ANTONIA M. APPS

REGIONAL DIRECTOR

Sheldon L. Pollock

Wendy B. Tepperman

Travis Hill

Jonathan M. Grant 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

New York Regional Office

100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100 

New York, New York 10004-2616 

212-336-9135 (Hill) 

Hilltr@sec.gov 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

 Plaintiff,

 -againstBRITE ADVISORS USA, INC., 

 

 Defendant

COMPLAINT 23 Civ. 10212 

 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 

 

 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), for its Complaint against 

Defendant Brite Advisors USA, Inc. (“Brite USA” or “Defendant”), alleges as follows:

SUMMARY

1. Brite USA — a Commission-registered investment adviser with nearly 

$400 million in client assets under management maintained by Brite Advisors Pty Ltd. (“Brite 

Australia”) — has failed and continues to fail to comply with the Commission’s “Custody Rule,” 

which, to ensure the safety of client assets, requires an annual report from an independent public 

accountant of Brite Australia’s internal controls. In addition, Brite USA has violated and 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 1 of 31
2

continues to violate its fiduciary duty to its advisory clients to fully disclose conflicts of interest 

and risks to client assets created by Brite Australia borrowing tens of millions of dollars in loans 

backed (collateralized) by Brite USA’s client assets. 

2. Brite USA and Brite Australia are under common control. For purposes of the 

Custody Rule, Brite USA therefore has custody of Brite USA client funds and securities 

maintained by Brite Australia, and Brite USA thus must comply with the Custody Rule. 

3. From 2019 to present (the “Relevant Period”), Brite USA has failed to comply 

with the Custody Rule’s requirement that it obtain or receive from Brite Australia an annual 

internal control report — an important safeguard that verifies client assets — from an 

independent public accountant registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board 

(“PCAOB”), in violation of Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers 

Act”) and Rule 206(4)-2. 

4. In addition, Brite USA has received millions of dollars in operational funding 

arranged by Brite Australia’s parent company, Brite Advisory Group Limited (the “Brite Group 

Parent”), during the Relevant Period. This funding, in the form of regular cash wires to Brite 

USA from Brite Australia and other entities controlled by, or under common control with, the 

Brite Group Parent (together, the “Brite Group”), has been critical to Brite USA’s ability to meet 

operating expenses. 

5. Brite USA’s reliance on the Brite Group for funding creates conflicts of interest 

that Brite USA, as an investment adviser, has a fiduciary duty to fully and fairly disclose to its 

advisory clients. Brite USA has failed to do so. 

6. Moreover, Brite USA has failed to comply with its fiduciary duty to fully disclose 

that, during the Relevant Period, a primary source of the funding to cover its operating expenses 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 2 of 31
3

has been margin loans or other debt secured by client assets, including the assets of Brite USA 

clients. Brite Australia’s use of client assets as collateral presents additional risks and conflicts 

of interest that should have been disclosed. 

7. In failing to fully disclose these related risks and conflicts of interest, Brite USA 

breached its fiduciary duty to its advisory clients in violation of Advisers Act Section 206(2). 

8. In October 2023, Brite Australia’s Australian regulator announced that it had 

sought and obtained an order from an Australian federal court freezing Brite Australia’s assets in 

part because “the value of [Brite Australia’s] funds under management has not been reported by 

any entity within the Brite Group in an audited balance sheet since December 2019.”

VIOLATIONS

9. By virtue of the foregoing conduct and as alleged further herein, Defendant has

violated Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(2) and 80b-6(4)] 

and Rule 206(4)-2 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-2].

10. Unless Defendant is restrained and enjoined, Defendant will engage in the acts, 

practices, transactions, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint or in acts, practices, 

transactions, and courses of business of similar type and object. 

NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT

11. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by 

Advisers Act Sections 209(d) and 209(e) [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-9(d) and 80b-9(e)]. 

12. The Commission seeks a final judgment: (a) permanently enjoining Defendant 

from violating the federal securities laws and rules this Complaint alleges it has violated; (b)

ordering Defendant to pay civil money penalties pursuant to Advisers Act Section 209(e) [15 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 3 of 31
4

U.S.C. § 80b-9(e)]; and (c) ordering any other and further relief the Court may deem just and 

proper.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Advisers Act Section 214 

[15 U.S.C. § 80b-14]. 

14. Defendant, directly and indirectly, has made use of the means or instrumentalities

of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and 

courses of business alleged herein.

15. Venue lies in this District under Advisers Act Section 214 [15 U.S.C. § 80b-14].

Defendant’s principal office and principal place of business is in the Southern District of New 

York, Defendant conducts business in this District and certain of the acts, practices, transactions, 

and courses of business alleged in this Complaint occurred within this District.

DEFENDANT

16. Brite USA (f/k/a deVere USA, Inc., prior to January 2019) is a Florida 

corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Brite USA has been 

registered with the Commission as an investment adviser since 2013. In its 2022 annual 

updating Form ADV amendment filed with the Commission on March 30, 2023, Brite USA 

reported regulatory assets under management of approximately $468 million. On June 4, 2018, 

while the firm was named deVere USA, Inc., the Commission instituted settled administrative 

and cease-and-desist proceedings against the firm finding violations of Sections 206(1), 206(2), 

207 and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder relating to its failure to 

disclose compensation obtained from third-party product and service providers it recommended 

to clients and other violations. The firm consented to the order without admitting or denying the 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 4 of 31
5

Commission’s findings. In the Matter of deVere USA, Inc., Adv. Act Rel. No. 4993 (June 4, 

2018). 

OTHER RELEVANT INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES

17. Brite Group Parent is a Hong Kong company and at all relevant times has been 

the parent company of Brite Australia. The Brite Group Parent also controls or is under common 

control with the Brite Group, which operates worldwide as investment advisory and pension 

administration firms. 

18. Brite Australia is an Australian financial services firm with its registered 

principal office in Sydney, Australia, and is a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of the Brite Group 

Parent. Brite Australia is registered with and licensed by the Australian Securities & 

Investments Commission (the “Australian Commission”) as a financial services business. 

