Investment Adviser to Mutual Fund Cited for Undisclosed Conflicts
May 11, 2021
As proof that a little disclosure can go a long way, the SEC, on May 10, 2021, announced a settlement with an investment adviser to a registered investment company that was sanctioned for undisclosed conflicts of interest. The matter is of interest because the alleged “bad behavior” did not involve a violation of the Investment Company Act at all: no 17(a) prohibited transactions were alleged, the conduct at issue did not involve a 17(d) joint transaction and no 17(e) illegal receipt of compensation was at issue. Rather, the investment adviser was cited for violating Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act for negligently failing to include a description of a conflict of interest in its Form ADV, which conflict arose in the context of a contract by two advisers who would refer business to one another, and where the facts showed that the sanctioned mutual fund adviser made a significant mutual fund investment in the other adviser’s private fund while negotiating for a potential investment by the other adviser’s principals in a new fund of the sanctioned adviser. The adviser’s principal was , but nothing worse. The cautionary tale here would seem to be that when it comes to ADV drafting, an “ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Disclaimer
This blog is made available by 麻豆传媒 (鈥溌槎勾解 or 鈥渢he Firm鈥) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm鈥檚 legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of 麻豆传媒, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with 麻豆传媒 through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to 麻豆传媒 through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published 鈥淎S IS鈥 and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. 麻豆传媒 makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. 麻豆传媒 expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall 麻豆传媒 or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.
Author(s)
Related Insights
December 4, 2024
麻豆传媒 Funds Legal Focus
BREAKING: Federal Court Enjoins Government from Enforcing Corporate Transparency Act
On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted a nationwide preliminary injunction that enjoins the federal government from enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act.
June 7, 2024
麻豆传媒 Funds Legal Focus
Fifth Circuit Rules SEC Exceeded Its Authority in Adopting Private Fund Advisers Rule
On June 5, 2024, a three-judge panel in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission exceeded its statutory authority in adopting the so-called 鈥淧rivate Fund Advisers Rule鈥 and, accordingly, vacated the Rule in full.
February 24, 2023
麻豆传媒 Funds Legal Focus
SEC Proposed Safeguarding Rule
On February 15th 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 鈥淪EC鈥, or the 鈥淐ommission鈥) proposed a new safeguarding rule. Comments must be received by the SEC on or before 60 days after the rule鈥檚 publication in the Federal Registrar.