Table of Contents
A fund advisor who was not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission was recently given a punishment by the US Securities and Exchange Commission for breaching Regulation SHO. Allegedly, the investment advisor participated in a practice of manipulative trading that included unlawful short selling and the inability to deliver securities.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has taken enforcement action against the advisor as part of its continuing efforts to safeguard investors and maintain compliance with securities laws and regulations. In the following paragraphs, we will go through the history of Regulation SHO, the claims that have been made against the advisor, the enforcement action that has been taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission , and the larger ramifications that this case has.
Historical Background of the SHO Regulation
The Securities and Exchange Commission enacted a regulation known as Regulation SHO, often known as the Short Selling Rule, in 2005 in order to address concerns over naked short selling. When a seller engages in naked short selling, they do not borrow or make arrangements to borrow securities in order to deliver them to the buyer. This may result in an unnatural excess of securities on the market, which may result in decreased prices and be detrimental to investors.
Firms that engage in short selling are required under Regulation SHO to identify and borrow stocks in order to deliver them on the settlement date. Alternatively, the business must have a reasonable degree of confidence that the securities may be borrowed and delivered by the settlement date. The law also created a “threshold” system, which mandates that companies disclose their daily short-selling activities as well as any failures to deliver.
This requirement applies to any failure to deliver. A “buy-in” requirement can be triggered if a company has a certain percentage of failures to deliver on a particular security. This requires the company to purchase securities to cover the failure to deliver, and it can happen if a company has a certain percentage of failures to deliver in a particular security.
Allegations leveled against the consultant
According to the allegations included in the Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action, the unregistered fund advisor participated in a practice of manipulative trading that was in violation of Regulation SHO.
The Securities and Exchange Commission asserts that the investment advisor participated in unlawful short selling and, on many occasions, failed to deliver the securities that were promised. According to the allegations, the advisor utilized a variety of accounts to avoid discovery, hide its illicit operations, and provide the impression that there was sufficient liquidity in the market.
The Securities and Exchange Commission also made the allegation that the investment advisor manipulated the market by participating in wash sales. Wash sales consist of purchasing and selling the same asset in order to provide the appearance of trading activity and artificially raise the price. It is claimed that the advisor engaged in criminal activity in order to benefit from wash sales and conceal its operations from regulatory authorities.
In addition to breaking Regulation SHO, the advisor is accused of violating the antifraud sections of the federal securities laws by making false and misleading claims to investors. These allegations are based on the fact that the adviser violated Regulation SHO. It is claimed that the advisor misled investors by claiming to have a diversified investment strategy while, in reality, participating in highly concentrated trading operations that carried a significant level of risk.
The disciplinary action taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission
As a consequence of the enforcement action taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission against the unregistered fund advisor, monetary fines and a ban from the securities business were imposed on the defendant. The investment advisor came to an agreement to pay a $1 million penalty on top of disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $5 million.
In addition to this sanction, the Securities and Exchange Commission prohibited the advisor from working in the securities business or holding a position as an officer or director of a publicly traded firm.
The enforcement action taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission serves as a useful reminder of the significance of complying with all applicable rules and regulations pertaining to securities, including Regulation SHO. The Securities and Exchange Commission has made it very clear that it will not tolerate manipulative trading tactics that are either detrimental to investors or threaten the market’s integrity.
Extremely widespread repercussions
The enforcement action taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission against the unregistered fund advisor has wider-reaching repercussions for the securities industry as a whole as well as for individual investors. The case demonstrates that the Securities and Exchange Commission is committed to maintaining compliance with securities rules and regulations and that it is ready to pursue enforcement actions against individuals who violate these laws.
The case also highlights the dangers associated with fund advisors who are not registered. These advisors are not subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as registered investment advisers, which may make them more prone to participating in criminal actions. Registered investment advisers are subject to the same oversight. Before making any financial commitments, prospective investors have to exercise extreme caution when interacting with unregistered fund advisors and carry out exhaustive research on the funds in question.
In conclusion, this example emphasizes the significance of openness and disclosure in the financial sector. For the purpose of making educated judgments on their investments, investors depend on information that is both reliable and current. When advisors participate in unethical trading techniques, they are being manipulative.
You may also like : FINCEN AND USPS ISSUE ALERT ON MAIL-THEFT CHECK FRAUD AND SAR FILING INSTRUCTIONS
The views and opinions expressed in these articles are those of the source CorruptionAffair.com and do not necessarily reflect the official position of ‘Fox on Law,’ which shall not be held liable for any inaccuracies presented. The information provided within this article is for general informational purposes only. While we try to keep the information up-to-date and correct, there are no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability of the information in this article for any purpose.
This article is syndicated automatically through a third-party agency from CorruptionAffair.com.
To view the original article at CorruptionAffair.com, you can visit https://www.corruptionaffair.com/news/securities-and-exchange-commission-3/.