19. Brite Group CEO, age 57, is a Hong Kong resident, and is the founder and chief 

executive officer of the Brite Group Parent. 

20. Brite Group Executive-1, age 56, is a resident of the United Kingdom. At all 

relevant times, Brite Group Executive-1 has been the Chief Marketing Officer of the Brite Group 

Parent and since at least August 30, 2019, has served as a Director of the Brite Group Parent.

Brite USA has reported since January 2019 that Brite Group Executive-1 is a Director of Brite 

USA and the direct or indirect sole owner of Brite USA.

BACKGROUND ON THE CUSTODY RULE

21. In Advisers Act Section 206(4) [15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(4)], Congress made it 

unlawful for any investment adviser to “engage in any act, practice, or course of business which 

is fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative” using means of interstate commerce. Congress further 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 5 of 31
6

directed the Commission, through “rules and regulations,” to “define, and prescribe means 

reasonably designed to prevent, such” fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative conduct. 

22. In 1962, the Commission adopted Rule 206(4)-2 under the Advisers Act [17 

C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-2], known as the “Custody Rule,” to require investment advisers who have 

custody of client funds or securities “to maintain them in such a way that they will be insulated 

from and not be jeopardized by financial reverses, including insolvency, of the investment 

adviser.” See 27 Fed. Reg. 2149 (Mar. 6, 1962), available at 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1962-03-06/pdf/FR-1962-03-06.pdf. 

23. Effective in 2010, the Commission amended the Custody Rule to “provide for a 

more robust set of controls over [investment adviser] client assets designed to prevent those 

assets from being lost, misused, misappropriated, or subject to advisers’ financial reverses.” See 

75 Fed. Reg. 1456, at 1457 (Jan. 11, 2010), available at 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-01-11/pdf/2010-18.pdf. 

24. Under the Custody Rule, it is a fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act, practice 

or course of business for a registered investment adviser to have custody of its clients’ funds or 

securities unless it fully complies with all requirements of the Custody Rule. 

25. For purposes of the Custody Rule, an investment adviser has “custody” if (1) it 

holds, directly or indirectly, clients’ funds or securities, or (2) has authority to obtain possession 

of them, or (3) if a “related person” holds the clients’ funds or securities, or has authority to 

obtain them, in connection with the investment adviser’s services. 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-

2(d)(2). 

26. The Custody Rule defines a “related person” to “mean[] any person, directly or 

indirectly, controlling or controlled by you, and any person that is under common control with 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 6 of 31
7

you.” 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-2(d)(7). Under the Advisers Act, “person” means a natural person 

or a company. 15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(16).

27. The Custody Rule defines “control” to mean “the power, directly or indirectly, to 

direct the management or policies of a person, whether through ownership of securities, by 

contract or otherwise.” 17 C.F.R. § 275. 206(4)-2(d)(1). The rule further specifies that “[e]ach 

of your firm’s officers, partners, or directors exercising executive responsibility (or persons 

having similar status or functions) is presumed to control your firm.” 17 C.F.R. § 275. 206(4)-

2(d)(1)(i). 

28. If an investment adviser has custody of client assets because a related company

maintains the client assets as a qualified custodian, the Custody Rule requires the investment 

adviser to obtain— within six months of becoming subject to the requirement and after that at 

least once every year — an internal control report of the related company’s custody controls 

prepared by an independent public accountant. 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-2(a)(6)(ii). 

29. The Custody Rule further requires that the internal control report include an 

opinion as to whether controls have been placed in operation as of a specific date and are 

suitably designed and are operating effectively to meet control objectives relating to custodial 

services, including the safeguarding of funds and securities held on the clients’ behalf. The 

independent public accountant must verify that the funds and securities are reconciled to a 

custodian other than the related company. 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-2(a)(6)(ii). Put another way, 

the independent public accountant must confirm or test that the related company’s books and 

records of client funds and securities match what is reported in accounts by unaffiliated entities, 

such as an unaffiliated broker. 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 7 of 31
8

30. In addition, the Custody Rule requires that the independent public accountant who 

prepares the internal control report must be registered with, and subject to regular inspection by,

the PCAOB. 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-2(a)(6)(ii)(C). 

FACTS

I. Background

A. Brite USA’s Investment Advisory Business 

31. During the Relevant Period, Brite USA’s clients have primarily consisted of 

United Kingdom (“U.K.”) expatriates residing in the United States who previously held 

employment-based U.K. pensions. 

32. During the Relevant Period, Brite USA recommended to prospective advisory 

clients that they transfer their employment-based U.K. pension assets to a self-directed U.K. 

personal pension plan known as a Self-Invested Personal Pension (“SIPP”), with Brite USA 

serving as the investment adviser providing ongoing investment advice to the clients. 

33. Brite USA clients pay a one-time flat fee to Brite USA upon agreeing to the SIPP 

transfer and an annual advisory fee to Brite USA of 1% of assets under management. 

34. The Brite USA client SIPPs are administered by U.K. trustee companies, and 

there is a separate arrangement with a custodian firm, such as a broker or insurance company, 

that holds the client assets and provides securities trade execution. 

35. During the Relevant Period, in addition to advising SIPP clients, Brite USA has 

also advised clients who previously transferred their employment-based U.K. pensions to 

offshore pensions, known in the U.K. as Qualifying Recognized Overseas Pension Schemes 

(“QROPS”), that Brite USA recommended prior to April 2017 while operating under the deVere 

USA name.

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 8 of 31
9

36. QROPS are structurally similar to SIPPs. The Brite USA client QROPS are 

administered by trustee companies based outside of the U.K. The custodian firms that Brite 

USA had previously recommended to these advisory clients were companies that typically 

charged such clients “establishment” fees of 1.0% to 1.1% per year over a required 10-year term 

in addition to other account and trade charges. As a result, a QROPS client who elected to 

change custodians prior to the end of the required 10-year term incurred an “exit fee” equal to 

the full amount remaining to be paid over the 10-year term. 

