Institutional Investor Securities Blog

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s board of governors has a plan that could radically modify the way brokerage firms report illiquid investments’ value on the account statements of clients. The SRO, which wants to give investors more transparency in regards to the actual value of such investments, has been trying to modify its rules about REITs and private placement valuations on client statements for well over a year.

Earlier this month, in changes it is proposing to Rule 2340, the FINRA board presented two reporting alternatives for brokerage firms. With the first option, a brokerage firm wouldn’t need to have the per-share estimated value of an REIT or a private placement that is unlisted included in customers’ account statements. The second choice lets a brokerage firm chose from three options:

• A valuation done by an external service at least one time every three years.
• A valuation performed by a service that performs valuations according the methodology revealed in the prospectus.
• For a couple of years after the initial investment, a “net investment” valuation that is comprised of the offering price without cash that is distributed to investors and “organization and offering expenses” paid for via the offering or borrowing of proceeds.

The majority of nontraded real estate investment trusts sell at $10/share and they generally stay at that value on a client’s account statement until a year and a half has passed since the REIT ceased to raise funds. This means that years may go by without a client being able to see that the nontraded REIT has a value that differs from that $10/share price.

However, when the recent credit crisis hit, some of the biggest nontraded REITs experienced steep drops in valuation each quarter, and advisers and investors found it difficult to figure out how, why, and to what extent the valuation declines occurred. The matter of the way a nontraded REIT should be valued (and a brokerage firm’s duty to make sure that valuation is stated on client account statements) has become a highly charged issued.

Also, to the dismay of FINRA, its examiners, who have studied quite a number of retail sellers of nontraded REITs in the last couple of years, have found that firms selling these instruments didn’t perform much reasonable diligence before selling them or failed to determine whether the product was appropriate for investors. In comments made to a Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association forum last year, FINRA executive vice present of member regulation sales practices Susan Axelrod said that when REITs have gotten into financial trouble, there were usually red flags that brokerage firms could have assessed first before making more sales.

Our REIT lawyers represent investment fraud victims. Contact Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD LLP today.

Finra plan could upend illiquid investment reporting, Investment News, April 24, 2013

Public Non-Traded REIT Tip Sheet

REIT

Why nontraded REITs are in Finra's cross hairs, Investment News, October 1, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Majority of Non-Traded REITs Underperform Compared to Benchmarks, Reports New Study, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 25, 2012

Apple REIT Arbitration: FINRA Rules Against David Lerner Associates in First of Hundreds of Cases, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 26, 2012

David Lerner Associates Must Pay $14M Over Apple REIT Ten Sales and Allegedly Excessive Markups Involving CMOs and Municipal Bonds—$12M to Go to Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 22, 2012

ES Financial Services Resolves Solicitation of Non-US Investors Allegations
E.S. Financial Services, Inc. has turned in a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, Consent to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority over allegations that it acted as a placement agent and solicited specific non-US investors to get involved in a commercial paper program that a foreign-based affiliate was offering. The firm is accused of providing misrepresentations in certain materials, including that like other commercial products, the program was a cash component of the customer’s portfolio, and also, that the investment was a low-risk, conservative proposition.

ES Financial is also accused of not sufficiently describing the risks involved and for close to four years failing to conduct the proper due diligence for the commercial paper program sales. FINRA’s findings note that the financial firm did not adopt, implement, or enforce written due diligence procedures customized for these instruments. Fortunately, investments were paid back in a timely manner and no investor lost funds. However, this does not mean that ES Financial succeeded in conducting a proper investigation into various issues.

ES Financial Services has agreed to a censure and will pay a $200,000 fine. However, by consenting to the sanctions and the entry of findings, this does not mean it is denying or agreeing that the allegations are true.

Lincoln Financial Securities Consents to FINRA’s Entry of Findings Alleging Inadequate Supervision
Lincoln Financial Securities Corporation will pay $500,000 to settle FINRA allegations that even thought it executed a policy mandating that registered representatives manually fill out a variable redemption cover sheet for any variable annuity redemptions effected, it did not make sure that employees were completing the VRCS forms. Because most of them did not fill out the form, the financial firm is accused of not succeeding in enforcing its supervisory system set up to make sure the recommendations to surrender or liquidate VAs to fund the buying of fixed annuities or equity-indexed annuities were suitable.

Per the findings, the firm’s WSPs did not let registered representatives earn commissions for security transactions taking place in customer accounts where these persons did not have licenses in the state where the customer was residing when the transaction occurred and also in the state of solicitation. Lincoln Financial Securities allegedly failed to detect about 2,500 transactions in these accounts even though the representatives on them were unlicensed in the state where the customer lived. It also is accused of not enforcing procedures and policies to make sure that all representatives had the proper licensing in the states where they executed securities transactions for clients.

Another alleged shortcoming by Lincoln Financial was the improper supervision of and lack of an adequate system related to communications of non-securities related matters and securities-related emails via firm email accounts and external accounts. FINRA also contends that Lincoln Financial did not properly supervisor client account files and activities for producing managers, even though it was a requirement, and during one year, the latter did not complete a proper Rule 3012 report because it did not deal with deficiencies that it knew about.

By settling, Lincoln Financial is not denying or admitting to the allegations.

If you believe that you have sustained losses because a broker committed similar actions, contact our institutional investment fraud lawyershttp://www.securities-fraud-attorneys.com today.

FINRA

More Blog Posts:
NASAA Wants Investment Advisers To Be Banned From Forcing Clients Into Mandatory Arbitration, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 7, 2013

FINRA Pulls Back on Regulating Registered Investment Advisers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 19, 2013

SEC Needs to File Securities Fraud Lawsuits Sooner, Rules the US Supreme Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 28, 2013

Venecredit Fined $25K for Working with Foreign Finders to Generate Retail Investor Business
According to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Venecredit Securities must pay a $25,000 fine for allegedly using foreign finders to get new retail investor business. The financial firm has now been censured for two years.

The SRO says that the foreign finders served as the primary contacts between Venecredit and the clients and had access to account information via the clearing firm’s platform. These finders worked for a foreign brokerage firm that shares directors and officers with Venecredit and its wholly owned entity. FINRA contends that not only did Venecredit fail to create and put into effect proper supervisory measures that would have allowed it to look at customer complaints about the employees at the foreign brokerage firm, but also it failed to keep electronic correspondence from both the foreign traders and the personal email accounts of its registered representatives.

Ex-Merrill Lynch/LPL Financial Rep. Faces Fraud Charges in Missouri
Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander has charged former LPL Financial, LLC (LPLA) representative Greg John Campbell with serious misconduct. Prior to working for LPL, Campbell was with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. (MER)

Per the complaint, while registered with both financial firms, Campbell established a line of credit against the brokerage accounts of clients without their knowledge or permission. He then allegedly modified their addresses in their accounts so that they stopped getting their statements and correspondence from the firms and forged account statements for them showing the wrong balances. Using forged signatures, he allegedly moved over a million dollars from these to his accounts without their knowing or consent.

BrokersXpress Broker is Suspended from FINRA and NFA Over Alleged Securities Misconduct
BrokersXpress broker Tracy Morgan Spaeth is suspended from associating with any member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or the National Futures Association. Per FINRA’s disciplinary action, Spaeth failed to ask for or receive the necessary written approval for private placement transactions that occurred between October and December 2010 when he solicited over 100 clients to buy shares in ProfitStars Int'l Corp., raising $8 million in the process. He also allegedly provided a deficient webinar to the investing clients that did not disclose the strategy risks involved and included forecasts about the security’s future performance. Spaeth’s bar from FINRA is two years and he has to pay a $50K fine.

Meantime, the NFA’s suspension of Spaeth comes after his alleged involvement with Profitstars Intl Corp. and International Commodity Advisors, which were both disciplined for using ParagonFX Enterprises, LLC, an unregistered and unregulated company, as a counterparty to the trading of their customers. The organization contends that Spaeth used deceptive and misleading promotional materials to get clients to invest in the companies even though he did not conduct the necessary due diligence on them. NFA says that Spaeth had a deal with a least one of the companies that gave him 50% of gross profits from his clients’ accounts (and perhaps even a referral bonus even if a client suffered a net loss following fees). His bar from the NFA is three years and he has to pay a $5K fine.

Related Web Resources:
Ladue advisor took $1.5 million, regulators say, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, February 20, 2013

NFA files complaint against Tracy Morgan Spaeth charging him with multiple misleading forex practices, Forexmagnates.com, November 23, 2012

More Blog Posts:
SEC Needs to File Securities Fraud Lawsuits Sooner, Rules the US Supreme Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 28, 2013

Plaintiff Must Arbitrate Faulty Investment Advice Claim With TD Ameritrade But Can Proceed With Litigation Against Oakwood Capital Management, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 29, 2012

Judge that Dismissed Regulators’ Claims Against Morgan Keegan to Rule on ARS Lawsuit Again After His Ruling Was Reversed on Appeal, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 27, 2012

This month, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority announced that it would be placing “significant resources” into monitoring high-frequency and algorithmic trading. The SRO said that following a number of market disruptions last year, it is worried about the way firms oversee these two systems.

In its yearly examination and regulatory priorities letter, FINRA spoke about how despite the fact that many high-frequency trading strategies are legitimate, others can be employed for purposes that are volatile, which is why the SRO wants to keep surveillance of this a priority and make sure that abusive trading doesn’t happen.

