Page - 109 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 1/2015
Image of the Page - 109 -
Text of the Page - 109 -
ALJ 1/2015 Observations on Judicial Approaches to Discerning Investment Adviser Status 109
summarily rejected a discrete fee requirement by holding that even though defendants had not
received a separate fee, they did receive compensation (sales commissions and comingling client
funds) for investment advice. It found support for its holding in SEC Release 1092, particularly the
courtâs italicized sentence:
âThis reading of § 80b-2(a)(11) is consistent with the SECâs definition of compensation for invest-
ment advice. The SEC Release [1092] states: This compensation element is satisfied by the receipt
of any economic benefit, whether in the form of an advisory fee or some other fee relating to the
total services rendered, commissions, or some combination of the foregoing. It is not necessary
that a person who provides investment advisory and other services to a client charge a separate fee for
the investment advisory portion of the total services.â68
While Elliot makes clear that receipt of a discrete fee is not required to meet the compensation
element, the importance of this decision lies not with this narrow holding but with its inclusion of
the âeconomic benefitâ language in its quotation of SEC Release 1092. Although Elliot does not
explicitly identify or rely upon this language,69 this reference has led to a series of cases within
the Eleventh Circuit adopting the economic benefit approach. For example, in U.S. v. Ogale,70 an
unpublished opinion,71 the defendant, convicted of wire fraud, appealed the application of a
sentencing guidelines enhancement based on his status as an investment adviser. The defendant
argued that he was not acting as an investment adviser, in part, because he was not compen-
sated for investment advice. He argued that the investor funds that he misappropriated for per-
sonal use were âill-gotten gains,â72 not compensation. The court in Ogale relied on Elliottâs inclu-
sion of the economic benefit language in SEC Release 1092 as its authority for holding that âthe
receipt of any economic benefit qualifies as compensation under the Investment Advisers Act [âŚ].â73
Application of the economic benefit approach was extended within the Eleventh Circuit in Thomas
v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.74 In Thomas, the court was called upon to decide what
type of compensation met the âspecial compensationâ requirement under § 202(a)(11)(C), the
68 Elliott at 3011 n.8 (emphasis in original).
69 This reference to economic benefit tends to support implicitly Elliottâs holding that a defendantâs comingling of
client funds to pay personal expenses satisfied the compensation element.
70 378 Fed. Appâx 959 (11th Cir. 2010).
71 Joyner v. Astrue, 2011 WL 4530678 7 n.11 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (âUnpublished opinions of the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals are not considered binding authority; however, they may be cited as persuasive authority pursuant to
the Eleventh Circuit Rules, 11th Cir. R. 36-2.â).
72 See Ogale at 960-61. Generally, the term âill-gotten gainsâ is used to describe funds obtained through a violation
of federal securities laws and subject to disgorgement, an equitable remedy available in certain Commission en-
forcement actions. See, e.g., Sec. & Exch. Commân v. Platforms Wireless Inter. Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1096 (9th Cir.
2010) (citations omitted) (âA district court has broad equity powers to order disgorgement of ill-gotten gains ob-
tained through the violation of securities laws. Disgorgement is designed to deprive a wrongdoer of unjust en-
richment, and to deter others from violating securities laws by making violations unprofitable.â); Sec. & Exch.
Commân v. Cavanagh, 445 F.3d 105, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (tracing development of disgorgement as an equitable
remedy).
73 See Ogale at 960-61. (âThe receipt of any economic benefit qualifies as compensation under the Investment
Adviserâs [sic] Act and thus the investment adviser enhancement. See id. [Elliott] at 1131 (âTh[e] compensation el-
ement is satisfied by the receipt of any economic benefit, whether in the form of an advisory fee or some other
fee relating to the total services rendered, commissions, or some combination of the foregoing.â) (quoting SEC
Release notes for 15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(11) [âŚ]â). Ogale appears to be relying on Elliottâs finding that one of the de-
fendantâs had comingled investor funds and used investor funds for personal expenses. As noted, Elliott, howev-
er, did not explicitly apply the economic benefit approach to these funds, or any other compensation issue in the
case. See also U.S. v. Ellia, 2014 WL 4289389 (Cir. 11) (quoting Ogale quoting Elliott in holding that personal use of
investor funds meets the compensation element); Sec. & Exch. Commân v. Young, 2011 WL 1376045 7 (E.D. Pa.
2011) (noting Ogale held that âill-gotten gains qualify as compensation under the Advisers Actâ).
74 631 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2011).
back to the
book Austrian Law Journal, Volume 1/2015"
Austrian Law Journal
Volume 1/2015
- Title
- Austrian Law Journal
- Volume
- 1/2015
- Author
- Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
- Editor
- Brigitta Lurger
- Elisabeth Staudegger
- Stefan Storr
- Location
- Graz
- Date
- 2015
- Language
- German
- License
- CC BY 4.0
- Size
- 19.1 x 27.5 cm
- Pages
- 188
- Keywords
- Recht, Gesetz, Rechtswissenschaft, Jurisprudenz
- Categories
- Zeitschriften Austrian Law Journal