B. The Brite Platform and the Exit Fees

37. In or about August 2019, Brite USA began recommending to new clients and 

existing clients with SIPPs and QROPS that they move their assets to the “Brite Platform,”

which primarily would function as the custodian firm for Brite USA’s clients. 

38. During the Relevant Period, the Brite USA client SIPP or QROPS assets have 

been held and traded by Brite Australia in client omnibus accounts (“Client Omnibus Accounts”) 

– meaning accounts that hold the assets of multiple clients. The Client Omnibus Accounts are in 

the name of Brite Australia and are held at the Australian subsidiary of a holding company with 

broker-dealer operating subsidiaries in multiple jurisdictions worldwide (the “Global BrokerDealer”). 

39. Brite Australia is responsible for entering trades on behalf of the client SIPP or 

QROPS and transferring funds into and out of the Client Omnibus Accounts using the Global 

Broker-Dealer’s systems. 

40. The Global Broker-Dealer and its Australian subsidiary do not know the identities 

of the underlying clients or their individual holdings within the Client Omnibus Accounts.

41. Brite Australia, the holder of the Client Omnibus Accounts, is responsible for 

recordkeeping as to the allocation of the funds and securities held in the Client Omnibus 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 9 of 31
10

Accounts and for reporting holdings and transactions to each underlying advisory client, 

including for Brite USA clients, and their respective SIPP or QROPS trustee. 

42. When a Brite USA client agrees to Brite USA’s recommendation to move their

SIPP or QROPS assets to the Brite Platform, the client’s existing custodian typically liquidates 

any securities positions, deducts any applicable “exit fees” and/or other charges, and wires the 

remaining cash proceeds to the client’s SIPP or QROPS trustee. 

43. The SIPP or QROPS trustee in turn wires that amount to Brite Australia’s 

designated client bank account in Australia, where it is held before being transferred to the Client 

Omnibus Account for investing and custody. 

44. Similarly, when a Brite USA client requests a withdrawal, or withdrawals are 

needed to pay certain trustee fees a client has incurred, Brite Australia wires the funds from the 

Client Omnibus Account to Brite Australia’s client bank account and then wires the funds to the 

SIPP or QROPS trustee for further distribution. 

45. During the Relevant Period, the Brite Group CEO and his wife were authorized 

persons — meaning they had the authority to withdraw funds or take other account actions — on 

the relevant Brite Australia bank accounts. 

46. Because Brite USA’s QROPS clients would incur “exit fees” equal to the full 

amount remaining to be paid over the 10-year term for “establishment fees” by their existing 

custodians (as described in paragraph 36) if they switched custodians, when Brite USA began 

recommending that QROPS clients switch to the Brite Platform, Brite USA stated that Brite 

Australia would advance cash to those clients in an amount equal to their exit fee. In turn, the 

client would agree to repay the amount advanced in monthly increments without interest over a 

period of up to 10 years. 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 10 of 31
11

47. Brite USA represented that, by using this method, the client’s existing QROPS 

assets would be fully invested on the Brite Platform, subject to the client’s repayment obligation. 

II. Brite USA, Brite Australia and the Brite Group Parent Are Under Common 

Control for Purposes of the Custody Rule

A. Brite Group Executive-1’s Roles at Brite USA and the Brite Group Parent

Establish Common Control

48. Brite Group Executive-1 has been the sole Director of Brite USA since at least 

March 2019. 

49. From February 2019 until February 2023, Brite USA stated in all of its Form 

ADV filings with the Commission that Brite Group Executive-1 indirectly owned Brite USA 

through his sole ownership, since January 2019, of a U.K. entity currently named BAH 2021 Ltd.

(“BAH 2021”). Brite USA described BAH 2021 as its sole shareholder in the same Form ADV 

filings. 

50. On January 3, 2023, BAH 2021 updated its U.K. corporate records to reflect that, 

as of December 8, 2022, BAH 2021’s owner changed from Brite Group Executive-1 to a British 

Virgin Islands entity named Brite Advisory Holdings Limited, an entity for which the Brite 

Group CEO is a controlling person. 

51. On February 14, 2023, Brite USA filed a Form ADV amendment deleting BAH 

2021 as its direct owner and asserting that Brite Group Executive-1 had been the direct and sole 

owner of Brite USA since January 2019. 

52. At all relevant times, as alleged in paragraph 20 above, Brite Group Executive-1

has also served as the Chief Marketing Officer of the Brite Group Parent. In addition, since at 

least August 2019, Brite Group Executive-1 has served as one of the three or four Directors of 

the Brite Group Parent. 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 11 of 31
12

53. In these roles, Brite Group Executive-1 has participated in regular meetings with 

other managers of the Brite Group Parent, including the Brite Group CEO. 

54. As alleged in paragraph 18 above, Brite Australia is a direct, wholly-owned 

subsidiary of the Brite Group Parent.

B. The Brite Group CEO and The Brite Group Parent Also Control Brite USA 

1. The Brite Group Parent Arranged and Funded the Acquisition of 

Brite USA

55. In 2018 and 2019, the Brite Group Parent, led by the Brite Group CEO, embarked 

on a plan to expand the Brite Group’s business globally, primarily through acquisitions of other 

investment advisory businesses and related support businesses, with a focus on U.K. expatriate 

clients with U.K. pension assets. 

56. To fund the expansion, the Brite Group CEO approached an affiliate of the Global

Broker-Dealer (the “Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate”), seeking a $10 million credit facility for 

purposes of making acquisitions. 

57. To persuade the Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate to agree to the loan, the Brite 

Group CEO promised that he would move client assets managed by the target companies to 

brokerage accounts at the Global Broker-Dealer as acquisitions were made. 

58. The Brite Group CEO specifically told the Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate that 

Brite USA (then named deVere USA, Inc.) had over $500 million in assets under management 

that would be moved to the Global Broker-Dealer after the acquisition. 

