On June 1, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Investment Management issued a No-Action Letter to the Investment Company Institute. The ICI asked the Division to assure that it would not recommend enforcement against a mutual fund or its transfer agent if the transfer agent temporarily withheld a disbursement from a “Specified Adult’s” mutual fund account based on a reasonable suspicion that the Specified Adult is being or is about to be financially exploited. According to FINRA Rule 2165, which is cited in the No-Action Letter, a “Specified Adult” is “a natural person age 65 and older; or … a natural person age 18 and older and who the transfer agent reasonably believes has a mental or physical impairment that renders the individual unable to protect his or her own interests.” Continue reading
In response to FINRA’s Regulatory Notice 17-42, the Securities and Exchange Commission published a letter detailing its thoughts regarding some rule amendments FINRA proposed relating to its expungement procedures. According to FINRA, “expungement of customer dispute information is an extraordinary measure, but it may be appropriate in certain circumstances.” Nevertheless, critics of expungement have voiced their concern that FINRA’s current procedures for expungement may not be adequate. In response, FINRA proposed the amendments to improve procedures involving expungement requests.
The proposed amendments include changes to FINRA Rule 12805, which outlines the conditions that arbitrators must satisfy prior to granting an expungement request. Rule 12805 does not currently elaborate on how or when expungement relief may be requested during an underlying dispute with a customer. The amendments would require a FINRA associated person who is named as a party in the underlying customer case to seek expungement while the customer case is ongoing. If the associated person files an expungement request, he or she would be obligated to file either a $1,425 filing fee or the applicable filing fee provided in FINRA Rule 12900(a)(1), whichever is greater. Continue reading
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority recently published a Regulatory Notice requesting comment regarding a proposed new rule pertaining to registered persons’ outside business activities. Among other things, the proposed rule would significantly alter a broker-dealer’s obligations with respect to a registered representative’s conduct of investment advisory business through an unaffiliated registered investment adviser.
FINRA decided to propose this new rule after a “retrospective review of FINRA’s rules governing outside business activities and private securities transactions, FINRA Rule 3270 (Outside Business Activities of Registered Persons) and FINRA Rule 3280 (Private Securities Transactions of an Associated Person).” FINRA determined that the rules “could benefit from changes to better align the investor protection goals with the current regulatory landscape and business practices.” As a result, FINRA proposed a new single rule that it claims will make registered persons’ duties in regards to outside business activities clearer and decrease nonessential obligations while enhancing investor protection.
If the proposed rule is adopted, it will replace Rules 3270 and 3280. The comment period ends on April 27, 2018. Continue reading
On February 7, 2018, the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) published its Examination Priorities for 2018. The Examination Priorities cover “certain practices, products, and services that OCIE believes may present potentially heightened risk to investors and/or the integrity of the U.S. capital markets.” The five priorities that OCIE specifically listed are (1) issues crucial to retail investors, such as seniors and those saving for retirement, (2) compliance and risks in critical market infrastructure, (3) FINRA and MSRB, (4) cybersecurity, and (5) anti-money laundering programs. This is not an exclusive list, and OCIE invited comments concerning how it can adequately promote compliance.
OCIE intends to continue to make shielding retail investors from fraud a priority. OCIE plans to focus especially on senior investors and those saving for retirement. For example, examiners will pay particular attention to firms’ internal controls that are intended to monitor their representatives, especially in relation to products targeted at senior investors. OCIE will also focus on disclosure of the costs of investing, examination of investment advisers and broker-dealers who primarily offer advice through digital platforms, wrap fee programs, mutual funds and exchange traded funds, municipal advisors and underwriters, and the growth of the cryptocurrency and initial coin offering markets. Continue reading
On January 8, 2018, FINRA published its 2018 Annual Regulatory and Examination Priorities Letter. As we noted in our last blog post, FINRA announced in December 2017 that it would continue to make enforcement a priority in the coming year. This Letter can be useful in helping firms ensure compliance since it outlines regulatory issues that FINRA plans to prioritize in the coming year.
According to the Letter, fraud is perpetually a significant issue for FINRA. This past year, FINRA made numerous referrals to the Securities and Exchange Commission “for potential insider trading and other fraudulent activities involving individuals outside FINRA’s jurisdiction.” One area of fraud that FINRA intends to place particular focus on is microcap fraud schemes, especially schemes targeting senior investors. FINRA advises member firms that they should pay attention to their brokers’ activities involving microcap stocks, especially when the brokers show a newfound interest in purchasing microcap stocks for their accounts or for customers’ accounts. Continue reading
Susan A. Schroeder, the Executive Vice President and Head of Enforcement at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, recently discussed FINRA’s Enforcement Department’s day-to-day activities and goals at an event sponsored by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”). Schroeder discussed FINRA’s efforts to combine two enforcement groups into one unit, as well as FINRA’s intention to continue to devote its time to “vigorous enforcement” despite calls for less regulation in Washington.
