service sector with 13 percent.

    Securities class action plaintiffs are also continuing a trend of settling prior to trial. Of all the pending and newly filed cases in 2014, just one lawsuit was actually tried to verdict (resulting in a plaintiff victory). Almost half of the cases ended on the defendant’s motion to dismiss (48 percent last year with an additional 21 percent dismissed in part), NERA found; 75 percent of the cases that survived settled prior to the class certification stage of litigation.

    Read the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Halliburton II.

    February 23rd, 2015|Lawsuit|

    SEC considers background check rule proposed by FINRA

    Financial institutions could face expanded obligations to conduct background screening of applicants for registration pursuant to a rule proposed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

    As currently drafted, the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) Rule 3010(e), the Responsibility of Member to Investigate Applicants for Registration, provides that a firm “must ascertain by investigation the good character, business reputation, qualifications and experience of an applicant before the firm applies to register that applicant with FINRA,” the regulator explained.

    Seeking to “streamline and clarify members’ obligations relating to background investigation, which will, in turn, improve members’ compliance efforts,” FINRA proposed the addition of background checks to the Rule for the SEC’s consideration.

    The change would mandate that firms verify the accuracy and completeness of the information in an applicant’s Form U4 (Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer) for first-time applicants as well as transfers. Written procedures for conducting the background check – including a public records search – must also be established.

    While the rule is prospective, FINRA announced that it would take a look at currently registered representatives. The financial regulator intends to begin its efforts with a search of all publicly available criminal records for the roughly 630,000 registered individuals who have not been fingerprinted within the last five years; going forward, FINRA will periodically review public records “to ascertain the accuracy and completeness of the information available to investors, regulators and firms,” the agency said.

    To read the Federal Register notice: click here.

    December 3rd, 2014|Fraud, Risk Management|

    Pennies add up to $18.7 million in allegedly illicit gains

    A bit different from the billion dollar frauds that frequently made the headlines in the years past, a complaint filed on October 5, 2014 by the justice department in the federal district court in Manhattan accuses two former New York brokers of securities fraud and conspiracy for secretly adding a few pennies to the cost of securities trades they processed to generate $18.7 million in gains. The SEC also filed civil charges against the men, and added another broker as a defendant. The SEC’s complaint alleges that from at least 2005 through at least February 2009, the defendants perpetrated the scheme by falsifying execution prices and embedding hidden markups or markdowns on over 36,000 customer transactions. According to the SEC, the defendants charged small commissions—typically pennies or fractions of pennies per share; the scheme was devious and difficult to detect because they selectively engaged in it when the volatility in the market was sufficient to conceal the fraud. One of the defendants, who was in charge of entering the prices into the trading records and playing a critical role by controlling the flow of information, already pleaded guilty to securities fraud and conspiracy.

    October 15th, 2014|Criminal Activity, Fraud|

    SEC new rule: ABS issuers and underwriters must disclose any third-party due diligence report

    On August 27, 2014, as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Securities & Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted several new rules and amendments designed to improve the quality of credit ratings and increase the accountability of Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (“NRSROs”). The new rules, which become effective nine months after their publication in the Federal Register, significantly affect services in connection with asset-backed securities (“ABS”). Among other provisions, included is a requirement for ABS issuers and underwriters to disclose the findings and conclusions of any third-party due diligence report they obtain. The rule applies to both registered and unregistered offerings. Additionally, providers of ABS due diligence services must submit a written certification (signed by an individual who is duly authorized to make such a certification) to any NRSRO that is producing a credit rating regarding the ABS, and disclose information about the due diligence performed, along with a summary of the findings and conclusions, and identification of any relevant NRSRO due diligence criteria that the third-party intended to meet in performing the due diligence.

    October 15th, 2014|Dodd-Frank|

    Insider trading enforcement actions continue as SEC’s top priority

    Illegal insider trading generally occurs when a security is bought or sold in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence while in possession of material, nonpublic information. In recent years, the SEC has filed insider trading cases against hundreds of entities and individuals, including financial professionals, hedge fund managers, corporate insiders, attorneys, and others. In 2014, examples of noteworthy cases include enforcement actions against the following:

    Two husbands on March 31, 2014 – In two unrelated cases, the SEC charged two men with insider trading on confidential information they learned from their wives about Silicon Valley-based tech companies. Each agreed to financial sanctions to settle the charges.

    Stockbroker and law firm clerk on March 19, 2014 – SEC charged two individuals who were linked through a mutual friend, with insider trading for $5.6 million in illicit profits based on nonpublic information that the clerk obtained by accessing confidential documents in law firm’s computer system.

