SEC Defines Due Diligence for Dodd-Frank ABS Certification Requirements

On May 28, 2011, as part of its ongoing efforts to implement the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved for public comments (which will be accepted until July 18, 2011) proposed rules pursuant to Section 932 that would require nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSROs), issuers and underwriters to make public the findings and conclusions of any due diligence reports prepared by a third-party service provider in an asset-backed securities transaction. Such third-parties would also have to furnish a certification to each NRSRO rating the securities.

Since the Dodd-Frank Act does not define “due diligence services,” the SEC has identified four categories of reviews, and thus has defined “due diligence services” in the proposed Rule 17g-10 to mean “an entity that engages in a review of the assets underlying an Exchange Act-ABS for purposes of making findings with respect to:

quality or integrity of the information or data about the assets provided, directly or indirectly, by the securitizer or originator of the assets;
whether the assets origination conformed to stated underwriting or credit extension guidelines, standards, criteria or other requirements;
value of collateral securing such assets;
whether the assets originator complied with federal, state or local laws or regulations; and
any other factor or characteristic of such asset that would be material to the likelihood that the issuer of the Exchange Act-ABS will pay interest and principal according to its terms and conditions.”

Proposed Rule 17g-10 will also define “issuer” to include a sponsor (as defined in 17 CFR 229.11) or depositor (as defined in 17 CFR 229.1011) that participates in the issuance of an Exchange Act-ABS. The terms “originator” and “securitizer” as used in proposed Rule 17g-10 will have the meanings stated in Section 15Gf of the Exchange Act.

An issuer or underwriter is not required to furnish a Form ABS-15G if such issuer or underwriter obtains a representation from each NRSRO engaged in the rating of the Exchange Act-ABS that the NRSRO will publicly disclose the findings and conclusions of any third-party due diligence report obtained by the issuer or underwriter. The NRSRO must disclose the finding and conclusions of any third-party due diligence report with the publication of the credit rating in an information disclosure form prepared pursuant to new paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17g-7 no less than five business days prior to the first sale in the offering. Rule 17g-7 as amended by the proposed rules, would require an NRSRO to disclose in the information disclosure form:

whether and to what extent it relied upon third-party due diligence services;
description of the information that such third-party reviewed in conducting its due diligence services; and
description of the findings or conclusions of such third-party.

Also in accordance with Section 15E(s)(4)(C) of the Exchange Act, the SEC proposed that the format of the certification in Form ABS Due-Diligence-15E include the following line items:

identity and address of the provider of the third-party due diligence services;
identity and address of the issuer, underwriter or NRSRO that hired the provider of the third-party due diligence services;
identity of each NRSRO that published criteria for performing;
scope and manner of the due diligence performed, including but not limited to the type of assets that were reviewed, the same size of the assets reviewed, how the sample size was determined and any other type of review conducted with respect to the assets; and
findings and conclusions resulting from the review.

In addition, any individual executing the Form ABS Due Dilignce-15E on behalf of a third-party due diligence provider will be required to represent that he/she executed the form on behalf of, and on the authority of, the third-party due diligence provider and the third-party due diligence provider conducted a complete due diligence review.

|Dodd-Frank|

Financial advice show hosts have host of problems

Just about any time of the day, the airwaves are filled with self-appointed financial gurus spewing their secrets for managing money and ways to get rich. But the true secrets of more than a dozen of these wealth peddlers may be in their shady backgrounds and off-the-air dealings. Here are a few examples of the bamboozlements, as disclosed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other authorities.

On June 13, 2011, Clifford Robertson was sentenced to 97 months for bank fraud, to be followed by 24 months for aggravated identity theft and ordered to pay $4,627,520 in restitution, according to a statement by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation Dallas Field Office. The bureau’s investigation determined that Robertson claimed to be a real estate investment advisor who hosted AM radio real estate investment talk shows and in-person seminars. Robertson admitted that beginning in December 2007, he used the identity of another person to submit a fraudulent personal financial statement to a lending institution in order to obtain money by false pretenses. The loss to investors was estimated at around $3 million.

