InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
SEC’s SAB 121 should be subject to congressional review, says GAO
On October 31, the GAO opined that the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 (SAB 121) is a rule, and thus the SEC was required to submit it for congressional review. SAB 121 describes how SEC staff would expect entities to account for and disclose their custodial obligations for engaging in crypto-asset services, noting that crypto companies may have to present such obligations as a liability on their balance sheets. The GAO found that SAB 121 provides interpretive guidance, but the SEC failed to submit a report as required under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) before a rule can take effect.
The GAO’s opinion notes that the SEC maintains a different position than the GAO on the nature of SAB 121, arguing that SAB 121 is not a rule (and thus subject to CRA review), but instead is “guidance” indicating “how the Office of the Chief Accountant and the Division of Corporation Finance would recommend that the agency act,” and is not an agency statement from the full Commission. However, the GAO’s found that “[SAB 121] is a statement made by the SEC,” and that “a statement issued by a subset of the agency may still constitute an agency statement for CRA purposes.”
UK Government to regulate cryptoassets more strictly under a new regulatory regime
On October 30, the HM Treasury of the UK Government released a report titled “Future Financial Services Regulatory Regime for Cryptoassets,” confirming its plans to regulate digital assets more strictly. The regulatory framework includes descriptions of requirements for the admission of digital assets to a trading venue, including disclosure documents. To make cryptocurrencies subject to the FCA’s rule-making powers, the HM Treasury expanded the definition of “specified instruments” to include digital currencies, but not its definition of “financial instrument.”
The UK Government created the report based on stakeholder feedback on an extensive survey on cryptoassets. The report summarizes responses to 51 survey questions and provides explanations regarding the UK government’s intentions to proceed with the framework. The report outlines how the UK can attract more crypto businesses while also protecting consumer interests. Topics include, among other things, (i) confirmation that the proposed regime does not intend to capture activities relating to cryptoassets which are specified investments that are already regulated; (ii) information regarding the future FCA authorization process for cryptoasset activities; (iii) the UK government’s support for the use of publicly available information to compile appropriate disclosure and admission documents; and (iv) acknowledgment of the potential need for a staggered implementation for cross-venue data sharing obligations. The report recognizes the rapidly evolving nature of the crypto sector and emphasizes that “the government continues to consider that developing a fully bespoke regime outside of the FSMA framework would risk creating an un-level playing field between cryptoasset firms and the traditional financial sector.”
Any legislative changes in response to this report on how the UK Government regulates cryptoassets will occur in 2024, “subject to Parliamentary time.”
SEC announces 2024 examination priorities, excludes ESG
On October 16, the SEC’s Division of Examinations announced that its 2024 examination priorities will focus on key risk factors related to information security and operational resiliency, crypto assets and emerging financial technology, regulation systems compliance and integrity, and anti-money laundering. SEC registrants, including investment advisers, investment companies, broker dealers, self-regulatory organizations, clearing agencies, and other market participants are reminded of their obligations to address, manage, and mitigate these key risks. Notably, ESG was a “significant focus area[]” in 2022 (covered by InfoBytes here) and 2023, but it is not directly mentioned in the 2024 examination priorities.
According to the report, examiners plan to increase their engagement to support the evolving market and new regulatory requirements. Regarding information security and operational resiliency, examiners will focus on registrants’ procedures surrounding “internal controls, oversight of third-party vendors (where applicable), governance practices, and responses to cyber-related incidents, including those related to ransomware attacks.” Additionally, regarding crypto assets and emerging fintech, examiners will focus on registrants’ business practices involving compliance practices, risk disclosures, and operational resiliency practices. The SEC also mentioned in the “Crypto Assets and Emerging Financial Technology” section of the report that it will assess registrant preparations for the recently adopted rule for broker dealer transactions that shortens the standard settlement cycle to one business day (previously two days) after the trade, which has a compliance date of May 28, 2024. Among other things, the SEC will also focus on whether registrants’ regulation systems compliance and integrity are “reasonably designed” to ensure the security of its systems, including physical security of the systems housed in data centers.
SEC chair Gary Gensler said that the Division of Examinations plays an important role in “protecting investors and facilitating capital formation,” adding that the commission will focus on “enhancing trust” in the changing markets.