FINRA also said that it wants to take a closer look at alternative trading systems due to disclosure and operational concerns and high volume trading. It is examining firms that run ATS, as well as their affiliates. The SRO wants to figure out whether firms are accurately and consistently representing and disclosing different parts of their ATS operations to subscribers. Sweep letters were sent by FINRA to broker-dealers inquiring about ATSs in August.

FINRA also plans to make part of its examinations in 2013 the areas of suitability and complex products, leveraged loan products, exchange- the marketing and sale of private offerings, structured products, business development companies, commercial mortgage-backed securities (MBS).

The SRO has specific concerns about yield chasing conducts, sales practice abuses, and the effect of external stress events, market corrections, or market dislocation on market prices. It intends to use information from the newly Securities and Exchange Commission approved Rule 5123 to improve the way it engages in its risk-based supervision of the private placement market. Under the rule, FINRA members that sell securities of an issuer in a private placement must file a copy of the offering document with the SRO.

Other areas that continue to cause FINRA to worry include high-yield debt instruments, traded notes and funds, exchange-traded funds and notes, municipal securities, structured products, non-traded REITs, closed-end funds, and variable annuities, as well as the issues of data integrity, cyber-security, microcap fraud, anti-money laundering, branch office supervision, automated investment advice, and insider trading.

FINRA to Scrutinize Trading Platforms, Algorithmic and High-Frequency Trading, Bloomberg/BNA, January 16, 2013

Read FINRA's 2013 regulatory and examination priorities letter (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Provides Guidance As It Opens Up Arbitration Process to Investment Advisers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 9, 2012

Plaintiff Must Arbitrate Faulty Investment Advice Claim With TD Ameritrade But Can Proceed With Litigation Against Oakwood Capital Management, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 29, 2012

MSRB Seeks Public Comment on New Fiduciary Duty Rule for Municipal Advisors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 21, 2011

Broker-dealer Biremis Corp. and its CEO and president Peter Beck agreed to be barred from the securities industry to settle Financial Industry Regulatory Authority allegations that they committed supervisory violations related to the prevention of manipulative trading, securities law violations, and money laundering. The SRO says that even though the financial firm’s specialty was executing trades for day traders, it had only obtained order flow from two clients outside the US from June 2007 through June 2010 and that both had connections to Beck.

FINRA contends that the broker-dealer and Beck did not set up a supervisory system that could be expected to comply with the regulations and laws that prohibit trading activity that is manipulative, such as “layering,” which involves making non-bona-fide orders on one side of the market to create a reaction that will lead to an order being executed on the other side. The SRO also says that Beck and Biremis did not set up an anti-money laundering system that was adequate, which caused the brokerage firm to miss warning signs of certain suspect activity so that it could report them in a timely manner.

Meanwhile, FINRA has also been attempting to deal with the issue of conflicts of interests via sweep letters, which it sent to a number of broker-dealers. The SRO is seeking information about how the financial firms manage and identify conflicts of interest. In addition to requesting meetings with each of them, FINRA wants the brokerage firms to provide, by September 14, the department and employee names of those in charge of conflict reviews, information about the kinds of documents that are prepared after such evaluations, and the names of who gets the final documents and reports after the conflict reviews.

Another area where regulators have been taking a hard look is the financial market infrastructures. The International Organization of Securities Commissions and the
Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems put out a joint report last month providing guidance about resolution and recovery regimes that apply to financial market infrastructures. The “Recovery and resolution of financial market infrastructures” is a follow-up report to the "Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions" by the Financial Stability Board.

The board had said that financial market infrastructures needed to be subject to resolution regimes in a manner that was appropriate to them. This report tackles these matters as they apply to financial market infrastructures, including important payment systems, central counterparties, central securities depositories, trade repositories, and securities settlement systems.

FINRA Expels Biremis, Corp. and Bars President and CEO Peter Beck, FINRA, July 31, 2012

Recovery and resolution of financial market infrastructures (PDF)

FINRA Launches Conflict-of-Interest Sweep of BDs, AdvisorOne, August 9, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Texas Securities Roundup: Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Sued Over Financial Adviser’s Ponzi Scam, Judge Dismisses Ex-GE Executive Whistleblower’s Lawsuit Over His Firing, & Ex-Stanford Financial Group CIO Pleads Guilty to Obstructing the SEC’s Probe, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 3, 2012

MSRB Seeks Public Comment on New Fiduciary Duty Rule for Municipal Advisors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 21, 2011

$1.2 Billion of MF Global Inc.’s Clients Money Still Missing, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 10, 2011

Continue reading "Institutional Investor Securities Roundup: Biremis, Corp. Settles Securities Violation Charges with Industry Bar, FINRA Contacts Broker-Dealers About Conflicts of Interest Via Sweeps Letters, & Regulators Examine Financial Market Infrastructures " »

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is allowing a $20.5M award issued by a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel against Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing LP to stand. The court turned down Goldman’s claim that the award should be vacated because it was issued in “manifest disregard of the law” and said that the clearing arm must pay this amount to the unsecured creditors of the now failed Bayou hedge fund group known as the Bayou Funds, which proved to be a large scale Ponzi scam.

Goldman was the prime broker and only clearing broker for the funds. After the scheme collapsed in 2005, the Bayou Funds sought bankruptcy protection the following year. Regulators would go on to sue the fund’s funders over the Ponzi scam and the losses sustained by investors. Meantime, an Official Unsecured Creditors’ Committee of Bayou Group was appointed to represent the debtors’ unsecured debtors. Blaming Goldman for not noticing the red flags that a Ponzi fraud was in the works, the committee proceeded to bring its arbitration claims against the clearing firm through FINRA. In 2010, the FINRA arbitration panel awarded the committee $20.58M against Goldman.

In affirming the arbitration award, the 2nd Circuit said that in this case, Goldman did not satisfy the manifest disregard standard. As an example, the court pointed to the $6.7M that was moved into the Bayou Funds from outside accounts in June 2005 and June 2004. While the committee had contended during arbitration that these deposits were “fraudulent transfers” and could be recovered from Goldman because they were an “initial transferee” under 11 U.S.C. §550(a), Goldman did not counter that the deposits weren’t fraudulent or that it was on inquiry notice of fraud. Instead, it claimed the deposits were not an “initial transferee” under 11 U.S.C. §550 and the panel had ignored the law by finding that it was.

Offering a rejoinder, the court agreed with the district court that Goldman’s argument for manifest disegard doesn’t succeed due to the recent case of Bear Stearns Securities Corp. v. Greddin, during which the Southern District of New York upheld the arbitration favoring the Creditors’ Committee. The court said it therefore could not conclude that arbitrators “manifestly disregarded the law” when they applied the legal principles in Greddin to impose on Goldman transferee liability.

The appeals court also found that arbitrators did not manifestly disregard the law as this relates to the $13.9M in transfers from the original Bayou fund to four new ones in March 2003. It affirmed the lower court’s decision that prejudgment interest should be awarded to the committee per the federal rate in 28 USC §961 and not the New York statutory rate.

If you are an institutional investor that was suffered financial losses due to fraud, contact our securities fraud law firm today.

Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing LP v. Official Unsecured Creditors’ Committee of Bayou Group LLC

2d Circuit Agrees Goldman Clearing Arm Must Pay $20.5M Bayou Arbitration Award, Bloomberg/BNA, July 6, 2012

Goldman Battles Bayou Decision, The Wall Street Journal, October 15, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Goldman Sachs to Pay $22M For Alleged Lack of Proper Internal Controls That Allowed Analysts to Attend Trading Huddles and Tip Favored Clients, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, April 14, 2012

$698M MBS Lawsuit Seeking Damages from Goldman Sachs Group Can Take on Class Action Status, Says District Judge, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, February 23, 2012

Ex-Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Pleads Not Guilty to Insider Trading Charges, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 26, 2011

Evergreen Investment Management Co. LLC and related entities have consented to pay $25 million to settle a class action securities settlement involving plaintiff investors who contend that the Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities Fund was improperly marketed and sold to them. The plaintiffs, which include five institutional investors, claim that between 2005 and 2008 the defendants presented the fund as “stable” and providing income in line with “preservation of capital and low principal fluctuation” when actually it was invested in highly risky, volatile, and speculative securities, including mortgage-backed securities. Evergreen is Wachovia’s investment management business and part of Wells Fargo (WFC).

The plaintiffs claim that even after the MBS market started to fail, the Ultra Short Fund continued to invest in these securities, while hiding the portfolio’s decreasing value by artificially inflating the individual securities’ asset value in its portfolio. They say that they sustained significant losses when Evergreen liquidated the Ultra Short Fund four years ago after the defendants’ alleged scam collapsed. By settling, however, no one is agreeing to or denying any wrongdoing.

Meantime, seeking to generally move investors’ claims forward faster, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has launched a pilot arbitration program that will specifically deal with securities cases of $10 million and greater. The program was created because of the growing number of very big cases.

Under the voluntary program, parties would be able to “customize” the arbitration process. The SRO says it wants parties to have a “formal” approach that gives them greater control and flexibility over their claims, including “additional control” over choosing arbitrators and “expanded” discovery.

