This case should prompt fund financial officers to review the charges imposed by the custody bank. That nickel and diming on everything from wire fees to foreign custody reports may be unlawful. Service providers should also take note that the SEC will initiate enforcement for overcharging registrants even where the service provider itself is not an SEC registered or regulated entity.
The SEC fined a Big 4 audit firm $50 Million for misappropriating information from the PCAOB concerning impending inspections. Several members of firm management were also terminated and charged. The firm obtained the confidential exam information from employees that previously worked at the PCAOB as well as PCAOB employees being recruited by the firm. Information included lists of audit engagements that the PCAOB planned to inspect, specific criteria used for the inspection, and the focus areas. The SEC alleges that the firm also reviewed and revised work papers to avoid deficiencies. Separately, the firm was also charged with sharing answers and adjusting scores so that internal personnel could more readily pass internal continuing education courses. The SEC charges the firm with failing to comply with ethics and integrity standards, AICPA conduct rules, and PCAOB quality control standards. In addition to the fine, the firm agreed to retain an independent consultant.
The SEC relies on the securities markets gatekeepers, such as the large audit firms, to police the industry. When the gatekeepers act without integrity, it undermines the SEC’s ability to protect investors. This case once again raises the issue whether government officials should observe a cooling-off period before going to work for the companies they previously regulated.
OUR TAKE: The SEC is leveraging the Bank Secrecy Act, adopted to combat money laundering, to require broker/custodians to police advisers on their platforms for violations of the Advisers Act. It’s a novel legal theory to further the regulator’s enforcement goal of requiring large securities markets participants to serve in a gatekeeping role for the industry.
The SEC has sued a lawyer for aiding and abetting securities fraud by preparing a registration statement that failed to disclose that the principal was a convicted felon that controlled the issuer. According to the SEC, the principal instructed the lawyer that he should not be named as an officer or director of the issuer because of his prior conviction. Nevertheless, according to the SEC, the lawyer knew that the principal fully controlled the issuer and failed to include such disclosure in the Form S-1. The SEC also charges that the lawyer knew or was severely reckless in not knowing that the three persons listed as officers and directors had not agreed to serve.
OUR TAKE: The SEC will hold gatekeepers, including lawyers, accountable for their bad clients. This case goes further than prior enforcement cases by prosecuting a lawyer for reckless conduct rather than knowingly furthering a specific fraud.
The SEC barred from the industry a purported lawyer that failed to investigate red flags arising in municipal bond offerings for which he served as underwriter’s counsel. The sponsor of the offerings previously settled an SEC enforcement action pursuant to which he agreed to repay over $86 Million to investors because of misleading disclosures about compliance with municipal disclosure requirements. The SEC faults the lawyer for engaging in a weak due diligence that failed to investigate disclosure red flags that were raised by several parties involved in the transaction. Additionally, the respondent claimed to be a lawyer even though he was not actively admitted to the bar in any jurisdiction. The SEC charges the respondent with fraud in the offer and sale of securities as well as causing the issuer’s legal violations.
OUR TAKE: The SEC will hold gatekeepers such as lawyers accountable for the bad acts of their clients. This case expands gatekeeper liability by charging securities fraud even though the lawyer is not a registrant.
OUR TAKE: Although it may be a legal stretch to assert that a fund administrator caused a fraudulent client’s illegal conduct, the SEC will hold securities markets gatekeepers accountable for their client’s behavior. Service providers must conduct due diligence before accepting a client or risk being found guilty by association.