SEC Enforcement Actions

Key dates

2026-10-29

The SEC announced charges against BG Wealth Sharing Ltd and DSJ Exchange Pty Ltd and filed the related enforcement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review third-party crypto platforms, advisers, issuers, introducers, and promoters for unsupported claims that an SEC filing represents licensing, approval, endorsement, or authorization.
• Firms should consider independently verifying Form ADV, Form D, and other regulatory filings through official regulator databases and documenting the precise legal effect of each filing before relying on it in due diligence or investor communications.
• Marketing and financial-promotion controls may wish to test for claims of risk-free or guaranteed returns, extraordinary monthly performance, government approval, SEC registration, fake certificates, and statements that a Rule 506(c) filing authorizes operation of a crypto exchange.
• Firms with exposure to BG Wealth Sharing, DSJ Exchange, or associated promoters should consider escalating the relationship for legal, fraud, sanctions, counterparty, and suspicious-activity review and preserving relevant communications, transaction records, and onboarding materials.
• Investment advisers and other regulated firms may wish to assess whether referral, custody, payment, or platform relationships involving similar schemes create customer-protection, books-and-records, disclosure, or reputational risks.
• Compliance teams may wish to incorporate the related state and foreign warnings into typology monitoring, particularly indicators such as recruitment-based compensation, blocked withdrawals, advance exit or compliance fees, fake account balances, and periodic payments used to sustain investor confidence.

What changed

This is an enforcement action, not a new rule or generally applicable compliance requirement. The SEC alleges violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by both entities, and violations of Sections 204(a) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 by BG Wealth. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties against both entities, and conduct-based injunctions against BG Wealth.

Key dates

2021-01-01

Approximate beginning of the alleged delayed-allocation and cherry-picking conduct.

2023-10-31

Approximate end of the alleged conduct period.

2024-11-25

The SEC filed its civil complaint against Leech concerning the alleged allocation scheme.

2025-01-21

The district court reportedly stayed the SEC civil action pending resolution of the parallel criminal prosecution.

2026-06-05

The SEC instituted settled administrative proceedings against Western Asset, imposing a $100 million penalty and establishing a Fair Fund for affected investors.

2026-10-06

The SEC reported the consent resolution and final-judgment process against Leech, including a $3 million penalty, permanent injunctions and an officer-and-director bar.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing whether each block or derivatives trade is assigned to intended portfolios at or near execution, with documented reasons, approvals and timestamps for any necessary delay.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether allocation systems and workflows prevent personnel from using intraday price movements, daily settlement prices or first-day performance to select recipient accounts.
• Firms should consider surveillance comparing execution time, allocation-entry time, settlement-price availability, subsequent performance and recipient portfolio across portfolio managers and strategies.
• Compliance teams may wish to investigate statistically significant differences in allocation latency, first-day gains and losses, reallocations, exception rates and benefits received by particular portfolios, fee arrangements or clients.
• Advisers should consider reconciling written fair-allocation and reallocation procedures with actual operating practices, including practices followed by chief investment officers and other highly senior personnel.
• Firms should consider preserving allocation instructions and related communications from trading platforms, order-management systems, email, messaging tools and manual worksheets in a form suitable for supervisory review.
• Compliance teams may wish to enhance escalation procedures for delayed allocations, repeated reallocations, unexplained exceptions and material performance differences among similarly situated accounts.
• Advisers should consider reviewing client disclosures and policies describing pro rata, fair or equitable allocation methodologies against the firm’s actual allocation logic and exceptions.

What changed

This is an enforcement resolution, not a new rule or prospective compliance deadline. It reinforces that delayed post-execution allocation can create an Advisers Act antifraud and fiduciary-duty violation where the decision-maker can observe market or settlement-price information before assigning trades to client portfolios. The matter also signals that written allocation policies are insufficient if firms do not operate, test and supervise them effectively, particularly for senior investment personnel.

Key dates

2021-01-01

Beginning of the alleged cherry-picking period involving delayed allocations and disproportionate assignment of first-day gains and losses.

2023-10-31

End of the alleged cherry-picking period, described by the SEC as running through October 2023.