59. On approximately March 15, 2019, the Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate and the 

Brite Group Parent executed an agreement for a loan of up to $10 million for the Brite Group 

Parent to make acquisitions. 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 12 of 31
13

60. The terms of the loan provided that the Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate would 

review each proposed acquisition and determine whether to approve it before permitting the 

Brite Group Parent to draw down on the loan. 

61. The loan agreement was also supported by a “Subsidiary Guarantee Agreement,”

also dated March 15, 2019, entered into with various Brite-named entities, including BAH 2021 

(then named Brite Advisors Limited). The Brite Group CEO had previously represented to the 

Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate that BAH 2021 was the parent company of Brite USA, and Brite 

Group Executive-1 signed the “Subsidiary Guarantee Agreement” on behalf of BAH 2021 and 

certain other entities on that agreement. 

62. On approximately March 18, 2019, the Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate approved 

the Brite Group Parent’s first drawdown request on the loan for $3.96 million, the acquisition 

price of Brite USA. The Brite Group CEO signed the drawdown request on the Brite Group 

Parent’s behalf. 

2. The Brite Group CEO and the Brite Group Parent Exercise Financial 

Control Over Brite USA

63. As early as January 2019, the Brite Group CEO became a primary point of 

contact for Brite USA personnel regarding a variety of topics, including Brite USA’s insufficient 

cash flow from its advisory business and the need for funding from its new owners.

64. For example, the Brite Group CEO began regularly receiving from Brite USA 

requests for direct financial support to cover operating expenses. The requests typically were 

sent by Brite USA’s operations manager and included line-item descriptions of Brite USA’s 

anticipated near-term expenses, its cash on hand, and a request for a cash wire in the amount of 

the anticipated near-term shortfall. At the Brite Group CEO’s instruction to do so, Brite USA’s 

operations manager copied a Brite Group Parent accountant on the requests. 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 13 of 31
14

65. In response to Brite USA’s funding requests, the Brite Group CEO and/or the 

Brite Group Parent’s accountant regularly arranged for sufficient funds to be wired from a bank 

account held by one of the Brite Group companies (typically Brite Australia) to Brite USA’s

bank account. 

66. Early on, the Brite Group CEO expressed concern over his lack of visibility into 

Brite USA’s finances. For example, on or about March 22, 2019, the Brite Group CEO

responded to a funding request email from Brite USA’s operations manager by stating: 

We need the US connected to Xero [the Brite Group Parent’s accounting 

system] ASAP. 

I need a full run down of costs/income ASAP 

No idea what P&L is in the US. 

67. Acting on the Brite Group CEO’s directive, Brite USA’s operations manager 

provided the information and began making arrangements to grant the Brite Group Parent’s 

accountant online access to Brite USA’s bank accounts, its QuickBooks accounting records, and 

its payroll system. 

68. While Brite USA awaited access to the Brite Group Parent’s Xero accounting 

system, Brite USA’s operations manager provided detailed spreadsheets of transactions in Brite 

USA’s bank accounts and other financial data to the Brite Group CEO. 

69. Brite USA’s operations manager also assured the Brite Group CEO that he would 

provide monthly management reports from the Xero accounting system once Brite USA had 

access. 

70. In late May 2019, the Brite Group CEO sent the Brite Group Parent’s accountant 

to New York to review Brite USA’s accounts in person. 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 14 of 31
15

71. By at least June 2019, Brite USA’s operations manager began uploading Brite 

USA’s financial information, including bank account transaction and expense information, into 

the Brite Group Parent’s Xero accounting system. 

72. Brite USA’s requests to the Brite Group Parent for cash infusions to meet

operating expenses continued regularly, typically twice per month, and the Brite Group, 

including Brite Australia, has continued to provide funding to Brite USA through the present. 

73. These cash infusions have been critical to Brite USA’s ability to meet payroll and 

other expenses. 

74. Between March 2019 and October 31, 2023, at least $16.9 million was wired from 

Brite Australia’s bank accounts to Brite USA’s bank account, and an additional approximately 

$2 million was wired from the bank accounts of other Brite Group companies to Brite USA’s 

bank account. 

3. The Brite Group CEO and the Brite Group Parent Oversaw Brite 

USA’s Regulatory Filings and Directed Brite USA to Offer the Brite 

Platform

75. Approximately one month after the Brite Group Parent made its initial drawdown 

to pay for the Brite USA acquisition, the Brite Group Parent began submitting additional 

drawdown requests on the loan agreement to fund further business acquisitions. 

76. However, because Brite USA’s advisory clients’ assets had not started moving to

accounts at the Global Broker-Dealer, the Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate expressed frustration

with the slow pace of the asset transfers and repeatedly asked the Brite Group CEO for updates

while considering whether to approve additional drawdown requests. 

77. After the Brite Group Parent submitted its second drawdown request to the Global 

Broker-Dealer Affiliate on approximately April 16, 2019, to acquire a financial services 

company based in the Czech Republic for about $650,000, a representative from the Global 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 15 of 31
16

Broker-Dealer Affiliate inquired of the Brite Group CEO and another executive at the Brite 

Group Parent (“Brite Group Executive-2”), “Have the [Brite USA] assets moved over to you 

guys yet? Let me know.” 

78. On April 18, 2019, the Brite Group CEO responded, “We are waiting on updating 

the [Commission Form] ADV in the US before moving assets to Brite Advisors. This will 

be finalized by the end of April.”

79. On April 23, 2019, Brite Group Executive-2 responded to the same April 16, 2019 

email chain, copying the Brite Group CEO, “We’re in control of [Brite USA] now and the assets 

will begin to move once we have the [Global Broker-Dealer] account set up in Hong Kong, 

which will start in Q2.” 

80. On May 17, 2019, after repeated inquiries by the Brite Group CEO and Brite 

Group Executive-2 regarding the status of the Brite Group Parent’s second drawdown request, 

the Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate representative responded, “We cannot send the funding until 

the assets have moved to the new account. Let me know if that has happened.” 

81. The Brite Group CEO responded the same day: 

We didn’t take full control of [Brite USA] until April . . . The ADV is now 

under Brite Advisors USA with 420M of AUM [assets under 

management]. We need to update the ADV to include [the Global BrokerDealer] and our investment portfolios. This will be finalized by the end of 

May and filly [sic] disclosed to clients. The transfer process then takes 

three months and this was made clear during negotiations. We have lined 

up 10M worth of deals including agreeing to buy 220M of AUM in South 

Africa this week. 

New business is going to [the Global Broker-Dealer] under our Australia 

account. However there is no FX [foreign exchange] facility so very 

challenging. 

82. On May 23, 2019, the Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate informed the Brite Group 

Parent that it would agree to its second drawdown request by saying, “It is moving forward now. 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 16 of 31
17

Will try to get the funds to you as soon as possible. We are hoping that once you receive the 

funds, you will be able to get the AUM moved to your account more quickly than with the last 

transaction.” 

83. Over the next several months, the Brite Group Parent made additional drawdown 

requests to the Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate to fund further acquisitions.

84. The Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate continued to inquire about and express 

frustration with the pace of the Brite Group Parent’s transfer of client assets to the Global 

Broker-Dealer. 

85. The Brite Group CEO and the other Brite Group Executive continued to explain 

that the delays were related to Brite USA’s need to revise its Form ADV. They repeatedly 

assured the Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate that it was progressing and that the Brite Group CEO

was personally involved, noting that the Brite Group CEO had travelled to New York in June 

2019 to work on Brite USA’s Form ADV in person along with Brite USA’s outside regulatory 

counsel, and again in August 2019, to facilitate the transfer of Brite USA client assets to the 

Global Broker-Dealer. 

86. For example, the Brite Group CEO emailed the Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate on 

June 27, 2019, and said, “The ADV for the US has been updated this week to include [the Global 

Broker-Dealer]. These are insurance assets and take 3 months to move over. I am not buying 

these assets for the fun of it! They all move to [the Global Broker-Dealer]. We have a number 

of deals going through which I’ve worked on for twelve months plus.” 

87. The Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate then approved drawdowns totaling 

approximately $1.7 million for the Brite Group Parent to purchase a Malta QROPS trustee and a 

UK SIPP trustee in July 2019. 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 17 of 31
18

88. After Brite USA filed an amended Commission Form ADV and ADV Disclosure 

Brochure in August 2019, Brite USA began recommending the Brite Platform to clients, and 

asset transfers to the Brite Platform began. 

4. The Brite Group CEO and the Brite Group Parent Hired Brite USA’s 

CEO

89. During late summer and early fall of 2019, the Brite Group CEO had numerous 

phone calls with an individual who lived and worked in South Africa and flew to South Africa to 

recruit the individual to be Brite USA’s CEO. 

90. In November 2019, the Brite Group CEO extended a written job offer to the 

individual for the Brite USA CEO position in New York, New York, written on the Brite Group 

Parent letterhead, and the Brite Group CEO signed the job offer. 

91. The offer included a salary of $10,000 per month, a signing bonus, and the 

potential for receiving options in the Brite Group Parent, subject to performance. 

92. The individual (“Brite USA Executive-A”) accepted the offer. Brite USA 

Executive-A began working at Brite USA in March 2020 and, after an agreed-upon transition 

period, took over as Brite USA’s CEO in June 2020. 

93. The Brite Group Parent announced the selection and appointment of Brite USA 

Executive-A as the CEO of Brite USA in a March 20, 2020 press release that Brite Group 

Executive-1 drafted: 

Brite Advisors announced this week that they have appointed [Brite USA 

Executive A] as the new CEO of its US operation based in New York.... 

[Brite USA ExecutiveA] succeeds [Brite USA Executive-B] who will 

remain with the company until the summer.... The Brite founder and group 

CEO [the Brite Group CEO] wanted a well-respected industry leader with 

international experience. ‘We’ve been searching for the right person for a 

number of months and [Brite USA Executive-A] was the perfect fit” said 

[the Brite Group CEO].... ‘With our unique offering of best interest of the 

client we aim to be the globe’s leading investment firm for UK expats and 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 18 of 31
19

[Brite USA Executive A] is a key part in making this happen’ said [the Brite 

Group CEO]. 

94. After joining Brite USA, Brite USA Executive-A regularly communicated with 

the Brite Group CEO, speaking with him an average of twice weekly by telephone.

C. Since 2019, Brite USA Has Violated the Custody Rule

95. Since 2019, Brite USA has had custody of its clients’ assets because Brite 

Australia, a “related person” under common control, has acted as a qualified custodian and has 

held Brite USA client assets in connection with Brite USA’s advisory services to these clients.

96. However, since 2019, Brite USA has never sought or obtained an internal control 

report for Brite Australia prepared by an independent public accountant registered with the 

PCAOB. 

III. Brite USA Failed to Fully Disclose Risks and Conflicts of Interest Related to the 

Brite Platform

A. Brite Australia Used the Margin Feature in the Client Omnibus Accounts to 

Borrow Millions of Dollars

97. From 2019 until in or about June 2021, the assets of Brite USA clients and of 

clients of other entities in the Brite Group were held in a single Client Omnibus Account in the 

name of Brite Australia at the Australian subsidiary of the Global Broker-Dealer (the “Original 

Omnibus Account”). 

98. The Original Omnibus Account and other Client Omnibus accounts subsequently 

opened each have a margin feature. 

99. These margin features have provided Brite Australia with the ability to use margin 

to establish securities positions or to borrow funds, with the margin loan balance secured by all 

of the assets held in the Original Omnibus Account and in any other Brite Australia accounts at 

the Global Broker-Dealer. 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 19 of 31
20

100. The Global Broker-Dealer can liquidate any or all of the assets in the Original 

Omnibus Account or any other Brite Australia account at the Global Broker-Dealer at any time 

without prior notice if the account does not meet margin requirements specified by the Global 

Broker-Dealer. 

