Broker Misconduct

FINRA News: Regulator Seeks to Restrict Brokers’ Political Contributions, Sends SEC Proposal Regarding Broker-Compensation, and Fines Firm $2.95M Over Inaccurate Blue Sheet Data

Published on: December 26, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is proposing rules that would limit how much in political contributions brokers would be allowed to make to avoid conflicts of interest. FINRA is now calling for feedback during the comment period regarding the proposed rule, which runs for 21 days after notice is published in the Federal Register.

Under the proposed rule, brokers would have a contribution cap of $350 during an election year and $150 during any other year. Should a broker contribute beyond these caps, there would not be a penalty as long as a refund is issued within four months of the donation’s receipt. A failure to satisfy exemptions will lead to a bar for the broker from being allowed to solicit a government entity or official for business purposes for two years after the donation was made.

It was in 2010 that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted “pay-to-play” rules that placed investment advisers under the same limits.

FINRA Probes Broker Pay for Conflicts of Interest

Published on: August 20, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has sent a targeted exam letter seeking to examine possible conflicts of interest in the way firms pay brokers. About a dozen brokerage firms received the letter, which the regulator said is aimed at gathering information as opposed to seeking out violations.

In its letter, the self-regulatory organization inquires about each firm’s different compensation practices, including common payout grids, mutual fund fees, and recruiting incentives. FINRA also wants to know about any compensation that firms may receive from product sponsors and how certain products are promoted. It also wants to learn about production thresholds that allow certain brokers to get bonuses and more compensation for additional revenue earned, improved compensation tied to revenue from certain product types, and policies for monitoring conflicts of interest as they relate to compensation.

FINRA Executive Vice President of Regulatory Operations/Shared Services Dan Sibears said that the SRO is conducting the sweeps to see if firms are properly managing conflicts of interest or if additional guidance needs to be issued. Enforcement actions typically do not result from this type of sweep unless egregious violations are discovered.

FINRA Orders Morgan Stanley to Pay $2.4M Over Ex-Broker’s Trades, Bars Former Merrill Lynch Trader from the Industry

Published on: July 28, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel arbitration panel says that Morgan Stanley (MS) must pay at least $2.4M to settle the latest client claims accusing its former broker, Steven Mark Wyatt, of mishandling their investments. The brokerage firm fired Wyatt in 2012.

According to a group of doctors and their loved ones, Wyatt, who was their broker, made unauthorized and excessive trades in the stock market that cost them during and after the 2008 financial crisis. Wyatt bought thinly-traded stocks for the investors and placed speculative bets on exchange-traded funds and other securities in their portfolios.

This is the latest batch of claims against Wyatt, Morgan Stanley, and managers at the Mississippi branch where he worked. The claimants believe that Morgan Stanley failed to detect warning signs of Wyatt’s purported wrongdoing. Other employees named in this securities case are adviser Hilary Zimmerman, currently a Morgan Stanley senior vice president, and branch manager Fred Eugene Brister III. The claimants contend that Brister failed to properly supervise Zimmerman and Wyatt. They say that their accounts were mismanaged and suspect trading occurred.

Broker and Adviser News: Morgan Stanley Sues Ameriprise Broker, Former UBS Broker Alleges Investor Risk Levels Were Mischaracterized, and Ex-Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trainees Seek Overtime

Published on: March 5, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Morgan Stanley Accuses Ex-Broker, Now With Ameriprise, of Trying to Take Clients

Morgan Stanley Wealth Management is suing one of its ex-brokers, John McCallion, who is now with Ameriprise Financial Services (AMP). The wirehouse claims that McCallion went into Morgan Stanley’s (MS) computer system before leaving the firm and changed his clients’ phone numbers so he could take their business with him.

The firm contends that while McCallion gave it a list of his clients’ information, he put the data on a USB drive that could not be opened on Morgan Stanley’s computers because of security issues. The Ameriprise broker has consented to a temporary restraining order that blocks him from pursuing the firm’s clients. He also is facing a FINRA arbitration claim over the matter. McCallion had at first tired to argue against the temporary order and he denied taking the confidential list or trade secrets.

FINRA Considers System That Would ‘Red Flag’ Customer Accounts at Brokerage Firms

Published on: December 27, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is looking at a system that would let the SRO run analytics on the customers accounts at brokerage firms that would allow it to identify “red flags” involving business and sales misconduct involving branches, firms, and registered representatives. The agency is now seeking comments for its proposal for the Comprehensive Automatic Risk Data System (CARDS).