2024-11-01

The SEC filed its prior litigated district-court complaint against Leech; the source identifies November 2024 but does not specify the filing day.

2026-06-05

The SEC settled administrative proceedings against Western Asset, imposing a $100 million penalty, censure, cease-and-desist order, and Fair Fund process.

2026-10-06

The SEC announced its motion for entry of a consent final judgment against Leech; the judgment remains subject to court approval.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether trade timestamps, allocation timestamps, order-entry records, and market settlement-price data permit detection of allocations made after material price movements are known.
• Firms should consider testing allocation controls for fairness and consistency across strategies, accounts, clients, and affiliated portfolios, including review of first-day gains and losses and unexplained deviations among portfolio managers.
• Firms should consider validating that written allocation, reallocation, and error-correction procedures are implemented in practice, with documented approvals, exception handling, and independent oversight.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether portfolio-manager trading and allocation practices diverge materially from peers or from client disclosures, and whether those differences trigger escalation, surveillance, or enhanced supervision.
• Investment advisers should consider reviewing supervisory arrangements for senior investment personnel, including evidence that surveillance alerts, exception reports, and known control weaknesses are investigated and remediated.
• Firms should consider preserving records sufficient to reconstruct the timing and rationale of trade placement, allocation, reallocation, and approval decisions, and reviewing whether disclosures accurately describe fair and equitable allocation practices.
• Affected firms may wish to monitor the court’s decision on the proposed Leech judgment and the administration of Western Asset’s Fair Fund; no general compliance deadline is stated in the publication.

What changed

This publication does not establish a new generally applicable rule; it advances a case-specific consent judgment, subject to court approval, against Leech. The proposed judgment includes a $3 million penalty, a permanent injunction against violations of the federal securities-law antifraud provisions, an officer-and-director bar, and a forthcoming associational bar. The related June 5, 2026 administrative settlement against Western Asset imposed a $100 million civil penalty, censure, and cease-and-desist order, with the penalty deposited into a Fair Fund for harmed investors.

Key dates

2025-01-01

Beginning of the general period identified by the SEC during which the charged entities allegedly filed Forms ADV containing material misrepresentations; the publication does not specify an exact start date.

2026-08-27

The SEC announced the charges, disclosed the requested remedies, stated that the 38 ERA filings had been removed from its website, and referenced its related investor alert.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to perform a documented, line-by-line validation of Form ADV Part 1 and applicable Form ADV Part 2 disclosures, including business addresses, telephone numbers, websites, ownership, control persons, regulatory status, assets, private funds, clients, and service providers.
• Firms should consider retaining contemporaneous evidence supporting material Form ADV representations, such as lease or office records, corporate and ownership documents, fund records, audited financial statements, auditor engagement evidence, and records supporting reported assets and advisory activities.
• ERA and registered adviser compliance programs may wish to establish independent verification of counterparties' SEC registration or ERA status through the Investment Adviser Public Disclosure system and should avoid treating an SEC filing, certificate, or website badge as conclusive proof of legitimacy.
• Firms that market investment advice to individuals should consider reviewing whether their regulatory status, Form ADV disclosures, and marketing materials accurately describe whether they are registered, exempt reporting, or otherwise authorized to provide services to retail investors.
• Compliance teams may wish to investigate repeated or highly similar ownership structures, numerical disclosures, addresses, telephone numbers, websites, auditor names, or filing patterns across related advisers as potential indicators of coordinated fraudulent filings.
• Firms should consider escalating unanswered SEC requests for records and preserving relevant books, records, communications, websites, and filing-support materials, because the SEC expressly relied on alleged failures to substantiate Form ADV information.
• Private fund sponsors and allocators may wish to verify that purported fund audits were performed by identifiable independent public accounting firms with appropriate federal or state registration or licensing, rather than relying solely on statements in Form ADV.
• Financial-crime and onboarding teams may wish to incorporate the SEC's PAUSE list, investor alerts, foreign-jurisdiction indicators, website authentication checks, and independent corporate-registration checks into risk-based due diligence for purported U.S. advisers.