101. The use of the margin feature in the Client Omnibus Accounts for any purpose 

creates a risk for all of Brite USA’s clients with assets on the Brite Platform because all assets in 

the Client Omnibus Accounts serve as collateral for the margin loan balance. 

102. Any borrowing under the margin feature is in addition to and entirely separate 

from the $10 million loan agreement between the Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate and the Brite 

Group Parent described in paragraph 59 above. 

103. As described in more detail in the paragraphs below, the Brite Group Parent and 

Brite Australia have used the margin feature on the Original Omnibus Account to withdraw 

millions of dollars from the Original Omnibus Account to fund the Brite Group’s operations 

worldwide, including Brite USA’s operations. Brite Australia also purportedly used the margin 

feature to fund cash advances Brite Australia offered to Brite USA clients with QROPS and 

clients of the other companies within the Brite Group, who incurred “exit fees” from their prior 

custodian when switching to the Brite Platform. 

104. Brite Australia has used the margin feature in the Client Omnibus Accounts for 

operational funding to benefit the Brite Group, including Brite USA — and not to benefit the 

clients whose assets have been put at risk. 

105. Similarly, a margin balance incurred to fund an exit fee advance to one client —

who otherwise may not have agreed to transfer assets to the Brite Platform — provides no

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 20 of 31
21

benefit to clients who did not receive such advances, yet the debt is secured by all of the client 

assets held in the Client Omnibus Accounts. 

106. Brite USA had a fiduciary duty to disclose the risks and conflicts of interest 

alleged above to its advisory clients. 

1. Operational Funding for the Brite Group 

107. Since at least 2019, Brite USA has received approximately $19 million from Brite 

Australia and other companies within the Brite Group to pay its operational expenses. 

108. To meet Brite USA’s operational funding needs (and to fund the operations of 

other Brite Group companies), Brite Australia incurred a significant margin loan balance on the

Original Omnibus Account. 

109. Brite Australia typically did so by using the margin feature and initiating cash 

withdrawals from the Original Omnibus Account to Brite Australia’s operations bank accounts, 

which were reflected in the Original Omnibus Account as a negative cash position. Brite 

Australia then wired funds to Brite USA’s bank account after the Brite Group Parent received 

and approved a funding request from Brite USA. 

110. Brite Australia’s total margin balance in the Original Omnibus Account grew

substantially over time, as depicted below:

Date Gross Client Assets Margin Balance

June 30, 2019 $20.45 million ($2.87 million)

December 31, 2019 $51.05 million ($10.64 million)

June 30, 2020 $94.96 million ($11.09 million)

December 31, 2020 $310.26 million ($27.3 million)

May 31, 2021 $466.29 million ($40.21 million)

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 21 of 31
22

111. Brite Australia’s use of the margin feature to fund the operational expenses of the 

Brite Group, including Brite USA, primarily drove this margin balance growth. 

112. Between October 30, 2019, and June 1, 2021, Brite Australia withdrew over $32 

million from the Original Omnibus Account to its business operations bank accounts, 

approximately 80% of the total outstanding margin balance of $40.21 million as of May 31, 

2021. 

2. Advances of “Exit Fees” 

113. In addition, Brite Australia purportedly funded cash advances of “exit fees” 

incurred by Brite USA clients with QROPS from their prior custodian (described above in

Section I.B.) and by clients of other Brite Group companies by using the margin feature in the 

Original Omnibus Account prior to June 2021. 

114. Use of the margin feature to fund advances of “exit fees” makes all of the client 

assets in the Client Omnibus Accounts —including the assets of clients who did not receive such

advances—collateral for the margin loan balance incurred. 

B. Brite USA Was on Notice of Brite Australia’s Margin Borrowing prior to 

June 2021 But Failed to Disclose Risks and Conflicts of Interest to Clients

115. On May 7, 2019, in response to Brite USA’s requests for information about the 

Brite Platform, the Brite Group Parent provided a copy of Brite Australia’s clearing agreement 

with the Global Broker-Dealer to Brite USA’s CEO at the time (“Brite USA Executive-C”). 

116. The clearing agreement described margin feature privileges available on the 

Original Omnibus Account, including the Global Broker-Dealer’s right to liquidate assets in the 

account without prior notice should the account fail to meet its margin requirements. 

117. That same day, Brite USA Executive-C emailed the document to other Brite USA 

executives, including Brite USA Executive-B, who at that time was Brite USA’s General 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 22 of 31
23

Counsel and later served as CEO prior to the appointment of Brite USA Executive-A as CEO in 

or around June 2020 as described in paragraph 92 above. 

118. However, Brite USA failed to make further inquiries of the Brite Group Parent or 

Brite Australia regarding the margin feature and made inaccurate and misleading disclosures to 

its clients. 

119. Beginning in approximately August 2019, when Brite USA began recommending 

the Brite Platform to clients, Brite USA’s Investment Advisory Agreement (“Advisory 

Agreement”) with clients at the time included a section with respect to the Brite Platform titled

“Conflicts of Interest”. 

120. That section stated that Brite USA “receives or will seek to receive an advance of 

its [advisory fee] from [the Brite Group Parent] equal to up to five years’ of annual [advisory 

fees] which it would cede to [the Brite Group Parent],” and the section falsely described the 

source of the advances as “a credit facility it [the Brite Group Parent] maintains with [the Global 

Broker-Dealer Affiliate], an affiliate of [the Global Broker-Dealer].” 

121. In fact, the source of funding Brite USA received from the Brite Group Parent

was primarily from Brite Australia incurring a margin loan position on the Original Omnibus 

Account holding Brite USA’s own clients’ assets. 

122. By incorrectly identifying the source of funding, Brite USA failed to disclose the 

risks and conflicts created by the Brite Group Parent and Brite Australia borrowing against Brite 

USA’s clients’ assets to fund the operations of the Brite Group, including Brite USA. 