Upon implementation of CARDS, clearing firms and self-clearing firms would regularly turn in, in standardized, automated format, specific data about customer accounts and the customers accounts of each member account that they clear for. This would allow FINRA to conduct analytics so it can identify excessive commissions, churning, markups, pump and dump scamps, and mutual fund switches. The information would also be used to examine broker-dealers.

FINRA says it wants to be able to find the risks and red flags earlier. According to a notice from the SRO, the agency says that this type of automated reporting would get rid of some of the one-off reporting that brokerage firms now have to engage in. This would also let FINRA compare broker-dealers and identify trends and patterns in the industry.

Lawmakers & Industry Folk Address the DOL Amending the Definition of Fiduciary, Reg A Plus Offerings, Oversight, Rogue Brokers, and Expungement Rules

Published on: November 7, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

US House Passes A Bill Prohibiting the US Labor Department DOL From Amending Its Definition of “Fiduciary” Until SEC’s Uniform Conduct Standard is Established

A bill that would not allow the Department of Labor to amend its rules regarding the definition of the term “fiduciary” until after Securities and Exchange Commission adopts its own rule that places broker-dealers and investment advisers under a uniform standard of conduct has passed in the US House of Representatives. The DOL has been trying to revise its definition of “fiduciary” in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Those who voted to prohibit revising the definition have been worried about possibly ending up with two rulemakings that were inconsistent with one another.

Reg A Plus Offerings and Their Oversight Get Capitol Hill Debate

SEC Wants Comments About FINRA’s Proposed Rules About Broker-Dealer Supervision

Published on: October 24, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission wants comments on a proposed amendment to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s broker-deal supervision rules. The latter wants to change the rules by consolidating some of them, including NASD Rule 3010 and NASD Rule 3012 into its proposed Rules 3110 and 3120 that have to do with supervisory controls and the supervision of supervisory jurisdictions’ office and branch offices. The proposed rule change would eliminate NYSE Rule 342, which is related to supervision, approval, and controls, Rule 401 about business conduct, and Rule 354 regarding control persons, Rule 351e about reporting requirements. The consolidation is taking place because the SEC says some of the rules are duplicative.

FINRA also wants to eliminate proposed Rule 3110.03, which is a provision about the supervision and control of registered principals at one-person OSJs by a designated senior principal on the site. The SRO also is proposing to amend rule 3110.05 so that an Investment Banking and Securities Business member doesn’t have to perform detailed reviews of transaction if the member is using risk-based review system that is designed in a way so it can focus on areas that have the greatest risks of violation.

Meantime, proposed Rule 3110(b)(6)(D) will be changed so that it is clear that the rule doesn’t establish a strict liability to identify and get rid of all conflicts as they relate to an associated person that is supervised by supervisory personnel. There will have to be procedures to make sure that conflicts of interest don’t compromise the supervisory system.

SEC Officers Guidance on Liability and Compliance for Brokerage Firms

Published on: October 11, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has published answers to frequently asked questions as guidance about liability that may come out of the Exchange Act related to the responsibilities of chief compliance officers and other legal and compliance staff at broker-dealers. The advisory was issued so firms could consider which circumstances and facts may result in grounds for supervisory liability.

In the FAQ, the SEC notes that for purposes of the Exchange Act Sections 15(b)(4) and (6), a person is a supervisor depending on the specifics of a case and whether he/she had the required ability, responsibility, or authority to impact the behavior of the employee(s) whose conduct is in question. There are, however, legal personnel and compliance staff who can assume a key role without assuming such supervision.

The Commission said that brokerage firms are responsible for establishing compliance programs that make sure compliance with regulations and laws occurs. Firms may want to include processes to identify incidents of noncompliance, a robust monitoring system, and procedures delineating who is tasked with what responsibility and/or supervisory role. The regulator says that compliance and legal staff do play a key part in broker-dealers efforts to create and put into effect a compliance system that works.

FINRA Broker Bonus Plan Would Require Brokers to Disclose Their Recruitment Compensation

Published on: September 22, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s Board of Governors has approved a proposal mandating that brokerage firms disclose how much recruitment compensation they were paid to move to another firm. The rule applies to up-front and back-end bonuses, signing bonuses, accelerated payouts, loans, and transition assistance of $100,000 or greater, as well as future payments upon performance criteria.

While the $100,000 threshold is not going to be relevant for many independent representatives, since the majority of their packages don’t reach this benchmark, this could impact independent brokerage firms with higher forgivable notes of up to 40% and may hurt their recruitment.

Now, it is up to the Securities and Exchange Commission to look at the plan and either give its approval or present the proposal to the public for comment.

Broker Gets 1-Year Suspension From FINRA Over Inadequate Due Diligence and Supervision

Published on: September 14, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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.