What changed

This publication announces enforcement complaints rather than a new rule or generally applicable filing requirement. The SEC alleges violations of Section 204(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, which governs adviser records and reports including Form ADV, and Section 207, which prohibits untrue statements or omissions in applications and reports filed under the Act. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, conduct-based injunctions preventing the defendants from filing Forms ADV as exempt reporting advisers, and civil penalties.

Key dates

2025-09-10

Tricolor and affiliates filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and moved toward liquidation.

2025-12-17

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced criminal charges against Tricolor executives in connection with the alleged fraud.

2026-08-18

The SEC announced the civil enforcement action against Daniel Chu, Jerome Kollar, and Ameryn Seibold in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider performing a targeted review of whether the same receivable, loan, vehicle, inventory item, or other asset can be pledged across multiple warehouse facilities, securitizations, lenders, or managed accounts, including through affiliates and special-purpose vehicles.
• Compliance teams may wish to test collateral eligibility and borrowing-base reporting back to source-level records, payment histories, lien and ownership data, servicing systems, and independent third-party evidence rather than relying solely on management certifications.
• Securitization sponsors, underwriters, and investors should consider reviewing controls for detecting loans that are delinquent, charged off, non-paying, fictitious, materially impaired, or otherwise ineligible but reported as current or eligible.
• Firms should consider reconciling loan-level collateral tapes across all funding channels and establishing exception escalation, independent sign-off, segregation of duties, and documented remediation for duplicate identifiers or inconsistent pledging data.
• Finance and compliance functions may wish to assess whether offering documents, investor presentations, lender certificates, and management meetings accurately describe liquidity constraints, funding needs, collateral encumbrances, and portfolio performance.
• Boards and senior-management committees should consider reviewing governance over collateral operations, securitization disclosures, liquidity reporting, related-party or affiliate financing, and controls over executive certifications.
• Investment managers and lenders may wish to incorporate independent collateral verification, borrowing-base audit rights, data-access rights, concentration and duplication analytics, and covenant triggers into new and renewed transactions.
• Firms with relevant exposure should consider preserving records, communications, collateral tapes, system audit trails, certifications, underwriting files, and exception reports in light of parallel SEC and criminal proceedings.

What changed

The publication does not introduce a new rule, threshold, filing requirement, or compliance deadline. It announces an enforcement complaint under the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including alleged control-person liability against Chu and aiding-and-abetting liability against all three defendants. The SEC seeks injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and officer-and-director bars against Chu and Kollar.

Key dates

2026-08-14

The SEC announced the enforcement action and filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

2020-12-01

Approximate beginning of the conduct period alleged by the SEC.

2025-06-30

Approximate end of the conduct period alleged by the SEC.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reconciling every investor-facing statement about upfront fees, markups, commissions, carried interest, advisory fees, transaction spreads, and total acquisition cost against actual fund and affiliate-level economics.
• Compliance teams may wish to map all principal transactions and related-party transfers between advisers, sponsors, general partners, feeder funds, and portfolio-acquisition vehicles, with documented conflict reviews and valuation support.
• Firms should consider testing whether each person soliciting private-fund interests is properly registered or otherwise operating within an applicable broker-dealer exemption, and whether compensation arrangements create broker-dealer registration or supervision concerns.
• Compliance teams may wish to review cold-calling scripts, call recordings, lead-generation practices, sales-agent training, and escalation controls for high-pressure claims, guaranteed or implied returns, scarcity statements, and misleading descriptions of pre-IPO access.
• Firms should consider verifying offering exemptions, investor eligibility, registration status, subscription documentation, and disclosure delivery for each private fund and distribution channel.
• Compliance teams may wish to perform targeted surveillance of retail and retiree sales, including cancellation or cooling-off requests, unusual concentration, complaints about undisclosed fees, and differences between quoted and realized investor charges.
• Firms should consider preserving communications, transaction records, fee calculations, investor files, sales-agent compensation data, and valuation materials in anticipation of regulatory inquiries or investor claims.

What changed

This is a civil enforcement action, not a new rule or generally applicable safe harbor. The SEC alleges violations of the antifraud, securities-registration, and broker-dealer-registration provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, together with control-person liability and aiding-and-abetting violations by Spaventa.

