As proof that a little disclosure can go a long way, the SEC, on May 10, 2021, announced a settlement with an investment adviser to a registered investment company that was sanctioned for undisclosed conflicts of interest. The matter is of interest because the alleged “bad behavior” did not involve a violation of the Investment Company Act at all: no 17(a) prohibited transactions were alleged, the conduct at issue did not involve a 17(d) joint transaction and no 17(e) illegal receipt of compensation was at issue. Rather, the investment adviser was cited for violating Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act for negligently failing to include a description of a conflict of interest in its Form ADV, which conflict arose in the context of a contract by two advisers who would refer business to one another, and where the facts showed that the sanctioned mutual fund adviser made a significant mutual fund investment in the other adviser’s private fund while negotiating for a potential investment by the other adviser’s principals in a new fund of the sanctioned adviser. The adviser’s principal was censured and fined, but nothing worse. The cautionary tale here would seem to be that when it comes to ADV drafting, an “ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Disclaimer
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.
Author(s)
Related Insights
21 April 2025
Health Care Law Today
Prescription Drugs: Executive Order Aims to Lower Prices
On April 15, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order (EO) with the aim of reducing the cost of prescription drugs.
21 April 2025
Health Care Law Today
MedTech Round Table: What the Trump Administration Means for Companies and Investors
Foley & Lardner LLP hosted and participated in a MedTech round table of investors and business leaders, including chief executive officers, partners, directors, innovation leads, investment funds managers and partners, and general counsels. There was collective interest in understanding how these MedTech leaders are adjusting to the changing business and regulatory environment under the second Trump administration.
21 April 2025
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Supreme Court’s E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera Decision: A Victory for Employers Navigating FLSA Exemptions
In the case at issue, E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the court clarified the applicable standard of proof, ruling that employers need only demonstrate by a "preponderance of the evidence," the standard used in most civil cases, that an employee qualifies for an FLSA exemption, rather than the higher more stringent "clear and convincing evidence" standard previously applied by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.