In other securities news, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has turned down ex-AmeriFirst Funding Inc. manager Jeffrey Bruteyn’s appeal to his criminal conviction. Bruteyn was convicted of 9 counts of securities fraud in 2010 for running a scam that used the sale of secured debt obligations to defraud investors of millions of dollars.

The SDO’s were sold to raise capital for AmeriFirst Funding, which financed used car buys. Bruteyn is accused of making the sales by generating promotional materials that overstated insurance coverage while understating investor risk and falsely telling investors that that his family, which owned Hess Corp. (HES) would cover any losses sustained. Bruteyn was ordered to pay $7.3M in restitution and sentenced to 25 years in prison and three years of supervised release.

In Europe, regulators are examining the recent decisions made by credit rating agencies Moody’s (MCO), Fitch, and Standard & Poor's to downgrade banks affected by the eurozone sovereign debt crisis and the economic contraction. The European Securities and Markets Authority says it wants make sure that “transparent” and “rigorous” analyses were part of the credit raters’ decision-making process. ESMA is especially interested in a “block” rating that Moody’s issued to a number of Spanish banks last month.

ESMA is allowed to fine credit rating agencies for not following correct methodology or applying proper resources. It can also force a credit rater’s “de-registration.”

Throughout the US, our institutional investment fraud lawyers are committed to helping our clients recoup their losses from securities fraud.

$25 Million Settlement Submitted In Re Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities Fund Securities Class Action, Yahoo Finance, July 2, 2012

FINRA Announces Pilot Program for Large Cases, FINRA, July 2, 2012

US v. Bruteyn

EU market regulator is suspicious of rating agencies, RT, July 2, 2012

More Blog Posts:
CFTC Accuses Peregrine Financial Group of Securities Fraud Related to $200M Customer Funds Shortfall, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 10, 2012

Will the JOBS ACT Will Expand Private Offerings But Hurt Public Markets?, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 6, 2012

SEC to Push for Money Market Mutual Fund Reform Provisions Despite Opposition, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 6, 2012

Broker Bruce Parish Hutson has turned in a Letter of Acceptance, Waver, and Consent to settle allegations of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rule violations involving his alleged failure to advise Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (MS) of his arrest for retail theft at a store in Wisconsin. FINRA has accepted the AWC, which Hutson submitted without denying or admitting to the findings and without adjudicating any issue.

The Ex-Morgan Stanley Smith Barney broker (and before that he worked for predecessor company Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ((ASBXL)), had entered a “no contest” plea to the misdemeanor charge in February 2010. He received a jail sentence of nine months, which was reduced to 12 months probation. On August 16, 2010, Hutson, turned in a Form UT (Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration) stating that he was voluntarily let go from Morgan Stanley Smith Barney because the financial firm accused him of not properly reporting the arrest.

Also, although Form U4 (Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer) doesn’t mandate the disclosure of a mere arrest but does contemplate a criminal charge (at least), many industry members obligate employees to disclose any arrests. Yet when it was time to update this form by March 18, 2010, FINRA says that Hutson did not report the misdemeanor theft plea. Then, when he filled out Morgan Stanley Smith Barney’s yearly compliance questionnaire on May 19, 2010, he again denied having been arrested or charged with a crime in the past year or that he was statutorily disqualified.

FINRA contends that Hutson willfully violated its Article V, Section 2 (C) by-laws by not disclosing the criminal charge. The SRO also says that his later “no contest” plea to the misdemeanor theft violated FINRA Rule 2010 (when he made the false statement that he hadn’t been charged with any crime in the 12 months leading up to his completion of the compliance questionnaire) and he again violated this same rule when it was time to fill out the questionnaire. Per the AWC terms, Hutson is suspended from associating with any FINRA member for five months and he must pay a $5,000 fine.

“A broker can have a dozen complaints by investors and lose a half-dozen claims of wrongdoing, in which arbitrators reimburse these investors only part of their millions in collective losses, yet the broker is neither fined nor suspended,” said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP founder and Securities Attorney William Shepherd. “A shoplifting charge in one’s past - very bad. Repeated misrepresentations to investors – so what. Perhaps FINRA should get its priorities straight.”

Broker Bruce Parish Hutson, Forbes, June 27, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Investor Groups, Securities Lawyers, and Business Community Comment on the JOBS Act Reg D’s Investor Verification Process, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 24, 2012

SEC Wants Proposed Securities Settlements with Bear Stearns Executives to Get Court Approval, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 28, 2012

Accused Texas Ponzi Scammer May Have Defrauded Investors of $2M, Stockbroker Fraud, August 3, 2011

Continue reading "Ex-Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Broker Settles with FINRA for Allegedly Failing to Notify Firm of Previous Arrest" »

The Securities and Exchange Commission has approved a one-year pilot for a plan meant to shield equity markets from volatile price changes. The plan is based on two initiatives from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the national securities exchanges.

One initiative involves a "limit up-limit down" proposal that would not allow for trades in US listed stocks beyond a certain range to be determined by recent prices. This will replace single-stock circuit breakers.

With the new mechanism, trades in individually listed equity securities wouldn’t be able to take place beyond a certain price band, which would be a percentage level lower and higher than the price of the security in the most recent five minutes. For securities that are more liquid, set levels would be 5% or 10%, with percentages doubling during closing and opening periods. For securities priced at $3/share or lower, there will be wider price bands.

The second proposal involves modifying current market-wide circuit breakers that can stop trading taking place in exchange-listed securities on US markets. The current market-wide circuit breakers have only been triggered once (in 1997) since they were adopted nearly 24 years ago. These changes will reduce the percentage-decline threshold for triggering a trading stop that is market-wide, while shortening the duration of time that the cessation lasts.

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has said that the initiatives are the result of a lot of work done to come up with a sophisticated, effective, and doable way to take care of markets in the wake of too much volatility. She also talked about how in today’s electronic markets, there is a need for a properly calibrated automated way to limit or pause trading should prices change too much or too quickly.

The SEC, FINRA, and the exchanges plan to closely monitor the pilot to ensure that any rules that are permanently approved are as effective as possible. February 4, 2013 is the deadline for implementing all these changes.

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD LLP Partner and securities lawyer William Shepherd, however, is already skeptical of this new plan: “Such limits are not new and are of questionable value. Commodities markets have limit circuit breakers, as do a number of stock markets outside the US. The SEC has employed limits from time to time, notably after the stock market crash of 1987. This latest effort comes as a result of the so-called ‘flash crash’ in 2010. While no definitive cause was ever determined, many observers insist that stock manipulation by large players was involved. If implemented at all, as before, any such limits would likely be short lived.”

Our securities lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP represent institutional and individual investors.

SEC Approves Proposals to Address Extraordinary Volatility in Individual Stocks and Broader Stock Market, SEC, June 1, 2012

SEC approves plan to ease volatility in US stocks, Reuters, June 1, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Look Out for Rule Recommendations on Consolidated Audit Trail, Market-Wide Circuit Breaker Changes, and Limit Up-Limit Down Mechanisms, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 10, 2012

Several Claims in Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Ex-IndyMac Bancorp Executives Are Dismissed by Federal Judge, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 30, 2012

SEC and CFTC Say They Found Out About JPMorgan’s $2B Trading Loss Through Media, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 31, 2012

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CLQ) has consented to pay the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority a $3.5M fine to settle allegations that he gave out inaccurate information about subprime residential mortgage-backed securities. The SRO is also accusing the financial firm of supervisory failures and inadequate maintenance of records and books.

Per FINRA, beginning January 2006 through October 2007, Citigroup published mortgage performance information that was inaccurate on its Web site, including inaccurate information about three subprime and Alt-A securitizations that may have impacted investors’ assessment of subsequent RMB. Citigroup also allegedly failed to supervise the pricing of MBS because of a lack of procedures to verify pricing and did not properly document the steps that were executed to evaluate the reasonableness of the prices provided by traders. The financial firm is also accused of not maintaining the needed books and records, including original margin call records. By settling, Citigroup is not denying or admitting to the FINRA securities charges.

In other institutional investment securities news, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Kent Whitney an ex-registered floor broker at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, agreed to pay $600K to settle allegations by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that he made statements that were “false and misleading” to the exchange and others about a scam to trade options without posting margin. The CFTC contends that between May 2008 and April 2010, Whitney engaged in the scam on eight occasions, purposely giving out clearing firms that had invalid account numbers in connection with trades made on the New York Mercantile Exchange CME trading floors. He is said to have gotten out of posting over $96 million in margin.

The CFTC says that before an option was about to expire, Whitney would make orders to sell front-month out-of-the-money options. By doing this, he was “implicitly” representing that the accounts were open and had enough margin to cover trades (In truth, the accounts had no margin and were closed). When the clearing firms would turn the trades down because the accounts were closed, they would give back the trades to the executing floor brokers’ clearing firms. The following day, Whitney would give account numbers that were valid to clear the trades. The CFTC says that this process allowed him to avoid the margin posting. Also, when Whitney traded, he would allegedly collect the options premium. By settling, he is not denying or admitting to the CFTC allegations.

Meantime, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has written a letter to the heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the CFTC, the US Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Board, the Comptroller of the Currency, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation urging them to go ahead and complete its implementation of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Right now, regulators are a year behind on the deadline for most of the law’s rules.

