SEC reporting obligations for insiders and large traders under Section 13 and Section 16 of the Exchange Act

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 39-53
Author(s):  
Arthur L. Zwickel ◽  
Keith D. Pisani ◽  
Alicia M. Harrison
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Individual Investors ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Disclosure Requirements ◽  
Beneficial Ownership ◽  
Expert Analysis ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Trading Restrictions ◽  
A Current

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide investment advisers, broker dealers, individual investors and other securities firms with a current and detailed summary of the reporting regime under Sections 13 and 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and guidance on how to comply with the disclosure requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on Schedule 13D, Schedule 13G, Form 13F, Form 13H and Forms 3, 4 and 5. Design/methodology/approach The approach of this paper discusses the transactions or beneficial ownership interests in securities that trigger a reporting requirement under Section 13 and/or Section 16 of the Exchange Act, identifies the person or persons that have the obligation to file reports with the SEC, details the information required to be disclosed in the publicly available reports, and explains certain trading restrictions imposed on reporting persons as well as the potential adverse consequences of filing late or failing to make the requisite disclosures to the SEC. Findings The SEC continues to provide updated guidance on the disclosure requirements under Sections 13 and 16 of the Exchange Act, which individual investors and securities firms – largely insiders – must take into account when filing any new or amended reports on Schedule 13D, Schedule 13G, Form 13F, Form 13H and Forms 3, 4 and 5. Originality/value This article provides expert analysis and guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

A failure to supervise: the SEC casts a shadow over internal investigations

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-12
Author(s):  
John P. Nowak ◽  
Thomas A. Zaccaro ◽  
Katherine K. Solomon
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Red Flags ◽  
Content Type ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Expert Analysis ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Internal Procedures

Purpose The purpose of this article is to highlight a recent settlement by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in which it alleged that a regulated entity failed to supervise a representative principally because the entity did not establish clear guidance as to how its personnel should investigate red flags of a representative’s potential misconduct (e.g., how to follow up on the red flags and define the scope of any inquiry). Design/methodology/approach This article provides an overview of failure-to-supervise liability for broker-dealers and investment advisers, and highlights key takeaways from the SEC’s recent enforcement resolution that may be applied in establishing compliance procedures relating to internal investigations going forward. Findings The article concludes that the SEC appears to expect regulated entities to implement procedures guiding employees on “how to investigate” suspicious activity. Companies, however, should define such procedures in general terms to allow for flexibility in investigations, which can present unique or unforeseen situations. Internal procedures must also account for and preserve attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protections. Originality/value This article provides expert analysis and practical guidance from experienced lawyers in the Investigations and White Collar Defense and Securities Enforcement practices

SEC credits self-reporting and cooperation in not imposing penalty on ICO sponsor

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-15
Author(s):  
Daniel Hawke
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Expert Analysis ◽  
Securities Laws ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Civil Penalty ◽  
Do So

Purpose To explain a February 20, 2019 US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) settled enforcement action against Gladius Network LLC for failing to register an initial coin offering (ICO) under the federal securities laws, in which Gladius was able to avoid a civil penalty by self-reporting the violation and cooperating with the SEC enforcement staff. Design/methodology/approach Explains Gladius’ self-reporting, cooperation and remedial steps; why the SEC imposed no civil penalty on Gladius; and two similar cases the SEC instituted in July 2018 against companies that conducted unregistered ICOs, did not self-report, and were penalized. Provides analysis and conclusions. Findings The Gladius case offers important insight into how the SEC and its staff think about cooperation credit in resolving SEC enforcement actions and sends a clear message that self-reporting to the SEC can result in meaningful cooperation credit. In three recent cases, the Commission has made clear that once it put the industry on notice that ICOs could be securities that must be registered under the federal securities laws, a party risks enforcement action by failing to do so. Originality/value Expert analysis and guidance from an experienced securities lawyer who counsels clients on all manner of SEC enforcement, examination and regulatory policy matters.

scholarly journals Corporate governance and executive perquisites

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Andrews ◽  
Scott Linn ◽  
Han Yi
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Corporate Disclosure ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Listed Firms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Disclosure Requirements ◽  
Rule Change

