Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM Navigating the SEC's Marketing Rule: Compliance Challenges and Legal Insights
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has underscored the critical importance of its Marketing Rule compliance through a series of recent enforcement actions and risk alerts. This article delves into the challenges that investment advisers must navigate when marketing their services. It also explores how legal counsel and compliance consultants can effectively support their clients in adhering to both the explicit requirements and nuanced aspects of the Marketing Rule.
October 14, 2024 at 11:26 AM
16 minute read
What You Need to Know
- In 2020, the SEC formalized the Marketing Rule with the goal of codifying the multiple sources of guidance and case law that had accumulated over the years regarding the promotion of services under the previous regime.
- Since its implementation, investment advisers have faced challenges due to the regulation's ambiguity.
- Mastering the Marketing Rule's major elements is crucial for protecting a firm from exam deficiencies or, worse, referrals to the SEC's Division of Enforcement.
In 2020, the SEC formalized Rule 206(4)-1 (the Marketing Rule) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the Advisers Act) with the goal of codifying the multiple sources of guidance and case law that had accumulated over the years regarding the promotion of services under the previous regime. Since its implementation, investment advisers have faced challenges due to the regulation's ambiguity. Despite the Staff's initial release of a two-item FAQ to clarify the adoption time frame and reporting period for the Marketing Rule, many substantive questions remained well after the November 2022 compliance date.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute read
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1People in the News—Nov. 26, 2024—Barley Snyder, McNees
- 2Akin, Baker Botts, Vinson & Elkins Are First Texas Big Law Firms to Match Milbank Bonuses
- 3Walking a Minute in Your Adversary’s Shoes: Addressing the Issue of 'Naive Realism' at Mediation
- 4The Moving Goalposts of Overtime Exemption: Texas Judge Invalidates 2024 Salary Threshold Rule
- 5New Research Study Predicts Continued Growth for Generative AI in Legal
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