Stabenow cited JPMorgan Chase's (JPM) recent over $2 billion trading loss and MF Global Inc.’s (MFGLQ) bankruptcy last fall as clear examples of the need to pass Dodd-Frank. She worried that there hasn't been sufficient rulemaking to enforce the act’s new derivatives laws. She said that now is the time to finish writing the rules and “fully” implementing the law.

Our institutional investment lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP represents investors throughout the US. We also have clients that are located abroad.

FINRA fines Citigroup Global Markets $3.5 million, Reuters, May 22, 2012

Federal Court in New York Orders Chicago Resident and Former Floor Broker, Kent R.E. Whitney, to Pay $600,000 for Margin Call Avoidance Scheme, CFTC, May 23, 2012

Chairwoman Stabenow: It Is Time To Fully Implement Wall Street Reform, AG.Senate.gov, May 18, 2012

More Blog Posts:
SEC Practice of Settling Enforcement Actions Without Requiring Defendants to Deny or Admit to Allegations Gets Support from Federal Judges and Democrats, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 26, 2012

Alleged Ponzi-Like Real Estate Investment Scam that Defrauded Victims of $9M Leads to SEC Charges Against New Jersey Man, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 24, 2012

SEC Charges New York-Based Fund Manager and His Two Financial Firms Over Alleged $11M Ponzi Scheme, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 28, 2012

Accused of not putting in place policies to prevent analyst huddles, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) will settle for $22 million the allegations made against it by US regulators. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission and FINRA, due to the nature of the financial firm’s internal control system research analysts were able to share non-public information with select clients and traders.

To settle the securities case, Goldman will pay $11 million each to FINRA and the SEC. It also consented to refrain from committing future violations and it will reevaluate and modify its written policies and procedures so that compliance won’t be a problem in the future. The financial firm has agreed to have the SEC censure it. By settling Goldman is not denying or admitting to the allegations.

Meantime, FINRA claimed that Goldman neglected to identify and adequately investigate the increase in trading in the financial firm’s propriety account before changes were made to analysis and research that were published. The SRO says that certain transactions should have been reviewed.

This is not the first time that Goldman has gotten in trouble about its allegedly inadequate control systems. Last year, it agreed to pay $10 million to the Massachusetts Securities Division over ASI and the huddles. In 2003, the financial firm paid $9.3 million over allegations that its policies and controls were not adequate enough to stop privileged information about certain US Treasury bonds from being misused.

The latest securities actions are related to two programs that the financial firm created that allegedly encouraged analysts to share non-public, valued information with select clients. The SEC says that during weekly “huddles” between 2006 and 2011, Goldman analysts would share their perspectives on “market color” and short-term trading with company traders. Sales employees were also sometimes present, and until 2009, employees from the financial firm’s Franchise Risk Management Group who were allowed to set up large, long-term positions for Goldman also participated in the huddles.

Also in 2007, the financial firm established the Asymmetric Service Initiative. This program let analysts share ideas and information that they acquired at the huddles with a favored group made up of approximately 180 investment management and hedge fund clients.

The SEC contends that ASI and the huddles occurred so that Goldman’s traders’ performances would improve and there would be more revenue in the form of commissions. The financial firm even let analysts know that it would be monitoring whether ideas discussed at the huddles succeeded and that this would be a factor in performance evaluations. The Commission said that the two programs created a serious risk, especially considering that a lot of ASI clients were traders who did so often and in high volume.

Meantime, FINRA claimed that before changes were made to published analysis and research, Goldman would neglect to identify and adequately investigate the increase in trading in the financial firm’s proprietary account. The SRO says that there were certain transactions that should have been reviewed.

This is not the first time that Goldman has gotten in trouble over its allegedly inadequate control systems. Last year, it agreed to pay $10 million to the Massachusetts Securities Division over ASI and the huddles. In 2003, the financial firm paid $9.3 million over allegations that its policies and controls were not adequate enough to stop privileged information about certain US Treasury bonds from being misused.

Read the SEC order in this case (PDF)

Read the FINRA order in this case (PDF)

Goldman Sachs to Pay $22 Million Over Analyst Huddle Claims, Bloomberg, April 12, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Ex-Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Pleads Not Guilty to Insider Trading Charges, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 26, 2011

Whistleblower Lawsuit Claims Taxpayers Were Defrauded When Federal Government Bailed Out Houston-Based American International Group in 2008, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 5, 2011

Wirehouses Struggle to Retain Their Share of the High-Net-Worth-Market, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 6, 2012

Continue reading "Goldman Sachs to Pay $22M For Alleged Lack of Proper Internal Controls That Allowed Analysts to Attend Trading Huddles and Tip Favored Clients" »

FINRA says that Citigroup Inc. subsidiary Citi International Financial Services LLC must pay over $1.2M in restitution, fines, and interest over alleged excessive markdowns and markups on agency and corporate bond transactions and supervisory violations. The financial firm must also pay $648,000 in restitution and interest to over 3,600 clients for the alleged violations. By settling, Citi International is not denying or admitting to the allegations.

According to FINRA, considering the state of the markets at the time, the expense of making the transactions happen, and the value of services that were provided, from July ’07 through September ’10 Citi International made clients pay too much (up to over 10%) on agency/corporate bond markups and markdowns. (Brokerages usually make clients that buy a bond pay a premium above the price that they themselves paid to obtain the bond. This is called a “markup.”) Also, from April ’09 until June ’10, the SRO contends that Citi International did not put into practice reasonable due diligence in the sale or purchase of corporate bonds so that customers could pay the most favorable price possible.

The SRO says that during the time periods noted, the financial firm’s supervisory system for fixed income transactions had certain deficiencies related to a number of factors, including the evaluation of markups/markdowns under 5% and a pricing grid formulated on the bonds’ par value rather than their actual value. Citi International will now also have to modify its supervisory procedures over these matters.

In the wake of its order against Citi International, FINRA Market Regulation Executive Vice-President Thomas Gira noted that the SRO is determined to make sure that clients who sell and buy securities are given fair prices. He said that the prices that Citi International charged were not within the standards that were appropriate for fair pricing in debt transactions.

If you believe that you were the victim of securities misconduct or fraud, please contact our stockbroker fraud law firm right away. We represent both institutional and individual investors that have sustained losses because of inadequate supervision, misrepresentations and omissions, overconcentration, unsuitability, failure to execute trades, churning, breach of contract, breach of promise, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, margin account abuse, unauthorized trading, registration violations and other types of adviser/broker misconduct.

Before deciding to work with a brokerage firm that is registered with FINRA, you can always check to see if they have a disciplinary record by using FINRA’s BrokerCheck. Last year, 14.2 million reviews of the records of financial firms and brokers were conducted on BrokerCheck.

Read the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent

Citigroup Fined for Bond Markup, The Wall Street Journal, March 19, 2012

FINRA BrokerCheck®

More Blog Posts:
Securities Claims Accusing Merrill Lynch of Concealing Its Auction-Rate Securities Practices Are Dismissed by Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 30, 2011

Merrill Lynch Faces $1M FINRA Fine Over Texas Ponzi Scam by Former Registered Representative, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 10, 2011

Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Settles for $315 million Class Action Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 6, 2011

Continue reading "Citigroup Ordered by FINRA to Pay $1.2M Over Bond Markups and Markdowns" »

FINRA says that Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith must pay a $1M fine because it didn’t arbitrate employee disputes about retention bonuses. Registered representatives that took part in the bonus plan had signed promissory notes stating that should such disagreements arise, they would go to New York state court and not through arbitration to resolve them. FINRA says this agreement violated its rules, which requires that financial firms and associated individuals go through arbitration if the disagreement is a result of the business activities of the associated person or the firm.

It was after merging with Bank of America that Merrill Lynch set up a bonus plan to keep high-producing registered reps. The financial firm gave over 5,000 registered representatives $2.8B in retention bonuses that were structured as loans in 2009. By agreeing that they would go to state court, the representatives were greatly hindering their ability to make counterclaims. FINRA also says that because Merrill Lynch designed the bonus program so that it would seem as if the money for it came from MLIFI, which is a non-registered affiliate, the financial firm was able to go after recovery amounts on MLIFI’s behalf in court, which allowed Merrill Lynch to circumvent the arbitration requirement. After a number of registered representatives did leave the financial firm without paying back the amounts due on the promissory notes in 2009, Merrill Lynch filed more than 90 actions in state court to collect these payments.

Since September 14, 2009, FINRA has been expediting cases involving claims made by brokerage firm over associated persons accused of not paying money owed on a promissory note. Such disputes are supposed to be resolved through arbitration.

The SRO has also been known to get involved in other types of financial firm-employee disputes. For example, in another recent FINRA proceeding, an arbitration panel ordered Citigroup to pay a former investment advisor team and their administrator $24M for not fairly compensating them for transactions involving an institutional client that they brought with them when they moved from Banc of America Securities. Robert Vincent Minchello, his brother James Bryan Minchello, and Martha Jane Sullivan claimed that Citigroup only partially compensated them for a few of the transactions before cutting them out of that business relationship.

