Close Close
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards
ThinkAdvisor
SEC headquarters building in Washington

Regulation and Compliance > Federal Regulation > SEC

2 More RIAs to Pay Nearly $900,000 Over 12b-1 Fees

X
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has ordered two RIAs affiliated by common ownership to pay nearly $900,000 for 12b-1 fee, other revenue sharing and cash-sweep violations.

According to the SEC’s order, Huntleigh Advisors and Datatex Investment Services breached their fiduciary duty to advisory clients in connection with compensation the firms’ affiliated broker-dealer received as a result of the advisory clients’ investments.

From at least September 2015 through 2022, the firms failed to provide full and fair disclosure regarding their conflicts of interest associated with:

(a) compensation Huntleigh received based on client transaction fees;

(b) revenue Huntleigh and the firms’ affiliated broker-dealer Huntleigh Securities Corp. received in connection with advisory client cash sweep accounts; and

(c) HSC’s receipt of fees pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940  from clients’ investments in certain mutual fund share classes, including when lower-cost, non fee-paying share classes were also available.

Further, both firms, although eligible to do so, did not self-report to the commission under the Division of Enforcement’s Share Class Selection Disclosure Initiative.

Huntleigh further failed to provide full and fair disclosure regarding its conflicts of interest associated with revenue HSC and Huntleigh received based on the rate of margin interest charged to advisory clients, according to the order.

Both firms also breached their duty of care, including their duty to seek best execution, the SEC said.

The two Republican commissioners dissented from the SEC’s charge of best-execution failures, stating that the action “is only the latest in a long line of actions alleging that mutual fund share class selection implicates the duty to seek best execution. In these cases, although the Commission could establish a violation of Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act by making findings solely with respect to the advisers’ disclosure failures, the Commission went a step further and alleged best execution violations. This is problematic.”

The Huntleigh Advisors and Datatex action is another in a “long line of cases in which a investment adviser, in a fiduciary role, failed to avoid the conflict of interest, resulting in harm to the client,” Ron Rhoades, associate professor of finance at Western Kentucky University and director of its personal financial planning program, told ThinkAdvisor Tuesday in an email. “The receipt of 12b-1 fees by the RIA’s affiliated broker-dealer harmed the client. It resulted in lower returns to the client.”

Said Rhoades: “While the fact that the RIA’s affiliated broker-dealer ‘may directly or indirectly receive 12b-1 fees’ was disclosed in the advisory agreement with the client, that disclosure was insufficient.”

When a conflict of interest is present, Rhoades continued, “the disclosure of same must be of all material facts, and the investment adviser possesses a duty to ensure that the client understands those facts – including the ramifications to the client. In this instance, the disclosure was inadequate.”

Even if disclosure had been adequately made, Rhoades said, “there was a breach of the fiduciary duty of due care, in not securing ‘best execution.’ By investing in share classes with 12b-1 fees, when lower-cost institutional share classes were available without 12b-1 fees, the duty of best execution (a ‘quasi-fiduciary’ duty of brokers, and part of an investment adviser’s fiduciary duty) was violated.”

The firms were ordered to pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty, totaling $893,502 as follows:

Huntleigh shall pay disgorgement of $608,251 and prejudgment interest of $105,251, and a civil penalty of $130,000.

Datatex shall pay a civil penalty of $50,000.


NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.