123. Similarly, while Brite USA’s Advisory Agreement and Form ADV Brochure 

disclosed that Brite Australia had agreed to advance “exit fees” to clients with QROPS who 

incurred such fees when switching to the Brite Platform (subject to repayment by the client), 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 23 of 31
24

both documents omitted the important information that Brite Australia would fund any such 

advances of “exit fees” by incurring a margin loan balance on the Original Omnibus Account 

that encumbered all client assets, regardless of whether the client received an advance. 

124. On or about July 19, 2020, Brite USA Executive-B emailed Brite Group 

Executive-2 attaching Brite USA’s most recent ADV Brochure, dated June 12, 2020, as well as a 

separate written set of questions. 

125. In his email and the attached set of questions, Brite USA Executive-B sought 

answers about conflicts of interest and comments on Brite USA’s existing or draft descriptions of 

certain conflicts involving the Brite Platform—including Brite USA’s draft description of the 

Brite Group Parent’s use of a credit facility with the Global Broker-Dealer Affiliate to fund exit 

fee advances made to Brite USA clients and Brite USA’s current Advisory Agreement disclosure 

regarding Brite USA’s potential receipt of an advance of up to five years’ of annual advisory fees 

from the Brite Group Parent. 

126. In response, on approximately July 21, 2020, Brite Group Executive-2 explained 

that Brite USA Executive-B appeared to misunderstand the nature of the Brite Group Parent’s 

credit facilities with the Global Broker-Dealer. 

127. Brite Group Executive-2 noted that there were two debt structures: (1) a credit 

facility to promote the growth and expansion of the Brite Group that was strictly limited to 

spending on acquisitions of firms within the same market sector and (2) a separate “credit facility 

on the master account with [the Global Broker-Dealer], where clients cash and assets are 

custodied.” Brite Group Executive-2 noted the credit facility on the client account was to fund 

both “exit fee” advances to clients and the advances of advisory fees, and that client repayments 

of “exit fee” advances and annual advisory fees “reduce the debt.” Brite Group Executive-2 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 24 of 31
25

added further, “Please note that this is not a margin account” (emphasis in original). 

128. Despite describing the client account as “not a margin account,” Brite Group 

Executive-2 made clear the existence of a “credit facility on the master account ... where clients 

cash and assets are custodied,” i.e., the Original Omnibus Account, which, by his description, 

was being used both to fund exit fee advances to clients and advances of up to five years’ of 

advisory fees to Brite USA. 

129. That same day Brite USA Executive-B forwarded the email to Brite USA 

Executive-A (then Brite USA’s CEO) and others. 

130. Brite Group Executive-2’s description of the credit facility on the Original 

Omnibus Account put Brite USA on notice that the Brite Group Parent, through Brite Australia, 

was borrowing against client assets in the Original Omnibus Account. 

131. Yet Brite USA made no further inquiries into the nature of that credit facility at 

that time, including as to the extent of its use and the collateral. 

132. Instead, at some point after receiving Brite Group Executive-2’s July 20, 2020 

email, Brite USA decided to simply delete the disclosure described in paragraph 120 above from 

the Advisory Agreements entered into with clients. 

133. In addition, prior to June 2021, Brite USA did not disclose to its advisory clients 

the existence of the margin privileges on the Original Omnibus Account or its use to incur 

significant margin loan balances against Brite USA client assets on the Brite Platform. 

134. Between August 2019 and May 2021, pursuant to Brite USA recommendations, 

Brite USA clients with at least $298 million in SIPP and QROPS assets moved their assets to the 

Brite Platform—all of which occurred without full and fair disclosure of the attendant risks and 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 25 of 31
26

conflicts of interest described above. 

C. Brite USA Is Still Failing to Disclose Certain Risks and Conflicts of Interest 

to Its Advisory Clients

135. In early June 2021, Brite Australia began using a new Client Omnibus Account at 

the Global Broker-Dealer in the name of Brite Australia (the “New US Omnibus Account”) that

Brite USA claims exclusively holds assets of Brite USA’s clients. 

136. Under this new arrangement, Brite USA’s clients’ assets and associated margin 

loan balances are purportedly held in the New US Omnibus Account, while assets for clients of 

all other Brite Group entities and associated margin loan balances remained in the Original 

Omnibus Account. 

137. The New US Omnibus Account’s margin loan balance is purportedly limited 

solely to the amount of advanced exit fees that is reduced by clients’ monthly repayments. 

138. Despite the apparent segregation of Brite USA’s clients’ assets and associated 

margin loan balance, this arrangement does not eliminate the risks borne by Brite USA’s

advisory clients. The Global Broker-Dealer is still entitled to liquidate assets in any of Brite 

Australia’s accounts with the Global Broker-Dealer without prior notice if the Original Omnibus 

Account or another Client Omnibus Account fails to meet its margin requirements at any time. 

As a result, Brite USA’s clients’ assets in the New US Omnibus Account continue to serve as 

collateral for margin loan balances incurred on the Original Omnibus Account. 

139. Shortly after the purported June 2021 “segregation” of the New US Omnibus 

Account and Original Omnibus Account, Brite USA sent its clients a new disclosure form 

entitled “Acknowledgement Of Omnibus Account Usage and Risks.” 

140. In this form, Brite USA disclosed, for the first time, that Brite USA client assets 

on the Brite Platform had previously been commingled in the Original Omnibus Account with 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 26 of 31
27

client assets of other Brite Group companies and that Brite Australia used margin loans secured 

by client assets to fund both exit fee advances and the operations of the Brite Group, including 

those of Brite USA. 

141. This disclosure described certain risks associated with the use of margin, such as 

the fact that assets in any Brite Australia account at the Global Broker-Dealer could be liquidated

to satisfy a margin obligation of another Brite Australia account. However, the disclosure did 

not fully reveal the extent to which margin debt on the Original Omnibus Account had already 

funded Brite USA’s operations or the extent of borrowing against the Original Omnibus 

Account, did not describe the extent to which Brite USA relied upon the Brite Group Parent and 

Brite Australia for ongoing financial support, and did not explain the related conflicts of interest. 

