![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Altering compliance records prior to their production for
an examination and inadequate procedures to control the flow of nonpublic
information became the predicate for sanctions against a broker dealer, an
investment adviser and the chief compliance officer of both. In the Matter of
The Buckingham Research Group, Adm. Proc. File No. 3-14125 (Filed Nov.
17, 2010). The Respondents in this proceeding are: Buckingham Research Group,
Inc., a registered broker-dealer and institutional equity research firm;
Buckingham Capital Management, Inc., a registered investment adviser which is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Buckingham Research; and Lloyd Karp, the chief
compliance officer of both entities in which he has a small equity interest.
The two firms have a close working relationship. They
share space, have common officers and about 25% of Buckingham Research's
commission revenue comes from trades by Buckingham Capital.
Both firms failed to establish, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of
material, nonpublic information according to the Order for Proceedings.
Buckingham Research created a policy regarding the use of material research
information designed to document compliance with the firm's confidentiality
policy and to make sure that analysts were aware of their responsibility to
restrict the disclosure of such information. The policy was not followed,
according to the Order.
In contrast, prior to February 2007 Buckingham Capital
did not have a written policy to address the potential misuse of Buckingham
Research's material research information. While the firm did adopt certain
practices designed to prevent misuse, they were not consistently followed.
Buckingham Capital did have policies regarding material
non-public information. They were not followed. The firm also had a written
Insider Trading Prohibitions policy which required that persons with access to
inside information report all relationships that may result in access to such
information. It was not followed.
In 2005 Mr. Karp created a compliance review log form to
ensure that compliance reviews were conducted by the investment adviser. The
purpose was to prevent violations of the anti-fraud provisions. There were no
written procedures that adequately set forth the use of the log. Thus personnel
had no uniform understanding of its use.
The firm and Mr. Karp also failed to implement remedial
steps in response to deficiencies identified by the SEC exam staff despite a
written representation that each item would be adequately addressed. Indeed,
although Mr. Karp was aware of the compliance weaknesses and failures, he did
not require correction.
Finally, as Buckingham Capital prepared for its 2006 examination,
the firm learned that it was missing pre-approval forms for more than 100
employee trades during 2005. The firm also discovered that its compliance
review logs were incomplete. Rather than producing the incomplete records, the
firm created the missing documents and furnished them to the staff without
disclosing what they had done.
The Order concludes that Buckingham Research willfully
violated Exchange Act Section 15(f) and Buckingham Capital willfully violated
Advisers Act Section 204A. These Sections essentially require that brokers and
dealers in the case of Section 15(f) and investment advisers in the case of
Section 204A establish and maintain written policies and procedures to prevent
the misuse of material nonpublic information.
The Order also finds that Buckingham Capital violated: 1)
Advisers Act Section 206(4), which prohibits fraud and deceptive acts, and Rule
206(4)-7, which requires the adoption of written procedures to implement the
provision, by failing to adopt adequate procedures with respect to the use of
the compliance log; 2) Rule 206(4)-7(b) under Section 206(4), which requires
that an annual compliance review be conducted, by failing to have a review in
2005; and 3) Advisers Act Section 204(a), which provides that all records are
subject to examination by the Commission, by not producing records as they
existed and creating others without informing the staff.
To resolve the action, each defendant consenting to the
entry of a cease and desist order from committing or causing any violations and
any future violations of: with respect to Buckingham Research, Section 15(f) of
the Exchange Act; with respect to Buckingham Capital, Advisers Act Sections
204(a), 204A and 206(4) along with the pertinent rules; and Mr. Karp from causing
any violations of these Sections. The two firms were also ordered to comply
with their undertakings which include retaining a consultant with respect to
their procedures and essentially adopting the recommendations for improvement.
Each Respondent also agreed to pay a civil penalty as follows: Buckingham
Research: $50,000; Buckingham Capital, $75,000; and Mr. Karp, $35,000.
For more cutting edge commentary on
developing securities issues, visit SEC Actions, a
blog by Thomas Gorman.
Another CCO in Trouble
by Doug Cornelius