Defendant Name: INTECH Investment Management LLC

Defendant Type: Subsidiary of Public Company
Public Company Parent: Janus Capital Group Inc.
SIC Code: 6282
CUSIP: 47102X10

Document Reference: IA-2872

Document Details

Legal Case Name In the Matter of INTECH Investment Management and David E. Hurley
Document Name Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 203(e), 203(f) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order
Document Date 07-May-2009
Document Format Administrative Proceeding
File Number 3-13463
Allegation Type Investment Advisers/Investment Companies
Document Summary On May 7, 2009, the SEC instituted settled administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against INTECH Investment Management LLC and David E. Hurley stating: "This case involves a registered investment adviser, INTECH, which, from at least 2003 through 2006 (the “relevant time period”), exercised voting authority over client securities without having written policies and procedures that were reasonably designed to ensure it voted its clients’ securities in the best interests of its clients because those policies and procedures did not include how the adviser would address material potential conflicts of interests that may arise between its interests and those of its clients. INTECH also did not sufficiently describe its proxy voting policies and procedures to clients."

Disgorgement & Penalty Information

Resolutions
Cease and Desist Order
Censured
Monetary Penalties:

Civil Penalty

Individual:     $300,000.00 Shared:    

Related Documents:

2009-105 08-May-2009 Press Release--Administrative Proceeding
SEC Charges Investment Adviser for Proxy Voting Rule Violation
The SEC stated that: "[It] has charged West Palm Beach, Fla.-based INTECH Investment Management LLC and its former chief operating officer David E. Hurley for violating the SEC's proxy voting rule for investment advisers by not sufficiently describing its proxy voting policies and procedures and failing to address a material potential conflict of interest."

Other Defendants in Action: