Gary Mitchell Spitz, a broker and a registered principal of an Iowa-based brokerage firm, is suspended from associating with any FINRA member for a year and must pay a $5,000 fine. The SRO says that Spitz did not perform proper due diligence of an entity—a Reg D, Rule 506 private offering of up to $2 million—even though this action is mandated by his firm’s written supervisory procedures.
FINRA’s finding state that because of Spitz’s inadequate review, he did not make sure that the offering memorandum had audited financials of the issuer or make sure that these financials were accessible to non-accredited investors prior to a sale—also, a Regulation D requirement. The SRO says that Spitz let certain registered representatives, who were associated with the firm, to sell the entity’s shares and turn in offering documents that customers had executed directly to that entity. This meant that Spitz did not get copies of the documents or perform a suitable review of the transactions before they were executed. Certain customers even invested in the entity prior to Spitz getting the subscription documents from these representatives.
Spitz also is accused of not acting to make sure that the representatives made reasonable attempts to get information about the financial status, risk tolerance, and investment goals of customers. FINRA says he did not retain and review these representatives’ email correspondence and that they worked for a company that was the entity’s manager. Spitz let these representatives use the company’s email address to dialogue with customers and prospective clients but that the firm’s server did not capture the correspondence.
FINRA also says there weren’t any procedures to make sure that employees that were dually employed sent email correspondence from external email addresses to Spitz for retention and review. This let the representatives make unwarranted, exaggerated, and possibly misleading statements to customers.
Spitz consented to FINRA’s findings without denying or admitting to them.
Failure to Supervise
Brokerage firms need to have written procedures for properly supervising brokers and other employees. When failure to execute these procedures allows for negligence or misconduct, the firm and the supervisor can be subject to liability for broker fraud.
Gary M. Spitz, BrokerCheck
More Blog Posts:
FINRA Enhances Its Arbitrator Vetting Policy, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 26, 2013
Former Broker Claims He is the Reason FINRA’s Regional Director Resigned, While Ex-JP Morgan Broker Files Arbitration Claim Against His Former Employer, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 18, 2013
Citigroup Must Pay $11M Claimant for Royal Bank of Scotland Investment Losses, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 7, 2013