| | |
| 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 |
|
|