On January 22, 2016, the members of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) released the Senior Model Act. It was developed and approved to serve as a model statute for states to adopt to target financial exploitation of seniors and to shield from liability brokers and brokerage firms who acted to assist those seniors. The Senior Model Act comports with a multitude of legislation and regulatory protection for seniors. Broadly stated, the Senior Model Act proposes language for legislation that would require “qualified individuals” such as broker-dealers and investment advisers, and those who work in a supervisory or legal capacity for them, to report any suspicions of financial elder abuse. The Senior Model Act proposes the protection of “eligible adults,” defined as those over the age of 65.
Key Provisions of the Senior Model Act:
- Mandatory Reporting. Qualified individuals who reasonably believe a senior has been or is targeted to be financially exploited must report this promptly to their state’s security regulator and state’s adult protective services.
- Notification to Third Parties. A qualified individual may only report this to a third party if the senior has designated one. A qualified individual cannot report it to a person who is suspected of committing the financial abuse.
- Delayed Disbursements. Broker-dealers and investment advisers can delay disbursements from the senior’s account for up to 15 days. To do so, they must (a) notify people authorized to transact business on the senior’s account, (b) notify the state securities regulator and adult protective services, and (c) undertake an internal review of the suspected exploitation. The disbursements may be further delayed by the qualified individual for an additional 10 business days or by court order.
- Immunity. Qualified individuals will have immunity from civil or administrative liability for actions taken pursuant to the Senior Model Act.
- Providing Records. Broker-dealers and investment advisers would be required to comply with record requests from adult protective services or law enforcement when financial exploitation is suspected.
Twenty-eight states have passed laws that are substantially similar or identical to the Senior Model Act passed by the North American Securities Administrators Association. Click here for a state survey:
- The effective date of the law in each state
- Which key provisions the state has adopted
- Any notable deviations or notes of interest.
The SEC has issued guidance addressing the Form CRS. The first is a Risk Alert from the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) indicating that OCIE will be looking for good faith compliance when it conducts examinations after the June 30, 2020 Form CRS compliance date. The second includes additional FAQs providing clarification on delivery and filing requirements along with several other topical areas. We discuss the examination guidance and the FAQs in more detail in an alert on our website for those looking for more in-depth analysis. Also, note that the CRS Risk Alert was issued concurrently with a similar Alert on Reg BI examinations in general, which is the subject of a separate post on this site.
As SEC Chairman Clayton previously indicated, the compliance date of Form CRS will not be extended, but the “initial” examinations will focus on whether firms made “a good faith effort to implement Form CRS.” While emphasizing that the Risk Alert is not intended to serve as an explanation of Form CRS requirements, OCIE explains that its initial examinations may include assessment of compliance with the following areas:
Continue reading “SEC Examination Guidelines and FAQs on Form CRS”
On April 7, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) issued a Risk Alert providing guidance for the SEC’s post–June 30, 2020, examinations of firms’ compliance with Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI). This guidance is covered more fully in our Client Alert of April 13, 2020.
In an effort to present transparency in its prospective examination for Reg BI compliance, OCIE’s Risk Alert includes a three-page Appendix that provides an example of an OCIE Reg BI examination document and information request list. OCIE encourages firms to use the documents listed in the Appendix to assess their implementation plans for Reg BI. Firms should study this exemplar request list closely.
Continue reading “The Word Is Out on SEC Examinations for Reg BI Compliance – the OCIE Risk Alert”
Brokers seeking to expunge customer complaints from their records can sleep a bit easier. Richard Berry, head of FINRA’s Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR), stated last week that FINRA intends to tweak some restrictions that it had previously proposed on brokers’ abilities to seek expungement of customer complaints.
Notably, in late 2017 FINRA proposed a number of changes to the expungement process, including:
Continue reading “Wait Just a Minute: FINRA Loosens the Screws on Proposed Expungement Restrictions”
As the countdown to the June 30, 2020, date for compliance with Reg BI inches forward, FINRA and the SEC are providing a potpourri of support and information to help firms ensure compliance.
FINRA EFFORTS: FINRA’s northeast regional director announced in late October that FINRA will perform “preparedness reviews” of broker-dealers to determine firms’ readiness to comply with Reg BI. At its November Senior Investor Conference, FINRA President and CEO Robert Cook confirmed FINRA’s intention to perform these “stress tests.” . FINRA has emphasized that its intent is not to be punitive and fine firms for compliance violations. Rather, FINRA insists its primary goal is to assist firms in successfully implementing the nearly 1,000 pages of Reg BI’s regulations.
Continue reading “Reg BI Information Overload: The Countdown to June 2020 Continues with Planned Reg BI Stress Tests, Checklists and FAQS Courtesy of FINRA and the SEC”
In light of the significance of the final rules and commission interpretations issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2019, Drinker Biddle & Reath’s Best Interest Compliance Team is publishing a series of articles on the subject. The first article, “The Final Reg BI Package: What to Know and What’s Next,” described the final package of rules and interpretations. The second article covered “Form CRS .” The third article, summarized here, will provide a more detailed analysis of strategically selected provisions of the RIA Guidance.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Interpretation Regarding Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers (RIA Guidance) reaffirms, interprets, clarifies, and provides guidance regarding the fiduciary duty an investment adviser owes to its clients under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) as it has been interpreted by common law and SEC guidance. The RIA Guidance also describes the underlying responsibilities that constitute an investment adviser’s fiduciary duties: the Duty of Care and the Duty of Loyalty.
Continue reading “A Look Inside the SEC’s Final RIA Guidance and Its Discussion of “Best Interest””
On June 5, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved the Regulation Best Interest Final Package, the new disclosure requirements that accompany the financial services industry’s new Regulation Best Interest standard of care. In light of the significance of Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) for the financial services industry, Drinker Biddle & Reath’s Best Interest Compliance Team is publishing a series of articles on the SEC’s finalized “Reg BI Package” of rules and guidance.
One of the four parts of that package is Form CRS − a mandate that broker-dealers and investment advisers with retail investors (natural persons, trusts or entities representing natural persons) provide a two-page relationship summary disclosing information about their firm before a new client enters an investment adviser’s agreement or engages the services of a broker-dealer, or in the case of an existing client when there is any material change in the nature and scope of the relationship.
Continue reading “Financial Services Industry’s New Regulation Best Interest Standard of Care”
Justice Brandeis once famously said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Perhaps, but in FINRA’s purview, settlements might be better. Along these lines, FINRA recently announced that it has reached final settlements in its nearly four-year initiative to obtain restitution from member firms that allegedly failed to waive mutual fund sales charges. These firms also allegedly failed to properly supervise the sale of mutual funds that offer sales charge waivers. The settlements were substantial: 56 member firms agreed to pay $89 million in restitution for 110,000 charitable and retirement accounts.
Continue reading “Waive or Pay: FINRA Reaches Final Settlements in Its Mutual Fund Waiver Initiative”
It often is said that “it’s not the crime, but the cover-up” that is the most damaging to someone alleged to have committed misconduct. In a recent FINRA enforcement action, however, the cover-up was the crime. On July 3, 2019, FINRA barred Vincent J. Storms, a now-former Raymond James & Associates (RJA) compliance associate, for particularly egregious falsifications of RJA’s branch audit data that violated FINRA Rules 2010 and 4511.
At RJA, Mr. Storms was responsible for auditing branch offices and performing follow-up work resulting from the audits. As part of the audits, RJA sent an email to each registered representative requesting that they complete a questionnaire that gathered information such as whether the representative had any undisclosed outside business activities or undisclosed securities accounts at other broker-dealers, and whether the branch used third-party vendors to store data.
Continue reading “An Imperfect Storm(s): FINRA Bars Compliance Personnel for Falsifying Branch Audit Data”