FINRA

SEC Needs to Keep a Closer Eye on FINRA, Says Report

Published on: March 15, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the Boston Consulting Group, the US Securities and Exchange Commission should step up its oversight efforts over the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The BCG released its findings following a six-month review of the SEC’s internal operations, an examination that was ordered under the new Dodd-Frank law. The consulting group’s job was to examine the SEC’s structure, internal operations, personnel, resources, relationships with self-regulatory organizations, and technology.

BCG notes that with FINRA now providing the majority of market surveillance for most US equity trading, the SEC’s scrutiny of the SRO is now more important than ever. BCG also believes that the SEC should keep a closer watch on FINRA’s member regulation and enforcement units.

Currently, the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations employs about 50 people tasked with inspecting 12 SROs. Still, BCG says that these SROs are under no obligation to regularly disclose information about their regulatory operations to the SEC. BCG believes that this disclosure of data should become a formal requirement. Also, even though there are over 100 staff attorneys at the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets looking at SRO filings, the consulting group believes these employees could stand to deepen their understanding of the markets.

FINRA Orders Charles Schwab to Pay $18M to Fair Fund for YieldPlus Investors

Published on: March 12, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulation Authority wants Charles Schwab & Company, Inc. to pay $18 million to a Fair Fund set up by the SEC to payback investors of the Schwab YieldPlus Funds. FINRA found that even after changes to the fund’s portfolio resulted in it being affected by the mortgage-backed securities market crisis, Schwab did not change its marketing of the fund and instead provided inaccurate material.

The FINRA order was announced just as the Securities and Exchange Commission revealed that $119 million settlement was reached with Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and Charles Schwab Investment Management for their alleged misleading of Schwab YieldPlus Fund investors and failure prevent nonpublic information from being misused. According to the SEC, investors were not adequately told about the risks associated with the Schwab fund. Instead, they were provide with allegedly misleading statements, such as those claiming that investing in the ultra-short bond funds was only slightly riskier than investing in a money market fund. Read our earlier stockbroker fraud blog post for more information.

Schwab has said that it is still facing about 20 individual securities arbitration claims asking for $3 million in damages related to the YieldPlus Fund. Last year, it resolved federal and California state law claims-for $200 million and $35 million, respectively, over the fund.

In other recent Charles Schwab Corp. news, FINRA has announced that it isn’t going to recommend disciplinary action over the firm’s auction-rate securities sales to clients. Charles Schwab had received two Wells notices in 2009 indicating that regulators were recommending enforcement actions.

Related Web Resources:
UPDATE: Finra Won’t Discipline Schwab For Auction-Rate Securities-Filing, The Wall Street Journal, February 25, 2011
SEC Reaches $119 Million Settlement with Charles Schwab, The Blog of Legal Times, January 11, 2011
FINRA Orders Schwab to Pay $18 Million to Investors for Improper Marketing of YieldPlus Bond Fund, FINRA, January 11, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Schwab Settles for $119M SEC Charges It Allegedly Misled YieldPlus Fund Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 17, 2011
Class Members of Charles Schwab Corporation Securities Litigation Can Still Opt Out to File Individual Securities Claim, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 6, 2010
Charles Schwab & Co. Defendant in Class-Action Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Schwab Total Bond Market Fund Investors Over CMOs and Mortgage-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 7, 2010 Continue Reading ›

SROs Immune from Broker-Dealer’s Lawsuit Over Bylaw Changes Related to Creation of FINRA, Says Appeals Court

Published on: March 7, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed Standard Investment Chartered Inc.’s lawsuit against the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, New York Stock Exchange Group Inc., and NASD over alleged misstatements in a proxy to obtain member approval for bylaw changes that ultimately resulted in the creation of FINRA. In a per curiam decision, the court held that self-regulatory organizations and their officers are immune from lawsuits over bylaw amendments because these are “inextricable” from the SRO’s regulatory roles.

The plaintiff, broker-dealer and former NASD member Standard Investment Chartered Inc., claims that NASD and certain officials issued material misrepresentations in the proxy statement that solicited approval of bylaw amendments so that the merger between NASD and parts of NYSE Regulation Inc. that became FINRA would take place. The broker-dealer contends that the proxy statement misrepresented that $35,000 was the most that the Internal Revenue Service had authorized NASD to pay members over the union.

Last March, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Standard Investment Chartered Inc.’s lawsuit, as well as a similar claim submitted by NASD member Benchmark Financial Services Inc. The court said that the union between the SROs was “entitled to absolute immunity” because it was part of their delegated regulatory functions. Standard Investment Chartered appealed the ruling.

Now, the Second Circuit has affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court also noted that NASD can’t change its bylaws without Securities and Exchange Commission approval.

Other defendants in the lawsuit include Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Mary Schapiro, who was NASD’s CEO when the regulatory body merged with NYSE, Pershing LLC Chairman Richard Brueckner, and FINRA senior vice president Howard Schloss.

Related Web Resources:
Appeals Court Upholds Lower Court Ruling on Finra Damage Suits, Bloomberg, February 23, 2011
Court Finds SROs Immune From Lawsuit Over Bylaw Changes to Effect FINRA Creation, BNA – Securities Law Daily, February 23, 2011
Continue Reading ›

SEC Approves FINRA’s Proposal to Give Investors an All-Public Arbitration Panel Option

Published on: February 12, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has approved the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s proposal to give investors the choice of having their securities claims against broker-dealers heard by an arbitration panel that doesn’t include any industry members. FINRA says that its Rule 12403, which lets investors choose between a majority-public panel and all-public panel, will go into effect right away. Arbitration cases that began prior to the SEC’s decision to approve the proposal will be notified of this new rule.

Prior to submitting its proposal to the SEC, FINRA tested the idea as a pilot program for more than two years. FINRA says that while investors regularly chose to have nonpublic arbitrators hear their securities case, it became clear that giving them other options improved their perception that the arbitration process was a fair one.

State securities regulators are praising the SEC’s decision. However, they are calling for even more reform.

Optional All Public Panel Rule 12403(d):
FINRA will send the parties three lists. One list will contain the name of 10 non-public arbitrators. The other list will name 10 chair-qualified public arbitrators. The other list will name 10 public arbitrators. Each party will be able to strike up to four arbitrators from the public and chair-qualified lists. Parties can strike the names of all 10 arbitrators from the non-public arbitrator list.

Majority Public Panel Rule 12403(c):
This panel will include one non-public arbitrator, one public arbitrator, and one chair-qualified public arbitrator. The same three lists as the ones mentioned for the All Public Panel will be sent to the parties. Up to four arbitrators from each list can be struck.

Related Web Resources:
Notice to Parties – New Optional All Public Panel Rules, FINRA

SEC Approves FINRA Proposal to Give Investors Permanent Option of All Public Arbitration Panels, FINRA, February 1, 2011

Related Blog Posts:
FINRA Wants to Make All-Public Arbitration Panel for Investors Permanent, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 7, 2010
Number of FINRA Arbitration Claims Rose in 2009 Following Market Crisis, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 13, 2010
FINRA Says Number of Stockbroker Fraud Arbitration Claims by Plaintiffs is Rising, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 14, 2009 Continue Reading ›

Morgan Stanley Failed to Disclose Financial Adviser’s Felony Charge to FINRA, Claims Car Accident Victim’s Attorney

Published on: January 10, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Harold Haddon, the civil attorney for car accident victim Dr. Steven Milo, Morgan Stanley (MS) failed to disclose to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority that financial adviser Martin Erzinger had been charged with a felony. Securities firms have 30 days from the time anyone working for them is charged with a felony to file a “Form U4” notifying FINRA.

Erzinger, who works with approximately $1 billion in accounts, was charged with a felony after he struck bicyclist Steven Milo in a car crash last July and then fled the collision site. Milo sustained serious injuries in the traffic crash. In December, the Morgan Stanley Smith Barney financial adviser struck a plea agreement. The felony charge against him was dropped and he pleaded guilty to misdemeanors. Erzinger claimed that at the time of the auto accident, he was suffering from undiagnosed sleep apnea, fell asleep at the steering wheel, and did not realize that he had hit anyone with his vehicle.

