SEC

COVID-19 Checklist & Considerations for Private Fund Advisers

With COVID-19 concerns and market volatility, advisers should consider compliance challenges that are likely to arise. This COVID-19 Checklist & Considerations for Private Fund Advisers highlights key compliance issues, questions and considerations with respect to the COVID-19 outbreak and government response. Please note that if an adviser does not document its compliance efforts, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will assume that such efforts did not occur. This checklist is not exhaustive and does not, for example, cover Commodity Futures Trading Commission considerations, which are discussed in a separate client alert.

Authors:
Nicole Kalajian – Counsel, Chicago
John Hamilton – Counsel, New York
Prufesh Modhera – Chair, Private Funds Group, Washington, DC
Sara Crovitz – Partner, Washington, DC
George Michael Gerstein – Co-Chair, Fiduciary Governance Group, Washington, DC

COVID-19 Coverage: SEC issues statement on comment periods

Comment Periods for Certain Pending Actions

Certain of the Commission’s proposed actions have comment periods that will expire in March. We understand that challenges associated with COVID-19 may delay the completion and submission of some comment letters. The Commission and staff have historically considered comments submitted after a comment period closes but before adoption of a final rule or order, consistent with the Commission’s Informal and Other Procedures (17 C.F.R. 202.6). For each of the pending items listed below, the Commission will not take final action before April 24th in order to allow commenters additional time if needed.

  • Amendments to Rule 2-01, Qualifications of Accountants, File No: S7-26-19, Release Nos.: 33-1073834-87864, FR-86, IA-5422, IC-33737;
  • Amending the “Accredited Investor” Definition, File No: S7-25-19, Release Nos.: 33-1073434-87784;
  • Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers, File No: S7-24-19, Release No. 34-87783;
  • Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies; Required Due Diligence by Broker-Dealers and Registered Investment Advisers Regarding Retail Customers’ Transactions in Certain Leveraged/Inverse Investment Vehicles, File No. File No: S7-24-15, Release Nos.: 34-87607, IA-5413, IC-33704; and
  • Notice of Proposed Order Directing the Exchanges and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority to Submit a New National Market System Plan Regarding Consolidated Equity Market Data, File No. 4-757, Release No. 34-88340.

The Commission is operational and we encourage market participants to submit comments on the most reasonable possible timeframe. The Chairman will continue to consult with fellow Commissioners and staff and make adjustments to the list above as necessary.

*The Statement can be found here.

George Michael Gerstein on podcast to discuss fiduciary-related regulatory developments

SEC Updates Form CRS FAQs

On February 11, 2020, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) updated its Frequently Asked Questions on Form CRS with regard to a number of topics:

Legal Representative:  Similar to the update on Regulation Best Interest, the staff clarified that the term “legal representative” would not cover regulated financial services industry professionals including a workplace retirement plan representative (e.g., plan sponsor, trustee, other fiduciary), except in limited circumstances.  The staff further noted, however, that a formerly regulated financial services industry professional who is not currently regulated, would be considered a “non-professional” and, thus, a covered legal representative.

Delivery requirements: The staff clarified that where one adviser (Firm A) provides advice to another unaffiliated adviser (Firm B) but has no advisory contract (oral or written) with Firm B’s clients, absent other facts or circumstances that would indicate that Firm A provides investment advisory services to Firm B’s retail investor clients, Firm A would not be required to deliver a Form CRS to Firm B’s retail investor clients. The staff also indicated that an amendment to an existing account agreement solely to add another account holder or beneficiary would not trigger a Form CRS delivery requirement but that converting an account at a dual registrant from a brokerage account to advisory account (and presumably vice versa) would require delivery of Form CRS even if the investor initially received Form CRS upon opening the original account. The staff also clarified that a broker-dealer acting solely as a qualified custodian to an investment adviser’s retail investment advisory clients would not need to deliver a Form CRS. Finally, the staff discussed when a state-registered adviser transitioning to SEC registration is required to deliver its Form CRS.

Affiliates: The staff clarified that affiliated investment advisers (or affiliated broker-dealers) may create and deliver a combined Form CRS. The staff also indicated that a firm with multiple affiliates can combine disclosure in one Form CRS, but the staff cautioned that the page limits still apply and that the firm “should be mindful of the potential that additional information from multiple affiliates could “obscure or impede understanding.”  It also should be mindful that it is required “to present brokerage and investment advisory information with equal prominence and in a manner that clearly distinguishes and facilitates comparison.”

Sub-advisers: The staff stated that in circumstances where an adviser replaces a sub-adviser, and there are no changes to the advisory agreement, services, investments, or conflicts of interest that would make the information in the adviser’s Form CRS materially inaccurate, the staff would not object if the firm does not consider this a material change that would require the adviser to amend its Form CRS. The staff did not clarify the types of changes to the advisory agreement, services, investments or conflicts that would be considered material changes.

Disciplinary history: The staff clarified that a firm that reports disciplinary history related to its parent company in response to Item 11 on the firm’s Form ADV and Items 11A-K on the firm’s Form BD must answer “yes” to Item 4 in Form CRS.

Foreign language: Finally, the staff stated that it would not object to the delivery of a complete translation of Form CRS in a foreign language so long as the firm also delivers a separate English Form CRS at the same time.

SEC Updates Regulation Best Interest FAQs – Our Initial Take

On February 11, 2020, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) updated its Frequently Asked Questions on Regulation Best Interest.  The update added a new “Retail Customer” section with four new Q&As.

  • The first Q&A reminds firms to carefully consider the extent to which associated persons can make recommendations to prospective retail customers in compliance with Regulation Best Interest, should the prospective retail customer use the recommendation.
  • The second Q&A clarifies that Regulation Best Interest applies to recommendations by a limited purpose broker-dealer of private offerings to accredited investors that are retail customers, and that the application of Regulation Best Interest is not dependent on whether the broker-dealer engages in limited activity.
  • The third Q&A seeks to clarify that the term “legal representative” of a retail customer would not cover regulated financial services industry professionals, which include registered investment advisers and broker-dealers, corporate fiduciaries and insurance companies, and the employees or other regulated representatives of such entities.
  • The final Q&A states that a retail customer, or a non-professional legal representative of such retail customer, cannot waive or agree to waive the protections afforded under Regulation Best Interest.

The update also adds a new Q&A in the Recommendations section that a recommendation of a securities account (e.g., a self-directed brokerage account) is covered by Regulation Best Interest even if the broker-dealer does not intend to provide subsequent recommendations subject to Regulation Best Interest in the new account.

Finally, the update added a new Q&A in the Disclosure section that confirms that while a standalone broker-dealer will generally be able to satisfy the requirement to disclose, in writing, all material facts about the scope and terms of its relationship with the retail customer, by delivering the relationship summary, a dually registered, broker-dealer or its associated persons, will not be able to satisfy the requirement with the relationship summary alone but must also disclose the capacity in which they are acting with respect to the retail customer.