Key dates

2019-11-01

Approximate start of the alleged fraudulent conduct described by the SEC

2023-06-30

Approximate end of the alleged fraudulent conduct described by the SEC

2026-08-13

SEC announced the enforcement action

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether any compensated solicitors or referral sources are engaging in broker-like activity without registration.
• Firms should consider testing whether solicitation, negotiation, and fund-collection roles could create broker-registration exposure under Exchange Act Section 15.
• Firms may wish to reassess use-of-proceeds controls and verify that investor funds are not being diverted outside disclosed purposes.
• Firms should consider enhancing monitoring for Ponzi-like payout patterns, especially where distributions appear funded by new investor money rather than operating cash flow.
• Compliance functions may wish to review marketing and fundraising materials for consistency with the firm’s actual registration status and authority.
• Firms operating in relationship-driven communities may wish to evaluate affinity-based fraud risk and strengthen independent verification of investors, counterparties, and cash flows.

What changed

This is an enforcement action, not a rulemaking or guidance release. The SEC complaint alleges that Leor Moshe solicited investments through Capital Funding ASAP LLC by claiming investor money would fund short-term business loans, while allegedly diverting more than $11 million for personal use and more than $850,000 for Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors.

Key dates

2026-08-12

SEC announcement of the administrative proceeding

2026-08-22 Deadline

Payment deadline for the $28 million penalty by Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC and the $7 million penalty by Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC, within 10 days of entry of the order

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether written supervisory procedures specifically address the risks of cash sweep and bank deposit sweep arrangements.
• Firms may wish to assess whether product selection, monitoring, escalation, and exception-handling controls are documented and operating as intended.
• Broker-dealers and advisers may wish to test whether disclosures, advisor training, and supervisory review processes match the actual operation of sweep programs.
• Firms may wish to examine whether affiliated deposit-product conflicts, yield incentives, and client-cash allocation defaults are identified and mitigated in practice.
• Operational risk and compliance functions may wish to evaluate whether periodic reviews capture changes in interest-rate conditions and client behavior that can affect sweep-program risk.

What changed

The order reflects SEC action under Sections 203(e) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act and Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act, with cease-and-desist relief for violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7. The SEC’s settled resolution imposed a censure and civil penalties of $28 million on Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC and $7 million on Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC, payable within 10 days of entry of the order.

Key dates

2026-08-12

SEC administrative proceeding and release for Santander Securities LLC

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review mutual fund share-class selection controls to confirm lower-cost alternatives are identified and used when available.
• Firms may wish to reassess whether 12b-1 fee compensation is clearly disclosed in client-facing materials and account documentation.
• Supervisory teams may wish to test whether review procedures flag cases where a cheaper share class was available but not selected.
• Firms may wish to examine whether representative compensation or revenue-sharing arrangements could bias share-class recommendations.
• Compliance functions may wish to verify that remediation processes can identify and reimburse affected clients where share-class selection increased costs.

What changed

The SEC charged Santander Securities LLC with willful violations of Advisers Act Sections 206(2) and 207 in connection with recommending mutual fund share classes that paid 12b-1 fees while lower-cost share classes were available for the same funds. The order alleges inadequate disclosure of the conflict created by the firm’s and associated persons’ receipt of 12b-1 compensation, and it describes the conduct as a breach of fiduciary duty and disclosure obligations.

Key dates

2014-01-01

Start of the relevant conduct period during which Trustcore selected and held mutual fund share classes paying 12b-1 fees where lower-cost alternatives were available

2018-03-28

End of the relevant conduct period examined in the SEC’s administrative proceeding

2019-03-11

Date of the SEC’s administrative order against Trustcore Financial Services, LLC under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940

2020-12-31

Closure date of Trustcore’s affiliated broker-dealer, TrustCore Investments, LLC, referenced as subsequent context