Another recent financial show host shakedown was announced in a June 3, 2011 press release by the Department of Justice’s U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of Florida which said that “criminal information was filed against Anthony F. Cutaia, charging him with nine counts of mail fraud…” Cutaia, who was the host of “Talk About Mortgages and Real Estate,” a television and radio program, was also the managing member and beneficial owner of CMG Property Investment Group, LLC, which purportedly engaged in commercial real estate investments in Florida, and promised not to collect commissions or fees from the investors until the properties were sold and a profit was made. However, court papers allege that Cutaia invested little of the money and instead used it to make payments to pre-existing investors and to pay his own business and personal expenses. Legal documents further show that Cutaia filed for bankruptcy in 2007, but that case was tossed out. He filed another Chapter 7 petition on May 11, 2011.

Also exposed this year was John Farahi, a host on a Farsi language radio station in the Los Angeles area. The SEC’s complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleges that NewPoint, co-owners John Farahi and Gissou Rastegar Farahi, and its controller Elaheh Amouei targeted investors in the Iranian-American community by touting NewPoint on a daily finance radio program hosted by Farahi. The SEC charges that the Farahis or Amouei would then make appointments with interested listeners to discuss investment opportunities offered by NewPoint, and subsequently misled more than 100 investors into purchasing over $20 million worth of debentures that they claimed were low risk. Many investors also were falsely told that they were investing in FDIC-insured certificates of deposit, or government or corporate bonds issued by companies backed by the funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). According to the SEC, most of the money raised was instead transferred to accounts controlled by the Farahis to, among other things, fund construction of their multi-million dollar personal residence in Beverly Hills.

|Educational Series, Fraud|

SEC issues warning about investing in reverse merger companies

On June 9, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an Investor Bulletin about investing in companies that enter U.S. markets through the so-called “reverse mergers.” These mergers allow private companies, including those outside the U.S., to access U.S. investors and markets by merging with an existing public shell company. The SEC and U.S. exchanges recently suspended trading in more than a dozen reverse merger companies, citing a lack of current, accurate information about these companies and their finances.

“Given the potential risks, investors should be very careful when considering investing in the stock of reverse merger companies,” said Lori J. Schock, director of the SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy. “As with any investment, investors should thoroughly research the company – including ensuring there is accurate and up-to-date information – before making a decision to invest.”

The SEC’s warning is especially strong regarding Chinese companies, as more than 150 entities have recently put their shares up for grabs to American investors through the backdoor “without any of the vetting from underwriters and investors that companies undergo when they perform a traditional IPO,” as noted by Commissioner Luis Aguilar.

Shareholders already have sued a string of China-based, U.S.-listed companies for fraud, claiming that they lost money when stocks plummeted after the financial scandals. They charge that the companies operated sham businesses, inflated revenue or gave vastly different information to U.S. and Chinese regulators. And they are starting to sue the auditors who signed off on the financial statements. But it will be tough to win these cases in American courts, as Chinese entities often have refused to comply with U.S. court proceedings.

The best hope for investors may be the SEC, which has launched an inquiry into U.S. audit firms with China-based clients. Investors could benefit if the SEC, which can force companies and auditors to cooperate in investigations, sues more auditors or companies.

|Educational Series|

Asset searches: who can get bank account information and why

A quick Internet search for ways to get someone’s bank or investment account information returns at least a dozen private investigation companies that promise to find these records “anywhere in the US and worldwide” for judgment collections, verification of net worth and for “just about any other purpose.” But a closer look at these Web sites reveals a fine-print disclaimer stating that the information is from public records such as divorce cases and probate filings. And there are a few that do not bother with a disclaimer, providing only an 800 number to call.

Asset searches, which may include bank and investment accounts, are not illegal; however, certain actions to obtain this information, such as pre-texting, are illegal. And although there are methods that can be used to obtain financial information covertly, most if not all, are questionable and often futile. There is no clear way for anyone other than the account holder, a designated representative or a party with a valid court order to get account information without violating the law.

There is a general misconception that a judgment, just by virtue of its issuance, can be used to force a bank or financial institution to disclose account information, but the enforcement of judgments is governed by each state’s laws. In California, for example, a writ of execution is necessary. These writs are rendered on a county-by-county basis and direct a levying officer (usually a sheriff) to serve the writ on the named institution. The institution then may be required to freeze the account and in some cases to hand over the account balance. State laws also allow the creditor, after a judgment is obtained, to examine and request asset information from the debtor. This, however, puts the debtor on notice and may result in draining an account before a writ of execution is served.

