|
| After the 1956 Act was published, the United States Supreme Court | construed the definition of investment adviser in Lowe v. SEC, 472 | U.S. 181 (1985), and concluded: |
|
| Congress did not intend to exclude publications that are | distributed by investment advisers as a normal part of the | business of servicing their clients. The legislative history | plainly demonstrates that Congress was primarily interested | in regulating the business of rendering personalized | investment advice, including publishing activities that are | a normal incident thereto. On the other hand, Congress, | plainly sensitive to First Amendment concerns, wanted to | make clear that it did not seek to regulate the press | through the licensing of nonpersonalized publishing | activities. |
|
| | Responsive to this language RUSA rewrote this exclusion to | provide: |
|
| a publisher, employee, or columnist of a newspaper, news | magazine, or business or financial publication, or an owner, | operator, or employee of a cable, radio, or television | network, station, or production facility, if, in either | case, the financial or business news published or | disseminated is made available to the general public and the | content does not consist of rendering advice on the basis of | the specific investment situation of each client. |
|
| | Recent experience at the federal and state levels suggest that | the 1956 Act and RUSA approaches may be too broad. The retention | of the Investment Advisers Act approach provides a better balance | between First Amendment concerns and protection of investors from | non-"bona fide" publicizing of investment advice. The exclusion | in Section 102(15)(D) is intended to exclude publishers of | Internet or electronic media, but only if the Internet or | electronic media publication or website satisfies the "bona fide" | and "publication of general and regular circulation" | requirements. Cf. SEC v. Park, 99 F. Supp. 2d 889, 895-896 (N.D. | Ill. 2000) (court declined to dismiss complaint against an | Internet website when there were allegations that the website was | not "bona fide" or of "general and regular circulation"). |
|
| | The exclusion in Section 102(15)(G) is required by the | National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996. This | exclusion will reach banks and bank holding companies as | described in Investment Advisers Act Section 202(a)(11)(A) and |
|
|