SEC Sanctions Three Advisers for Custody Rule Violations
Written by: Jay B. Gould and Jessica M. Brown
On October 28, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) brought enforcement actions and imposed sanctions on three different registered advisers and their principals for violations of Rule 206(4)-2 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Custody Rule”). The circumstances that gave rise to each adviser being deemed to have custody differed, however, certain violations of the Custody Rule were present in each case. These advisers were sanctioned for (i) incorrectly reporting their custody of client assets on their Form ADV, (ii) not conducting a surprise audit by an independent public accountant to verify client assets in custody, (iii) not having a reasonable belief that a qualified custodian was delivering account statements to fund investors at least every quarter, and (iv) a lack of properly written policies and procedures to protect client assets in custody.
This interest by SEC examination and enforcement staff should come as no surprise to investment advisers. Each year, the SEC publishes a list of areas on which examiners will focus their efforts during the year. The 2013 examination priority publication listed the Custody Rule as the first item on the priority list. The SEC clearly stated to the industry that examinations of investment advisers would scrutinize the adviser’s (i) understanding of what constitutes custody, (ii) compliance with the “surprise exam” requirement of the Custody Rule, (iii) satisfaction of the “qualified custodian” provision and, (iv) if applicable, proper use of the exception for pooled investment vehicles.
Generally, any adviser that has access to a client’s account or assets, or has an arrangement in place that permits it to withdraw client assets, must comply with the Custody Rule. An exception to the annual surprise audit and account statement delivery requirements are available for advisers that have custody of private fund or hedge fund assets, as long as certain conditions are met.
Because the definition of custody is both broad and somewhat convoluted, advisers should regularly review how client assets are maintained to determine if they have custody of client assets within the meaning of the Custody Rule and, if so, whether their compliance procedures, regulatory disclosures and marketing materials accurately reflect current business practice. Investment advisers should always stay familiar with what the SEC has determined will be examination and enforcement priorities.