The privacy protection laws that govern access to financial information under false pretenses depend on whether the affected customer is a consumer or a business entity. The more significant legislation is directed at protecting consumers, defined generally in the laws and in interpretative decisions as ”individuals consuming goods or services for personal or household use.” The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) prohibits obtaining customer information from a financial institution under false pretenses and imposes an obligation to protect customer information. Under the GLBA, a customer means “an individual consumer,” which is essentially the same as the definition of a consumer under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In addition to the GLBA and FCRA, there are other potentially applicable federal privacy laws, as well as a long list of state laws. But even if a specific law may cover only consumers, the financial institution’s contract with the business customer would certainly be construed as preventing third-party access.

|Educational Series|

Dodd-Frank rule disqualifies felons and bad actors from securities offerings

On May 25, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a rule to deny certain securities offerings from qualifying for exemption from registration if they involve “felons and other bad actors.”

When an individual or a company offers or sells a security such as a stock or bond, generally the offering must be registered with the SEC. However, the SEC’s Regulation D provides three exemptions that can used to avoid such registration. The most widely used exemption is Rule 506, which accounts for more than 90% of the offerings made, as well as the majority of capital raised. If an offering qualifies for the Rule 506 exemption, an issuer can raise unlimited capital from an unlimited number of “accredited investors” and from up to 35 non-accredited investors.

Section 926 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC to adopt rules that would deny this exemption to any securities offering in which certain “felons and other bad actors” are involved. This new rule is substantially similar to the bad actor disqualification provisions of another limited offering exemptive rule – Rule 262 of Regulation A – which provides for an exemption from registration for certain small offerings.

Under the proposed rule, an offering cannot rely on the Rule 506 exemption if the issuer or any other person covered by the rule (including the issuer’s predecessors and affiliated issuers, directors, officers, general partners and managing members of the issuer, 10% beneficial owners and promoters of the issuer, persons compensated for soliciting investors, and the general partners, directors, officers and managing members of any compensated solicitor) has had a “disqualifying event” identified as follows:

Criminal conviction in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, making of a false filing with the SEC or arising out of the conduct of certain types of financial intermediaries. The criminal conviction would have to have occurred within 10 years of the proposed sale of securities (or five years, in the case of the issuer and its predecessors and affiliated issuers).

Court injunction and restraining order in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, making of a false filing with the SEC or arising out of the conduct of certain types of financial intermediaries. The injunction or restraining order would have to have occurred within five years of the proposed sale of securities.

Final order from state securities, insurance, banking, savings association or credit union regulators, federal banking agencies or the National Credit Union Administration that bar the issuer from: 1) associating with a regulated entity; 2) engaging in the business of securities, insurance or banking; 3) engaging in savings association or credit union activities, or 4) orders that are based on fraudulent, manipulative or deceptive conduct and are issued within 10 years before the proposed sale of securities.

Certain commission disciplinary order relating to brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, investment companies and investment advisers and their associated persons, which would be disqualifying for as long as the order is in effect.

Suspension or expulsion from membership in a “self-regulatory organization” or from association with an SRO member, which would be disqualifying for the period of suspension or expulsion.

Commission stop order and order suspending the Regulation A exemption issued within five years before the proposed sale of securities; and

U.S. Postal Service false representation order issued within five years before the proposed sale of securities.

The proposed rule would provide an exception from disqualification when the issuer can show it did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known that a disqualification existed. Any pre-existing convictions, suspensions, injunctions and orders would be disqualifying. For further information, see http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2011/33-9211.pdf

|Dodd-Frank, Educational Series, Legislation|

Spotlight on insider trading

Many people associate the term “insider trading” with illegal conduct. But the term refers to both legal and illegal activities. The SEC’s legal version is that corporate insiders, i.e., officers, directors, employees, or anyone with at least a 10% stake in a company, can buy and sell stock in the company providing they abide by the SEC’s restrictions and transactional requirements.

In 2002, the SEC tightened its rules by adopting the Regulation Fair Disclosure to curb the practice of company executives giving securities analysts an inside track; the rules mandate that anything disclosed to an outsider must be revealed to the general public. The SEC also includes in its definition of insiders those who have “temporary” or “constructive” access to the material information, such as business associates, friends, family members, brokers, attorneys and “other tipees.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled recently that any individual, with or without ties to the particular company, who is in possession of material information, even if the information was stolen, is an insider.

Illegal insider trading, according to the SEC, refers to the buying or selling of a security in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information. Insider trading violations include “tipping” such information, trading in securities by the person “tipped” and trading by those who misappropriate the information.

The SEC considers the prosecution of insider trading violations a top priority. The exhaustive publicity of illegal insider trading cases sends a strong message that no one is outside its radar. A spokesperson for the Division of Enforcement said that the SEC is aggressively rooting out and identifying hard-to-detect insider trading by connecting patterns of trading to sources of material nonpublic information, whether those sources are law firms, banks or others with a duty to keep the information confidential. Prosecutors add that illegal trading is now easier to prove as direct evidence of fraudulent intent can be obtained through wiretaps, e-mails, text messages, social media contacts, etc. And that evidence also is useful to convince co-conspirators to turn on each other and provide even more substantial proof of fraud. Going after the violators is critical because their actions hurt individual investors and undermine public confidence that allows firms to raise money in the capital markets.

Individuals who are convicted of criminal insider trading face prison terms (the Sarbanes-Oxley Act extended the maximum length of sentences) and fines in addition to civil penalties, which can be triple the realized profit or the loss avoided. Violators also may be charged with mail and wire frauds and possibly with tax evasion and obstruction of justice. Further consequences include being barred from serving as executives or directors of public companies and being named as defendants in multi-million dollar lawsuits. Corporations are subject to penalties for failure to establish compliance programs and for failure to ensure reasonable efforts to prevent violations under the theory of “controlling person” liability. Even if an insider trading investigation does not result in formal charges, the company’s reputation may suffer from the stigma and adverse publicity.

|Educational Series|

FCPA enforcement milestone: corporate conviction handed down by jury

The Department of Justice announced on May 11, 2011 that Lindsey Manufacturing Company, a privately-held Azusa, CA emergency systems manufacturer, its executives Keith Lindsey and Steve Lee, and a Mexican intermediary were convicted by a federal jury on all counts for their roles in a scheme to pay bribes to Mexican government officials at the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), a state-owned utility, to win $19 million in contracts.

According to court documents, between February 2002 and March 2009, Lindsey Manufacturing, Keith Lindsey, Steve Lee and others used the company’s Mexican agent, Enrique Aguilar, to funnel bribe payments to officials of the CFE. (See http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/May/11-crm-596.html for further details about the case.)

Although individuals have gone to trial and been convicted of violating the FCPA, this is a first such conviction for a company, as companies previously have opted to settle or plead guilty. The FCPA is expected to be an important enforcement tool under the new Dodd-Frank law as similar cases are likely to end up in court.

|Criminal Activity|

U.K. Bribery Act now slated to take effect July 1, 2011

After receiving widespread criticism for the lack of guidance and compliance clarification, the U.K. Bribery Act of 2010 (Bribery Act) originally scheduled for implementation in April 2011, is now set to take effect July 1, 2011. The act’s jurisdiction extends to commercial organizations incorporated or formed in the U.K. or “which carr

[y] on a business or a part of a business in the U.K. irrespective of the place of incorporation or formation.” Determination of such existence will be made by the U.K. courts and will require “a demonstrable business presence.” The official guide states that an organization will not be deemed to be carrying on a business in the U.K. merely by virtue of having its securities listed on the London Stock Exchange or by having a U.K. subsidiary.

Unlike the anti-bribery provisions of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which focus primarily on corruption involving non-U.S. government officials, the Bribery Act widens its scope to prohibit domestic and international bribery across both private and public sectors. And while the FCPA allows exceptions for facilitation payments (generally small payments to lower-level officials for “routine government actions,”) the Bribery Act does not. These payments were illegal under the previous legislation and the common law, but the difference under the Bribery Act is that non-U.K. organizations are broadly subjected to these restrictions for the first time.

