Jacko Law Group, PC (“JLG”) each month publishes a Legal Tip, written by one of its professional staff on a relevant topic specific to the securities industry. In late May 2014, JLG’s Attorney, Robert Boeche, wrote and released a Legal Tip that highlights California’s recent adoption of revisions to the investment adviser custody rule (California Code of Regulations, Title 10, Section 260.237) (the “Rule”) by the California Department of Business Oversight (“DBO”), and how these revisions and additions to the custody Rule impact California investment advisers. The adoption of revisions and additions to the Rule – many of which defer to definitions and language found in the North American Securities Administrator’s Association’s (“NASAA’s”) Model Custody Rule – serves to “increase uniformity” between the rules for California investment advisers and SEC registered advisers on custody issues. The article focuses in on three major revisions and additions, including 1) notification requirements for advisers deemed to have custody to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and clients; 2) annual surprise examinations on adviser’s assets and books & records; and 3) new compliance issues for advisers to pooled investment vehicles to consider in order to be exempt from annual surprise examinations. “Custody related deficiencies are consistently one of the most targeted areas of state regulatory examinations,” and as such, Boeche recommends that a “solid understanding” of the new guidelines and areas that trigger the custody rule should be thoroughly studied by all California investment advisers. To read a PDF of the full article “California’s Revised Custody Rule Seeks Uniformity,” please click here. To browse our Legal Risk Management Tips library, including insightful articles on a wide range of industry topics, please click here. For further information on this and other related subjects, please contact us at info@jackolg.com or (619) 298-2880.
Jacko Law Group Blog
JLG Legal Risk Management Tip – California’s Revised Custody Rule Seeks Uniformity
Legal Tip Archive
- September 2011 (5)
- April 2014 (5)
- August 2014 (5)
- September 2015 (5)
- August 2011 (4)
- October 2011 (4)
- June 2012 (4)
- July 2012 (4)
- August 2012 (4)
- October 2012 (4)
- November 2012 (4)
- January 2013 (4)
- March 2013 (4)
- April 2013 (4)
- May 2013 (4)
- June 2013 (4)
- September 2013 (4)
- October 2013 (4)
- January 2014 (4)
- February 2014 (4)
- March 2014 (4)
- May 2014 (4)
- June 2014 (4)
- July 2014 (4)
- December 2014 (4)
- January 2016 (4)
- November 2011 (3)
- December 2011 (3)
- January 2012 (3)
- February 2012 (3)
- April 2012 (3)
- May 2012 (3)
- September 2012 (3)
- December 2012 (3)
- July 2013 (3)
- August 2013 (3)
- November 2013 (3)
- December 2013 (3)
- January 2015 (3)
- February 2015 (3)
- March 2015 (3)
- July 2015 (3)
- August 2015 (3)
- November 2015 (3)
- February 2016 (3)
- March 2012 (2)
- February 2013 (2)
- October 2014 (2)
- November 2014 (2)
- April 2015 (2)
- May 2015 (2)
- June 2015 (2)
- October 2015 (2)
- December 2015 (2)
- July 2011 (1)
- September 2014 (1)