Erzinger was sentenced to community service and probation. Judge Fred Gannett also ordered him to tell FINRA about the felony charge. Attorney Haddon, however, says the court-ordered disclosure, which was submitted on December 22, doesn’t meet requirements because it only reveals that Erzinger was charged with a felony crime that was later dropped but does not mention the financial adviser’s misdemeanor guilty pleas or the sentence he must now serve.

Milo had opposed the plea agreement. Dow Jones Newswires reports that in court, Milo’s father-in-law Tom Marisco, who founded Marisco Funds and used to manage Janus mutual funds, blamed Morgan Stanley for not making the disclosures, which are mandatory. Morgan Stanley, however, says it contacted FINRA about the issue last July and believes that it satisfied all reporting requirements.

FINRA spokesperson Nancy Condon says the only way to notify FINRA about a reporting requirement is to electronically submit a Form U4.

Related Web Resources:
Lewis: Simple question tough for Morgan Stanley to answer, Denver Post/Dow Jones, January 8, 2010
Financial manager Martin Erzinger to accept plea bargain in Vail hit-and-run, 9News, November 2010
Form U4 Checklist, FINRA
Institutional Investors Securities Blog
Continue Reading ›

Securities America Inc. to Pay $1.2M in Compensatory and Punitive Damages Over Allegedly Fraudulent Medical Capital Notes

Published on: January 6, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel has ordered Securities America Inc. and broker Randall Ray Talbott to pay an investor nearly $1.2 million in damages over the sale of allegedly fraudulent Medical Capital notes. Claimant Josephine Wayman had charged the respondents with a number of actions, including securities fraud, deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, industry rules violation, financial elder abuse, and negligence. Ameriprise Financial Inc. owns Securities America.

The award includes $734,000 in compensatory damages, $250,000 in punitive damages, and $171,000 in expert witness and legal fees. Punitive damages are not common in FINRA arbitration awards.

Dozens of other claimants are pursuing securities claims against Securities America over the sale of private placements prior to the financial collapse in 2008. The securities divisions of Montana and Massachusetts are among those suing the broker-dealer. Meantime, Securities America has said that Medical Capital Holdings Inc., which issued the private placements, is the one that should be held liable for investors’ financial losses.

From 2003 to 2008, dozens of independent broker-dealers sold private Medical Capital notes, with Securities America considered the biggest seller at nearly $700 million. The private placements raised $2.2 billion. Unfortunately, many of the medical receivables that were supposed to be underlying the notes were in fact non-existent. Medical Capital has been accused of running a Ponzi-like scam and using newer investors’ funds to pay promised returns to older investors. Securities America has said that it did not act inappropriately when selling the MedCap notes.

Medical Capital is bankrupt and $1.1 billion of investors’ funds are gone. In 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Medical Capital with securities fraud.

Related Web Resources:

Securities America and Rep to Pay Over $1 Million in FINRA Fraud Case, AdvisorOne, January 5, 2011
Arbitrators hit Securities America, rep with $1.2 million in damages, legal fees over MedCap, Investment News, January 3, 2011
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Continue Reading ›

Financial Services Institute Wants FINRA to Serve as SRO for RIAs

Published on: January 3, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Services Institute wants the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority to be the main watchdog over registered investment advisers. FSI, which represents 126 broker-dealers’ interests, endorsed FINRA in a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Many of the broker-dealers that FSI represents are also RIAs.

FSI believes that not only has FINRA shown the ability to “equitably” distribute enforcement, examination, technology, and surveillance resources, but also, that the latter is knowledgeable about “the overlapping nature” of the services and financial products that both investment advisers and broker-dealers may offer. Coordinated Capital Securities, Inc. and 2010 FSI chair and president Mari Buechner believes that having a regulatory structure that puts the same emphasis on examining broker-dealers, investment advisers, and their affiliated financial advisers will improve investor protection.

