Jacko Law Group, PC
Call Today for a Consultation
San Diego 619-298-2880 San Francisco 415-766-3599 Los Angeles 213-631-2549

April 2013 Archives

The SEC and CFTC Jointly Approve New Identity Theft Rules

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), in tandem with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), jointly adopted Final Rules requiring certain entities to implement programs to detect red flags and prevent identity theft.  These rules were developed in response to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank”) which shifted responsibility for identify theft rules and enforcement of such rules from the Federal Trade Commission to the SEC and the CFTC for those entities under their respective jurisdiction.  Specifically, the SEC’s rules will apply to those entities under its jurisdiction, including broker-dealers, investment companies, and investment advisers; while the CFTC’s rules will apply to futures commission merchants, commodity trading advisors and commodity pool operators.  However, both the SEC and CFTC rules will only apply to “financial institutions” and “creditors” as those terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act that offer and maintain “covered accounts.”The new rules require those covered entities to develop and implement written policies and procedures designed to detect, prevent and mitigate identity theft in connection with certain existing accounts or the opening of new accounts.  Specifically, these policies and procedures must: (1) identify relevant red flags; (2) detect the red flags; (3) respond appropriately to red flags that have been detected; and (4) periodically update the identity theft policies and procedures.  The Final Rules provide additional guidance, including examples, to help determine which entities qualify and, if so, how to comply with the new rules.The new rules also require that covered entities provide staff training and appoint a “senior management employee” (most likely the entity’s Chief Compliance Officer) to be responsible for the program.  Furthermore, those entities not initially subject to the new rules are required to periodically reassess whether or not they are required to develop such policies and procedures in light of changes in the accounts they offer or maintain.The Final Rules will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.  Once effective, those subject to the new rules will have six months to implement their red flag programs.For further information about this, or other related topics, please contact us at (619) 298-2880 or at info@jackolg.com.

Remember, It's Not Just What You Say, But How and Where You Say It

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued an Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings against ZPR Investment Management, Inc. ("ZPR") and Max E. Zavanelli ("Zavanelli") alleging that ZPR and Zavanelli made false and misleading advertisements in several financial magazines and in monthly newsletters to clients and prospective clients.  The SEC goes on to specify that ZPR, through Zavanelli, omitted material information about the firm's historical performance results (specifically that their period to date performance was underperforming its benchmark index) and claimed compliance with Global Investment Performance Standards ("GIPS Standards") when in fact they were not in compliance.  If convicted, ZPR and Zavanelli face civil penalties, cease-and-desist orders, and other remedial actions.  This case is an important reminder that although the rules governing advertising by investment advisers are sometimes difficult to navigate, compliance with such rules is mandatory and regularly enforced by the SEC.

Custody of Client Accounts: Does "Screen Sharing" Give Rise to a Custody Claim?

According to Rule 206(4)-2 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the "Act"), the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") defines "custody" as "...holding, directly or indirectly, client funds or securities, or having any authority to obtain possession of them."  This definition gives a broad interpretation as to what constitutes custody, and leaves several grey areas for advisers to try to elucidate.  Recently Charles Schwab published an article on one such area, stating that advisers who have access and login credentials to their client's online accounts are generally deemed to have custody, if the custodian's website permits the withdrawal and transfer of funds (regardless of whether the adviser is making such transfers or if the client allowed/disallowed such activities). In taking this a step further, what would be the outcome if an adviser did not have a client's login credentials, but did the adviser utilize a "screen sharing" application, whereby both the client and the adviser have the ability to view the client's online account, and each have access to make withdrawals/transfers to that account simultaneously? While the SEC has not specifically addressed this practice in its Custody FAQs, consider the similar application of how may custody apply in the situation whereby the adviser is given hard copy statements of assets held away from the adviser, and the client requests guidance on their portfolio holdings.  In this case, the adviser would not be deemed to have custody since the adviser, "did not have the ability to withdraw [or transfer] funds"[1] away from the client's account. Conversely, should login credentials be provided to the adviser in order for the adviser to view the client's account in order to provide similar adviser, it could be construed that the adviser is deemed to have custody, for then the adviser would have the ability to withdraw funds from a client's online account.  This is a key differential that should be considered. In its FAQ, the SEC goes on to state that whether an adviser does or does not have the client's authority to withdraw or transfer assets of such accounts is irrelevant.  The mere fact that the adviser has the ability to make such changes is the focal point.  As such, in a screen sharing scenario, if the adviser has the ability to make a withdrawal or transfer client funds, this would likely be deemed as having custody for purposes of Rule 206(4)-2 of the Act, subjecting the adviser to the reporting and auditing requirements therein. For further information on this, or other related topics, please contact us at info@jackolg.com or (619)298-2880.

Email Us For A Response

How Can We Help?

Email us to request more information or to schedule an appointment.

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

San Diego Office
1350 Columbia Street
Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92101

Toll Free: 866-497-2298
Phone: 213-631-2549
Phone: 619-298-2880
Fax: 619-298-2882
Map & Directions

San Francisco Office
Four Embarcadero Center
Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111

Phone: 213-631-2549
Phone: 415-766-3599
Fax: 619-298-2882
Map & Directions

Los Angeles Office
535 N. Brand Boulevard
Suite 279
Glendale, CA 91203

Phone: 213-631-2549
Fax: 619-298-2882
Map & Directions