On January 8, 2021, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order denying a motion to dismiss in S.E.C. v. NAC Foundation, LLC, et al. The U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) had previously filed a civil complaint against blockchain development company NAC Foundation, LLC (NAC) and NAC’s CEO, Marcus Rowland, alleging that NAC’s and Rowland’s sale of “stand-in” digital tokens constituted a fraudulent and unregistered sale of digital securities. The Department of Justice (DOJ) brought a parallel criminal proceeding, alleging violations of federal wire fraud and money laundering statutes. DOJ also filed a separate criminal case against former high-profile lobbyist Jack Abramoff in connection with his role in the promotion of NAC’s digital assets.
Category: Investment Advisers and Broker Dealers
SEC Enforcement Victory in its Efforts to Police Cannabis Industry Investments
As the cannabis industry continues to evolve and generate capital raising and investment opportunities, the SEC Division of Enforcement will continue to closely keep watch and target the bad actors that new market opportunities such as this inevitably and unfortunately attract. Along those lines, investors looking to purchase stock in supposed cannabis company, Covalent Collective, may have found vindication in the recent judgment against Geoffrey Thompson, of Frankfurt, Illinois. Thompson is now permanently barred from engaging in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security, except in connection with his own personal account. On January 20, 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:20-cv-05205), ruled in favor of the United States Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), in connection with its complaint targeting Thompson. Although Thompson did not admit or deny the allegations, he consented to the entry of the final judgment against him, which also ordered him to pay over half a million dollars collectively in disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties.
Continue reading “SEC Enforcement Victory in its Efforts to Police Cannabis Industry Investments”
Wrap Fee Programs Under Continued Scrutiny and Use of Investment Advisory Product Committees
Further to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”)’s ongoing review of investment advisers offering wrap fee programs, on December 23, 2020, the Commission announced a settlement with Pruco Securities, LLC (“Pruco”) related to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with its wrap fee programs. Pruco agreed to pay disgorgement, interest, and civil penalties totaling over $18.2 million to compensate for its alleged breaches of its fiduciary duties to its advisory clients that participated in its wrap fee programs.[1] In short, the SEC alleged that Pruco breached its fiduciary duties and violated Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisors Act”), and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder, by failing to disclose certain fees, savings, and revenue sharing payments it received in connection with its wrap fee programs, and the associated conflicts of interest related thereto, and by failing to assess whether the wrap fee programs were and remained suitable for the clients participating in them, as it represented it would.
President Biden Announces Gary Gensler as SEC Chair Nominee
On January 18, 2021, the incoming President’s Transition Team announced additional key administration post nominees, including Mr. Gary Gensler as SEC Chair. The announcement specifically provided the following regarding Mr. Gensler’s background:
Continue reading “President Biden Announces Gary Gensler as SEC Chair Nominee”
Congress Extending the SEC Statute of Limitations to 10 Years?!!
Congress recently overrode President Trump’s veto of the $740 billion 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) and signed it into law. While the focus of the NDAA is not on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the NDAA does include a provision that gives the SEC, for the first time ever, statutory authority to seek disgorgement in federal court for securities enforcement matters. Further, the NDAA also provides for a 10-year statute of limitations for the SEC to seek such disgorgement for scienter-based violations, extending and doubling the current 5-year statute of limitations.
Continue reading “Congress Extending the SEC Statute of Limitations to 10 Years?!!”
SEC Enforcement in 2020, the Election & Future of the SEC
In Faegre Drinker’s “Enforcement Highlights” inaugural podcast, Jim Lundy moderates a panel with fellow SEC and Regulatory Enforcement partners Mike MacPhail and David Porteous, Capital Markets Team Co-Leader Beth Diffley, and Investment Management Group partner Jillian Bosmann to discuss the pandemic’s impact on the SEC’s Division of Enforcement and the potential impacts of the 2020 election on the SEC and its future.
Continue reading “SEC Enforcement in 2020, the Election & Future of the SEC”
CCO Barred for Altering Reports to Mislead SEC Staff
Recently, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) charged a dually registered firm and its Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) with multiple violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). The charges included allegations against the CCO that she altered documents in an attempt to mislead SEC examination staff and failures to comply with enhanced policies and procedures adopted as a result of a prior examination by FINRA. The SEC charged the firm with willfully violating Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder, which require, in part, that registered investment advisors “[a]dopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violation” of the Advisers Act and its rules. The CCO was charged with willfully aiding and abetting the firm’s violations. The firm and the CCO were fined $1.7 million and $45,000, respectively, and the CCO was barred from the industry.
Continue reading “CCO Barred for Altering Reports to Mislead SEC Staff”
Liu v. SEC Decision Leaves Ambiguity on Disgorgement Limitations – How to Measure ‘Business Expenses’ Deductible From ‘Illegal Profits’
While the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Liu v. SEC limited the SEC’s disgorgement power, it also left open certain complicated issues that are now subject to interpretation.1 As we previously summarized, in an 8–1 vote, the Court held that disgorgement is a permissible equitable remedy for securities fraud under § 78u(d)(5), provided the amount does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and the money is returned to harmed investors.2