As readers of this blog know well, the avowed goal of the SEC’s pay-to-play framework is to protect the integrity of the public procurement process by preventing registered investment advisors from improperly influencing the award of state and local contracts for the management of public investment funds.
Just in time for the holiday season, an unexpected present from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has found its way under the tree of a group that was most likely expecting to receive coal in its pay-to-play stocking.
For more than two years, this blog has been covering the Securities and Exchange Commission’s foray into the world of pay-to-play regulation and the Commission’s attempt to implement federal pay-to-play restrictions for registered investment advisers. The latest chapter in this long and winding saga occurred earlier this month, when the SEC formally extended the compliance date for the third-party solicitation ban imposed by the recently-crafted amendments to Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has joined its social network of federal regulators (which includes MSRB and the SEC) in imposing wide-ranging and punitive pay-to-play restrictions on the financial world.
Proponents of ethics reform and increased political transparency in Washington don’t often see reform proposals pass through Congress by overwhelming margins, and rarely does anyone bemoan an excess of “political intelligence” in Washington, but that’s exactly what happened on Capitol Hill this past week. While the reform community can’t quite be sure what version of reform will survive the ongoing tug of war between the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, it is clear that those trading on “inside political knowledge” are clearly in the transparency crosshairs.
By Stefan Passantino & Ben Keane It has been almost exactly 19 months since the Supreme Court handed down its controversial decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, but the plot continues to thicken as those favoring mandatory corporate disclosure of political activities look for a non-judicial fix to the ruling. To date,… Continue Reading
This Wednesday, the Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC) voted to propose rules that would impose certain business conduct standards on banks and other firms that deal in complex financial instruments known as “swaps.”
On March 14, the SEC’s pay-to-play rule will come into effect and there is growing concern that the rule’s exemption for accidental violations will result in an administrative hailstorm.
Yesterday, the MSRB filed a proposed rule change with the SEC consisting of interpretive guidance in connection with Rule G-37 and the use of political action committees (“PACs”). The MSRB said it is reviewing the pay-to-play rules because recent consolidation in the financial industry has placed bond dealers under the control of banks, bank holding companies and other companies that have PACs.
In a continued effort to thwart pay-to-play practices and increase transparency of corporate involvement in the political process, the House Financial Services Committee approved the Shareholder Protection Act of 2010, H.R. 4790 by a vote of 35-28 this past Monday.
On Wednesday, June 29, the Securities and Exchange Commission unanimously approved the final text of a new rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 directed at preventing pay-to-play practices by investment advisers.
After almost a year (and countless scandals with related enforcement actions later), it appears the SEC will issue its much loved, hated and debated pay-to-play rule. The SEC has announced the subject matter to be discussed at its open meeting on June 30, 2010: “The Commission will consider whether to adopt a new rule and… Continue Reading
The SEC has given notice that it intends to take a very active role with respect to pay-to-play issues in the securities markets. It recently issued a report warning firms that municipal securities rules prohibiting pay-to-play apply to affiliated financial professionals, not just a firm’s employees.
The SEC report was issued in connection with an Enforcement Division inquiry into whether JP Morgan Securities Inc. (JPMSI) violated MSRB Rule G-37.
In response to numerous comment letters the SEC about their proposed ban on third party intermediaries in the government arena, the SEC is working with FINRA to create exemptions to its pay-to-play proposal.
On December 4, 2009, the MSRB filed with the SEC amendments to Rule G-37 and Rule G-8.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has given notice that it intends to take a very active role with respect to pay-to-play issues in the securities markets and has put the regulated community on notice that it expects private corporate compliance training to be well under way as well. As we have recently reported, the… Continue Reading
The pay-to-play probe related to U.S. public pension systems led by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department has claimed another victim. Bloomberg reports today that New Mexico’s chief investment officer has resigned after being drawn into the nationwide investigation.
Amid the continued debate over the SEC’s proposed pay-to-play rules there are some proponents who argue that oversight of pay-to-play practices must reach beyond the agency’s current recommendations. So even while many commentators oppose the rules on grounds that they sweep too broadly and impair competition, (click here to read comment letters) the former head of the SEC,… Continue Reading
Amid the storm of pay-to-play scandals and as pay-to-play has become an increasingly hot-button state issue, the Securities Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) stepped in on August 3, 2009 to propose measures at the federal level intended to eliminate or at least curtail “pay-to-play” practices. The measures are aimed to regulate the practice of money managers… Continue Reading