Publications
Information Security: Obligations and Expectations
May 2015
Information security is not only a good idea — it is also a legal obligation. Federal and state laws impose obligations on businesses, including investment advisers, to keep their data secure. Most of these laws focus on requiring businesses to take reasonable security measures. While it may take regulators and courts years to clearly define what exactly those are, best practices that facilitate compliance can and should be developed and followed now. In this White Paper, SRZ partners Jason S. Kaplan and Holly H. Weiss, former SRZ partner Robert R. Kiesel and former SRZ attorney Michael L. Yaeger outline information security issues that businesses need to address, from complying with the SEC’s recent Risk Alert concerning the OCIE’s cybersecurity policy examinations to handling human resources and insurance concerns.
Related Insights
Alerts
On Aug. 19, 2024, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) charged Obra Capital Management, LLC (“Obra Capital”) with violations of Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, otherwise known as the “Pay-to-Play Rule” (the “Rule”), arising out of a $7,150 campaign contribution made by an individual prior to joining Obra Capital.[1] This campaign contribution was made to a government official in Michigan who had influence over hiring investment advisers for the Michigan Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (the “Michigan Pension Fund”), which was an investor in a fund managed by Obra Capital (the “Obra Fund”). Notably, the Michigan Pension Fund had been an investor in the Obra Fund for several years prior to the hiring of the individual who made the contribution. And perhaps even more notably, this campaign contribution was made several months prior to the individual becoming a “Covered Associate” (as defined by the Rule[2]) of Obra Capital. By virtue of Obra Capital continuing to provide investment advisory services for compensation to the Obra Fund in which the Michigan Pension Fund was invested after hiring the individual, Obra Capital violated the Rule and agreed to pay a $95,000 fine to settle the charges.
Alerts
On Sept. 12, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) adopted amendments (“Final Rule”)[1] to CFTC Rule 4.7, which is the primary disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping relief relied upon by CFTC-registered commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) and commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”). The Final Rule only partially adopted the proposals advanced by the CFTC nearly a year ago (“Proposal”). Importantly, the CFTC has elected to double the financial thresholds required for investors to be Qualified Eligible Persons (“QEPs”) suitable to invest in a Rule 4.7 pool or fund. However, the CFTC decided not to adopt the time-consuming and detailed disclosure requirements included in the Proposal. Operators of Section 3(c)(1) pools and funds that rely on Rule 4.7 will need to adjust their documents to accommodate the new QEP financial thresholds. We do not anticipate any substantive impact on operators of Section 3(c)(7) pools and funds.
Alerts
On Aug. 19, 2024, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) charged Obra Capital Management, LLC (“Obra Capital”) with violations of Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, otherwise known as the “Pay-to-Play Rule” (the “Rule”), arising out of a $7,150 campaign contribution made by an individual prior to joining Obra Capital.[1] This campaign contribution was made to a government official in Michigan who had influence over hiring investment advisers for the Michigan Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (the “Michigan Pension Fund”), which was an investor in a fund managed by Obra Capital (the “Obra Fund”). Notably, the Michigan Pension Fund had been an investor in the Obra Fund for several years prior to the hiring of the individual who made the contribution. And perhaps even more notably, this campaign contribution was made several months prior to the individual becoming a “Covered Associate” (as defined by the Rule[2]) of Obra Capital. By virtue of Obra Capital continuing to provide investment advisory services for compensation to the Obra Fund in which the Michigan Pension Fund was invested after hiring the individual, Obra Capital violated the Rule and agreed to pay a $95,000 fine to settle the charges.
Alerts
On Sept. 12, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) adopted amendments (“Final Rule”)[1] to CFTC Rule 4.7, which is the primary disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping relief relied upon by CFTC-registered commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) and commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”). The Final Rule only partially adopted the proposals advanced by the CFTC nearly a year ago (“Proposal”). Importantly, the CFTC has elected to double the financial thresholds required for investors to be Qualified Eligible Persons (“QEPs”) suitable to invest in a Rule 4.7 pool or fund. However, the CFTC decided not to adopt the time-consuming and detailed disclosure requirements included in the Proposal. Operators of Section 3(c)(1) pools and funds that rely on Rule 4.7 will need to adjust their documents to accommodate the new QEP financial thresholds. We do not anticipate any substantive impact on operators of Section 3(c)(7) pools and funds.
Alerts
On Aug. 19, 2024, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) charged Obra Capital Management, LLC (“Obra Capital”) with violations of Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, otherwise known as the “Pay-to-Play Rule” (the “Rule”), arising out of a $7,150 campaign contribution made by an individual prior to joining Obra Capital.[1] This campaign contribution was made to a government official in Michigan who had influence over hiring investment advisers for the Michigan Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (the “Michigan Pension Fund”), which was an investor in a fund managed by Obra Capital (the “Obra Fund”). Notably, the Michigan Pension Fund had been an investor in the Obra Fund for several years prior to the hiring of the individual who made the contribution. And perhaps even more notably, this campaign contribution was made several months prior to the individual becoming a “Covered Associate” (as defined by the Rule[2]) of Obra Capital. By virtue of Obra Capital continuing to provide investment advisory services for compensation to the Obra Fund in which the Michigan Pension Fund was invested after hiring the individual, Obra Capital violated the Rule and agreed to pay a $95,000 fine to settle the charges.