CCO Liability – Line in the Sand

In an October 2013 speech that delved into CCO liability, SEC Chair Mary Jo White said, “(a)lthough we do occasionally bring enforcement actions against compliance personnel, compliance officers who perform their responsibilities diligently, in good faith, and in compliance with the law are our partners and need not fear enforcement action.”

As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words, so until the SEC draws a hard straight line in the sand indicating the level of follow-through/due diligence by a chief compliance officer (CCO), there will be a need for protecting yourself against escalating defense cost. Remember, a CCO needs to fight for his or her reputation to ensure future employment. The “broken window” approach does not allow for settlement without an admission of guilt. This is contrary to the CCO’s goal of continuous employment and a secure financial future.

Recently, I attended the Investment Company Institute (ICI) Compliance Conference in Washington, DC that reinforced the belief that CCOs need to protect themselves and that not everything is warm and fuzzy with the regulators. As a matter of fact, from my perspective as an insurance broker dealing with investment industry claims regularly, the concerns go beyond the SEC and carry over to the DOL. It makes you wonder how closely the two agencies are working together when initiating investigations against investment management firms.

As stated at the ICI Conference, “Notwithstanding those reassurances, the SEC has brought actions against CCO’s for negligence in conducting reviews of client accounts and for failing to put policies and procedures into place. These cases seem to fall outside the more egregious actions one would expect of enforcement action. Orders stating that the CCO was responsible for “implementation” of firm’s policies and procedures prompted dissent from former Commissioner Gallagher, who believes that the SEC is trending toward strict liability for CCO’s actions. This sends “a troubling message that CCOs should not take ownership of their firm’s compliance policies and procedures, lest they be held accountable for conduct that, under (the Rule), is the responsibility of the adviser itself.”

The point is, the CCO is a target, and the legal defense costs are going to add up. Don’t expect the regulators to reimburse you, even if you come out on top. This is demonstrated by the Thomas Delaney case that recently went through an EAJA (The Equal Access to Justice Act) administrative hearing to recoup attorney fees and litigation expense. Within the SEC Initial Decision Release No. 976 Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-15873, it states the following

 The Division acknowledges that its position encompassed two charges – aiding and abetting, on the one hand, and causing, on the other.” Div. Resp. at 8. But it argues that Delaney’s victory on the aiding and abetting charge is meaningless for EAJA purposes because it was not a “discrete” portion of the proceeding. Id. at 8-10. I reject the Division’s assertion, for which it cites no legal precedent, that claims cannot be discrete if they involve the same underlying facts. Although I found, and the parties agree, that similar evidence was relevant to both the aiding and abetting claim and the causing claim (see Initial Decision at 49; Delaney Supp. Resp. at 4; Div. Resp. at 9-10), this does not displace Congress’s creation of different substantive law standards and remedies for the two distinct theories of secondary liability.

The bottom line is this: defense costs continue and they add up whether you did something wrong or not. This creates the need to consider an individual liability policy for Chief Compliance Officers. Unless the firm’s bylaws appoint the CCO as a corporate officer and/or filed with the state in which the firm is incorporated, they are under no obligation to indemnify the CCO’s legal fees. As a matter of fact, the CCO could be at odds with his/hers employer; thus, they may withhold any indemnification. There is an insurance product that provides the necessary defense costs, including situations where the employer withholds indemnification for a certain period of time. Keep in mind that the employer’s liability policy may not have the appropriate coverage in place and that it’s the employer who owns and controls the insurance policy, not you, the CCO.

 

Andrew J. Fotopulos is President of Starkweather & Shepley Insurance Corp. of Massachusetts and their Financial Institution Practice Group.  He also developed CCO Protect (www.ccoprotect) offered through RISCO Insurance, the wholesale division of Starkweather & Shepley Insurance.

Related Content

Latest Content

Takeaways and Tips Related to SEC Risk Alert on Regulation S-P

On April 16, 2019, the SEC released a Risk Alert providing a list of compliance issues related to Regulation S-P, the primary SEC rule regarding privacy notices and safeguard policies of investment advisers and broker-dealers. As with other risk alerts, these were deficiencies noted by OCIE in regulatory examinations. Though the deficiencies were fairly common … Continued

How to Be a Wildly Effective Compliance Officer

Being a Compliance Officer is no easy task. Administering a compliance program, implementing controls to help protect clients and the firm, and staying on top of new regulations is only part of the job. Compliance Officers are also expected to be flexible and pro-business. So how do you do it all? How can you be … Continued

Mitigating the Risk of Insider Trading

One of the biggest risks affecting investment advisers is the potential that material non-public information (“MNPI”) may be misused, leading to a charge of insider trading. Advisers should implement controls to mitigate these risks. Steven Stone of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Salvatore Cincinelli of the FBI and David Chaves of Tone at the Top … Continued

Compliance 2.0 – Being a Strategic Partner in Your Firm

Compliance as a profession continues to evolve. With Enron, Bernie Madoff and numerous other failures paving the way for rulemaking across industries and nations, the days of drawing a short straw, getting drafted into a compliance role and operating in isolation outside of the business are – or should be – ancient history. Since the … Continued

Big Data Part III: Preparing for the Future of Global Regulatory Governance

United States and European Union reporting requirements imposed on investment managers have exploded since the Global Financial Crisis and, with the imminent arrival of SFTR in Europe, it seems poised to expand again. The challenge of reporting trades, transactions and contracts in multiple jurisdictions requires firms to embrace technology as regulators continue to look to … Continued

Mailing List

Subscribe to the Ascendant Compliance email list for the latest compliance resources, conferences, ComplianceCasts™, and more.

Loading form...

Contact Us

Ascendant works together with clients to identify and assess critical needs through customized plans. If you need assistance with compliance functions, regulatory services, cybersecurity or technology tools, we’d love to speak with you.