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing mutual fund share class selection methodologies to confirm that, where multiple classes of the same fund are available, the process appropriately prioritizes lower-cost share classes for clients unless a documented, client-specific rationale justifies a different choice.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether existing Form ADV, advisory agreements, and other client-facing disclosure documents clearly describe 12b-1 fees, revenue-sharing, and other distribution or affiliate compensation, including how these payments arise from share class selection and the resulting conflicts of interest.
• Advisory firms should consider mapping and documenting all compensation flows between the adviser, affiliated broker-dealers, and associated persons that are tied to mutual fund holdings, including 12b-1 fees and other distribution-related payments, to support clear conflict identification and disclosure.
• Firms may wish to evaluate supervisory controls and surveillance around mutual fund share class usage, including periodic reviews or exception reports designed to detect legacy, higher-cost, or revenue-generating share classes that remain in client accounts where lower-cost alternatives exist.
• Compliance teams should consider testing whether advisory personnel understand the firm’s fiduciary obligations under the Advisers Act in the context of fee-driven product selection, and whether training materials adequately cover share class conflicts and disclosure expectations.
• Advisory firms may wish to implement or enhance procedures requiring documentation of the rationale for any recommendation or retention of mutual fund share classes that pay 12b-1 fees or other distribution fees, especially where cheaper classes of the same fund are available to the client.
• Firms should consider reviewing and, where needed, updating policies governing interactions between advisory and brokerage affiliates, to ensure that incentives tied to fund distribution or 12b-1 fees do not undermine client best interest or the adviser’s fiduciary duty.
• Compliance teams may wish to benchmark their practices against prior SEC share class selection initiatives and enforcement matters, using this order as an example of the types of conflicts, disclosure gaps, and remedial undertakings the SEC is prepared to pursue.

What changed

This publication does not introduce new rules but memorializes a final SEC enforcement action and related undertakings under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The SEC imposed a formal cease-and-desist order against Trustcore Financial Services, LLC for violations of Section 206(2) (fraudulent conduct by an investment adviser) and Section 207 (untrue statements or omissions of material fact in filings with the SEC), in connection with the adviser’s selection and retention of mutual fund share classes that paid 12b-1 fees where lower-cost share classes were available.

Key dates

2019-04-01

Start of the period covered by the SEC’s findings on untimely SAR investigations and filings

2024-03-31

End of the period covered by the SEC’s findings on untimely SAR investigations and filings

2024-08-12

SEC press release and administrative order were posted

2024-09-11 Deadline

Civil penalty payment due within 30 days of the order’s entry, assuming the posted order date reflects the entry date

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review SAR investigation aging standards against current internal procedures, especially for matters involving subpoenas, law-enforcement requests, or regulatory inquiries.
• Firms should consider whether escalation triggers, ownership, and sign-off responsibilities for SAR determinations are clearly documented across surveillance, legal, and compliance functions.
• Broker-dealers may wish to test whether case-management tools can identify stalled investigations and flag items approaching internal filing deadlines or reasonable-period expectations.
• Dual registrants may wish to assess whether broker-dealer and advisory compliance workflows are coordinated for suspicious-activity matters that cut across business lines.
• Training for relevant personnel may wish to be reviewed to ensure that SAR timeliness expectations and escalation protocols are understood by front office, surveillance, legal, and operations staff.

What changed

The publication does not create new rules or thresholds. It documents an enforcement action under Exchange Act Section 17(a) and Rule 17a-8, which require broker-dealers to file SARs for suspicious transactions and related activity. The SEC’s order emphasizes that firms must conduct and complete SAR investigations within a reasonable period of time, especially when the activity is connected to law-enforcement or regulatory inquiries. The outcome also shows that the SEC may treat delayed investigation and filing as a standalone compliance failure even without a substantive fraud finding.

Key dates

2017-06-01

Beginning of the conduct period identified by the SEC for the undisclosed or inadequately disclosed rollover and referral incentive-compensation practices.

2022-02-01

End of the conduct period identified by the SEC for the disclosure and policies-and-procedures failures.

