SEC Rule 206(4)-8: Enforcement Standard May Shift in the Atkins Era
The Securities and Exchange Commission’s recent leadership changes may signal a recalibration in the enforcement of Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-8, a cornerstone of the SEC’s oversight of investment advisers to pooled investment vehicles. With Chairman Paul Atkins returning to the agency, the Commission’s long-standing reliance on a negligence standard could soon be revisited.
Background: Goldstein and the Adoption of Rule 206(4)-8
Rule 206(4)-8 was adopted in 2007 in the wake of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Goldstein v. SEC (2006). In Goldstein, the court rejected the SEC’s attempt to treat underlying fund investors as advisory clients, holding that an adviser’s client is the fund itself. In response, the SEC promulgated Rule 206(4)-8 to preserve its enforcement authority over advisers who defraud investors or prospective investors in pooled vehicles, notwithstanding Goldstein’s limitations.
Critically, the rule has been interpreted to impose liability on advisers for negligent conduct, not just intentional or reckless misconduct. This has allowed the SEC to bring enforcement actions involving a wide array of adviser practices—most notably, undisclosed conflicts of interest, misallocation of fees and expenses, and other compliance failures.
Atkins’ Longstanding Objections
Chairman Atkins dissented from the adoption of the rule in 2007, arguing that negligence was an insufficient basis for enforcement. His objections rested on two pillars:
Statutory Authority: Section 206(4) authorizes the SEC to prohibit conduct that is “fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative.” Atkins emphasized that the Supreme Court has interpreted “manipulative” conduct as requiring deliberate action. He contended that the SEC lacked authority to adopt a rule premised on a mere negligence standard.
Policy Considerations: Even if the SEC possessed the statutory authority, Atkins argued that adopting a negligence standard would misallocate enforcement resources and risk chilling well-intentioned advisers from serving investors. In his view, requiring proof of intentional or reckless misconduct better aligns with both statutory design and sound policy.
Enforcement Under a Negligence Standard
During the last administration, Rule 206(4)-8 was one of the SEC’s most frequently charged provisions in adviser enforcement actions. More than 100 cases alleged violations under the rule, with the Commission often relying on negligence-based theories. For private fund managers in particular, the rule became a flexible enforcement tool used to address practices the SEC viewed as misleading or unfair to investors.
What May Change Under Atkins
Since Chairman Atkins’ return earlier this year, the SEC has not filed an enforcement action premised solely on negligence under Rule 206(4)-8. While it is too early to call this a definitive policy shift, the absence is notable given the historical prominence of such cases.
If the SEC moves toward requiring intentional or reckless misconduct, the implications could be significant:
For fund advisers: Enforcement risk may diminish in cases involving inadvertent errors, incomplete disclosures, or isolated negligence.
For enforcement priorities: The SEC may focus its resources on cases involving more egregious misconduct, particularly where fraud on both the fund and its investors is at issue.
For private fund investors: Sophisticated institutions may see fewer enforcement actions premised on technical or low-level adviser missteps.
At the same time, advisers should not assume the absence of liability. Other provisions of the Advisers Act, including Sections 206(1) and 206(2), remain available to the SEC and impose negligence-based standards in certain contexts.
Key Takeaways
Rule 206(4)-8 has been central to SEC oversight of private fund advisers for nearly two decades.
Chairman Atkins has long opposed negligence as a sufficient basis for liability under the rule.
The SEC may raise the enforcement bar to require proof of intentional or reckless misconduct.
For advisers to pooled investment vehicles, the Commission’s approach to Rule 206(4)-8 is a space to watch closely. While a shift in enforcement philosophy may reduce risk in cases of inadvertent negligence, advisers remain well-served by robust compliance programs and proactive management of conflicts and disclosures.
* * *
Attorney Advertising — we provide this information as a service to clients, prospective clients, and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship.