Merrill fined $1 mln for failure to arbitrate, Reuters, January 25, 2012

SEC Approves Rule Establishing Expedited Procedures for Arbitrating Promissory Note Cases, FINRA, September 14, 2009

More Blog Posts:
Securities Claims Accusing Merrill Lynch of Concealing Its Auction-Rate Securities Practices Are Dismissed by Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 30, 2011

Merrill Lynch Faces $1M FINRA Fine Over Texas Ponzi Scam by Former Registered Representative, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 10, 2011

Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Settles for $315 million Class Action Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 6, 2011

Continue reading "Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Ordered to Pay $1M FINRA Fine for Not Arbitrating Employee Disputes Over Retention Bonuses" »

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association wants the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. to prevent brokers from being able to plead poverty to escape arbitration payment orders. The promissory notes provide money for retention and recruiting incentives, and as long as a broker agrees to stay with a financial firm for an agreed up on time, they are structured as forgivable notes.

Many brokers obtained such deals following the economic crisis. Since then, financial firms have gotten more active about submitting arbitration claims to get brokers to pay them back. In 2011 alone, 778 promissory note cases were filed. 1,152 such cases were filed the year before. In most cases, it is the financial firm that ends up winning.

When a broker won’t pay an arbitration award, FINRA files an action against him/her that could lead to suspension. However, if the broker demonstrates that he/she can’t pay it, then suspension may be avoided.

Many SIFMA members believe that FINRA should take more aggressive measures to get brokers to pay up. The trade group wants the SRO to prevent brokers from being able to claim that they cannot pay when slapped with a case from an industry claimant.
Such a move would likely mean that if a broker were unable to repay a promissory note, he/she would likely be suspended or have to file for bankruptcy. SIFMA also wants enhanced disclosure of awards that brokers don’t pay, because it believes that the consequence of having this failure made public is incentive for the broker to make good on the matter.

In a letter to FINRA that it sent last November, SIFMA voiced members’ concerns that the inability-to-pay defense was being abused and that not only was this resulting in compliance and regulatory risks, but also it was creating an unnecessary risk to investors. SIFMA claimed that FINRA Rule 9554 discriminates against industry claimants, who aren’t given the same protections as customer claimants, who don’t have to contend with the inability-to-pay defense from a broker. The trade organization noted that the Securities and Exchange Commission obligates FINRA to take appropriate disciplinary action against defendants that use this defense in bad faith.

SIFMA, Finra clash over deadbeat brokers, Investment News, January 15, 2012

FINRA Rules

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association

More Blog Posts:
SIFMA Offers Up Best Practices for How Financial Firms Can Interact with Expert Networks, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 16, 2011

SEC and SIFMA Divided Over Whether Merrill Lynch Can Be Held Liable for Alleged ARS Market Manipulation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 29, 2011

Micah S. Green, Expected New CEO of Largest Securities Industry Group, Resigns During Scandal, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 18, 2007

Continue reading "SIFMA Wants FINRA to Take Tougher Actions Against Brokers that Don’t Repay Promissory Notes" »

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel has ordered Oppenheimer & Co. to repurchase the $5.98 million in New Jersey Turnpike ARS that it sold Nicole Davi Perry in 2007. The investor reportedly purchased the securities through Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. (OPY).

Perry, who, along with her father, filed her ARS arbitration claim against the financial firm in 2010, accused Oppenheimer of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. She and her father, Ronald Davi, were reportedly looking for liquidity and safety, but instead ended up placing their funds in the auction-rate securities. They contend that they weren’t given an accurate picture of the risks involved or provided with a thorough explanation of the securities’ true nature.

Oppenheimer disagrees with the panel’s ruling. In addition to buying back Perry’s ARS, the financial firm has to cover her approximately $134,000 in legal fees.

It was just in 2010 that Oppenheimer settled the ARS securities cases filed against it by the states of New York and Massachusetts. The brokerage firm consented to buy back millions of dollars in bonds from customers who found their investments frozen after the ARS market collapsed and they had no way of being able to access their funds.

Oppenheimer is one of a number of brokerage firms that had to repurchase ARS from investors. These financial firms are accused of misrepresenting the risks involved and inaccurately claiming that the securities were “cash-like.” A number of these brokerage firms' executives allegedly continued to allow investors to buy the bonds even though they already knew that the market stood on the brink of collapse and they were selling off their own ARS.

ARS
Auction rate securities are usually corporate bonds, municipal bonds, and preferred stock with long-term maturities. Investors receive interest rates or dividend yields that are reset at each successive auction.

ARS auctions take place at regular intervals—either every 7 days, 14 days, 28 days, or 5 days. The bidder turns in the lowest dividend yield or interest rate he or she is willing to go to purchase and hold the bond during the next auction interval. If the bidder wins at the auction, she/he must buy the bond at par value.

Failed auctions can happen when there are not enough bidding buyers available to acquire the entire ARS block being offered. A failed auction can prevent ARS holders from selling their securities in the auction.

There are many reasons why an auction might fail and why there is risk involved for investors. It is important that investors are notified of these risks before they buy into the securities and that they only they get into ARS if this type of investment is suitable for their financial goals and the realities of their finances.

Panel Says Oppenheimer Must Buy Back $6M In Auction-Rate Securities, Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2012

Oppenheimer settles with Massachusetts, NY, Boston, February 24, 2010

More Blog Posts:
Oppenheimer Funds Investors Can Proceed with Their Securities Fraud Lawsuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 19, 2011

Investors in Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Considering Opting Out of $100M Class Action Settlement Have Until August 31, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 6 2011

Raymond James Settles Auction-Rate Securities Case with Indiana Securities Division for $31M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2011

Continue reading "Oppenheimer & Co. Must Buyback $6M in Auction-Rate Securities from Investor, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel" »

A US judge has denied Citigroup’s request that the $54.1M Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration award issued to investors that sustained losses in municipal bond funds be overturned. This is one of the largest securities arbitration awards that a broker-dealer has been ordered to pay individual investors. Brush Creek Capital, retired lawyer Gerald D. Hosier, and investor Jerry Murdock Jr. are the award’s recipients. However, these Claimants are not the only investors to come forward contending that they were told the funds were suitable for investors that wanted to preserve their capital.

The investor losses were related to several leveraged municipal bond arbitrage funds that saw their value significantly drop between 2007 and 2008. Citigroup Global Markets had sold the municipal bond funds through MAT Finance LLC. Proceeds were invested in longer-term muni bunds while borrowing took place at low, short-term rates. The strategy proved to be unsuccessful, resulting in investors losing up to 80% of their money.

According to The Wall Street Journal, when it issued its ruling the arbitration panel appeared to reject three defenses that financial firms usually make:

• The financial crisis, and not the financial firm, is to blame for the losses.
• Sophisticated, rich investors should have known what risks were involved.
• The prospectus had warned in advance that investors could lose everything.

The Claimants alleged fraud, failure to supervise, and unsuitability. They had sought no less than $48 million in compensatory damages, fees, lost-opportunity costs, commission, lawyers’ fees, and interest.

The FINRA arbitration panel awarded $21.6 million in compensatory damages, plus 8% per annum, to Hosier, $3.9 million in compensatory damages, plus 8% per annum, to Murdock, Jr, and $8.4 million in compensatory damages, plus 8% per annum, to Brush Creek Capital LLC.

All Claimants were also awarded $3 million in lawyers’ fees, $17 million in punitive damages, $33,500 in expert witness fees, $13,168 in court reporter expenses, and $600 for the Claimant’s filing fee.

Following the FINRA ruling, Citigroup contended that the arbitration panel had ignored the law when arriving at the award. The brokerage firm also claimed that investors could not have depended on verbal statements that the financial firm had expressed about purchases because the clients had acknowledged through signed agreements that they could lose everything they invested. By denying Citigroup’s request to throw out the arbitration award, Judge Christine Arguello, however, said that the court found Citigroup’s “argument wholly unpersuasive.”

A Crack in Wall Street’s Defenses, New York Times, April 24, 2011

Citigroup Slammed With $54 Million Award by FINRA Arbitrators in MAT / ASTA Case, Municipal Bond, April 12, 2011

Citigroup loses suit to overturn $54-million ruling, Reuters, December 22, 2011

More Blog Posts:
JPMorgan Chase to Pay $211M to Settle Charges It Rigged Municipal Bond Transaction Bidding Competitions, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2011

Citigroup Ordered by FINRA to Pay $54.1M to Two Investors Over Municipal Bond Fund Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 13, 2011

Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rakoff, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 9, 2011

Continue reading "Citigroup Request to Overturn $54.1M Municipal Bond Arbitration Ruling Denied by Judge" »

According to FINRA CEO and Chairman Richard G. Ketchum, the SRO may put out a second concept proposal about its stance regarding disclosure obligations related to a possible Securities and Exchange Commission rulemaking about formalizing a uniform fiduciary duty standard between broker-dealers and investment advisers. Currently, the 1940 Investment Advisers Act defines the investment advisers’ fiduciary obligation to their clients, while broker-dealers are upheld to suitability rules that will be superseded next August by two FINRA rules regarding broker-dealer suitability standards.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s Section 913, however, said that it is SEC’s responsibility to determine whether these current regulatory and legal standards s are still effective and if any regulatory shortcomings that exist need to be filled. In July 2010, the SEC asked stakeholders for feedback about this mandates. After receiving over 3,000 public comments, it issued a study recommending that there be a uniform fiduciary standard for both types of representatives when giving advice to retail clients. The SEC could put out its proposed rule by the end of this year.

