Bad Actor Disqualification Act of 2017 To Protect Investors From Bad Actors
Bi-partisan legislation working its way through Congress would restrict the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) ability to grant waivers to financial firms that have violated the law. Rep. Maxine Waters, the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced the Bad Actor Disqualification Act of 2017. She argues that the law is needed to ensure that the SEC “protects investors from bad actors by implementing a rigorous, fair, and public process for waiving automatic disqualification provisions in the law.”
Several federal securities laws, such as Regulation A and Regulation D, include automatic “bad actor” and “ineligible issuer” disqualifications, which ban disqualified firms from relying on relaxed disclosure and reporting requirements. Mandatory disqualification may result from certain enforcement actions, such as criminal convictions for certain felonies and misdemeanors as well as violations of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws.
As the SEC noted when implementing Regulation D’s Rule 506 in 2013, “The disqualification provisions of Rule 506 were intended to and should lead to enhanced investor protection by reducing the number of offering participants who have previously engaged in fraudulent activities or who previously violated securities, insurance, banking or credit union laws or regulations, and by providing an additional deterrent to future fraudulent activities.”
While disqualification is considered “automatic” under certain securities laws, many regulations (including Rule 506) also authorize the SEC to waive disqualification in certain circumstances. For instance, the agency may waive Regulation A or Regulation D disqualifications upon a showing of good cause that it is not necessary under the circumstances that the exemptions be denied. The party seeking a waiver bears the burden of establishing such justification. However, they are frequently granted.
Scrutiny of SEC’s Waiver Process
The SEC’s waiver process has been subject to criticism for allegedly adopting a “too big to bar” policy. In 2014, a study found that large financial firms received a large majority of SEC waivers, accounting for 81.6 percent of waivers granted between July 2003 and December 2014. In addition, the study found that waivers are often granted to repeat violators whose track record suggests legal compliance concerns. The study also found that the SEC had developed unwritten criteria for granting waiver requests that lacked transparency.
In 2015, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued new guidance on the factors that should be used to determine when waivers will be granted. However, according to Waters, the SEC is still being too lenient on financial firms with a history of misconduct. The SEC “should not automatically give those who break the law a free pass by allowing them to continue to conduct business as usual,” Rep. Waters stated. “This commonsense legislation will subject waiver requests to public scrutiny and robust SEC review so that the law protects investors, the markets, and the public. No one is above the law, including large financial firms.”
Requiring the waiver process to be conducted and voted on at the Commission level, rather than at the staff level;
Requiring the SEC to consider whether granting a waiver would be in the public interest, protect investors, and promote market integrity;
Requiring the SEC to publish notice and afford the public an opportunity to comment and present their views at a public hearing on whether a particular waiver should be granted or denied; and
Requiring SEC staff to keep complete, public records of all waiver requests (formal and informal) and create a public database of all disqualified bad actors.
We will continue to track the Bad Actors Disqualification Act of 2017 as it makes its way through the legislative process. Please stay tuned for updates.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Dan Brecher, at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
SEC “Bad Actors” Bill Would Limit Agency’s Use of Waivers
Author: Dan Brecher
Bad Actor Disqualification Act of 2017 To Protect Investors From Bad Actors
Bi-partisan legislation working its way through Congress would restrict the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) ability to grant waivers to financial firms that have violated the law. Rep. Maxine Waters, the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced the Bad Actor Disqualification Act of 2017. She argues that the law is needed to ensure that the SEC “protects investors from bad actors by implementing a rigorous, fair, and public process for waiving automatic disqualification provisions in the law.”
Several federal securities laws, such as Regulation A and Regulation D, include automatic “bad actor” and “ineligible issuer” disqualifications, which ban disqualified firms from relying on relaxed disclosure and reporting requirements. Mandatory disqualification may result from certain enforcement actions, such as criminal convictions for certain felonies and misdemeanors as well as violations of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws.
As the SEC noted when implementing Regulation D’s Rule 506 in 2013, “The disqualification provisions of Rule 506 were intended to and should lead to enhanced investor protection by reducing the number of offering participants who have previously engaged in fraudulent activities or who previously violated securities, insurance, banking or credit union laws or regulations, and by providing an additional deterrent to future fraudulent activities.”
While disqualification is considered “automatic” under certain securities laws, many regulations (including Rule 506) also authorize the SEC to waive disqualification in certain circumstances. For instance, the agency may waive Regulation A or Regulation D disqualifications upon a showing of good cause that it is not necessary under the circumstances that the exemptions be denied. The party seeking a waiver bears the burden of establishing such justification. However, they are frequently granted.
Scrutiny of SEC’s Waiver Process
The SEC’s waiver process has been subject to criticism for allegedly adopting a “too big to bar” policy. In 2014, a study found that large financial firms received a large majority of SEC waivers, accounting for 81.6 percent of waivers granted between July 2003 and December 2014. In addition, the study found that waivers are often granted to repeat violators whose track record suggests legal compliance concerns. The study also found that the SEC had developed unwritten criteria for granting waiver requests that lacked transparency.
In 2015, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued new guidance on the factors that should be used to determine when waivers will be granted. However, according to Waters, the SEC is still being too lenient on financial firms with a history of misconduct. The SEC “should not automatically give those who break the law a free pass by allowing them to continue to conduct business as usual,” Rep. Waters stated. “This commonsense legislation will subject waiver requests to public scrutiny and robust SEC review so that the law protects investors, the markets, and the public. No one is above the law, including large financial firms.”
Requiring the waiver process to be conducted and voted on at the Commission level, rather than at the staff level;
Requiring the SEC to consider whether granting a waiver would be in the public interest, protect investors, and promote market integrity;
Requiring the SEC to publish notice and afford the public an opportunity to comment and present their views at a public hearing on whether a particular waiver should be granted or denied; and
Requiring SEC staff to keep complete, public records of all waiver requests (formal and informal) and create a public database of all disqualified bad actors.
We will continue to track the Bad Actors Disqualification Act of 2017 as it makes its way through the legislative process. Please stay tuned for updates.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Dan Brecher, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