2025-01-17

The SEC issued the settled administrative order against Transamerica Financial Advisors, LLC.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to compare conflict disclosures against actual compensation practices to confirm that conditional language does not understate incentives that are being paid in practice.
• Firms may wish to review rollover-related compensation arrangements for specificity in Form ADV brochures, client agreements, training materials, and sales communications.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether policies and procedures under Rule 206(4)-7 are designed to identify, monitor, and remediate gaps between business practices and client disclosures.
• Firms should consider whether representative-level incentive compensation tied to referrals or rollovers warrants heightened supervision, approval workflows, or additional conflict controls.
• Firms may wish to assess whether retirement rollover supervision includes review of disclosure consistency, repapering, and cross-functional sign-off when compensation structures change.

What changed

This is an enforcement action, not a new rule or interpretive release, so it does not amend the underlying regulatory text. The SEC found violations of Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7 because the firm allegedly paid incentive compensation to investment adviser representatives for referrals and retirement rollovers from at least 2017-06-01 through 2022-02-01, while earlier disclosures used language suggesting the firm merely 'may' provide incentives.

Key dates

2021-07-09

SEC announced settled administrative proceedings against Kestra Advisory Services, LLC and Kestra Private Wealth Services, LLC

2026-08-12

SEC administrative proceedings index and SEC newsroom list the Kestra Private Wealth Services matter under Release No. 34-106110

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether disclosures about affiliated compensation, markups, and related conflicts are specific and prominent enough for advisory clients.
• Firms should consider testing mutual fund trade processing and fee assessment workflows for undisclosed economic benefits to affiliates.
• Dual registrants may wish to assess whether advisory and broker-dealer compliance functions are coordinated so disclosures, operations, and compensation schedules are aligned.
• Firms may wish to examine whether written policies and procedures are detailed enough to detect and prevent conflicts tied to transaction fees and non-transaction service fees.
• Wealth management firms may wish to compare client-facing disclosures against internal agreements and operational fee flows to identify inconsistencies.
• Compliance teams may wish to consider periodic testing of conflict disclosures and fee practices to determine whether similar issues would be identified before an exam or enforcement review.

What changed

This is an enforcement order, not a rulemaking, so it does not create new requirements. It nonetheless reinforces that investment advisers must provide full and fair disclosure of conflicts created when an affiliated broker-dealer receives compensation from mutual fund trades and related services, including situations described by the SEC as fee markups. The order also underscores the need for written compliance policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations, which the SEC tied to Rule 206(4)-7.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether advertising approval workflows are designed to identify statements that could be materially false or misleading under Advisers Act standards.
• Firms may wish to verify that marketing claims are supported by current documentation before use, especially where claims relate to qualifications, capabilities, or other material attributes.
• Teams may wish to confirm that all promotional channels, including websites, PDFs, presentations, email campaigns, and social media, are included in supervisory review.
• Firms may wish to assess whether recordkeeping processes preserve final and pre-approved versions of advertisements and the support for material claims.
• Compliance teams may wish to consider whether training for marketing and advisory personnel clearly addresses the prohibition on untrue statements of material fact in advertisements.

What changed

This publication is an enforcement order, not a new rulemaking, so it does not create new generally applicable obligations. It applies existing Investment Advisers Act advertising standards by finding that the firm violated Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-1(a)(5) through advertisements containing untrue statements of material fact. The order also requires a cease-and-desist remedy and imposes a $200,000 civil money penalty, payable within 10 days of the order’s entry.

Key dates

2019-08-01

SEC civil action filed in the District of Massachusetts

2024-03-29

District court entered final judgment against Commonwealth

2024-04-01

Whistleblower notice lists the qualifying judgment/order date

2024-07-05

Whistleblower notice last reviewed or updated

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether Form ADV and client-facing disclosures describe revenue-sharing arrangements with enough specificity to explain the actual conflict and the related economic incentive.
• Firms may wish to assess whether disclosures address not only the existence of revenue sharing, but also whether it may steer recommendations toward higher-cost mutual fund share classes over cheaper alternatives.
• Firms may wish to test whether policies and procedures under Rule 206(4)-7 expressly cover identification, escalation, review, and disclosure of revenue-sharing conflicts.
• CCOs may wish to confirm that they are being kept fully informed of revenue-sharing arrangements and related conflicts, especially where those arrangements can affect product recommendations or supervision.
• Compliance functions may wish to evaluate whether representatives understand the structure of revenue-sharing payments and how those economics may influence client recommendations.
• Dual registrants may wish to align broker-dealer and advisory disclosures so that the conflict is not described in one channel while omitted or softened in another.