FINRA is working with the Commission on this and plans to stay involved in the process. It was just last year that the SRO put out a concept proposal seeking public comment about the idea that broker-dealers should have to provide retail investors with certain disclosures at the start of a business relationship. These clients would be required to give a written statement detailing the kids of services and accounts they provide, any conflicts of interests, and limits on duties that they are entitled to expect. FINRA said that regardless of what a unified fiduciary standard would look like, retail investors would benefit from getting this disclosure document at the start and that such a mandate is an “outright necessity.

Regard this proposed fiduciary standard rule, Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas founder and stockbroker fraud lawyer William Shepherd said: “The goal is to lower the duties of Wall Street. The term “fiduciary duty” was defined by courts centuries ago. Since passage of the Investment Advisor’s Act of 1940 – 71 years ago – no special definition of the “fiduciary duty” of financial advisors has been necessary. Current law does not exempt stockbrokers from a fiduciary duty when the circumstances arise in which the broker has assumed the role of a fiduciary. Example: ‘I will take care of you and properly invest your money for you.’ What is being currently proposed is nothing more than a “safe harbor” for brokerage firms to disclose their conflicts, etc. Is it time to occupy Wall Street?”

Our securities fraud attorneys are committed to helping our institutional investor clients recoup their losses from negligent broker-dealers and investment advisers.

Disclosure of Services, Conflicts and Duties, FINRA, October 2010

Study on Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers, SEC (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Don’t Create Uniform Fiduciary Standard for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers, Say Some Republicans to the SEC, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 7, 2011

SEC’s Proposal on Implementing Whistleblower Rule Draws Mixed Reactions, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 3, 2011

Advisory Performance Fee Rule Limit Adjusted by the SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2011

To settle FINRA accusations that it used misleading marketing materials when selling Wells Timberland REIT, Inc., Wells Investment Securities, Inc. has agreed to pay a $300,000 fine, as well as to an entry of the findings. However, it is not denying or admitting to the securities charges.

FINRA claims that as the wholesaler and dealer-manager of the non-traded Real Estate Investment Trust’s public offering, Wells approved, reviewed, and distributed 116 sales and marketing materials that included statements that were misleading, exaggerated, or unwarranted.The SRO contends that not only did most of the REIT’s sales literature and advertisements neglect to disclose the meaning of Wells Timberland's non-REIT status, but also it implied that Wells Timberland qualified as an REIT during a time when it didn’t. (Although its initial offering prospectus reported that it planned to qualify as an REIT for the tax year finishing up at the end of 2006, it did not qualify until the one ending on December 31, 2009.) Also, FINRA believes that Wells Timberland’s communications about portfolio diversification, redemptions, and distributions included misleading statements and that the financial firm lacked supervisory procedures for making sure the proprietary data and sensitive customer information were properly protected with working encryption technology.

While non-traded REITs are usually illiquid for approximately 8 years or longer, certain tax ramifications can be avoided if specific IRS requirements are met. FINRA says that the Wells ads failed to ensure that investors clearly understood that an investment that is not yet an REIT couldn’t offer them those tax benefits.

Last month, FINRA put out an alert notifying investors about the risks of public non-traded REITs. Non-exchange traded real estate investment trusts are not traded on a national securities exchange. Early redemption is usually limited and fees related to their sale can be high, which can erode one’s overall return. Risks involved include:

• No guarantee on distributions, which can exceed operating cash flow.
• REIT status and distributions that come with tax consequences
• Illiquidity and valuation complexities
• Early redemption that is limited and likely costly
• Fees that can grow
• Unspecified properties
• Limited diversification
• Real Estate risk

FINRA wants investors considering non-traded REITs to:

• Watch out for sales literature or pitches giving you simple reasons for why you should invest.
• Find out how much the seller is getting in commissions and fees.
• Know how investing in this type of REIT will help you meet your goals.
• Carefully study the accompanying prospectus and its supplements.

Finra Fines Wells Investment Securities For Alleged Misleading Marketing Materials, The Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2011

Public Non-Traded REITs—Perform a Careful Review Before Investing, FINRA

More Blog Posts:
Chase Investment Services Corporation Ordered by FINRA to Pay Back $1.9M for Unsuitable Sales of Floating-Rate Loan Funds and UITs, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 19, 2011

Morgan Stanley Faces $1M FINRA Fine for Excessive Markups and Markdowns on Corporate and Municipal Bond Transactions, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 17, 2011

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Sues Two Saudi Investors in an Attempt to Block Their FINRA Arbitration Claim Over $383M in Losses, Stockbroker Fraud, October 22, 2011

Continue reading "Wells Investment Securities Agrees to $300,000 Fine by FINRA for Alleged Use of Misleading Marketing Materials for REIT Offerings " »

FINRA says that Chase Investment Services Corporation will pay back investors for losses sustained from the unsuitable recommendation made that they buy floating rate loan funds and unit investment trusts. In addition to paying back clients $1.9M, Chase must also pay a $1.7M fine.

According to FINRA, brokers with Chase recommended these financial instruments to clients even though the investments were not suitable for them—either because they had hardly any investment experience or only wanted to take conservative risks. The SRO also says that the Chase brokers had no reasonable grounds to think the financial products would be a right fit for these investors.

FINRA believes that Chase failed to properly train its brokers or give them guidance about the suitability of floating-rate loan funds and UITs, as well as the risks involved. For example, there were UITs that contained a significant portion of assets in closed-end funds with high-yield or junk bonds. Yet, despite the risks involved, brokers from Chase made about 260 recommendations that were not suitable for clients who had little (if any) investment experience or were averse to high-risk investments. These investors ended up losing about $1.4 million.

Also subject to substantial credit risk and illiquidity were the floating-rate loan funds. Despite the fact that concentrated positions in the fund were unsuitable for specific clients, FINRA says that Chase brokers still recommended these to clients who wanted low risk, very liquid investments or preferred to preserve principal. Because of these allegedly unsuitable recommendations, investors lost almost $500K.

FINRA says that WaMu, Investments Inc., also recommended that customers by floating-rate loan funds, even though these were not appropriate for the investors. The financial firm, which had merged with Chase in 2009, is also accused of not properly training or supervising its employees that sold the investments.

More About UITs
Unit investment trusts involve diversified securities baskets that may contain high-yield bonds. While junk bonds can make greater returns for investors than investment-grade bonds, they also come with a high degree of risk.

More About Floating-Rate Loan Funds
These mutual funds are invested in short-term bank loans for companies with a below investment grade crediting rating. What investors earn will fluctuate depending on what interest rates the banks happen to be charging on the loans.

In the wake of the allegations against Chase, FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement Brad Bennett said that it was key that financial firms provide the proper guidance and training to brokers about product sales while supervising sales practices.

JPMorgan unit fined $1.7M over investment sales, Bloomberg Business Week/AP, November 15, 2011

FINRA Orders Chase to Reimburse Customers $1.9 Million for Unsuitable Sales of UITs and Floating-Rate Loan Funds, FINRA, November 15, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Stanley Faces $1M FINRA Fine for Excessive Markups and Markdowns on Corporate and Municipal Bond Transactions, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 17, 2011

Wedbush Ordered By FINRA Panel To Pay $3.5M to Trader Over Withheld Compensation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2011

Bank of America Merrill Lynch to Settle UIT Sales-Related FINRA Charges for $2.5 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 22, 2010

Continue reading "Chase Investment Services Corporation Ordered by FINRA to Pay Back $1.9M for Unsuitable Sales of Floating-Rate Loan Funds and UITs. " »

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has fined Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. $1 million for charging excessive markdowns and markups to corporate and municipal bond transactions clients. The SRO has also ordered that the financial firm pay $371,000 plus interest in restitution to these investors. By agreeing to settle, Morgan Stanley has not denied or admitted to the securities charges.

According to FINRA, the markdowns and markups that Morgan Stanley charged ranged from under 5% to 13.8%. Considering how much it costs to execute transactions, market conditions, and the services valued, these charge were too much.

The SRO also determined that the financial firm had an inadequate supervisory system for overseeing markups and markdowns of corporate and municipal bonds. Morgan Stanley must now modify its written supervisory procedures dealing with markups and markdowns involving fixed income transactions.

FINRA Market Regulation Executive Vice President Thomas Gira has said that Morgan Stanley violated fair pricing standards. He noted is important for financial firms that sell and purchase securities to make sure that clients are given reasonable and fair prices whether/not a markdown or markup exceeds or is lower than 5%.

A Markup is what is charged above market value. It is usually charged on principal transactions involving NASDAQ and other OTC equity securities. Markups on principal transactions usually factor in the type of security, its availability, price, order size, disclosure before the transaction is effected, the type of business involved, and the general markups pattern at a firm.

A markup on an equities security that is over 5% is seldom considered reasonable or fair. Regulators have rules in place for how much registered representatives can charge customers for services rendered. Not only do the charges have to be reasonable, but also they must be fair and not show particular preferences to any clients.

The 5% policy also applies to agency transactions. Commissions for such transactions also must be “fair and reasonable.” Commissions that go above that must be justified and are often closely examined by regulators.
While most securities professionals are committed to doing their jobs fairly and ethically, there are those determined to take advantage of the system to defraud investors. There are also honest mistakes that can occur that also can result in investor losses.

Financial firms and their representatives are responsible for protecting investors and their money from unnecessary losses resulting from securities fraud or other negligence.

Morgan Stanley Fined $1M Over Muni-Bond Markups, Bloomberg, November 10, 2011

FINRA Fines Morgan Stanley $1 Million and Orders Restitution of $371,000 for Excessive Markups and Markdowns, FINRA, November 10, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Whistleblower Claims SEC is Illegally Destroying Records of Closed Enforcement Cases, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 31, 2011

Ex-Bank of America Employee Pleads Guilty to Mortgage Fraud Scam Using Stolen Identities to Buy Homes Not For Sale, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 30, 2011

Securities Lawsuits Expected to Reach Record High in ’11, Says Advisen Ltd. Report, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 23, 2011

**This blog has been backdated.

Continue reading "Morgan Stanley Faces $1M FINRA Fine for Excessive Markups and Markdowns on Corporate and Municipal Bond Transactions" »

A Financial Industry Regulator Authority Panel has ordered WedBush Securities Inc. to pay one of its traders over $3.5 million for refusing to properly compensate him. According to claimant Stephen Kelleher, he worked for the financial firm for years without consistently getting the incentive-base compensation that he was promised as a municipal sales trader. Kelleher started working for Wedbush in 2007 until right before the arbitration ruling was made.

Kelleher claims that Wedbush withheld nearly $5 million from him. While he regularly received his base salary, the bulk of his income, which was incentive-based compensation, was unevenly distributed and issued to him in May 2008, October 2009, and April 2010. Even then Kelleher contends that he did not receive everything he was owed.

In his FINRA arbitration claim, Kelleher alleged violation and failure to pay per labor laws, breach of contract, unfair business practices, and fraud. He sought over $6.1 million, including $4.17 million in compensation owed, close to $878,000 in interest, and penalties of $1 million and $2,100 over labor code violations. He also sought damages for civil code law violations, as well as punitive damages.

During the FINRA hearing, witnesses testified that it was Wedbush president and founder Edward W. Wedbush who made decisions about paying and withholding incentive compensation. Another Wedbush employee said that there were two years when he too didn’t get the incentive-based compensation that he was owed. The FINRA panel blamed Wedbush’s “corporate management structure” that required that Edward Wedbush, as majority shareholder, approve bonus pay at his discretion.

In addition to the $3.5 million, the FINRA panel also told Wedbush it has to give Kelleher the vested option to purchase 3,750 Wedbush shares at $20/share and another $375 shares at $26/share. Wedbush also must pay the Claimant for the $200 part of the FINRA filing fee that is non-refundable.

Wedbush intends to appeal the securities arbitration ruling.

Related Web Resources:
Wedbush ordered to pay $3.5M for ‘morally reprehensible failure', Investment News, July 11, 2011

FINRA Orders Wedbush to pay trader $3.5 million, OnWallStreet, July 1, 2011

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Panel Orders Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation to Pay $64M Over Losses Sustained by Rosen Capital Institutional LP and Rosen Capital Partners LP, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, July 14, 2011

Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, September 1, 2010

Fisher Investments Inc. Ordered to Pay Retired Investor $376,075 Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 8, 2011

Continue reading "Wedbush Ordered By FINRA Panel To Pay $3.5M to Trader Over Withheld Compensation" »

Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation must pay hedge funds Rosen Capital Partners LP and Rosen Capital Institutional LP $63,665,202.00 in compensatory damages plus interest (9% from October 7, 2008). A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel issued the order which found the respondent liable.

In their statement of claim, made by the claimants in 2009, the hedge funds accused Merrill Lynch of reach of contract, fraud, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (the New York Uniform Commercial Code), and negligence related to the allegedly unexpected margin calls that caused the claimants to sustain financial losses.

Rosen Capital Partners and Rosen Capital Institutional had originally sought at least $90 million in compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages and other costs. Meantime, Merrill Lynch had sough to have the entire matter dismissed and that it be awarded all costs incurred from the suit and other relief as deemed appropriate.

Institutional Investment Fraud
Our securities fraud attorneys represent corporations, banks, partnerships, financial firms, retirement plans, large trusts, charitable organizations, municipalities, private foundations, school districts, and high net worth individuals. We seek to obtain the financial losses of our clients that were caused by securities fraud and other illegal activities committed by financial firms and their representatives, brokers, and advisers.

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP represents investors in the US and abroad. Contact our institutional investment fraud law firm today.

Read the details of the FINRA dispute resolution, Wall Street Journal (PDF)

New York Uniform Commercial Code, Justia

Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Hit With $64 Million FINRA Arbitration Award, Forbes, July 6, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 1, 2010

Fisher Investments Inc. Ordered to Pay Retired Investor $376,075 Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 8, 2011

$750,000 Arbitration Award Against Stone & Youngberg LLC Confirmed by District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 30, 2011

A district court has denied the bids of Timothy McGinn and David Smith that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority disciplinary proceedings against them be stayed until after the conclusion of the Securities and Exchange Commission's related civil action. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over this stay request. While noting that the judicial review of this type of FINRA proceeding is vested in the federal courts of appeal, the district court said that it did not believe that transfer, rather than dismissal, was “in the interest of justice” because the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on their claim’s merit and had not shown that they would be irreparably harmed because of the FINRA proceedings.

McGinn and Smith are part owners of McGinn Smith & Co, Inc., as well as stockbrokers. Last year, FINRA’s Department of Enforcement submitted a complaint accusing them and their firm of taking part in four fraudulent securities offerings between September 2003 and November 2006. FINRA asked the SEC to look into the matter because it believed that the plaintiffs had violated securities law.

The SEC began its own formal probe and went on to sue the plaintiffs and their securities firm for securities fraud and other violations. A receiver was appointed by the federal court to seize control of McGinn Smith & Co. and its assets.

While a FINRA officer did stay proceedings against the financial firm, it refused to do so against the two men, who then filed their case requesting that the court stay the FINRA proceedings until the SEC case has concluded. The plaintiffs believe that the SRO violated their constitutional rights when it acted as a proxy for the SEC.

Court Declines to Stay FINRA Proceeding Pending Conclusion of Related SEC Action, BNA Securities Law Daily, May 17, 2011

SEC seeks shutdown of McGinn and Smith venture, TimesUnion.com, November 4, 2010

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Wants Amerivet Securities Inc.’s Lawsuit Seeking to Inspect the SRO's Records Dismissed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 26, 2011

Goldman Sachs & Co. Clearing Unit Must Pay Unsecured Creditors of Bayou Hedge Funds $20.5M FINRA Arbitration Award, Says District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 14, 2011

Wells Fargo Advisors LLC Agrees to $1 Million FINRA Fine for Securities Charges Related to Mutual Fund Prospectus Delivery, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 12, 2011

Continue reading "Court Refuses McGinn Smith & Co. Owners's Request that It Stay the FINRA Disciplinary Proceedings Until The Related SEC Civil Action Against Them Ends" »

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is fining UBS Financial Services, Inc. $2.5 million and ordering it to pay $8.25 million in restitution for allegedly misleading investors about the "principal protection" feature of 100% Principal-Protection Notes. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. issued the PPNs Holdings Inc. before it filed for bankruptcy in 2008.

FINRA contends that even as the credit crisis was getting worse, between March and June 2008 UBS advertised and described the notes as investments that were principal-protected while failing to make sure clients knew that they PPNs were unsecured obligations of Lehman and that the principal protection feature was subject to issuer credit risk. UBS also allegedly failed to:

• Properly notify its financial advisers of the impact the widening of credit default swaps was having on Lehman’s financial strength
• Sufficiently analyze how appropriate the Lehman-issued PPNs were for certain clients
• Set up a proper supervisory system for the sale of the Lehman-issued PPNs
• Provide proper training or appropriate written supervisory procedures and policies
• Provide adequate suitability procedures for determining who should invest

FINRA also says that UBS developed and used advertising collateral about the PPNs that misled certain clients, such as the suggestion that a return of principal was certain as long as clients held the product until it matured. FINRA claims that the reason that some UBS financial advisers gave incorrect information to customers was because they themselves didn’t fully understand the product.

FINRA says that because UBS’s suitability procedures were inadequate and certain PPN’s lacked risk profile requirements, the product was sold to investors who were not willing or shouldn’t have been allowed to take on the risks involved. More often than not it was these investors who were likely to depend on the Lehman PPNs’ "100% principal protection" feature that were “risk averse.”

By agreeing to settle, UBS is not denying or admitting to the charges.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Fines UBS Financial Services $2.5 Million; Orders UBS to Pay Restitution of $8.25 Million for Omissions That Effectively Misled Investors in Sales of Lehman-Issued 100% Principal-Protection Notes, FINRA, April 11, 2011

UBS to shell out $10.75M to settle Lehman-related row, Investment News, April 11, 2011

More Blog Posts:
UBS to Pay $2.2M to CNA Financial Head for Lehman Brothers Structured Product Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 4, 2011

UBS Must Pay Couple $530,000 for Lehman Brothers-Backed Structured Notes, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, November 5, 2010

Lehman Brothers’ “Structured Products” Investigated by Stockbroker Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 30, 2008

Continue reading "UBS Financial Services Fined $2.5M and Ordered to Pay $8.25M Over Lehman Brothers-Issued 100% Principal-Protection Notes" »

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority wants the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to reverse the D.C. Superior Court's decision to not dismiss Amerivet Securities Inc.’s lawsuit against the SRO. The broker-dealer wants to inspect FINRA’s records and books.