142. The disclosure form concluded by stating: “Brite USA has inquired of [Brite 

Australia] in respect of these [Client Omnibus Account] risks and believe that the use of the 

[New US Omnibus Account] (including margin) is appropriate, and does not present to its clients 

a materially increased risk relative to individual accounts, based on [Brite Australia’s] 

representations,” which it listed as including Brite Australia’s segregation of assets and liabilities 

to each individual account and that “[Brite Australia] performs reconciliations between account 

holdings on the Brite Platform and omnibus accounts each business day.” However, the 

disclosure failed to provide any information to clients relating to the financial condition and 

capacity of the Brite Group Parent and Brite Australia to repay the margin debt incurred on the 

Original Omnibus Account for operational funding. 

143. Moreover, Brite USA failed to disclose information on Brite Australia’s use of 

margin in the Original Omnibus Account, which grew rapidly from June 2021 to June 2022, as 

depicted in the chart below: 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 27 of 31
28

Date

Original Omnibus (Non-Brite USA) New US Omnibus (Brite USA only)

Gross Assets Margin Gross Assets Margin

June 30, 2021 $181.8 million ($43.69 million) $318.15 million ($10.42 million)

Dec. 31, 2021 $250.04 million ($70.62 million) $391.83 million ($8.76 million)

June 30, 2022 $260.27 million ($88.76 million) $341.64 million ($10.08 million)

144. Because Brite USA’s client assets continued to serve as collateral for margin debt 

in all of Brite Australia’s accounts at the Global Broker-Dealer, the risks to Brite USA’s clients 

continued to grow along with Brite Australia’s overall margin debt incurred in either of the 

Client Omnibus Accounts. 

145. Yet Brite USA has continued to recommend the Brite Platform to clients 

throughout this time and continued to represent to its clients that Brite USA believes the 

arrangement is “appropriate” and does not present “a materially increased risk relative to 

individual accounts” for Brite USA clients.

146. Overall margin debt in the Original Omnibus Account dropped substantially 

between June 30, 2022, and December 31, 2022, due to two large payments Brite Australia made 

using cash in the Original Omnibus Account to pay down the margin loan balance. 

147. Brite Australia purportedly further split the Original Omnibus Account beginning 

in or about March 2023 by using additional Client Omnibus Accounts to hold certain client 

assets previously held in the Original Omnibus Account. 

IV. The Australian Commission Obtained a Freeze Order

148. On October 27, 2023, the Australian Commission announced that it had obtained 

interim orders from an Australian federal court freezing the funds and assets of Brite Australia. 

149. According to the Australian Commission’s announcement, its application for the 

orders was made because the Australian Commission is concerned that “the current financial 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 28 of 31
29

position of [Brite Australia] is unknown, as [Brite Australia] has failed to lodge with the 

[Australian Commission] its financial statements and auditors report for the financial year ended 

30 June 2022; and the value of [Brite Australia’s] funds under management has not been 

reported by any entity within the Brite Group in an audited balance sheet since December 2019.” 

150. The announcement further states that “[the Australian Commission] sought the 

orders to help protect the beneficiaries of the assets under management by [Brite Australia], 

including the beneficiaries of those who have their pensions or superannuation funds invested on 

the Brite Platform.” 

151. The Australian Commission subsequently announced that, on November 9, 2023, 

the Australian federal court appointed investigative accountants to Brite Australia “to investigate 

the financial position of [Brite Australia], including client funds under its management, as well 

as provide a report to the Court and to [the Australian Commission],” and that “[t]he asset 

preservation orders remain in place.” 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violations of Advisers Act Section 206(2) 

152. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 20, 31 through 47, 63 through 74, and 97 through 151. 

153. At all relevant times, Brite USA was an investment adviser under Advisers Act 

Section 202(11) [15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(11)].

154. Brite USA, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce, directly or indirectly has knowingly, recklessly, or negligently engaged in one or 

more transactions, practices, and courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud 

or deceit upon any client or prospective client.

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 29 of 31
30

155. By reason of the foregoing, Brite USA, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, 

has violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Advisers Act Section 206(2) [15 U.S.C. § 

80b-6(2)].

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violations of Advisers Act Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-2 Thereunder 

156. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 96. 

157. At all relevant times, Brite USA has been an investment adviser registered with 

the Commission under Section 203 of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-3].

158. At all relevant times, Brite USA has had custody of its advisory clients’ assets under 

the definition set forth in Rule 206(4)-2(d)(2) [17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-2(d)(2)].

159. At all relevant times, Brite Australia has been a related person of Brite USA and 

maintained funds and securities of Brite USA clients in connection with Brite USA’s advisory 

services to clients. 

160. Since at least August 2019, Brite USA has failed to obtain, or receive from Brite 

Australia, any internal control reports that comply with the requirements of Rule 206(4)-2(a)(6)(ii) 

[17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-2(a)(6)(2)].

161. By reason of the foregoing, Brite USA, directly or indirectly, has violated and 

unless enjoined will again violate Advisers Act Section 206(4) [15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(4)] and Rule 

206(4)-2 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-2].

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter a Final 

Judgment:

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 30 of 31
31

I.

Permanently enjoining Brite USA and its agents, servants, employees and attorneys and 

all persons in active concert or participation with any of them from violating, directly or 

indirectly, Advisers Act Sections 206(2) and 206(4) [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(2) & 80b-6(4)] and 

Rule 206(4)-2 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-2]. 

II.

Ordering Brite USA to pay civil monetary penalties under Advisers Act Section 209(e) 

[15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(e)]; and 

III.

Granting any other and further relief this Court may deem just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

The Commission demands a trial by jury. 

Dated: New York, New York

November 21, 2023 

 /s/ Antonia M. Apps 

ANTONIA M. APPS

REGIONAL DIRECTOR 

Sheldon L. Pollock 

Wendy B. Tepperman 

Travis Hill

Jonathan M. Grant 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

New York Regional Office

100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100 

New York, New York 10004-2616 

212-336-9135 (Hill) 

Hilltr@sec.gov

 

Case 1:23-cv-10212 Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 31 of 31