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the relation between executive perquisite consumption and indicators of corporate governance after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) expanded the disclosure requirements related to perquisites. Design/methodology/approach This study uses ordinary least squares and Tobit regressions to examine the dollar value of perquisites consumed, the number of perquisites consumed and the types of perquisites consumed. Findings The analysis shows that firms with weak corporate governance are more likely to award perquisites to executives. Firms characterized as being more prone to the presence of agency problems are associated with greater levels of perquisite consumption. Finally, there is evidence that not all perquisite consumptions can be attributed to an agency problem. Efficiently operating firms are associated with greater levels of perquisite consumption as are larger firms. Research limitations/implications The authors examine firms in the period immediately after the SEC initiated the expanded disclosures. This may limit the generalizability of the results to other exchange-listed firms that changed their perquisite policy as a result of the rule change. Originality/value The paper extends the literature on corporate governance and mandatory corporate disclosure by investigating the association between corporate governance characteristics and perquisite consumption. This paper examines this relation immediately after the SEC expanded the disclosures surrounding perquisites to provide the public with more transparent disclosures.

A review of the SEC Participating Affiliate No-Action Letters’ relief from Investment Advisers Act of 1940 registration for foreign investment advisers

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 22-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy E. Cohen ◽  
David Y. Dickstein ◽  
Christian B. Hennion ◽  
Richard D. Marshall ◽  
Allison C. Yacker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Information Update ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers

Purpose To explain the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) staff’s (the “Staff”) participating affiliate exemption from investment adviser registration for foreign advisers set forth in a line of Staff no-action letters issued between 1992 and 2005 (the “Participating Affiliate Letters”) and to discuss recent guidance issued by the Staff in an information update published in March 2017 (the “Information Update”) with respect to complying with requirements of the Participating Affiliate Letters. Design/methodology/approach Reviews the development of the Staff’s approach regarding the non-registration of foreign advisers that rely on the Participating Affiliate Letters from prior to the issuance of those letters through the Information Update and sets forth recommendations for registered investment advisers and their participating affiliates. Findings While there are arguments that the Information Update goes beyond restating established standards and does not clearly explain whether submission of all listed documentation is required, the Information Update will likely standardize the information submitted to the SEC. Originality/value Practical guidance for advisers relying on the Participating Affiliate Letters from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

SEC’s disclosure effectiveness initiative reshapes MD&A disclosure requirements

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Parrino
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Financial Information ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Market Participants ◽  
Financial Condition ◽  
Disclosure Requirements ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The Us ◽  
Financial Disclosures

Purpose This article examines rule amendments issued by the US Securities and Exchange Commission in November 2020, as part of the SEC’s ongoing “disclosure effectiveness initiative”, that revise in significant respects the requirements for financial disclosures presented in SEC filings as Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. Design/methodology/approach This article provides an in-depth analysis of the rule amendments in the context of contrasting perspectives expressed by the SEC, individual SEC Commissioners who dissented from adoption of the amendments, and market participants regarding the merits of the SEC’s movement away from prescriptive disclosure requirements towards a more principles-based approach to disclosure. Findings Although the SEC’s rules have long reflected a mix of principles-based and prescriptive disclosure elements, the principles-based emphasis in this latest stage of the SEC’s disclosure modernization project accords the managements of filing companies greater latitude to determine whether financial information is material to investors and how such information should be presented. Originality/value This article provides expert guidance on a major new SEC disclosure development from an experienced securities lawyer.

OCIE to investment advisers: focus on these five problem areas

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 16-18
Author(s):  
Brynn D. Peltz ◽  
Ilan S. Nissan ◽  
Evyn W. Rabinowitz
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Funds Management ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose To explain a Risk Alert published on February 7, 2017 published by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) describing the five compliance topics most frequently identified in deficiency letters sent to investment advisers after the completion of an OCIE examination. Design/methodology/approach Discusses deficiencies noted by the OCIE relating to the Compliance Rule, required regulatory filings, the Custody Rule, the Code of Ethics Rule, and the Books and Records Rule. Findings The OCIE published the Risk Alert with its noted deficiencies only one month after releasing its exam priorities for the year. Practical implications All investment advisers should consider reviewing their compliance practices, policies and procedures in light of the deficiencies and weaknesses identified in the SEC Risk Alert. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced lawyers specializing in asset and funds management.

