Website Heading

CALIFORNIA CORPORATE & SECURITIES LAW

Attention Investment Advisers: Rules Are Not Statutes

Last week, I cautioned the students in my Securities Regulation class that while it can be helpful to review the SEC filings of other registrants, one should never assume that they are correct.  A few days later, I noticed that the following statement in Item 10 of numerous brochures filed by investment advisers: All material conflicts…

Share on:

Does A Political Yard Sign Really Violate The Investment Advisers Act?

“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” Doug Cornelius recently published this post reporting that the SEC staff is taking the position that the pay-to-play rule, Rule 206(4)-5, applies to political yard signs.  [After publishing this post, Doug Cornelius published this clarification.]  The SEC adopted the…

Share on:

Real Estate Fund Advisers And Penumbra Registration

Last August, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted amendments to Form ADV, the form used by investment advisers to register with the SEC and with the states.  Included in these amendments were changes to allow multiple private fund adviser entities operating a single advisory business to file one Form ADV.  These changes formalized prior staff guidance…

Share on:

More On Real Estate Funds And The Investment Advisers Act

In a previous post, I began to delve into the question of what is a “real estate fund”.  See SEC Staff Reports On “Real Estate Funds”, But What Exactly Are They?  As noted in that post, a “real estate fund” as defined in Form PF cannot be a company excluded from the definition of an “investment…

Share on:

SEC Staff Reports On “Real Estate Funds”, But What Exactly Are They?

Yesterday, the SEC staff announced that it had published a suite of new data and analyses of private fund statistics and trends.  These data include information with respect to “real estate funds”.  But what exactly is a “real estate fund”?  The answer is more than just a little arcane. The SEC gathers the data from Form PFs.  You are required…

Share on:

False Statements By Money Managers Support California Commodity Law Convictions

In 1990, California enacted the California Commodity Law, Stats. 1990, Ch. 969, Corp. Code § 29500 et seq.  Although this law hasn’t attracted the attention of legal writers, it has some very sharp teeth, as illustrated by the recent case of People v. Martinez, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017).  The CCL, among other…

Share on:

Investment Advisers And Broker-Dealers Face Scant Likelihood Of California Examinations

The California Department of Business Oversight recently issued a report on its Broker-Dealer/Investment Adviser Program.  This report was required by the Budget Act of 2014. Although short, the report provides some interesting data about California’s oversight of investment advisers and broker-dealers. In the last five years, the number of investment adviser firms subject to examination by the BDO has increased…

Share on:

California’s Private Fund Adviser Exemption

Before the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, many advisers to alternative investment vehicles, such as hedge funds, private-equity funds, and venture capital funds relied on the Section 203(b)(3) exemption from registration under the federal Investment Advisers Act.  In California, investment advisers exempt under Section 203(b)(3) had a corollary temporary exemption from California investment…

Share on:

Pay-To-Play Meets The California Labor Code

In 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a rule (17 CFR § 206-4(5)) prohibiting an investment adviser from providing advisory services for compensation to a government client for two years after the adviser or certain of its executives or employees make a contribution to certain elected officials or candidates.  The rule applies to any investment adviser…

Share on:

Was This “Whiz Kid” An Investment Adviser?

Earlier this week, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that a self-styled “stock trading whiz kid” and his Los Angeles, California company have agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a complaint for violations of Rule 10b-5.  There is an odd disconnect between the SEC’s press release and its complaint.  The press release is headlined “stock newsletter fraud” and repeatedly refers to the…

Share on: