BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE BANKING & FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS COMMITTEE Senator Lou Correa, Chair 2013-2014 Regular Session SB 538 (Hill) Hearing Date: April 3, 2013 As Amended: April 1, 2013 Fiscal: Yes Urgency: No SUMMARY Would enact several changes to the Corporate Securities Law of 1968, to augment the securities law enforcement resources of the Department of Corporations (DOC) and streamline the process by which DOC may collect judgments from securities licensees found to have violated the securities laws. Would also make a variety of technical changes to other laws administered by DOC. DESCRIPTION 1. Would authorize DOC to impose annual renewal fees of up to $35 on licensed broker-dealer agents and investment adviser representatives, and would state legislative intent that the revenue generated from the imposition of these fees be used by DOC to perform regulatory examinations of its broker-dealer and investment adviser licensees at least once every four years, or more often, if deemed necessary for the protection of the public. 2. Following the exhaustion of review procedures provided in the Administrative Procedures Act, would authorize the DOC commissioner to apply to an appropriate superior court for a judgment in the amount of an administrative penalty granted pursuant to a final decision of the commissioner, and, if applicable, pursuant to a final decision of the commissioner on a claim for ancillary relief such as restitution or disgorgement. Would require any such application by the commissioner to a superior court to include a certified copy of the commissioner's final decision, and would provide that any such application shall constitute a sufficient showing to warrant the issuance of a judgment and order by that superior court. 3. Would expand the types of securities law violations for SB 538 (Hill), Page 2 which DOC is authorized to issue desist and refrain (D&R) orders, by authorizing the issuance of D&Rs for any violation of the Corporate Securities Law of 1968 (Division 1 of Title 4 of the Corporations Code) or any rule adopted or order issued pursuant to that division. 4. Would update the anti-fraud language in California's securities law to ensure consistency with federal anti-fraud language, by providing that it is unlawful for any person, in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of a security, directly or indirectly, to employ a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; make an untrue statement of material fact or fail to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or engage in an act, practice, or course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon another person. 5. Would exempt California limited partnerships and limited liability companies that apply to DOC for qualification for the sale of securities or that file requests for or notices of exemption from qualification for the sale of securities with DOC from the requirement to file consents to service of process with DOC. 6. Would amend the Commodities Law (administered by DOC) to provide that a request for hearing to dispute the issuance of a D&R must be made within 30 days of service of the order, rather than within one year of service of the order, and would provide that if a person who is served with a D&R fails to file a written request for a hearing within 30 days from the date that D&R is served, the D&R shall be deemed final. 7. Would correct code section references and make other minor technical changes. EXISTING LAW 1. Provides for the Corporate Securities Law of 1968, administered by DOC (Corporations Code Sections 25000 et seq.), to govern the issuance and sale of securities in California. Among its many provisions, the Corporate Securities Law of 1968: a. Provides that it is unlawful for any person to offer SB 538 (Hill), Page 3 or sell any security in this state, unless such sale has been qualified by the Commissioner of Corporations, as specified, or unless the sale is covered by an express exemption from qualification (Corporations Code Section 25110). b. Provides that, unless a person is otherwise exempt from licensure as a broker-dealer, no person may effect any transaction in, or induce or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of any security in California, unless that person has obtained a certificate from the commissioner, authorizing that person to act in the capacity of a broker-dealer. Further provides that no person shall act on behalf of a licensed broker-dealer or on behalf of a securities issuer, effect any transaction in, or induce or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of any security in this state, unless that broker-dealer and agent have complied with rules adopted by the commissioner for the qualification and employment of those agents (Corporations Code Section 25210). c. Provides that, unless a person is otherwise exempt from licensure as an investment adviser, no person may conduct business as an investment adviser in California, unless that person has obtained a certificate from the commissioner, authorizing that person to act in the capacity of an investment adviser. Further provides that no person shall act on behalf of a licensed investment adviser, offer or negotiate for the sale of investment advisory services; determine which recommendations shall be made to, make recommendations to, or manage the accounts of clients of the investment adviser; or determine the reports or analyses concerning securities to be published by an investment adviser, unless the investment adviser and that person have complied with rules adopted by the commissioner for the qualification and employment of those persons (Corporations Code Section 25230). 2. Provides for the Commodities Law of 1990 (Corporations Code Section 29500 et seq.), which governs the sale or purchase, or offer to sell or purchase any commodity under any commodity contract or commodity option, by persons not otherwise regulated as commodities traders under federal law, or not otherwise exempt from regulation in that capacity under state or federal law. SB 538 (Hill), Page 4 COMMENTS 1. Purpose: SB 538 makes several changes to the state's Corporate Securities Law of 1968, which are intended to improve the state's ability to protect California investors. The bill's provisions augment DOC's securities law enforcement resources and streamline the process by which DOC may collect judgments from securities licensees found to have violated state securities laws. The bill also makes other technical changes, intended to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens on California limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships, bring the state Commodities Law into alignment with similar laws that DOC administers, and make technical corrections. 2. Discussion: Each of the bill's major provisions is discussed below. a. Broker-dealer and investment adviser renewal fees: Broker-dealers are persons (individuals or firms) that buy and sell securities, either on behalf of customers, or on behalf of themselves. People who work for broker-dealers are called registered representatives or agents. Broker-dealers and their agents generally earn money by charging per transaction. Investment advisers, whether companies or individuals, earn money by advising customers about securities. Individuals who advise customers on behalf of investment adviser firms are called investment adviser representatives. The law imposes a fiduciary duty on investment advisers in their interactions with their clients, and requires broker-dealers to evaluate the suitability of investments, before they recommend those investments for their clients. California is home to approximately 3,100 licensed broker-dealer firms, which employ approximately 285,000 agents, and to approximately 3,600 licensed investment adviser firms, which employ just over 50,000 representatives. Because of historic funding shortfalls, California does not perform regular, periodic regulatory examinations of its broker-dealers, their agents, or its investment advisers SB 538 (Hill), Page 5 or their representatives. Because of resource constraints, DOC gives priority to cases in which a customer complains about the activities of a licensee, or when another regulator notifies DOC that there may be a problem involving a DOC licensee. The department is unable to perform routine examinations as frequently as it would like, to ensure licensee compliance with state securities laws and discourage misconduct. DOC seeks to examine its broker-dealer and investment adviser licensees once every four years (the minimum frequency with which DOC examines several of its other licensees, and the minimum frequency with which a majority of other states examine their broker-dealer and investment adviser licensees). However, because it lacks sufficient resources, DOC's actual broker-dealer and investment adviser examination frequency is once every 28 years. Licensed broker-dealers and investment advisers are reviewed once, upon their initial application for a license, and often never again. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act exacerbated DOC's inability to adequately review the activities of its broker-dealers and investment adviser licensees, by adding approximately 500 investment adviser firms and several thousand investment adviser representatives to DOC's licensee population. These new licensees are large investment adviser firms, which were previously regulated at the federal level, and whose activities are exceedingly more complex than those of DOC's pre-Dodd-Frank licensee population. California is one of only two states in the country that fails to impose renewal fees on our broker-dealer agents and investment adviser representatives. SB 538 authorizes DOC to charge annual renewal fees of up to $35 per broker-dealer agent and investment adviser representative. Given its current licensee population, DOC estimates that it will need to charge $28 annually per broker-dealer agent and investment-adviser representative, to achieve a four-year examination frequency. By comparison, Texas charges $275. b. Authorizing DOC to Petition Superior Courts For Judgments Following Administrative Actions: At present, DOC is authorized to bring administrative actions against SB 538 (Hill), Page 6 securities law licensees that have violated the law, seeking administrative penalties and, if applicable, ancillary relief, such as restitution, disgorgement, or damages. Licensees, in turn, have full due process rights under the Administrative Procedures Act, when they are the subject of a DOC administrative action. When DOC prevails at the administrative level, the department sometimes encounters difficulties in collecting on administrative judgments. At present, if a licensee fails to comply with an administrative order, DOC must re-try its case in superior court, if the department wishes to obtain a judgment in the amount of an administrative penalty or other ancillary relief that was awarded via administrative action. This is not only costly and time-consuming for the department; it also imposes a burden on an already overburdened civil court system. To address this problem, SB 538 authorizes DOC to petition an appropriate superior court to convert an administrative order into a court judgment. SB 538 contains a finding that provision of a certified copy of the commissioner's final decision to a court warrants the issuance of a judgment and order by that superior court. According to DOC, this provision will streamline the process by which it can collect on administrative judgments, without eliminating any rights of a licensee to appeal an action (appeal rights authorized in Government Code Section 11523 would continue to exist). DOC has similar authority under three of the other laws it administers (Deferred Deposit Transaction Law [Financial Code Section 23058], Check Sellers, Bill Payers and Proraters Law [Financial Code Section 12207], and the Franchise Investment Law [Corporations Code Section 31406]). Similar language also appears in the Labor Code (Section 5806) and Health and Safety Code (Section 25184.1). c. Issuance of Desist and Refrain Orders: DOC currently has the authority to issue D&Rs to persons violating certain specific provisions of our securities laws. However, DOC lacks broad authority to issue D&Rs for any violation of the Corporate Securities Law of 1968. Because it lacks this broad authority, the SB 538 (Hill), Page 7 department is unable to issue D&Rs for securities law violations involving insider trading, aiding and abetting, falsifying information, or for several other bad acts that represent violations of state securities laws. SB 538 grants DOC the broad D&R authority it currently lacks. d. Anti-Fraud Language: The anti-fraud language in California's securities law has failed to keep up with similar language in federal anti-fraud statutes. SB 538 updates our anti-fraud statutes to ensure consistency with more comprehensive, federal anti-fraud statutes. e. Service of Process: California limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships are currently required to file consents to service of process with the Secretary of State. Existing state securities laws require these entities to additionally file consents to service of process with DOC, if these entities are applying to DOC for qualification for the sale of securities, or if they are filing a request for or notice of exemption from qualification. SB 538 eliminates the duplicative filing requirements, by deleting the requirement that these entities file consents to service of process with DOC. f. Period of Time To Challenge a Commodities Law D&R: California's Commodities Law contains an out-of-date provision that grants licensees and unlicensed persons issued D&Rs under this law a full year in which to challenge the issuance of a D&R. While no one disputes the importance of allowing persons to challenge the issuance of a D&R, granting a full year in which to do so is inconsistent with the time periods for challenges that exist in multiple other licensing laws. SB 538 changes the one year time period in California's Commodities Law to 30 days, and brings it in line with most of the other laws administered by DOC. 3. Summary of Arguments in Support: Rationale for each of the changes is summarized above. This bill's author also states, "Broker-dealers, investment advisers, and their employees perform critically important functions on behalf of Californians, over which the state should provide an appropriate level of oversight. Particularly in today's extremely low interest rate environment, people are very susceptible to aggressive sales pitches on risky investment SB 538 (Hill), Page 8 products that promise high rates of investment return. Investment advisers have a fiduciary duty to their clients, and broker-dealers are required to ensure that the investments they recommend to their customers are suitable for those customers. Neither type of professional should be pitching risky investment products to people for whom these products are inappropriate. Yet, at the present time, DOC lacks the resources necessary to ensure that the state's investment professionals are following the law, and adhering to their duties to investors. The incremental cost to provide DOC with the examiners it needs to conduct regular regulatory examinations of its securities licensees is miniscule - in the range of $25 to $30 annually. We owe it to California investors to do what we can to protect them in their dealings with those from whom they seek advice related to their investments." 4. Summary of Arguments in Opposition: None received. LIST OF REGISTERED SUPPORT/OPPOSITION Support None received Opposition None received Consultant: Eileen Newhall (916) 651-4102