Few things make a compliance officer’s eyes roll more than the case the SEC was fighting against an adviser who used the word “may” in its Form ADV when the SEC thought it should say “will.” One of the SEC’s own administrative judges slapped down the SEC and dismissed the case.
According to the SEC charging order, an unnamed broker agreed to pay The Robare Group a fee for client funds invested in funds sold by that broker. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with that arrangement as long as it is disclosed to clients. Obviously, the concern is that the adviser would direct clients to invest in those funds because it is good for the adviser, not necessarily because it is good for the client.
The SEC is focused solely on a violation for failure to disclose. The SEC claimed the disclosures were not adequate because they said the Robare Group “may” receive compensation from the broker for selling the mutual funds, when it was definitely receiving payments. That’s a very thin distinction to make. Especially when the SEC stated in the complaint that it did not identify any harm to Robare Group’s clients or even that the clients were invested in those funds in a disproportionate amount.
The Robare Group used Fidelity mutual funds and much later found out that Fidelity offered a “revenue sharing arrangement” in which it would pay the firm between two and twelve basis points based on the assets under management. According to the final decision, Robare confirmed that the arrangement would not result in additional costs to its clients and would not alter the construction of its clients’ portfolios.
In the order, the judge highlights the testimony of Melissa Harke, a branch chief in the Commission’s Division of Investment Management, who testified that advisers are expected to disclose material conflicts in the Form ADV and should conversely not throw in everything just to “cover” themselves “for legal purposes.”
The judge also highlighted that the firm used an outside compliance consultant, Renaissance Regulatory Services to help with drafting the Form ADV.
No doubt, Mr. Robare and Mr. Jones paid Renaissance in hopes of avoiding the very proceeding of which they are now the subject.
There is no doubt that the revenue sharing arrangement gave rise to a potential conflict of interest. If the conflict is “material” it has to be disclosed in the Form ADV. The judge found that the conflict was material. The judge went on to find that the SEC failed to prove that Robare acted with any intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud its clients.
The SEC tried to argue that even if Robare did not have the intent to deceive, it was reckless in its failure to “fully and accurately disclose.” The judge found that
“with respect to Form ADV disclosures, advisers operate in a difficult environment that presents challenges for even experienced compliance professionals….I find that the relevant standard of care entails employing a compliance professional and following his or her advice.”
That similarly doomed the SEC’s argument that Robare was negligent. The firm and its principals did not have the expertise to properly disclose the information on Form ADV.
Sources: