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

Another CCO Liability Case and the SEC Complains about “May” Instead of “Will”

Posted on July 24, 2018October 21, 2021 by Doug Cornelius
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The SEC’s complaint against Temenos Advisory, Inc. and George L. Taylor paints a very bad picture for the firm and its Chief Compliance Officer. In this case, the CCO is also the CEO, founder and majority owner of Temenos.

A few years ago, the SEC had expressed an unwillingness to prosecute CCOs, except in three extreme circumstances:

  1. Participating in the wrongdoing
  2. Hindering the SEC examination or investigation
  3. Wholesale failure

The Temenos case falls clearly in category 1. The CCO participated in the alleged wrongdoing. I’m not going to lose any sleep over this case.

And the picture painted by the SEC is one of blatant wrongdoing. Taylor concealed from clients that he and the firm were pocketing high commissions from the sales of the investment recommendations. Taylor is also accused of misleading clients about the risks and prospects of the investments. To top things off, the SEC alleges that Temenos grossly overbilled some of their advisory clients using an inflated value for the investment.

It’s not wrong for advisers to take commissions from the sale of products. But it needs to be disclosed to clients. In the complaint, the SEC once again expresses its displeasure of an adviser saying it “may” receive a commission from the sale of a product. The SEC claims that Temenos should have told its clients that it was routinely receiving fees for investments in the private placement offerings and that the fees were many times larger than the advisory fees the clients were paying for advice.

I thought this “may” versus “will” was killed with the Robare case. The ruling stayed away from the distinction between “may” and “will” by pointing out that the disclosure was inadequate to explain the fee sharing arrangement and how it could influence Robare to recommend one fund over another.

According to the complaint, Temenos did disclose the commission scheme in some instances, but not others, and in some cases understated the commission.

Of course, if you are going to get paid a commission, you need to be registered as a broker-dealer. Temenos was not. According to the complaint, Temenos was not conducting the basic level of diligence required by broker-dealers when selling private investment products.

Temenos also had a valuation problem. The firm carried the private placement interests at the cost of the original investment and never adjusted the value up or down. Of course, a firm can do that if it’s disclosed to investors and it’s part of its policies and procedures. The SEC states that the Temenos policy was to value a hard-to-price or illiquid securities at $0.

According to SEC complaint Temenos went ever further down the fraud curve and used values based on overstated cost. In one instance, the statement said the client had made a $200,000 investment when she had only made a $100,000 investment.

Sources:

  • SEC Charges Investment Adviser and CEO with Misleading Retail Investors
  • SEC Complaint against Temenos and George Taylor
  • The State of CCO Enforcement Actions
  • “May” or “Will” is Less Important Than Completeness

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to 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

  • Compliance Bricks and Mortar for January 16
  • Staff Report on Capital-Raising Dynamics
  • Compliance Bricks and Mortar for January 9
  • “Small”: I Don’t Think You Know What That Means
  • CFTC is Saying Goodbye to Private Funds
  • New York’s LLC Transparency Act Will Remain Limited
  • SEC and CFTC With Only Republicans
  • Compliance Books from 2025
  • Happy New Year
  • The One That Can Drive You and Give You Investment Advice

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.