Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Regulation Best Interest and Form CRS: Examinations and Enforcement Heat Up
September 16, 2021
Not long after the SEC adopted Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) and the related Form CRS Relationship Summary in June 2019, the SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (now the Division of Examinations) issued two risk alerts outlining its examination focus on compliance with Reg BI and Form CRS. The Division of Examinations staff updated its Reg BI examination guidance in December 2020 for examinations beginning in January 2021.

For its part, FINRA reviewed several broker-dealers in late 2019 and 2020 to assess preparedness for Reg BI and Form CRS. FINRA published the results of its assessment on its website and also prepared a Reg BI and Form CRS firm checklist and other compliance guidance.

As usual, broker-dealers’ sales of variable insurance products have been one area of regulators’ concern.

Reg BI

When making a recommendation, a broker-dealer and its associated persons are required to act in a retail customer’s best interest and cannot place its own interests ahead of the customer’s interests.

The SEC conducted initial examinations of broker-dealers in 2020 to assess processes relied on to comply with Reg BI. The SEC has expanded the scope of its examinations in 2021 to assess the implementation of broker-dealers’ policies and procedures designed to address the four components of Reg BI: disclosure, care, conflict of interest, and compliance. The 2021 exams also have focused on the need for broker-dealers to consider alternatives to any product they are recommending, including cost considerations. Issues arising when making recommendations to new customers, recommending complex products, and assessing conflicts of interest also have taken center court.

Form CRS

Broker-dealers and registered investment advisers are required to deliver to retail customers a relationship summary that provides information about the firm. Firms also must file Form CRS and post it on their public website.

In announcing its 2021 examination priorities, the SEC Division of Examinations noted that even though “over 13,000” Form CRS filings were made, it sent notices to “hundreds” of firms that had not timely filed Form CRS. 

For those firms that received multiple late filing warnings, the SEC took swift enforcement action. In late July, the SEC announced 27 settled enforcement actions involving late Form CRS filings by 21 investment advisers and six broker-dealers. The SEC orders alleged willful violations, with civil money penalties ranging from $10,000 to $97,523. The orders imposed the largest penalties on those investment advisers with the greatest amount of regulatory assets under management. The firms did not admit or deny the findings.

What’s Next?

As of the publication of this article, no reported Reg BI enforcement actions appear on the SEC or FINRA websites. But just as SEC warnings of late Form CRS filings led to enforcement actions, SEC and/or FINRA enforcement actions will likely follow from the current Reg BI and Form CRS focused examinations.
Authored By
Image: Ann Began Furman
Ann Began Furman
Related Practices
Financial Services Regulatory Life, Annuity, and Retirement Solutions
Related Industries
Securities & Investment Companies Life, Annuity, and Retirement Solutions Life, Annuity, and Retirement Solutions
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.