UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940

Release No. 6555 / February 14, 2024

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-21364

In the Matter of

MARCUS BEAM

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DIRECTING PREHEARING 

CONFERENCE, AND REMINDING RESPONDENT OF HIS OBLIGATION TO SEND HIS 

FILINGS TO THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

On April 11, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order instituting 

proceedings (“OIP”) against Marcus Beam pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers 

Act of 1940.

1

 On August 24, 2023, the Commission ordered Beam to show cause why he should 

not be deemed in default and the proceeding determined against him for failing to file an answer 

to the OIP.

2

 On September 28, 2023, Beam responded to that order by filing a motion to vacate 

any default that had been entered against him. In the motion, Beam stated that he had 

experienced various difficulties preparing filings due to his incarceration. Beam subsequently 

served the Division with an answer to the OIP, which the Division filed with the Commission. 

On January 19, 2024, the Division moved for summary disposition, requesting that the 

Commission indefinitely bar Beam from the securities industry.

3

 

Although Beam has now filed an answer to the OIP, it does not appear that the parties 

have conducted a prehearing conference. The OIP directed the parties to do so within 14 days of 

1 Marcus Beam, Advisers Act Release No. 6279, 2023 WL 2910250 (Apr. 11, 2023).

2 Marcus Beam, Advisers Act Release No. 6386, 2023 WL 5506856 (Aug. 24, 2023). This 

order was a renewed order to show cause issued when the Commission learned that a prior order 

to show cause may not have been properly served on Beam. See id. at *1; see also Marcus 

Beam, Advisers Act Release No. 6337, 2023 WL 4267447 (June 29, 2023).

3 Rule of Practice 250(b), 17 C.F.R. § 201.250(b) (authorizing filing of motion for 

summary disposition “after a respondent’s answer has been filed and documents have been made 

available to that respondent for inspection and copying pursuant to” Rule of Practice 230, 

17 C.F.R. § 201.230). Beam has filed an answer, and the Division states that it has made 

documents available to him pursuant to Rule 230.
2

service of Beam’s answer to the OIP and, following the conference, to file a statement with the 

Office of the Secretary advising the Commission of any agreements reached at the conference.4 

If a prehearing conference was not held, the parties were ordered to file a statement advising the 

Commission of that fact and of the efforts made to meet and confer.5 The parties have not filed 

any statement regarding a prehearing conference.

In light of Beam’s response to the order to show cause and answer, IT IS ORDERED that 

the order be discharged and that Beam will not be deemed in default at this time. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Beam and the Division conduct a prehearing 

conference by March 13, 2024.

6

 The parties may meet in person or participate by telephone or 

other remote means. At the conference, the parties may discuss relevant matters, including any 

proposed schedule for Beam to respond to the Division’s motion and for the Division to file any 

reply to that response. Following the conference, the parties shall file a statement with the Office 

of the Secretary advising the Commission of any agreements reached at the conference. If a 

prehearing conference is not held, a statement shall be filed with the Office of the Secretary 

advising the Commission of that fact and of the efforts made to meet and confer. If Beam fails to 

participate in the prehearing conference as directed by this order, he may be deemed in default 

and the proceeding may be determined against him.

Beam is also reminded that he must send any papers he files with the Commission to the 

Office of the Secretary, rather than the Office of the General Counsel,7and that the failure to do 

so may lead to his filings being rejected.8 Although the street address is the same for both 

offices, filings must be addressed to the Office of the Secretary to ensure that they are received 

4 Beam, 2023 WL 2910250, at *2.

5

Id.

6 Rule of Practice 221, 17 C.F.R. § 201.221.

7

See Rule of Practice 151(b), 17 C.F.R. § 201.151(b) (“Filing of papers with the 

Commission shall be made by filing them with the Secretary.”). Beam was previously reminded 

of this obligation on November 22, 2023, and sent a copy of the Rules of Practice. Nonetheless, 

Beam appears to have mailed a copy of his answer to the Office of General Counsel instead of 

the Office of the Secretary. 

8 Rule of Practice 180(b), 17 C.F.R. § 201.180(b). 
3

and entered on the docket. Beam shall also continue to send his filings to counsel for the 

Division of Enforcement and to include a certificate of service with his filings.

For the Commission, by the Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated 

authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary