Skip to content

Compliance Building

Doug Cornelius on compliance for private equity real estate

Menu
  • Home
  • About
    • About
    • About Doug
    • About This Website
    • Why I Blog
    • Speaking Engagements
    • Contact
    • Publications
  • Archives
    • Topic Archive
    • Book Reviews
    • Most Popular
  • Subscribe
  • Disclaimers
    • Disclaimers
    • Policies and Procedures
    • Use of Site Content
    • Comments
    • FTC Disclosure
Menu

Failure to Adequately Oversee Service Providers

Posted on November 30, 2011 by Doug Cornelius
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Citing what it called “wholly inadequate” oversight of a faraway subadviser, the Securities and Exchange Commission fined and ordered repayment of advisory fees by Morgan Stanley Investment Management. According to the settlement, Morgan Stanley will repay its client, the Malaysia Fund, $1.8 million for fees it paid from 1996-2007 for “research, intelligence, and advice” that  AMMB Consultant Sendirian Berhad of Malaysia, was to provide as subadviser.

AMMB served as a sub-adviser to the Fund from inception until it was terminated at the end of 2007. The Research and Advisory Agreement specified that AMMB would register with the SEC as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act and furnish Morgan Stanley “such investment advice, research and assistance, as [Morgan Stanley] shall from time to time reasonably request.” AMMB did not exercise investment discretion or authority over any of the assets in the Fund. Morgan Stanley took responsibility for monitoring AMMB’s performance of services. The Fund would pay AMMB an escalating fee based on the fund’s assets. During the relevant time period, the Fund paid AMMB advisory fees totaling $1,845,000. As the fund administrator, Morgan Stanley facilitated the Fund’s payment of AMMB’s advisory fees.

Section 15(c) of the Investment Company Act requires an investment adviser of a registered investment company to furnish such information as may reasonably be necessary for such company’s directors to evaluate the terms of any contract whereby a person undertakes regularly to serve or act as investment adviser of the company.

It was an OCIE exam in 2008 that first questioned the arrangement between AMMB and Morgan Stanley. AMMB did not provide any of the services it and Morgan Stanley represented to the Fund’s Board. Instead, AMMB provided two monthly reports that Morgan Stanley neither requested nor used in its management of the Fund. The first was a two-page list of the market capitalization of the Kuala Lumpur Composite Index. The second was a two-page comparison of the monthly performance of the Fund against other Malaysian equity trusts. For twelve years, the fund’s Board relied on Morgan Stanley’s representations and submissions of information regarding AMMB’s services when it unanimously approved the continuation of AMMB’s advisory contracts. The SEC stated that even though Morgan Stanley took responsibility for monitoring AMMB’s services, its oversight and involvement with AMMB during the relevant time period were wholly inadequate.

The settlement calls on the RIA to devise written procedures, reimburse the fund and pay a fine of $1.5 million.

If you are charging a fund for services provided by a third, then there is an obligation to make sure the third party is providing those services.  The SEC stated a violation of Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act that prohibits an investment adviser from engaging “in any transaction, practice or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client”. It also imposes on investment advisers a fiduciary duty to act in “utmost good faith,” to fully and fairly disclose all material facts, and to use reasonable care to avoid misleading clients. SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180, 191, 194 (1963). Morgan Stanley willfully violated Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act by representing and providing information to the Fund’s Board that AMMB was providing advisory services for the benefit of the Fund, which it was not.

Sources:

  • SEC Order Against MSIM
  • SEC Charges Morgan Stanley Investment Management for Improper Fee Arrangement – SEC Press Release
  • Over $3.3 Million Charges Against Morgan Stanley Investment Management for Improper Fee Arrangement by Jay Gould in Pillsbury’s Investment Fund Law Blog

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search for Stuff

Recent Stories

  • The SEC 2026 Rulemaking Agenda
  • The Alignment Gap: Rethinking Costs in Private Equity Fund Formation
  • PERE 100 and SEC Registration
  • Neither Admit Nor Deny To Be No Longer
  • What Will Form PF Look Like Next Year?
  • Is It a Chipset or Is It a Security?
  • When the Lawyer Is Breaking Bad
  • Will Investors Have an Appetite for Semi-Annual Reporting?
  • Special Forces Trading on Insider Knowledge
  • Prediction Markets and Compliance Programs

Fight Cancer

Please support my Pan-Mass Challenge
Make a donation to fight cancer. donate.pmc.org/DC0176
pan-mass challenge badge

I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. Since I’m a lawyer, this website may be considered attorney advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions. Please read my disclaimers page before taking any action. And then, don't take any action based on what I wrote.

Creative Commons logo with the text 'Some Rights Reserved' and three symbols representing attribution, non-commercial use, and share alike.

Compliance Building - by Doug Cornelius is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.