Currently, pursuant to Section 914 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the SEC is analyzing the need for improved oversight of investment advisers. Already, FINRA closely scrutinizes broker-dealers, while the SEC has acknowledged that insufficient resources prevents it from regularly inspecting over 11,000 registered advisers.

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

Published on: December 14, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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:

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

Goldman Sachs, Stockbroker Fraud Blog

Citigroup Seeking to Dismiss $11.6 Million Securities Arbitration Award to “Dallas” TV Star Larry Hagman

Published on: November 30, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

TV star Larry Hagman, best known for playing the roles of Texas oil tycoon JR Ewing on “Dallas” and Major Anthony Nelson on “I Dream of Jeannie,” recently won an $11.6 million securities fraud arbitration award against Citigroup. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that the award is the largest that has been issued to an individual investor for 2010 and the ninth largest ever. Citi Global Markets is now seeking to dismiss the award.

The investment firm contends that the arbitration panel’s chairman did not disclose a possible conflict of interest. In its petition, Citi cites a FINRA rule obligating arbitrators to reveal such conflicts that could prevent them from issuing an impartial ruling. The financial firm claiming that because the arbitration panel head was once a plaintiff in a lawsuit that dealt with the same type of claims and subject matter, he had an undisclosed potential conflict. Hagman’s legal team have since responded with a memo arguing that the arbitrator’s lawsuit was not related to this complaint and did not involve a securities investment, the same parties, or the same facts.

Hagman and his wife Maj had accused Citigroup of securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and other allegations. They claimed financial losses on bonds and stocks and a life insurance policy. In addition to the arbitration award, which consists of $1.1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages that will go to a charity of Hagman’s choice, Citigroup must also pay a 10% interest on the award.

Related Web Resources:
Messing With J.R., Take Four, NY Times, November 23, 2010
Actor Larry Hagman Wins $12 Million in Finra Case With Citigroup, Bloomberg, October 7, 2010

Citigroup’s petition to dismiss award to Larry Hagman

Citigroup, Stockbroker Fraud Blog Continue Reading ›

Fiduciary Standard in Securities Industry Doesn’t Need New Definition

Published on: November 26, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Richard Ketchum says that there should be just one flexible, fiduciary standard for investment advisers and broker-dealers who offer personalized investment advice. Ketchum spoke at a conference earlier this month.

Ketchum noted that seeing as investment advisers and broker-dealers essentially work in the same business, it “doesn’t make sense” to act as if they work in different ones. He supports a flexible fiduciary standard that comes with a “few basic, simple rules.”

As to whether FINRA could play a part in supervising the imposition of a future fiduciary standard on broker-dealers, Ketchum said that if FINRA were to play this role it would do so with a discreet board that would include a minority of investment adviser professionals, as well as members of the public. While investment advisers currently have to comply with a fiduciary standard and are regulated under the 1940 Investment Advisers Act, broker-dealers must be in compliance with other standards, including an obligation to make sure that their recommendations to clients are “suitable” ones.

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary L. Schapiro has also shown a preference for a uniform fiduciary standard between the two groups. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the SEC has until January 21, 2011 to turn in a report to the House Financial Services Committee about this matter. After completing its study, the SEC can write rules to establish a uniform standard of conduct for professionals who give retail clients personalized investment advice. However, the rule cannot be “less stringent” than current investment adviser standards.

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Attorney William Shepherd had this to say about a fiduciary duty: “There is no need for disagreement over what kind of language should be use to define fiduciary duty in the securities industry. The term ‘fiduciary’ comes from the Latin word fides, which means faith, and fiducia, which means trust. English Common law, upon which our legal system was founded, long ago defined a fiduciary duty as a duty of loyalty and care, in which the fiduciary must put the interest of his client before that of himself. Courts all across our nation today recognize this same duty in a variety of relationships. The meaning of ‘fiduciary duty’ has been established for hundreds of years, so why would Wall Street need to have its own special definition? If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”

Related Web Resources:
Fiduciary Standard, More Adviser Oversight Likely -Finra Chief, The Wall Street Journal, November 16, 2010
Investment Advisers Act of 1940
Continue Reading ›