New business ideas and practices spring up all the time. Some, but not all, find a niche that leads to success. Government officials at the city, state, and federal levels often keep a close eye on new or unconventional business practices to see how they fit into existing laws and regulations. If regulators determine that a particular business activity falls under their jurisdiction, they may attempt to rein in what they view as regulatory violations. The businesses, of course, might disagree with this assessment. Any new business should be aware of regulations that apply—or might potentially apply—to them. A lawsuit currently pending in a New Jersey federal court demonstrates this sort of dispute. RD Legal Capital, LLC v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 2:16-cv-05104, complaint (D.N.J., Aug. 22, 2016).
The plaintiff alleges that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a federal agency charged with enforcing securities laws, exceeded its authority under both federal law and the U.S. Constitution by initiating a regulatory action against it for alleged violations of the Investment Advisers Act (IAA) of 1940, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-1 et seq. While businesses in New Jersey and New York that do not provide financial services of any kind are not likely to find themselves subject to this specific statute, the case is illustrative of how the government can seek to impose an existing regulatory framework on a business, even if the business believes in good faith that it is not subject to that framework.
The statute at issue in RD Legal Capital defines an “investment adviser” in part as someone “in the business of advising others…as to the value of securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities.” 15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(11). Congress originally passed this law in the wake of important Great Depression-era statutes like the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Each law uses a substantially similar definition of a “security,” id. at § 80b-2(a)(18), 77b(1), 78c(a)(10), and each has generated a considerable amount of regulatory opinions and caselaw regarding the scope of this definition.