SEC Settles Adviser Action, $900k Penalty, $5M Reimbursement

April 9, 2026

SEC enforcement action acts as valuation processes reminder for credit funds

Allison Scher Bernbach, Caitlyn Campbell, Marc E. Elovitz, Paul Helms, Kelly Koscuiszka, John Nowak McDermott Will & Schulte + Follow Contact LinkedIn Facebook X Send Embed

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently announced a settled administrative enforcement action against a formerly registered investment adviser (the Adviser) in connection with the Adviser’s valuation practices for affiliated principal transactions involving private credit funds it advised. Although the conduct dates back to March 2020 and the start of COVID-19, the action highlights the SEC’s focus on credit markets and valuation processes and disclosures, particularly during periods of market stress.

In Depth

Overview of the enforcement action

According to the SEC’s order, the Adviser employed a “season and sell” strategy under which it originated senior loans and, after typically holding them for 30 to 60 days, sold portions of those loans to private funds it advised in principal transactions. Fund agreements and investor disclosures represented that such transactions would be priced at fair value as reasonably determined by the Adviser.

The SEC found that during the onset of COVID 19, the Adviser continued to price loan transfers using a mechanical formula (par value less unamortized loan fees) without reassessing whether market volatility and liquidity conditions affected fair value. The SEC concluded that this failure to reassess valuation rendered the Adviser’s practices inconsistent with its disclosures.

The SEC did not allege intentional misconduct. Instead, the action was premised on negligence based anti-fraud provisions, which is similar to another action we recently covered. This also reflects the SEC’s view that valuation methodologies should be actively reevaluated when market conditions materially change. Notably, the SEC indicated that all but one of the loans fully performed or were repaid.

Without admitting or denying the findings, the Adviser consented to a cease and desist order, censure, and $900,000 civil monetary penalty for violations of Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4) 8 thereunder. The SEC did not seek disgorgement because in response to an SEC staff examination deficiency letter concerning the conduct, the Adviser voluntarily reimbursed the funds ($5,010,854.90, plus $203,819.69 in interest) as compensation.

Key takeaways

• Private credit managers should review their valuation policies and disclosures.
  • Valuation is a process, not a formula. The SEC emphasized that reliance on static pricing methodologies may be insufficient when market conditions materially change, particularly in affiliated transactions where conflicts are inherent.
  • Disclosures set the standard. Where governing documents and disclosures promise fair value determinations, advisers should consider whether contemporaneous practices reflect that commitment in substance, not merely in form. Advisers also should consider whether disclosures are aligned with practice not only in ordinary markets, but under stressed conditions as well.
  • Market stress heightens expectations. Periods of volatility, even if relatively brief, do not relax fair value obligations; they intensify them. Managers should expect the SEC to scrutinize whether valuation methodologies were reassessed in real time as market conditions evolved. An aggressive SEC may be willing to second guess an adviser’s valuation.
  • Third party consent is not a safe harbor. While the Adviser used third party review agents for principal transaction consent, the SEC’s case focused on valuation integrity rather than consent mechanics, underscoring that procedural compliance alone may be insufficient.
• Principal trades will likely be a focus. Principal transactions between advisers and affiliated funds remain a core enforcement priority. Valuation is often the lens through which the SEC evaluates whether conflicts were adequately managed.
• Negligence based cases remain a priority. This recent action continues a trend of SEC enforcement grounded in fiduciary duty and disclosure failures rather than scienter based fraud.
• Exams as a pipeline for enforcement. Examinations remain a key source of enforcement activity, particularly where disclosures and practices diverge.
• Remediation does not foreclose enforcement. The SEC’s willingness to seek an enforcement action and impose penalties despite post exam remediation reinforces that remedial measures, while important, may not eliminate enforcement risk if past conduct diverged from disclosures. [View source.]

Send Print Report

Related Posts

• SEC charges investment adviser for alleged conflicts disclosure failures
• Private credit funds: How family offices can protect the downside
• Carried interest in the UK: The new average holding period (AHP) condition for credit funds

Latest Posts

• Game over: No self-help clock reset for mandatory stay request
• SEC enforcement action acts as valuation processes reminder for credit funds See more »

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Attorney Advertising.

©
McDermott Will & Schulte

Written by:

McDermott Will & Schulte Contact + Follow Allison Scher Bernbach + Follow Caitlyn Campbell + Follow Marc E. Elovitz + Follow Paul Helms + Follow Kelly Koscuiszka + Follow John Nowak + Follow more less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA

• ✔ Increased readership
• ✔ Actionable analytics
• ✔ Ongoing writing guidance Join more than 70,000 authors publishing their insights on JD Supra

Start Publishing »

Published In:

Asset Valuations + Follow Credit Funds + Follow Disclosure Requirements + Follow Enforcement Actions + Follow Fair Market Value + Follow Fiduciary Duty + Follow Investment Adviser + Follow Investment Advisers Act of 1940 + Follow Investment Management + Follow Loans + Follow Negligence + Follow Private Funds + Follow Regulatory Oversight + Follow Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) + Follow Valuation + Follow General Business + Follow Finance & Banking + Follow Securities + Follow more less

McDermott Will & Schulte on:

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra: Sign Up Log in ** By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.* - hide - hide