Amerivet Securities filed its complaint in August 2009 under the Delaware General Corporation Law’s Section 220, which lets a shareholder examine a company’s records and books for “any proper purpose.” The broker-dealer says it needs to inspect FINRA's books and documents in order to expose the corporate wrongdoing related to the SRO's 2008 investment losses and and allegedly inflated executive pay practices.

When our securities fraud attorneys covered this case more than a year ago, we noted that Amerivet had accused FINRA of failing to supervise and regulate a number of its larger member firms, including Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities Inc., Bear Stearns and Co, and Stanford Financial Group. The broker-dealer also claimed that FINRA recklessly pursued high-risk investment strategies that were not appropriate for preserving capital. (Read our previous Stockbroker Fraud Blog post to find out more.) Last month, Judge John Mott ruled in favor of Amerivet and noted that pursuant to Section 220, the broker-dealer had asserted a proper purpose for wanting to make its inspection.

In its motion to dismiss, FINRA argued that it should get complete immunity from legal challenge. Also, FINRA said that because the Amerivet can’t maintain a derivative lawsuit against the SRO, the broker-dealer lacks a proper purpose to inspect the books it wants to see. When the court decided not to dismiss the case, however, it noted that although FINRA is immune from private lawsuits asking for damages related to regulator activity, this complaint isn’t looking for recovery. Rather, it wants to be able to examine FINRA’s records.

Related Web Resources:
Amerivet Wins Round In Amerivet V. FINRA, Daily Markets, March 5, 2011

Delaware General Corporation Law

Brokerage Firm Amerivet Securities Inc. Sues FINRA for Alleged Misconduct, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 26, 2009

Read the 2009 Complaint

A district court has rejected Goldman Sachs & Co.’s (GS ) challenge to a $20.5 million securities fraud award for unsecured creditors of the failed Bayou hedge funds. The unsecured creditors are blaming the investment bank of failing to look at certain red flags and, as a result, facilitating the massive scam. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said it was sustaining the award issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel.

The court said that contrary to Goldman’s argument, the FINRA panel “did not ‘manifestly disregard the law’ when reaching its conclusion. Also, the court noted that the panel had found that Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing unit was not innocent of wrongdoing in that it failed to take part in a “diligent investigation” that could have uncovered the fraud.

The Bayou Hedge Funds group collapsed in 2005. According to regulators, investors lost over $450 million as a result of the false performance data and audit opinions that were issued. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department sued the group’s founders, Daniel Marino and Samuel Israel III over the investors’ financial losses and the firm’s collapse. Both men have pleaded guilty to criminal charges and are behind bars.

The court not only disagreed with the Goldman Sachs clearing unit that the panel was not in manifest disregard of the law, but also, it found that as Goldman’s client agreements with the Bayou funds provided it with “broad discretion” over the use of securities and money in the funds’ accounts, it was not unusual for a “reasonable arbitrator” to find that Goldman’s rights in relation to the accounts provided it with “sufficient dominion and control to create transferee liability.”

Related Web Resources:
Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing L.P. v. Official Unsecured Creditors' Committee of Bayou Group LLC, FINRA Dispute Resolution (PDF)

Court Rebuffs Goldman ChallengeTo $20.5M Bayou Arbitration Award, BNA, December 9, 2010

Goldman Sachs, Stockbroker Fraud Blog

Continue reading "Goldman Sachs & Co. Clearing Unit Must Pay Unsecured Creditors of Bayou Hedge Funds $20.5M FINRA Arbitration Award, Says District Court" »

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that it is fining and censuring Trillium Brokerages LLC and 11 individuals $2.27 million for their involvement in an illegal high frequency trading strategy and supervisory failures. It is the first enforcement action to target this type of improper trading behavior.

FINRA claims that through the traders, Trillium entered a number of layered, non-bona fide market moving orders in more than 46,000 instances to purposely make it appear that there was substantial selling and buying in NASDAQ and NYSE Arca stocks. Because of the high frequency trading, others in the industry submitted orders to execute against those that the Trillium traders had placed. However, after the Trillium traders submitted their orders they would immediately cancel them.

FINRA Market Regulation Executive Vice President Thomas Gira says that Trillium purposely and “improperly baited unsuspecting market participants” into making trades at illegitimate prices and to the advantage of Trillium’s traders. Gira says that FINRA will continue to “aggressively pursue disciplinary action” against those involve in illegal high frequency trading activity that undermines legitimate trades, abusive momentum ignition strategies, and other illegal conduct.

Regarding the FINRA fines, the New York-based broker-dealer has agreed to pay $1 million for using a trading technique involving the placement of a number of nonauthentic orders to make it falsely appear as if there was market activity for specific NASDAQ and NYSE Arca stocks. Trillium also must disgorge $173,000 in illegal profits.

Nine Trillium traders, the brokerage company’s chief compliance officer, and its trading director have agreed to pay a total of $805,500. They have been told to disgorge $292,000. The individuals are temporarily suspended from the securities industry or as principals.

The SEC also is looking into high frequency trading- and “quote stuffing,” which involves the placement and then immediate cancellation of bulk stock orders. The SEC wants to see whether such practices have allowed for improper or fraudulent conduct.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Investigating Whether Broker-Dealers Providing Adequate Risk Controls to High-Frequency Traders, Institutionalinvestorsecuritiesblog.com, September 19, 2010

FINRA Sanctions Trillium Brokerage Services, LLC, Director of Trading, Chief Compliance Officer, and Nine Traders $2.26 Million for Illicit Equities Trading Strategy, FINRA, September 13, 2010

Trillium Fined by Finra for Illegal Trading Strategy, BusinessWeek, September 13, 2010

Continue reading "Illegal High Frequency Trading: Trillium Brokerage Services LLC and 11 individuals agree to settle FINRA Charges for $2.27M" »

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says the SRO is investigating whether broker-dealers failed to put adequate risk-management controls in place for high-frequency traders with access to an exchange or alternative trading system. The probe comes following the flash crash last May that involved the stock markets dropping almost 1,000 points in a matter of minutes before rebounding just as quickly. While lawmakers said that high-frequency trading was to blame, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission disagree.

FINRA says that Chief Executive Officer Richard Ketchum’s concern is whether brokers had full comprehension of how the traders were using algorithms and whether the latter understood the possible consequences during times of serious volatility. Ketchum vowed that if serious cases of brokers failing to “even try to exercise their obligations to run checks on the firms” prior to giving them access are uncovered, then enforcement actions will be taken.

Meantime, the Securities and Exchange Commission is considering a pending rule proposal on unfiltered or naked access arrangements that would allow high-frequency traders to completely bypass risk management controls set up by broker-dealers.

High-Frequency Trading
High-frequency trading depends on computer algorithms (rather than human action) to execute transactions at super fast speed. High-frequency traders are usually institutional investors, such as pension funds or mutual funds. Through broker-dealers, these traders are able to gain direct electronic access to an exchange or ATS. According to recent data, high-frequency trading now makes up over 70% of market volume.

Related Web Resources:
High Frequency Trading and the Roiling Markets, Newsweek, June 1, 2010

High-frequency traders in the cross hairs after stock market's wild day, LA TImes, May 6, 2010

FINRA

Continue reading "FINRA Investigating Whether Broker-Dealers Providing Adequate Risk Controls to High-Frequency Traders " »

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel says that Raymond James and financial advisor Larry Milton must pay Sherese and Rex Glendenning $925,000 over an auction-rate securities dispute. This is the third time this summer that Raymond James Financial Inc. (NYSE: RFJ) subsidiaries have been involved in an ARS dispute that was decided in FINRA arbitration. Since July 1, independent broker-dealer Raymond James Financial Services Inc. and brokerage firm Raymond James & Associates have been ordered to repurchase $3.5 million in ARS from clients.

The Glendennings set up their account with Raymond James in January 2008 before the market meltdown. Milton placed the couple’s $1.4 million in an ARS that contained sewer revenue bonds while failing to tell them about the risk involved.

The couple contends that Milton’s behavior wrongly gave them the impression that their investment was highly liquid and could be easily sold. However, Raymond James turned down their request to buy the ARS back at full value.

According to the Glendennings’ securities fraud attorney, the timing of the purchase was key to winning the award. The securities that they bought came up for auction for the first time thirty five days after they made the purchase. The auction failed and the couple were never able “ to go to auction.”

At the time of the ARS market crash in February 2008, Raymond James Financial clients held $1.9 billion in auction rate debt—now down to $600 million. To date, none of the securities regulators have sued the firm over ARS sales. Other financial firms, including Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. and Charles Schwab & Co. haven’t been as lucky.

Related Web Resources:
Raymond James pays more auction rate claims, Investment News, August 26, 2010

FINRA rules against Raymond James in auction rate securities case, Tampa Bay Business Journal, August 26, 2010

Stockbroker-Fraud Blog

Continue reading "Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute" »