Increasing fees charged by Commissioner of Securities for each offering
SB677 revises West Virginia’s Uniform Securities Act to increase and standardize a range of fees collected by the Commissioner of Securities, who is the State Auditor. The bill raises or sets filing, renewal, amendment, branch office, name/address change, and compliance assessment fees for broker-dealers, agents, investment advisers, investment adviser representatives, and securities offerings. It also adds or clarifies filing requirements for certain federal-covered securities and Regulation A Tier 2 offerings, including notice filings, consents to service of process, renewal filings, and related fees payable to the State Auditor.
The bill also updates provisions governing securities registration and notice filings, including the timing and content of filings, the commissioner’s authority to require additional documents, stop orders, escrow or impoundment conditions, and annual sales reports. In addition, it changes the distribution of fee revenue by directing 25 percent of collected fees into the special operating fund for the securities division, with excess balances transferred to the General Revenue Fund. The bill takes effect 90 days after passage and amends multiple sections of the West Virginia Code governing securities regulation and administration.
SB677 directly amends §§32-2-202, 32-3-304a, 32-3-305, and 32-4-406 of the West Virginia Code, increasing costs for securities industry participants and issuers doing business in the state. It affects broker-dealers, investment advisers, agents, investment adviser representatives, issuers of securities, and federal-covered securities offerings by imposing higher filing and compliance fees and by requiring additional notice and documentation in some cases. The bill also changes how securities-fee revenue is allocated between the securities division’s operating fund and the General Revenue Fund, affecting the State Auditor’s administration of the chapter and the funding available for securities regulation.
The bill appears to have received mixed but ultimately sufficient support. It passed the Senate by a comfortable margin and the House by a narrower vote, suggesting that lawmakers generally accepted the need to update securities fees and administrative funding, but with more division in the House. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting pattern indicates some bipartisan or cross-faction support alongside notable opposition.
The main point of contention is likely the fee increases themselves, since the bill raises costs for securities firms, advisers, agents, and issuers, including fees tied to offerings and annual filings. Another likely issue is the expanded filing and notice requirements for federal-covered securities and Regulation A Tier 2 offerings, which may be viewed by industry as additional regulatory burden. On the other hand, supporters likely emphasized the need to keep securities regulation adequately funded and to adjust fees to reflect administrative costs, with the State Auditor and securities division benefiting from the revised revenue distribution.