The SEC’s Latest CCO Case and the Ongoing Need for a Framework

09 August 2022 Foley Funds Legal Focus Blog
Author(s): Brooke D. Clarkson Thomas J. Krysa James G. Lundy Margaret Gembala Nelson

On June 30, 2022, the SEC filed a settled action against Hamilton Investment Counsel, LLC (the “Firm”) and its chief compliance officer (“HIC CCO”). Notably, the SEC charged the HIC CCO with willfully aiding and abetting the Firm’s violations of Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder – or more simply stated, the SEC charged the HIC CCO with aiding and abetting the Firm’s compliance rule violations. The primary underlying conduct involved compliance failures related to an investment advisory representative (“IAR”) not disclosing outside business activities to the Firm.

Other key aspects of the order instituting proceedings include:

  • The HIC CCO served as the principal of the Firm, and a registered representative associated with the broker-dealer used by the Firm;
  • The SEC charged the HIC CCO with aiding and abetting, not causing or failure to supervise;
  • The HIC CCO allegedly became aware of the IAR’s outside business activities and  failed to formally report such activities on multiple occasions;
  • The charges against the Firm were limited to compliance rule violations; and
  • No allegations of client harm were alleged.

While cases against chief compliance officers are historically rare, past cases have involved individuals who serve in various roles at firms or “wear multiple hats.” That is consistent with the facts here. What is novel about this case, however, are the charges only focus on aiding and abetting, and the violations only involve the compliance rule itself, as opposed to more egregious conduct involving client harm.

Commissioner Hester M. Peirce issued a statement with the release of this settled action. While Commissioner Peirce opened her statement by supporting the settlement, she then repeated concerns that she had previously raised publicly regarding the “importance of thinking carefully about when to impose liability against a [chief compliance officer].” In her statement, Commissioner Peirce referenced the framework proposal of the Compliance Committee of the New York Bar Association (“NY Bar Framework”), which, in summary, focuses on the following factors:

  • Did the CCO not make a good faith effort to fulfill his or her responsibilities?
  • Did the Wholesale Failure relate to a fundamental or central aspect of a well-run compliance program at the registrant?
  • Did the Wholesale Failure persist over time and/or did the CCO have multiple opportunities to cure the lapse?
  • Did the Wholesale Failure relate to a discrete specified obligation under the securities law or the compliance program at the registrant?
  • Did the SEC issue rules or guidance on point to the substantive area of compliance to which the Wholesale Failure relates?
  • Did an aggravating factor add to the seriousness of the CCO’s conduct?

Applying the NY Bar Framework to her view of the facts, Commissioner Peirce concluded that this settled action “lays out a sound basis for concluding that the [HIC CCO’s] conduct here fell materially short.” She closed by encouraging engagement “on designing a properly calibrated CCO liability framework….”

Commissioner Peirce’s call to action is the latest in a line of efforts to clarify this controversial area that dates back for years:

With the HIC CCO only being charged with aiding and abetting a compliance rule violation based on facts and circumstances that did not involve fraud or customer harm, the need for a better framework and more certainty continues to increase in importance for the compliance industry. 

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.

Related Services