The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) imposes sweeping obligations on a diverse array of businesses, but investment advisers subject to Regulation S-P (adopted pursuant to the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)) are treated somewhat differently. The CCPA does not provide a blanket exemption for investment advisers with retail clients, although the CCPA’s exception for personal information

On March 11, 2019, the SEC announced settlements with 79 investment advisers who self-reported violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) in connection with the Division of Enforcement’s Share Class Selection Disclosure Initiative (the “Share Class Initiative”). The advisers, collectively, agreed to return more than $125 million in fees and prejudgment

The SEC’s Division of Investment Management and Division of Corporation Finance published joint guidance on June 30, 2014 regarding investment advisers’ responsibilities in voting client proxies, and two exemptions from the federal proxy rules that are often relied upon by proxy advisory firms.

The staff noted that the guidance may require investment advisers and proxy

The SEC has brought the first action under the “pay-to-play” rule adopted under the Investment Advisers Act.  The SEC also found that two affiliated exempt reporting advisers were operationally integrated and as such should have registered as an investment adviser.

Pay-to-Play Violation.  Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act provides that investment advisers (whether

In its June 2014 Guidance Update, the SEC’s Division of Investment Management said that series funds are individual investment companies for purposes of compliance with certain investor protections, including the 1940 Act’s restrictions on principal transactions.

Section 17(a) of the 1940 Act generally prohibits an “affiliated person” of a mutual fund, or an affiliated

Clearly signaling its intention to support whistleblowers who provide actionable evidence of wrong-doing, the SEC this week settled the first case brought under the authority granted by the Dodd-Frank Act enabling anti-retaliation enforcement actions.  The case arose after an employee of a hedge fund advisory firm reported potentially illegal activity related to improper principal transactions.