    Wall Street investment banker on February 21, 2014 – SEC charged an investment banker with making nearly $1 million in illicit profits by insider trading in a former girlfriend’s brokerage account to pay child support.

    Chicago-based accountant – SEC charged an accountant with insider trading ahead of the release of financial results by the company where he worked. The individual made more than $250k in illicit profits.

    May 14th, 2014|Fraud|

    SEC defines “compensated solicitor” and “participation” under bad actor Rule 506(d)

    As we reported previously, on September 23, 2013, new Rules 506(d) and (e) of Regulation D under the Securities Act and changes to Form D (“Bad Actor Rules”) went into effect, making all Rule 506 offerings subject to certain disqualification, disclosure and certification requirements.

    In this blog, we want to bring to your attention the SEC’s compliance and disclosure interpretations (“C&DIs”) issued December 4, 2013, which, among other provisions, define what constitutes a “compensated solicitor” and “participation” in an offering, in case the SEC’s expanded guidance warrants an assessment of your particular services, especially if you are a professional advisor.

    The CD&Is define “compensated solicitors” as “all persons who have been or will be paid, directly or indirectly, remuneration for solicitation of purchasers, regardless of whether they are, or are required to be, registered under Exchange Act Section 15(a)(1) or are associated persons of registered broker-dealers.”

    According to the CD&Is, “participation in an offering is not limited to the solicitation of investors, and includes involvement in due diligence activities or the preparation of offering materials (including analyst reports used to solicit investors), providing structuring or other advice to the issuer in connection with the offering, and communicating with the issuer, prospective investors or other participants about the offering. To constitute ‘participation,’ such activities must be more than transitory or incidental–administrative functions, such as opening brokerage accounts, wiring funds, and bookkeeping activities, would generally not be deemed to be deemed as ‘participating’ in the offering.”

    January 23rd, 2014|Dodd-Frank, Educational Series|

    SEC’s whistleblower program gains momentum

    On November 15, 2013, the SEC released its third annual Whistleblower Report to Congress. According to the report, In the fiscal year 2013, the SEC paid four major awards, one of which was for over $14 million for information leading to an enforcement action that recovered substantial investor funds. Three other payments totaling $832k were made for information regarding a bogus hedge fund.

    The report states that the number of complaints and tips increased from 3,001 in the 2012 fiscal year to 3,238 in 2013. The three most common complaints or tips were about corporate disclosures and financials, offerings fraud, and manipulation.  The number of FCPA-related tips also rose, from 115 to 149.

    December 9th, 2013|Fraud|

    Remedying Rule 506 “bad actor” disqualification through reasonable care

    The SEC’s Rule 506 “bad actor” amendments went into effect September 23, 2013. As we reported previously, these amendments add Rule 506(d) to implement Regulation 926 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Under the rule, securities offerings involving certain “felons and other ‘bad actors'” are disqualified from the Rule 506 exemption unless the disqualification is waived or remedied through a “reasonable care” exception. (See Securities Act Release No. 9414, 78 Fed. Reg. 44,729; July 24, 2013).

    The rule’s long list of disqualifying events – and an even longer list of covered persons – is raising consternation as issuers and practitioners come to grips with the challenges of compliance. A disqualification due to the presence of “bad actors” can be catastrophic, resulting in the loss of the exemption altogether, spilling into regulatory actions, litigation, and reputational issues. And any impediment to raising capital is likely to scare away investors.

    The rule provides an exception from disqualification if the issuer is able to demonstrate that it did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known that a covered person with a disqualifying event participated in the offering. The SEC has not prescribed specific steps to establish reasonable care; however, it has indicated that the concept includes a factual inquiry in view of the particular facts and circumstances and other offering participants. Despite the procedural ambiguity, the message is clear that is not enough to show that the issuer was unaware of the disqualifying event – the issuer must establish that in exercising “reasonable care,” could not have known that a disqualification existed.

    In anticipation of this ruling, SI has been including “disqualifying event” searches in many of its reports for over two years. Now that the ruling has gone into effect, SI also offers a specialized factual inquiry service to help our clients evidence “reasonable care” under the highest standards. For information, please contact Dave Lazar at 440-423-1157 or e-mail dlazar@scherzer.co or Jessica Staheli at 818-227-2598 or e-mail jstaheli@scherzer.co.

    October 29th, 2013|Dodd-Frank|
    © 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
    wpChatIcon
    wpChatIcon
    Go to Top