Latest Breaking News On - பத்திரங்கள் முதலீட்டாளர் ப்ரொடெக்ஶந் நாடகம் - Page 1 : vimarsana.com

KSL investigates customer complaints surrounding popular trading app Robinhood

SEC Proposing Increased Thresholds for Performance-Based Fees

Tuesday, May 18, 2021 On Monday, May 10, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a Notice of Intent to Issue an Order that “would adjust for inflation dollar amount thresholds in the rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), which permits investment advisers to charge performance-based fees” to certain clients. That Rule, 205-3, was originally adopted in 1985 and has been revised in 1998, 2011, and 2016, in each case adjusting the thresholds higher. Performance-Based Fees Rule 205-3 was adopted under Section 205(a)(1) of the 1940 Act, which prohibits an investment adviser from charging fees based on capital gains or capital appreciation of the client’s funds. This was intended to protect clients from adviser arrangements that “might encourage advisers to take undue risks with client funds.” Indeed, in a February 1, 1994, letter from the SEC’s Division of Investment Management, the Division Director explains that the prohibition in Section 205 (a)(1) was included because “Performance fees in effect …[in 1940] rewarded an adviser …for good performance, without penalizing it for poor performance.”

SEC Reminds Broker-Dealers Of Obligations Under Customer Protection Rule - Corporate/Commercial Law

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. The SEC Division of Trading and Markets (the "Division") staff reminded broker-dealers operating programs in which they borrow securities from their customers of their obligations under SEA Rule 15c3-3 ("Customer protection-reserves and custody of securities"). As previously covered, the Division issued a no-action letter in October that indicated that some broker-dealers were operating fully-paid borrow programs that violated Rule 15c3-3 because of the manner in which collateral posted by the broker-dealer was held. In the same letter, the staff indicated that it would not recommend enforcement

Bernard Madoff: the inside story of an obsessive control freak who fooled the world

Reality finally caught up with Bernie Madoff on December 11, 2008. Arrested at the $7m Manhattan penthouse he shared with his wife, Ruth, the man who had run a decade long pyramid scheme made an emotional confession to his sons that “it’s all just one big lie”. Securities and Exchange Commission investigators spoke of “a stunning fraud that appears to be of epic proportions”. Their suspicions proved correct. Madoff’s white-collar crime was the largest-ever Ponzi scheme in history. By its end, Madoff had effectively stolen $17.5bn (£11.4bn) from more than 4,000 account holders with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (BLMIS), as well as from thousands more third-party investors exposed through feeder funds.

Bernie Madoff scam still cuts Lehigh Valley victims

Second Circuit: Madoff Ponzi scheme customers did not receive fictitious profit payments "for value"

Introduction In the latest chapter of more than a decade of litigation involving efforts to recover fictitious profits paid to certain customers of Bernard Madoff's defunct brokerage firm as part of the largest Ponzi scheme in history, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 976 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2020) (" Madoff"), that the customers did not have a defense to avoidance and recovery because they received the payments "for value." The Second Circuit also ruled that the trustee overseeing the brokerage firm's liquidation properly determined the amount subject to recovery despite calculating the defendants' liability by netting the amounts they received against what they invested since the firm's inception.

Second Circuit: Madoff Ponzi Scheme Customers Did Not Receive Fictitious Profit Payments

Fairfield Sentry: A look into the application of the US safe harbor provisions and the Hague Convention to foreign claims | Dentons