Congressmembers urge SEC’s Gensler to approve spot Bitcoin ETPs
On September 26, a group of bipartisan members from the House Financial Services Committee sent a letter to Gary Gensler, the Chair of the SEC, to promptly approve the listing of spot Bitcoin exchange-traded products (ETPs). They have criticized the SEC's stance on these products, which they deem to be discriminatory, arguing that the commission’s purpose of making compliant products available to investors. In addition, the letter cites the recent D.C. Circuit decision that overruled the SEC’s denial of a company’s application to convert its Bitcoin trust into an ETF (covered by InfoBytes here). The members, including Tom Emmer (R-MN), Mike Flood (R-NE), and Wiley Nickel (D-NC) and Ritchie Torres (D-NY), argue that approving Bitcoin ETPs would enhance investor safety and transparency by providing a regulated framework.
Bank to pay $25 million to settle alleged misleading ESG claims
On September 25, the SEC announced two enforcement actions against a subsidiary (respondent) of a German multinational investment bank and financial services company, in which the respondent agreed to pay a total of $25 million in penalties arising from (i) purportedly misleading statements respondent made regarding its Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) program; and (ii) its failure to develop a mutual fund Anti-Money Laundering (AML) program. According to the order, respondent allegedly marketed itself to clients and investors as a leader in ESG that adhered to specific policies for integrating ESG considerations into its investments but failed to implement certain provisions of its global ESG integration policy. The order contains a number of statements that respondent made concerning its ESG program that the SEC found to be materially misleading. For example, respondent allegedly represented through its ESG Policy that its research analysts were required to include financially material and reputation relevant ESG aspects into its valuation models, investment recommendations and research reports and consider material ESG aspects as part of their investment decision, but respondent’s internal analyses allegedly showed that research analysts have inconsistent levels of documented compliance with this requirement. The SEC determined that respondent’s failure to implement certain policies and procedures violated multiple sections of the Advisers Act, including Section 206(2), “which prohibits an investment adviser, directly or indirectly, from engaging ‘in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client.’”
Through the ESG order, respondent has agreed to pay a $19 million civil penalty and to cease and desist from committing any further violations of the violated sections of the Advisors Act. The SEC also charged respondent with a separate Anti-Money Laundering order, for failure to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act and FinCen regulations. Respondent did not admit nor deny the SEC’s claims.
SEC adopts truth-in-advertising rule enhancements for funds
On September 20, the SEC adopted amendments (as set forth in the final rule and as discussed in the fact sheet) to the Investment Companies Act rule that requires investment companies whose names suggest a focus in a particular type of investment to adopt a policy to invest not less than 80 percent of the value of their assets in those investments (the “Names Rule”). The agency said amendments to the Names Rule will enhance its protections by addressing gaps in the current requirements and will “help ensure that a fund’s portfolio aligns with a fund’s name.”
The Names Rule promotes truth-in-advertising by ensuring that a fund whose name accurately suggests a focus on a particular type of investment adopt a policy to align its portfolio to put 80 percent of its assets toward the cause suggested by its name (the “80 percent investment policy”).
The SEC said, “the amendments will enhance the rule’s protections by requiring more funds to adopt an 80 percent investment policy, including funds with names suggesting a focus in investments with particular characteristics, for example, terms such as 'growth' or 'value,' or certain terms that reference a thematic investment focus, such as the incorporation of one or more Environmental, Social, or Governance factors.”
The amendments will expand the requirement to adopt an 80 percent investment policy to more funds, including those with names suggesting a focus in investments with particular characteristics (e.g., “growth” or “value”), or certain terms that reference the incorporation of one or more ESG factors. The amendments will also (i) require that a fund conduct a quarterly review of its portfolio assets’ treatment under its 80 percent investment policy; (ii) establish deadlines for getting back into compliance if a fund departs from its 80 percent investment policy; (iii) enhanced prospectus disclosure requirements to require that terminology used in fund names that suggest an investment focus must be consistent with the plain English meaning or established industry use of such terms.
The amendments will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Fund groups with more than $1 billion in assets under management will have two years to comply with the rule. Funds that manage less than $1 billion will be given 30 months to comply with the rule.
SEC approves final Privacy Act rules
On September 20, the SEC announced the approval of its revised Privacy Act rules, which govern the handling of personal information in the federal government. Among other things, the final rule will update, clarify, and streamline the SEC’s Privacy Act Regulations by (i) clarifying the purpose and scope of the regulations; (ii) updating definitions to plainly describe regulation processes; (iii) allowing for electronic methods to verify requesters identities and submit Privacy Act requests; and (iv) providing for a shorter response time to Privacy Act requests. The final rule will also update fee provisions and eliminate unnecessary provisions. The SEC last updated its Privacy Act rules in 2011, and due to the extent of the provisions, the final rule will replace the commission’s current Privacy Act regulations entirely.