In early 2017, FINRA began what Schroeder described as “a comprehensive self-evaluation and organizational improvement initiative called FINRA360.” Before FINRA360, FINRA employed two separate enforcement teams. One was tasked with administering disciplinary events pertaining to trading-based matters discovered by FINRA’s Market Regulation oversight division. The other was tasked with administering disciplinary events brought forward by FINRA’s other regulatory oversight divisions, such as Member Regulation and Corporate Financing. FINRA concluded through FINRA360 that combining these two enforcement groups into one unit could bring about “more efficiency and greater effectiveness through better communication.” Continue reading
Earlier this year, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed a district court decision holding that Mark R. Schneider (“Schneider”), an investment adviser representative and broker-dealer, violated the Kansas Uniform Securities Act by recommending nontraditional exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) to a client whose investment objective was to produce income. Schneider was ordered to pay $94,720.60 in restitution and a $25,000 civil penalty.
For over 20 years, Schneider acted as investment adviser to Mary Lou and Jeffrey Silverman. Schneider oversaw the Silvermans’ assets, tax returns, and life insurance, and he had discretionary authority over their investments. In 2010, Mr. Silverman died, and Mrs. Silverman obtained $1,150,000 from Mr. Silverman’s life insurance policy. In May 2010, Schneider formulated a financial plan to help Mrs. Silverman garner income from investments she would make using the money from the life insurance policy. Continue reading
In September 2017, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority updated a previously published Notice related to FINRA Rules 12805 and 13805, which “establish procedures that arbitrators must follow before recommending expungement of customer dispute information related to arbitration cases from a broker’s Central Registration Depository (CRD®) record.” When details are expunged from the CRD system, those details are permanently deleted and cannot be accessed by members of the general public, regulators, or potential broker-dealer employers. As a result, FINRA regards expungement as an extreme remedy that should only be exercised in circumstances in which one of the three “narrow grounds specified in Rule 2080” are met. These three grounds are a finding that the claim, allegation or information is factually unfeasible or obviously erroneous, a finding that a registered person did not participate in the alleged investment-related misconduct, or a finding that the claim, allegation, or information is untrue.
The updates to the Notice added instructions regarding expungement requests before an underlying arbitration case has concluded. According to FINRA, a broker is not permitted to file an expungement request pertaining to customer dispute information until after the underlying customer arbitration involving the information has concluded. Likewise, a broker is forbidden from filing an expungement request in a distinct, expungement-only case before an underlying customer arbitration ends. The updates to the Notice also provide that FINRA allows the Director of the Office of Dispute Resolutions to deny use of the FINRA arbitration forum if the Director concludes that the subject matter of the dispute is unsuitable, or that consenting to hear the matter would create a risk to the health and safety of the parties and arbitrators. The updates conclude by saying that the Director has decided to not allow requests for expungement to be heard before the underlying customer arbitrations conclude in order to keep results consistent and to ensure efficiency. Continue reading
On June 5, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Alpine Securities Corporation (“Alpine”), a Salt Lake City-based broker-dealer. The complaint alleges that Alpine failed to file Suspicious Activity Reports (“SARs”) in the manner prescribed by the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”). According to the SEC’s complaint, Alpine’s alleged misconduct “facilitated illicit actors’ evasion of scrutiny by U.S. regulators and law enforcement, and provided them with access to the markets they might otherwise have been denied.”
The BSA obligates a broker-dealer to file SARs with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) to report transactions that the broker-dealer knows or suspects involve funds obtained from illegal activities or that were used to conceal such activities. Broker-dealers are also obligated, under the “SAR Rule” (31 C.F.R. § 1023.320), to file SARs if they know or suspect that a transaction’s purpose was to evade BSA obligations or that the transaction did not have an obvious business or lawful purpose. Broker-dealers are also required to file SARs if they know or suspect that a transactions’ purpose is to instigate criminal activity. In addition, both FinCEN, under the SAR Rule, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), under FINRA Rule 3310, require that broker-dealers establish and enforce anti-money laundering programs that are tailored to guarantee compliance with the BSA and its regulations. Since Alpine was a FINRA-member firm, it was obligated to comply with FINRA’s rule regarding the adoption and enforcement of an anti-money laundering program.
The SEC alleged that while Alpine had adopted an anti-money laundering compliance program, it did not adequately put this compliance program into practice. For example, evidence showed that Alpine’s records included information revealing incidents of “money laundering, securities fraud, or other illicit financial activities relating to [Alpine’s] customers and their transactions.” These constituted so-called “material red flags” and were required to be reported in Alpine’s SARs. However, the SEC alleged that at least 1,950 of Alpine’s SARs did not report these material red flags. Evidence also showed that Alpine filed SARs on about 1,900 deposits of a security, but did not file SARs upon the subsequent liquidation of deposits.
On April 10, 2017, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (“FINRA”) National Adjudicatory Council (“NAC”) updated FINRA’s Sanction Guidelines. The purpose of these updates is to “ensure that the guidelines reflect recent developments in the disciplinary process, comport with changes in FINRA’s rules, and accurately reflect the levels of sanctions imposed in FINRA disciplinary proceedings.”
FINRA’s Sanction Guidelines are designed to acquaint FINRA-member firms with common securities-industry rule violations that take place and the variety of disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed because of those rule violations. The Sanction Guidelines also serve as a tool to help FINRA’s adjudicators find suitable sanctions in disciplinary proceedings. From time to time, FINRA conducts reviews of the Sanction Guidelines to account for “changes in FINRA’s rules” and to reflect accurately “the levels of sanctions imposed in FINRA disciplinary proceedings.” Continue reading