The Bribery Act specifically criminalizes the offering, promising or giving a bribe (active bribery) and the requesting, agreeing to receive or accepting a bribe (passive bribery) to obtain or retain business or secure a financial or other advantage. It also contains a provision whereby an organization that fails to prevent bribery by anyone associated with the organization can be charged under the Bribery Act unless it can establish the defense of having implemented preventive “adequate procedures.” The official guide recommends the following six principles as foundation for developing “adequate procedures” to prevent bribery:

Proportionality – Actions should be proportionate to the risk, nature, size and complexity of the organization.
Top-level Commitment – Board of directors, owners, officers or equivalent top level- management should establish and promote a culture where bribery is never acceptable and be committed to preventing bribery, both within the organization and with anyone associated with the organization externally.
Risk Assessment – Various risk exposures, both internal and external, such as country of operation, business sector, types of transaction, new markets, and business partnerships should be evaluated and documented on an ongoing basis.
Due Diligence – Proportionate, risk-based approach to due diligence procedures assessing existing and proposed relationships should be taken to ensure trustworthy associations and mitigate identified bribery risks.
Communication – Appropriate channels of communication, awareness and training, both internal and external, on anti-bribery policies and procedures should be implemented and evaluated on a regular basis.
Monitoring and Review – Anti-bribery policies and procedures should be monitored on an ongoing basis and amended as quickly as possible when activities and risks change.

The penalties for violating the Bribery Act are severe, with individuals facing up to 10 years in prison and organizations facing unlimited fines. Violations also may result in damaging collateral consequences such as director disqualification, ineligibility for public contracts, and asset confiscation.

|Educational Series, International, Legislation|

Investment advisers miss deadline for filing new “plain English” ADV Part 2

For most investment advisers, the deadline for preparing and submitting the new Form ADV Part 2 was March 31, 2011, and many missed it, according to industry sources. All investment advisers registered with the SEC are mandated to file the new Form ADV Part 2 or disclosure brochure within 90 days of their fiscal year end. For the majority, the fiscal year ends on December 31, which means that the new form should have been filed by March 31, 2011. Most state securities regulators have ratified similar requirements.

Securities lawyers indicate that investment advisers who missed the filing deadline are likely in violation of several investment advisory rules, and may be subjected to possible actions by the regulators, ranging from warnings and fines to revocation of registration. At a minimum, a failure to submit the new form may flag the adviser as lacking strong compliance controls and requiring heightened scrutiny.

The new form rulings, adopted by the SEC in October 2010, required 18 sections on fees, soft-dollar pay arrangements, investment strategies and disciplinary histories, along with a supplement detailing each adviser’s background. An SEC spokesperson said that the changes “will allow clients access to information about advisers of a wholly different character and quality than was available under the previous regime. It will enable investors to better evaluate their current advisers, or comparison-shop for an adviser that best serves a particular need. Most significantly, this disclosure may result in advisers modifying their business practices and compensation policies which may pose conflicts, in ways that better serve the interests of the clients.” For more information, see http://www.sec.gov/answers/formadv.htm.

|Educational Series, Legislation|

FTC and CFTC will share information on energy investigations

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced yesterday that they entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to share non-public information on investigations being conducted by the agencies, including investigations into the oil and gasoline markets. The agreement will help the FTC enforce its petroleum market manipulation rule, which prohibits fraudulent manipulation of U.S. petroleum markets. The information sharing also will assist the CFTC in exercising its authority in the oil markets.

Both the FTC and CFTC can take legal actions in connection with fraud-based manipulation of the petroleum markets, but the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate exchanges, clearing organizations and intermediaries in the U.S. futures industry. This MOU will further facilitate information sharing on regulatory issues of common interest.

The MOU also directs the FTC and CFTC to ensure that the confidentiality of the non-public information is maintained, and provides that the agreement does not modify the agencies’ current abilities, responsibilities, or obligations to comply with existing laws or regulations, including the FTC’s confidentiality mandates under the pre-merger laws.

|Criminal Activity, Educational Series|

Previous 464748 Next