What changed

This was an enforcement action, not a rulemaking, so it did not create new industry-wide requirements. The SEC alleged violations of Section 206(2), Section 206(4), and Rule 206(4)-7 of the Investment Advisers Act based on inadequate disclosure of material conflicts of interest and failure to adopt and implement adequate compliance policies and procedures.

Key dates

2021-07-09

SEC announced and settled the Kestra Advisory Services administrative proceeding

2021-07-09 Deadline

Order required payment of disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalty within ten days of entry of the order

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether client disclosures describe all forms of affiliated compensation, revenue sharing, and other economic benefits that could influence recommendations.
• Firms should consider whether Form ADV narratives, client agreements, and supervisory documentation are consistent on affiliate compensation and conflict disclosure.
• Dual registrants may wish to map advisory and brokerage compensation streams in their conflict inventories to confirm that material conflicts are captured and escalated.
• Firms should consider whether written compliance policies and procedures are tailored to actual business practices, rather than existing only in generic form.
• Compliance functions may wish to test whether supervisory reviews can detect compensation arrangements that create disclosure obligations under the Advisers Act.
• Wealth management organizations may wish to assess training for advisers and supervisors on when affiliate compensation and shared revenue arrangements must be disclosed to clients.

What changed

This was not a new rulemaking; it was an SEC enforcement order applying existing requirements under Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7. The Commission found that Kestra AS failed to disclose two types of compensation received by its affiliated broker-dealer and predecessor firm, including compensation tied to conflicts of interest, and that clients therefore lacked material information needed to assess those conflicts.

Key dates

2026-08-12

SEC release date for the administrative proceeding listing

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review municipal underwriting due diligence files to confirm that offering materials, issuer representations, and internal review steps are documented and consistent.
• Firms may wish to assess supervisory controls over municipal securities underwriting to ensure responsibilities, escalation paths, and sign-off procedures are clearly assigned.
• Broker-dealers may wish to re-check training for public finance personnel on disclosure accuracy, antifraud standards, and recordkeeping expectations.
• Firms with both brokerage and advisory businesses may wish to keep advisory fiduciary controls distinct from municipal underwriting controls so that governance frameworks do not blur separate regulatory obligations.
• Compliance functions may wish to compare this matter with prior SEC actions involving the firm to identify recurring control themes in disclosures, supervision, and product/distribution practices.

What changed

This publication does not introduce a new regulatory requirement or rulemaking obligation. It reflects an SEC administrative cease-and-desist proceeding under the federal securities laws, with the public descriptions indicating an antifraud theory connected to municipal securities underwriting and inadequate due diligence. The available materials also indicate this is separate from the firm’s earlier 2019 SEC matter involving share class selection and 12b-1 fee disclosure issues, so it should not be conflated with that prior advisory-fiduciary case.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review mutual fund share class selection logic to confirm whether lower-cost eligible share classes were available and used where appropriate.
• Firms should consider whether 12b-1 fee revenue is fully identified in conflict inventories and disclosed clearly in Form ADV and related client materials.
• Advisory supervision may wish to test whether recommendations are consistent with a client-first or best-interest framework when fund share class options differ in cost.
• Firms may wish to evaluate whether exception handling for higher-cost share class usage is documented, approved, and supported by a client-specific rationale.
• Compliance functions may wish to assess whether remediation and restitution calculations are available if historical share class selection issues are identified.

What changed

This was not a new rulemaking or interpretive release; it was an SEC administrative enforcement action based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and inadequate disclosure tied to mutual fund share class selection and 12b-1 fee revenue. The SEC’s order indicates the firm recommended, purchased, or held higher-cost share classes for clients despite lower-cost alternatives being available, and the firm received compensation through 12b-1 fees that created a conflict.