SEC issues Staff Legal Bulletin after four-year comprehensive review of proxy system

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-65
Author(s):  
John E. Sorkin ◽  
Abigail Pickering Bomba ◽  
Steven Epstein ◽  
Jessica Forbes ◽  
Peter S. Golden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose – To provide an overview of the guidance for proxy firms and investment advisers included in the Staff Legal Bulletin released this year by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after its four-year comprehensive review of the proxy system. Design/methodology/approach – Discusses briefly the context in which the SEC’s review was conducted; the general themes of the guidance provided; the most notable aspects of the guidance; and the matters that were expected to be, but were not, addressed by the SEC. Findings – The guidance does not go as far in regulating proxy advisory firms as many had anticipated it would. The key obligations specified in the guidance are imposed on the investment advisers who engage the proxy firms. The responsibilities, policies and procedures mandated do not change the fundamental paradigm that has supported the influence of proxy firms – that is, investment advisers continue to be permitted to fulfill their duty to vote client shares in a “conflict-free manner” by voting based on the recommendations of independent third parties, and continue to be exempted from the rules that generally apply to persons who solicit votes or make proxy recommendations. Practical implications – The SEC staff states in the Bulletin that it expects that proxy firms and investment advisers will conform to the obligations imposed in the Bulletin “promptly, but in any event in advance of [the 2015] proxy season.” Originality/value – Practical guidance from experienced M&A lawyers.

SEC proposes new compensation clawback rules

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 43-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Brady ◽  
Rolf Zaiss ◽  
Nyron Persaud
Keyword(s):  
Executive Compensation ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Stock Exchanges ◽  
Wall Street ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Consumer Protection Act ◽  
Disclosure Requirements ◽  
New Public ◽  
Expert Analysis

Purpose – To examine the proposed rules issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which, if adopted, would require national stock exchanges to establish listing standards that would require listed issuers to adopt so-called clawback policies for the recovery of excess incentive-based compensation in the event that an issuer is required to prepare an accounting restatement resulting from material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement. Design/methodology/approach – The article discusses the SEC’s proposed rules, including the circumstances that would require recovery of excess incentive-based compensation, the types of compensation that, and the individuals whose compensation, would be subject to recovery, and certain new disclosure requirements for listed issuers. Findings – The SEC’s proposed rules will, if adopted, impose additional burdens on listed issuers to adopt and comply with recovery policies for excess incentive-based compensation and adhere to new public disclosure requirements. Originality/value – Expert analysis from experienced securities and executive compensation lawyers.

2020 SEC risk alert provides guidance for private fund advisers

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-54
Author(s):  
Kenneth Breen ◽  
Phara Guberman
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Expert Analysis ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
The U.S

Purpose To analyze the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) June 2020 Risk Alert, which identified three categories of deficiencies that the SEC regularly finds in its reviews of advisers to private funds, in order to understand its guidance and recommend best practices. Design/methodology/approach The study discusses the categories of deficiencies that the SEC regularly finds in its reviews of private fund advisers, current SEC enforcement trends, and recommendations for disclosures, internal controls, policies and procedures. Findings The SEC will expect private funds to identify and remedy regular deficiencies in three primary categories: gaps in client and investor disclosures regarding conflicts of interest; deficiencies in disclosures related to fees and expenses; and issues with policies and procedures regarding the treatment of material nonpublic information. Practical implications Private fund advisers should expect increased scrutiny during examinations on the identified deficiencies and use this opportunity to be proactive in addressing these issues. Originality/value Expert analysis and guidance from experienced securities enforcement attorneys.

SEC publishes important guidance on the Custody Rule, participating affiliate arrangements, robo-advisers, Form PF and certain compliance topics

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 34-40
Author(s):  
Joyce E. Larson ◽  
Kara J. Brown ◽  
Ivet A. Bell
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Investors ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Regulatory Filing

Purpose To highlight guidance issued by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the benefit of investment advisers regarding certain obligations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) and the rules thereunder. Design/methodology/approach Summarizes recent guidance regarding issues related to several challenging Advisers Act requirements, including inadvertent custody and client account transfers under Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-2, the use of participating affiliate arrangements pursuant to the “Unibanco” no-action letters, unique considerations affecting automated advisers (i.e., “robo-advisers”), the top five most frequently identified compliance topics identified in examinations conducted by the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE), and recent guidance regarding the private fund regulatory filing Form PF. Findings This guidance may assist advisers in preparing for regulatory examinations and questions from institutional investors. While the recent guidance addresses important topics, the guidance also raises some practical questions. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document