In re MONTAGUE DeROSE & ASSOCIATES
Montague DeRose & Associates, LLC, a registered municipal advisor, was found to have willfully violated federal securities laws by failing to maintain and preserve written communications related to municipal advisory activities, resulting in a $40,000 civil penalty and a cease-and-desist order.
Montague DeRose & Associates, LLC, a California-based municipal advisor, was charged with violating federal securities laws and MSRB rules by failing to preserve written communications related to municipal advisory activities from October 2019 to August 2023. The firm's employees, including senior staff, used unapproved electronic communication methods, such as text messages, to discuss municipal advisory activities. Montague DeRose agreed to a $40,000 civil penalty, with $10,000 paid to the MSRB and $30,000 to the U.S. Treasury.
Montague DeRose & Associates, LLC, a registered municipal advisor, was found to have willfully violated federal securities laws by failing to maintain and preserve written communications related to municipal advisory activities. The alleged fraud involved employees, including senior levels, using unapproved electronic communication methods, such as text messages, to discuss municipal advisory activities from October 2019 to August 2023. Despite having policies requiring recordkeeping and employee acknowledgments, the firm lacked effective supervision and monitoring systems, allowing senior employees to engage in off-channel communications without archiving them. The SEC found these violations willful due to the firm's reliance on unenforced policies and failure to implement reliable oversight. Montague DeRose agreed to a cease-and-desist order, a $40,000 civil penalty, with $10,000 paid to the MSRB and $30,000 to the U.S. Treasury, and mandatory undertakings including new policies, expert-led training, and implementing text-message archiving technology.
Extracted insights
- $40K $40,000 $10K–$100K
- $30K $30,000 $10K–$100K
- $10K $10,000 $10K–$100K
- person montague derose
- person montague derose employees
- person montague derose supervisors
- company on municipal advisors
- agency the securities and exchange commission
- person these written communications
- person unapproved electronic communication methods
- The Securities and Exchange Commission Deems It Appropriate Public Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings
- Respondent Submitted an Offer of Settlement In Anticipation of the Institution of These Proceedings
- Respondent Admits the Facts Set Forth in Section III
- The Federal Securities Laws Impose Recordkeeping Requirements On Municipal Advisors
- Montague DeRose Employees Failed to Adhere To These Recordkeeping Requirements
- Montague DeRose Employees Communicated Using Unapproved Electronic Communication Methods
- Montague DeRose Did Not Maintain These Written Communications
- Montague DeRose Violated Section 17(a) Of the Exchange Act and Rule 15Ba1-8 Thereunder
- Montague DeRose Supervisors Failed to Comply With These Recordkeeping Requirements
- Montague DeRose Failed to Implement A System to Supervise Municipal Advisory Activities
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 101045 / September 17, 2024
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-22125
In the Matter of
MONTAGUE DeROSE & ASSOCIATES,
LLC,
Respondent.
ORDER INSTITUTING
ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-
AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15B AND
21C OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING
FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING
REMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A
CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER
I.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in
the public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby
are, instituted pursuant to Sections 15B and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(“Exchange Act”) against Montague DeRose & Associates, LLC (“Montague DeRose” or
“Respondent”).
II.
In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer
of Settlement (“Offer”) which the Commission has determined to accept. Respondent admits the
facts set forth in Section III below, acknowledges that its conduct violated the federal securities
laws, admits the Commission’s jurisdiction over it and the subject matter of these proceedings,
and consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist
Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 15B and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making
Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order (“Order”), as set forth
below.
2
III.
On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds
1
that:
Summary
1. The federal securities laws impose recordkeeping requirements on municipal
advisors, which are intended to facilitate the Commission’s inspections and examinations of
municipal advisors and assist the Commission in evaluating a municipal advisor’s compliance with
the applicable federal securities laws, including the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board (“MSRB”). These recordkeeping requirements require, among other things, that municipal
advisors maintain and preserve all written communications relating to municipal advisory activities
for at least five years.
2. These proceedings arise out of the failure of Montague DeRose employees
throughout the firm, including at senior levels, to adhere to these recordkeeping requirements and
the firm’s own policies. Using unapproved electronic communication methods, these employees
communicated with regard to municipal advisory activities both internally and externally by text
messages (“off-channel communications”).
3. From at least October 2019 to August 2023 (the “relevant period”), multiple
Montague DeRose employees sent and received off-channel communications relating to municipal
advisory activities. Montague DeRose did not maintain or preserve these written communications.
Montague DeRose’s failure involved employees at various levels of authority, including both
municipal advisor representatives and municipal advisor principals.
2
As a result, Montague DeRose
violated Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 15Ba1-8 thereunder, and MSRB Rules G-8
and G-9.
4. Montague DeRose’s supervisors, who were responsible for preventing this
misconduct, themselves failed to comply with these recordkeeping requirements, as well as the
firm’s own policies by sending and receiving off-channel communications relating to municipal
advisory activities. Montague DeRose failed to implement and maintain a system to supervise the
municipal advisory activities of the municipal advisor and its associated persons that is reasonably
designed to achieve compliance with applicable recordkeeping requirements. As a result, Montague
1
The findings herein are made pursuant to Respondent’s Offer of Settlement and are not
binding on any other person or entity in this or any other proceeding.
2
MSRB Rule G-3(d)(i)(A) defines a “municipal advisor representative” to mean a natural person
associated with a municipal advisor who engages in municipal advisory activities on the municipal
advisor’s behalf, other than a person performing only clerical, administrative, support or similar
functions. MSRB Rule G-3(e)(i) defines a “municipal advisor principal” to mean a natural person
associated with a municipal advisor who is directly engaged in the management, direction or supervision
of the municipal advisory activities of the municipal advisor and its associated persons.
3
DeRose violated MSRB Rule G-44. By violating MSRB Rules G-8, G-9 and G-44, Montague
DeRose violated Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act.
Respondent
5. Montague DeRose & Associates, LLC (“Montague DeRose”) is a California
limited liability company with its principal office and place of business in Westlake Village,
California. Montague DeRose has been registered with the Commission and the MSRB as a
municipal advisor since July 2014 and was registered during the relevant time period.
Recordkeeping Requirements for Municipal Advisors
6. Section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act requires municipal advisors to make and
keep for prescribed periods such records, furnish such copies thereof, and make and disseminate
such reports as the Commission, by rule, prescribes as necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the Exchange Act.
Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-8 requires that municipal advisors make and keep true, accurate, and
current originals or copies of all written communications received, and originals or copies of all
written communications sent, by such municipal advisor relating to municipal advisory activities,
regardless of the format of such communications, and for such records to be maintained and
preserved for a period of not less than five years, the first two years in easily accessible places.
7. MSRB Rule G-8(h)(i) requires municipal advisors to make and keep current all
books and records described in Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-8(a)(1)-(8), which includes all written
communications relating to municipal advisory activities. MSRB Rule G-9(h)(i) requires the
municipal advisor to preserve these records for a period of not less than five years.
8. Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act prohibits municipal advisors from
engaging in any act, practice, or course of business that is in contravention of any rule of the
MSRB.
Policies and Procedures
9. During the relevant period, Montague DeRose maintained certain policies and
procedures designed to ensure the maintenance and retention of municipal advisory-related
records, including electronic communications, in compliance with the relevant recordkeeping
provisions.
10. Montague DeRose employees were advised that the use of unapproved electronic
communications methods to conduct Montague DeRose-related business was generally not
permitted unless such messages were retained in accordance with Montague DeRose’s document
retention policies.
4
11. Messages sent through firm-approved communications methods were monitored,
subject to review and archived. Messages sent through unapproved communications methods
were not monitored, subject to review or archived.
12. Montague DeRose had procedures for all employees, including supervisors,
requiring their written acknowledgment that they had read and understood Montague DeRose’s
electronic communications policies and were responsible for abiding by their provisions. In
addition, Montague DeRose conducted annual training and sent periodic reminders to its
employees regarding the requirements of its electronic communication policies. However,
Montague DeRose did not have processes in place to review, test or modify its reliance on
employees’ written acknowledgements.
13. All of Montague DeRose’s employees that sent or received off-channel
communications, including supervisors, acknowledged in writing that they understood the
electronic communications policies and were responsible for abiding with them, yet did not
follow these policies. Montague DeRose’s reliance on employees’ acknowledgment was not
reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the recordkeeping requirements because it was
not reliable absent appropriate follow-up measures. Accordingly, Montague DeRose’s
supervisory system was not reasonably designed to achieve compliance with recordkeeping
requirements.
Recordkeeping Failures
14. In July 2023, the Commission staff commenced a risk-based initiative to
investigate whether municipal advisors were properly retaining messages related to municipal
advisory activities that were sent and/or received by employees using unapproved electronic
communication methods. Montague DeRose cooperated with the investigation by voluntarily
gathering, reviewing and producing messages found on employees’ electronic devices.
15. The Commission staff’s investigation uncovered off-channel communications at
all seniority levels of Montague DeRose. The investigation determined that during the relevant
period, multiple Montague DeRose personnel had engaged in off-channel communications
relating to municipal advisory activities involving both other employees of Montague DeRose
and external contacts that were not preserved.
16 For example, a Managing Director at Montague DeRose and an Assistant
Superintendent at a municipal issuer client exchanged text messages discussing edits needed to a
Preliminary Offering Statement to update language in the section about Other Post-Employment
Benefits, and a rating agency presentation. For another example, a Principal at Montague
DeRose and Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of a municipal issuer client exchanged text
messages discussing projected present value savings from and cost of debt service for a planned
5
bond refunding.
Violations
17. As a result of the conduct described above, during the relevant period, Montague
DeRose willfully
3
violated Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 15Ba1-8 thereunder and
MSRB Rules G-8 and G-9, which require municipal advisors to make and preserve for at least
five years originals or copies of all written communications received or sent relating to municipal
advisory activities.
18. As a result of the conduct described above, during the relevant period, Montague
DeRose willfully violated MSRB Rule G-44, which requires municipal advisors to, among other
things, implement, and maintain a system to supervise the municipal advisory activities of the
municipal advisor and its associated persons that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance
with applicable securities laws and regulations, including applicable MSRB rules.
19. As a result of Montague DeRose’s willful violations of MSRB Rules G-8, G-9 and
G-44, Montague DeRose willfully violated Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act, which
prohibits municipal advisors from making use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of
interstate commerce to provide advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or obligated person
with respect to municipal financial products, the issuance of municipal securities, or to undertake
a solicitation of a municipal entity or obligated person, in contravention of any rule of the
MSRB.
Remedial Efforts
20. In determining to accept the Offer, the Commission considered remedial steps
undertaken by Montague DeRose and the cooperation afforded the Commission staff. Prior to this
3
“Willfully,” for purposes of imposing relief under Section 15B of the Exchange Act, “‘means no
more than that the person charged with the duty knows what he is doing.’” Wonsover v. SEC, 205 F.3d
408, 414 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting Hughes v. SEC, 174 F.2d 969, 977 (D.C. Cir. 1949)). There is no
requirement that the actor “also be aware that he is violating one of the Rules or Acts.” Tager v. SEC,
344 F.2d 5, 8 (2d Cir. 1965). The decision in The Robare Group, Ltd. v. SEC, which construed the term
“willfully” for purposes of a differently structured statutory provision, does not alter that standard. 922
F.3d 468, 478-79 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (setting forth the showing required to establish that a person has
“willfully omit[ted]” material information from a required disclosure in violation of Section 207 of the
Advisers Act).
6
action, Montague DeRose enhanced its policies and procedures, including by providing text
messaging technology to employees that enables the capturing and archiving of text messages.
Undertakings
21. In addition, Montague DeRose has undertaken to:
a. Within 180 days of the entry of this Order: (i) establish reasonably designed
written policies and procedures regarding the preservation of electronic communications;
(ii) conduct a training of all associated persons who engage in municipal advisory
activities regarding the preservation of electronic communications, to be provided by a
person or entity with relevant expertise in the preservation of electronic communications
and recordkeeping requirements under the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, and under MSRB Rules; and (iii) establish a program of periodic training of all
associated persons who engage in municipal advisory activities regarding the preservation
of electronic communications. The written policies and procedures should include the
designation of a municipal advisor principal at Respondent responsible for ensuring
compliance by Respondent with such policies and procedures and responsible for
implementing and maintaining a record (including attendance) of the initial training and the
periodic training program.
b. Certify, in writing, compliance with the undertakings set forth above. The
certification shall: (i) identify the undertakings; (ii) provide written evidence of compliance
with the undertakings in the form of a narrative; and (iii) be supported by exhibits sufficient
to demonstrate compliance with the undertakings. The Commission staff may make
reasonable requests for further evidence of compliance with the undertakings, and
Respondent agrees to provide such evidence at the time and in the manner specified by
Commission staff or advise the Commission staff of any request for further evidence that
Respondent considers unreasonable. The certification, written evidence of compliance and
supporting exhibits shall be submitted to LeeAnn Ghazil Gaunt, Chief, Public Finance
Abuse Unit, Securities and Exchange Commission, 33 Arch Street, 24
th
Floor, Boston, MA
02110, with a copy to the Office of Chief Counsel of the Enforcement Division, no later
than the one-year anniversary of the date of this order.
c. Deadlines. For good cause shown, the Commission staff may extend any of the
procedural dates relating to the undertakings. Deadlines for procedural dates shall be
counted in calendar days, except that if the last day falls on a weekend or federal holiday,
the next business day shall be considered to be the last day.
IV.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to
impose the sanctions agreed to in Respondent Montague DeRose’s Offer.
7
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 15B and 21C of the Exchange Act, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
A. Respondent Montague DeRose cease and desist from committing or causing any
violations and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 15Ba1-8
thereunder and Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act and MSRB Rules G-8, G-9 and G-44.
B. Respondent Montague DeRose is censured.
C. Respondent Montague DeRose shall comply with the undertakings enumerated
in paragraph 21 above.
D. Respondent Montague DeRose shall, within 10 days of the entry of this Order, pay
a civil money penalty in the amount of $40,000.00 to the Securities and Exchange Commission, of
which $10,000.00 shall be transferred to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board in accordance
with Section 15B(c)(9)(A) of the Exchange Act, and of which the remaining $30,000.00 shall be
transferred to the general fund of the United States Treasury, subject to Exchange Act Section
21F(g)(3). If timely payment is not made, additional interest shall accrue pursuant to 31 U.S.C.
§3717. Payment must be made in one of the following ways:
(1) Respondent may transmit payment electronically to the Commission, which
will provide detailed ACH transfer/Fedwire instructions upon request;
(2) Respondent may make direct payment from a bank account via Pay.gov
through the SEC website at http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ofm.htm; or
(3) Respondent may pay by certified check, bank cashier’s check, or United
States postal money order, made payable to the Securities and Exchange
Commission and hand-delivered or mailed to:
Enterprise Services Center
Accounts Receivable Branch
HQ Bldg., Room 181, AMZ-341
6500 South MacArthur Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OK 73169
Payments by check or money order must be accompanied by a cover letter identifying
Montague DeRose as the Respondent in these proceedings, and the file number of these
proceedings; a copy of the cover letter and check or money order must be sent to LeeAnn Ghazil
Gaunt, Chief, Public Finance Abuse Unit, Securities and Exchange Commission, Boston
Regional Office, 33 Arch Street, 24th Floor, Boston, MA 02110.
8
E. Amounts ordered to be paid as civil money penalties pursuant to this Order shall
be treated as penalties paid to the government for all purposes, including all tax purposes. To
preserve the deterrent effect of the civil penalty, Respondent agrees that in any Related Investor
Action, it shall not argue that it is entitled to, nor shall it benefit by, offset or reduction of any
award of compensatory damages by the amount of any part of Respondent’s payment of a civil
penalty in this action (“Penalty Offset”). If the court in any Related Investor Action grants such
a Penalty Offset, Respondent agrees that it shall, within 30 days after entry of a final order
granting the Penalty Offset, notify the Commission’s counsel in this action and pay the amount
of the Penalty Offset to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Such a payment shall not be
deemed an additional civil penalty and shall not be deemed to change the amount of the civil
penalty imposed in this proceeding. For purposes of this paragraph, a “Related Investor Action”
means a private damages action brought against Respondent by or on behalf of one or more
investors based on substantially the same facts as alleged in the Order instituted by the
Commission in this proceeding.
By the Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman
Secretary UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 101045 / September 17, 2024
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-22125
In the Matter of
MONTAGUE DeROSE & ASSOCIATES,
LLC,
Respondent.
ORDER INSTITUTING
ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-
AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15B AND
21C OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING
FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING
REMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A
CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER
I.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in
the public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby
are, instituted pursuant to Sections 15B and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(“Exchange Act”) against Montague DeRose & Associates, LLC (“Montague DeRose” or
“Respondent”).
II.
In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer
of Settlement (“Offer”) which the Commission has determined to accept. Respondent admits the
facts set forth in Section III below, acknowledges that its conduct violated the federal securities
laws, admits the Commission’s jurisdiction over it and the subject matter of these proceedings,
and consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist
Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 15B and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making
Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order (“Order”), as set forth
below.
2
III.
On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds1 that:
Summary
1. The federal securities laws impose recordkeeping requirements on municipal
advisors, which are intended to facilitate the Commission’s inspections and examinations of
municipal advisors and assist the Commission in evaluating a municipal advisor’s compliance with
the applicable federal securities laws, including the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board (“MSRB”). These recordkeeping requirements require, among other things, that municipal
advisors maintain and preserve all written communications relating to municipal advisory activities
for at least five years.
2. These proceedings arise out of the failure of Montague DeRose employees
throughout the firm, including at senior levels, to adhere to these recordkeeping requirements and
the firm’s own policies. Using unapproved electronic communication methods, these employees
communicated with regard to municipal advisory activities both internally and externally by text
messages (“off-channel communications”).
3. From at least October 2019 to August 2023 (the “relevant period”), multiple
Montague DeRose employees sent and received off-channel communications relating to municipal
advisory activities. Montague DeRose did not maintain or preserve these written communications.
Montague DeRose’s failure involved employees at various levels of authority, including both
municipal advisor representatives and municipal advisor principals.2 As a result, Montague DeRose
violated Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 15Ba1-8 thereunder, and MSRB Rules G-8
and G-9.
4. Montague DeRose’s supervisors, who were responsible for preventing this
misconduct, themselves failed to comply with these recordkeeping requirements, as well as the
firm’s own policies by sending and receiving off-channel communications relating to municipal
advisory activities. Montague DeRose failed to implement and maintain a system to supervise the
municipal advisory activities of the municipal advisor and its associated persons that is reasonably
designed to achieve compliance with applicable recordkeeping requirements. As a result, Montague
1 The findings herein are made pursuant to Respondent’s Offer of Settlement and are not
binding on any other person or entity in this or any other proceeding.
2 MSRB Rule G-3(d)(i)(A) defines a “municipal advisor representative” to mean a natural person
associated with a municipal advisor who engages in municipal advisory activities on the municipal
advisor’s behalf, other than a person performing only clerical, administrative, support or similar
functions. MSRB Rule G-3(e)(i) defines a “municipal advisor principal” to mean a natural person
associated with a municipal advisor who is directly engaged in the management, direction or supervision
of the municipal advisory activities of the municipal advisor and its associated persons.
3
DeRose violated MSRB Rule G-44. By violating MSRB Rules G-8, G-9 and G-44, Montague
DeRose violated Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act.
Respondent
5. Montague DeRose & Associates, LLC (“Montague DeRose”) is a California
limited liability company with its principal office and place of business in Westlake Village,
California. Montague DeRose has been registered with the Commission and the MSRB as a
municipal advisor since July 2014 and was registered during the relevant time period.
Recordkeeping Requirements for Municipal Advisors
6. Section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act requires municipal advisors to make and
keep for prescribed periods such records, furnish such copies thereof, and make and disseminate
such reports as the Commission, by rule, prescribes as necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the Exchange Act.
Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-8 requires that municipal advisors make and keep true, accurate, and
current originals or copies of all written communications received, and originals or copies of all
written communications sent, by such municipal advisor relating to municipal advisory activities,
regardless of the format of such communications, and for such records to be maintained and
preserved for a period of not less than five years, the first two years in easily accessible places.
7. MSRB Rule G-8(h)(i) requires municipal advisors to make and keep current all
books and records described in Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-8(a)(1)-(8), which includes all written
communications relating to municipal advisory activities. MSRB Rule G-9(h)(i) requires the
municipal advisor to preserve these records for a period of not less than five years.
8. Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act prohibits municipal advisors from
engaging in any act, practice, or course of business that is in contravention of any rule of the
MSRB.
Policies and Procedures
9. During the relevant period, Montague DeRose maintained certain policies and
procedures designed to ensure the maintenance and retention of municipal advisory-related
records, including electronic communications, in compliance with the relevant recordkeeping
provisions.
10. Montague DeRose employees were advised that the use of unapproved electronic
communications methods to conduct Montague DeRose-related business was generally not
permitted unless such messages were retained in accordance with Montague DeRose’s document
retention policies.
4
11. Messages sent through firm-approved communications methods were monitored,
subject to review and archived. Messages sent through unapproved communications methods
were not monitored, subject to review or archived.
12. Montague DeRose had procedures for all employees, including supervisors,
requiring their written acknowledgment that they had read and understood Montague DeRose’s
electronic communications policies and were responsible for abiding by their provisions. In
addition, Montague DeRose conducted annual training and sent periodic reminders to its
employees regarding the requirements of its electronic communication policies. However,
Montague DeRose did not have processes in place to review, test or modify its reliance on
employees’ written acknowledgements.
13. All of Montague DeRose’s employees that sent or received off-channel
communications, including supervisors, acknowledged in writing that they understood the
electronic communications policies and were responsible for abiding with them, yet did not
follow these policies. Montague DeRose’s reliance on employees’ acknowledgment was not
reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the recordkeeping requirements because it was
not reliable absent appropriate follow-up measures. Accordingly, Montague DeRose’s
supervisory system was not reasonably designed to achieve compliance with recordkeeping
requirements.
Recordkeeping Failures
14. In July 2023, the Commission staff commenced a risk-based initiative to
investigate whether municipal advisors were properly retaining messages related to municipal
advisory activities that were sent and/or received by employees using unapproved electronic
communication methods. Montague DeRose cooperated with the investigation by voluntarily
gathering, reviewing and producing messages found on employees’ electronic devices.
15. The Commission staff’s investigation uncovered off-channel communications at
all seniority levels of Montague DeRose. The investigation determined that during the relevant
period, multiple Montague DeRose personnel had engaged in off-channel communications
relating to municipal advisory activities involving both other employees of Montague DeRose
and external contacts that were not preserved.
16 For example, a Managing Director at Montague DeRose and an Assistant
Superintendent at a municipal issuer client exchanged text messages discussing edits needed to a
Preliminary Offering Statement to update language in the section about Other Post-Employment
Benefits, and a rating agency presentation. For another example, a Principal at Montague
DeRose and Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of a municipal issuer client exchanged text
messages discussing projected present value savings from and cost of debt service for a planned
5
bond refunding.
Violations
17. As a result of the conduct described above, during the relevant period, Montague
DeRose willfully3 violated Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 15Ba1-8 thereunder and
MSRB Rules G-8 and G-9, which require municipal advisors to make and preserve for at least
five years originals or copies of all written communications received or sent relating to municipal
advisory activities.
18. As a result of the conduct described above, during the relevant period, Montague
DeRose willfully violated MSRB Rule G-44, which requires municipal advisors to, among other
things, implement, and maintain a system to supervise the municipal advisory activities of the
municipal advisor and its associated persons that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance
with applicable securities laws and regulations, including applicable MSRB rules.
19. As a result of Montague DeRose’s willful violations of MSRB Rules G-8, G-9 and
G-44, Montague DeRose willfully violated Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act, which
prohibits municipal advisors from making use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of
interstate commerce to provide advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or obligated person
with respect to municipal financial products, the issuance of municipal securities, or to undertake
a solicitation of a municipal entity or obligated person, in contravention of any rule of the
MSRB.
Remedial Efforts
20. In determining to accept the Offer, the Commission considered remedial steps
undertaken by Montague DeRose and the cooperation afforded the Commission staff. Prior to this
3 “Willfully,” for purposes of imposing relief under Section 15B of the Exchange Act, “‘means no
more than that the person charged with the duty knows what he is doing.’” Wonsover v. SEC, 205 F.3d
408, 414 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting Hughes v. SEC, 174 F.2d 969, 977 (D.C. Cir. 1949)). There is no
requirement that the actor “also be aware that he is violating one of the Rules or Acts.” Tager v. SEC,
344 F.2d 5, 8 (2d Cir. 1965). The decision in The Robare Group, Ltd. v. SEC, which construed the term
“willfully” for purposes of a differently structured statutory provision, does not alter that standard. 922
F.3d 468, 478-79 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (setting forth the showing required to establish that a person has
“willfully omit[ted]” material information from a required disclosure in violation of Section 207 of the
Advisers Act).
6
action, Montague DeRose enhanced its policies and procedures, including by providing text
messaging technology to employees that enables the capturing and archiving of text messages.
Undertakings
21. In addition, Montague DeRose has undertaken to:
a. Within 180 days of the entry of this Order: (i) establish reasonably designed
written policies and procedures regarding the preservation of electronic communications;
(ii) conduct a training of all associated persons who engage in municipal advisory
activities regarding the preservation of electronic communications, to be provided by a
person or entity with relevant expertise in the preservation of electronic communications
and recordkeeping requirements under the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, and under MSRB Rules; and (iii) establish a program of periodic training of all
associated persons who engage in municipal advisory activities regarding the preservation
of electronic communications. The written policies and procedures should include the
designation of a municipal advisor principal at Respondent responsible for ensuring
compliance by Respondent with such policies and procedures and responsible for
implementing and maintaining a record (including attendance) of the initial training and the
periodic training program.
b. Certify, in writing, compliance with the undertakings set forth above. The
certification shall: (i) identify the undertakings; (ii) provide written evidence of compliance
with the undertakings in the form of a narrative; and (iii) be supported by exhibits sufficient
to demonstrate compliance with the undertakings. The Commission staff may make
reasonable requests for further evidence of compliance with the undertakings, and
Respondent agrees to provide such evidence at the time and in the manner specified by
Commission staff or advise the Commission staff of any request for further evidence that
Respondent considers unreasonable. The certification, written evidence of compliance and
supporting exhibits shall be submitted to LeeAnn Ghazil Gaunt, Chief, Public Finance
Abuse Unit, Securities and Exchange Commission, 33 Arch Street, 24th Floor, Boston, MA
02110, with a copy to the Office of Chief Counsel of the Enforcement Division, no later
than the one-year anniversary of the date of this order.
c. Deadlines. For good cause shown, the Commission staff may extend any of the
procedural dates relating to the undertakings. Deadlines for procedural dates shall be
counted in calendar days, except that if the last day falls on a weekend or federal holiday,
the next business day shall be considered to be the last day.
IV.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to
impose the sanctions agreed to in Respondent Montague DeRose’s Offer.
7
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 15B and 21C of the Exchange Act, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
A. Respondent Montague DeRose cease and desist from committing or causing any
violations and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 15Ba1-8
thereunder and Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act and MSRB Rules G-8, G-9 and G-44.
B. Respondent Montague DeRose is censured.
C. Respondent Montague DeRose shall comply with the undertakings enumerated
in paragraph 21 above.
D. Respondent Montague DeRose shall, within 10 days of the entry of this Order, pay
a civil money penalty in the amount of $40,000.00 to the Securities and Exchange Commission, of
which $10,000.00 shall be transferred to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board in accordance
with Section 15B(c)(9)(A) of the Exchange Act, and of which the remaining $30,000.00 shall be
transferred to the general fund of the United States Treasury, subject to Exchange Act Section
21F(g)(3). If timely payment is not made, additional interest shall accrue pursuant to 31 U.S.C.
§3717. Payment must be made in one of the following ways:
(1) Respondent may transmit payment electronically to the Commission, which
will provide detailed ACH transfer/Fedwire instructions upon request;
(2) Respondent may make direct payment from a bank account via Pay.gov
through the SEC website at http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ofm.htm; or
(3) Respondent may pay by certified check, bank cashier’s check, or United
States postal money order, made payable to the Securities and Exchange
Commission and hand-delivered or mailed to:
Enterprise Services Center
Accounts Receivable Branch
HQ Bldg., Room 181, AMZ-341
6500 South MacArthur Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OK 73169
Payments by check or money order must be accompanied by a cover letter identifying
Montague DeRose as the Respondent in these proceedings, and the file number of these
proceedings; a copy of the cover letter and check or money order must be sent to LeeAnn Ghazil
Gaunt, Chief, Public Finance Abuse Unit, Securities and Exchange Commission, Boston
Regional Office, 33 Arch Street, 24th Floor, Boston, MA 02110.
http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ofm.htm
8
E. Amounts ordered to be paid as civil money penalties pursuant to this Order shall
be treated as penalties paid to the government for all purposes, including all tax purposes. To
preserve the deterrent effect of the civil penalty, Respondent agrees that in any Related Investor
Action, it shall not argue that it is entitled to, nor shall it benefit by, offset or reduction of any
award of compensatory damages by the amount of any part of Respondent’s payment of a civil
penalty in this action (“Penalty Offset”). If the court in any Related Investor Action grants such
a Penalty Offset, Respondent agrees that it shall, within 30 days after entry of a final order
granting the Penalty Offset, notify the Commission’s counsel in this action and pay the amount
of the Penalty Offset to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Such a payment shall not be
deemed an additional civil penalty and shall not be deemed to change the amount of the civil
penalty imposed in this proceeding. For purposes of this paragraph, a “Related Investor Action”
means a private damages action brought against Respondent by or on behalf of one or more
investors based on substantially the same facts as alleged in the Order instituted by the
Commission in this proceeding.
By the Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman
Secretary
20. In determining to accept the Offer, the Commission considered remedial steps undertaken by Montague DeRose and the cooperation afforded the Commission staff. Prior to this action, Montague DeRose enhanced its policies and procedures, including b...
Undertakings
21. In addition, Montague DeRose has undertaken to:
a. Within 180 days of the entry of this Order: (i) establish reasonably designed written policies and procedures regarding the preservation of electronic communications; (ii) conduct a training of all associated persons who engage in municipal adviso...
b. Certify, in writing, compliance with the undertakings set forth above. The certification shall: (i) identify the undertakings; (ii) provide written evidence of compliance with the undertakings in the form of a narrative; and (iii) be supported by ...
c. Deadlines. For good cause shown, the Commission staff may extend any of the procedural dates relating to the undertakings. Deadlines for procedural dates shall be counted in calendar days, except that if the last day falls on a weekend or federal h...
IV.