Key dates

2014-01-01

Start of relevant conduct period during which Investacorp Advisory Services, Inc. recommended or retained mutual fund share classes with 12b-1 fees despite lower-cost alternatives being available

2018-03-30

End of relevant conduct period covered by the SEC administrative order against Investacorp Advisory Services, Inc.

2026-08-12

SEC issues administrative order in Release No. 34-106089, File No. 3-19037, imposing cease-and-desist relief, censure, disgorgement, and prejudgment interest on Investacorp Advisory Services, Inc.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing mutual fund share-class selection policies and procedures to confirm that, where clients are eligible, the lowest-cost available share class of a given fund is systematically considered and documented, particularly in accounts where the firm or an affiliate receives 12b-1 fees.
• Compliance teams may wish to evaluate Form ADV Part 2A, advisory brochures, and other client disclosures to determine whether receipt of 12b-1 fees and similar distribution or servicing compensation is clearly described as a material conflict of interest, including the incentives it creates for advisers and affiliated broker-dealers.
• Advisory firms with affiliated broker-dealers should consider mapping compensation flows, including 12b-1 fees and revenue sharing, between entities to identify where those arrangements could reasonably influence share-class recommendations, and whether enhanced disclosure or conflict-mitigation controls are warranted.
• Firms may wish to implement or refine surveillance and testing to identify accounts invested in higher-cost mutual fund share classes when a lower-cost share class of the same fund appears available to that client, and to assess whether any such positions reflect policy exceptions or potential remediation candidates.
• Investment committees and disclosure governance bodies should consider comparing actual fund-share-class usage patterns against stated policies and disclosures in advisory brochures, wrap-fee program documents, and client agreements to confirm alignment and identify gaps in describing conflicts tied to 12b-1 fee receipt.
• Firms that historically received 12b-1 fees or similar fund distribution compensation during periods comparable to 2014–2018 may wish to consider whether a retroactive review of share-class selection and client eligibility is appropriate and whether any client reimbursement, remediation, or supplemental disclosure exercises are advisable in light of the SEC’s enforcement posture.
• Compliance and supervisory functions should consider updating training for investment adviser representatives and registered representatives to ensure they understand how mutual fund share-class selection, 12b-1 fee arrangements, and affiliated broker-dealer compensation can create fiduciary and disclosure risk under the Advisers Act.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to revisit enterprise-level conflicts of interest inventories to ensure that mutual fund share-class selection practices, 12b-1 fee arrangements, and related revenue-sharing structures are explicitly captured, assessed, and tied to appropriate controls and disclosures.

What changed

The publication does not introduce new rules or amend existing regulations; it is an enforcement settlement applying existing fiduciary and disclosure obligations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, including Sections 203(e) and 203(k). The order confirms that the SEC considers the practice of placing advisory clients into mutual fund share classes that charge 12b-1 fees when lower-cost, non-12b-1 share classes of the same fund are available to be a material conflict of interest when the adviser or an affiliated broker-dealer receives those fees.

Key dates

2026-08-12

SEC administrative-proceedings listing date for the AXA Advisors matter

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether mutual fund share class selection processes systematically identify the lowest-cost eligible class for each account type and client segment.
• Firms may wish to assess whether disclosures in Form ADV, client agreements, and supervisory materials clearly describe 12b-1 compensation and other share-class conflicts.
• Supervisory teams may wish to confirm that representatives’ incentives tied to 12b-1 revenue are identified, reviewed, and mitigated or disclosed where necessary.
• Firms may wish to document a defensible comparison process for share classes and retain evidence supporting the selected class for each recommendation.
• Compliance functions may wish to evaluate whether prior-client remediation procedures are calibrated for situations where clients were placed in more expensive share classes than necessary.

What changed

This publication is an enforcement order, not a rulemaking or policy statement. The order requires AXA Advisors to cease and desist from future violations of Sections 206(2) and 207 of the Advisers Act, is accompanied by a censure, and imposes monetary relief totaling $1,134,152, consisting of $972,007.36 in disgorgement and $162,144.64 in prejudgment interest. The order also directs payment to affected investors, reflecting the SEC’s view that inadequate share-class selection and conflict disclosure can require remediation.