The revised rule will take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Bank enters into settlement agreement with SEC for charging advisory fees
On August 25, the SEC entered into a settlement agreement with a national bank that requires the bank to pay a $35 million civil penalty for overcharging more than 10,900 investment advisory accounts over $26.8 million in advisory fees. According to the order, the bank and its predecessors agreed to reduce standard advisory fee rates for certain clients when clients agreed to open accounts at the bank via handwritten or typed notes and changes on the clients’ standard investment advisory agreements; however, these reduced rates were not entered into the bank’s billing systems when setting up client accounts. As a result, the clients were overcharged advisory fees for years, because the bank also failed to adopt policies and procedures to prevent overbilling.
The agreement “underscores the need for firms growing their businesses through acquisition to ensure that their growth does not come at the expense of client protection,” said the Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, Gurbir S. Grewel. He further noted that “[i]nvestment advisers must adopt and implement policies and procedures to ensure that they honor their agreements with all of their clients, including legacy clients of predecessor firms.”
In addition to the $35 million civil penalty, the bank also paid affected accountholders approximately $40 million to reimburse clients for the overcharging. The bank did not admit or deny the SEC’s charges set forth in the agreement.
SEC files brief in its Supreme Court appeal to reverse 5th Circuit ruling against use of adjudication powers and ALJs
On August 28, the SEC filed a brief in its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s 2022 ruling that the commission’s in-house adjudication is unconstitutional. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the 5th Circuit held that the SEC’s in-house adjudication of a petitioners’ case violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and relied on unconstitutionally delegated legislative power. The brief argues that securities laws are “distinct from common law because they authorize the government to seek civil penalties even if no private person has yet suffered harm from the defendant’s violation (and therefore no person could obtain damages).” Moreover, the SEC argues that the Court has continually upheld the right of an agency to decide whether to enter an enforcement action through the civil or criminal process. The SEC referenced the 1985 Heckler v. Chaney case, which set the precedent that there is no constitutional difference between the power to decide whether to pursue an enforcement action and where to pursue an enforcement action, as they are both executive powers, supporting the claim that there is “a long and unbroken line of decisions that have relied on the public-rights doctrine in upholding such statutory schemes against Article III and Seventh Amendment challenges.” The SEC also reminded the Court that when it enforces securities laws through an administrative enforcement proceeding with a result that is not in favor of the respondent, the respondent may obtain a judicial review through the court of appeals. Finally, the commission contends that the 5th Circuit erred when it held that statutory removal restrictions for ALJs are unconstitutional, and that Congress has “acted permissibly in requiring agencies to establish cause for their removal of ALJs.”
SEC conducts its first-ever NFT enforcement again
On August 28, the SEC entered an order against a Los Angeles-based media and entertainment company charging them with conducting an unregistered offering of crypto asset securities in the form of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). According to the order, the company offered and sold different tiers of NFTs to hundreds of investors between October and December of 2021, and ultimately raised approximately $30 million from the sales. The SEC alleged that the company encouraged potential investors to purchase the unregistered NFTs in return for an investment in the business, promising “tremendous value” to the purchasers if the company was successful in its attempts to “build the next Disney” and launch other creative projects. The order found that the NFTs were ultimately investment contracts and therefore securities, and that the company subsequently violated federal securities laws by offering and selling crypto assets in an unregistered securities offering that was not otherwise exempt from registration requirements.
The SEC noted that all securities, in whatever form, are required to be registered and that when companies fail to register securities, “investors of all types are deprived of the protections afforded them by the robust disclosures and other safeguards long provided by our securities laws.” The company did not admit or deny the findings set forth in the order but agreed to cease-and-desist from violating registration provisions of the 1933 Act and pay a combined penalty of over $6.1 million in fees. The order also establishes a “Fair Fund” to return money to investors who paid to purchase NFTs.
On the same day, the SEC released a statement from Republican commissioners, Hester M. Peirce and Mark T. Uyeda, underscoring the significance of the commission’s first NFT enforcement action. “People are experimenting with a lot of different uses of NFTs,” said the commissioners in their partial dissents. “Consequently, any attempt to use this enforcement action as precedent is fraught with difficulty.” The commissioners further criticized the SEC’s failure to provide guidance on NFTs when they first started proliferating and raised several questions.