Articles Posted in FINRA Rules

00025601-300x166
FINRA recently released Regulatory Notice 22-23 providing guidance on what firms should consider when constructing succession plans for Financial Advisors (“FAs”) who will no longer service their customers do to expected or unexpected life events.

The Need for a Plan

The Notice begins by listing the various cost/benefits of having or not having a succession plan, which would seem obvious to all.  It takes no great imagination to see the benefits of a sound succession plan in the event of an FA’s sudden death or the consequent difficulties of not having such a plan.  The Notice, however, provides some interesting real-life anecdotes that FINRA Staff have witnessed of the years regarding succession failures and successes.

00025601-300x166
FINRA’s Office of Hearing Officers recently rendered a decision on an issue of first impression in Dep’t of Enforcement v. NYPPEX, LLC, et al., (Disc. Proc. No. 2019064813801).  Enforcement charged FINRA member firm, NYPPEX, LLC, its former CEO, Laurence Allen, and its CCO, Michael Schunk, with numerous violations of FINRA rules. The charges stemmed from Respondents’ conduct in the wake of a temporary restraining order issued by a New York state court against Allen.  Among other things, the order, obtained at the behest of the Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York (“NYAG”), enjoined Allen from engaging in securities fraud and violating New York’s securities laws. Enforcement took the position that the TRO rendered Allen statutorily disqualified from continued association with a FINRA member firm.  Allen could have remained associated with the Firm if it applied for, and received, FINRA’s permission pursuant to FINRA Rule 9520.  Allen’s supervisor, Schunk, however, purportedly let Allen continue as an associated person at NYPPEX for over a year without seeking a waiver from FINRA.

FINRA’s disciplinary proceeding was triggered by the ex parte TRO.  After a two-year investigation, in December 2018, the NYAG commenced an action under Article 23-A of New York’s General Business Law, known as the Martin Act, against Allen and certain others.  The NYAG applied on an ex parte basis for preliminary injunctive relief against Allen, NYPPEX Holdings, and others under Section 354 of New York’s General Business Law.  The NYAG stated that a preliminary injunction was warranted because of the allegations of fraud and fraudulent practices by Allen and his refusal to produce documents or appear for testimony.  In December 2018, the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted the NYAG the relief it sought and issued the TRO without hearing from Allen or NYPPEX.  Allan was served with the Order in January 2019 and Schunk learned about it that month as well.

On December 4, 2019, the NYAG filed a complaint in the New York Supreme Court against NYPPEX, Allen and others (Index No. 452378/2019).  In February 2020, the New York Supreme Court concluded a five-day hearing and issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Allen and NYPPEX from, among other things, violating the Martin Act and from “facilitating, allowing or participating in the purchase, sale or transfer of any limited partnership interest in [the fund].”  At this point in time, NYPPEX filed an MC-400 Application seeking permission for NYPPEX to remain associated with a disqualified person, Allen.  FINRA Enforcement, however, argued that Allen became statutorily disqualified when the TRO was issued in 2018, more than a year before NYPPEX filed the MC-400 Application.

00025601-300x166
On August 23, 2022, FINRA published an AWC reflecting a settlement with ViewTrade Securities, Inc.  The AWC alleges that ViewTrade failed to establish and implement written AML policies and procedures that could reasonably detect and cause the reporting of suspicious transactions in violation of FINRA Rule 3310.  FINRA Rule 3310 requires that each member firm develop and implement a written AML program reasonably designed to achieve and monitor the member’s compliance with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. 5311, et seq.) (BSA).  Rule 3310(a) further requires firms to, “[e]stablish and implement policies and procedures that can be reasonably expected to detect and cause the reporting of transactions required under [the BSA]  . . . . ”  The regulations implementing the BSA, in turn, require every broker-dealer to file a Suspicious Activity Report (“SAR”) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network any time they detect, “any suspicious transactions relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation.”

FINRA’s past guidance on this issue (NTM 02-21 and Regulatory Notice 19-18) advised firms to look for red flags and provided several examples:

  • Customers’ mailing address is associated with multiple other accounts or business that do not appear related,

00025601-300x166
FINRA recently released Regulatory Notice 22-18, reminding firms about their obligation to supervise registered representatives to prevent falsification of digital signatures.  FINRA’s guidance comes on the heels of multiple investigations concerning instances when registered representatives forged or falsified client signatures on account transfer documentation or on disclosure forms, “acknowledging a products alignment with the customer’s investment objective and risk tolerance . . . .”

FINRA’s notice explains the varied methods used to forge or falsify electronic signatures and how firms can thwart such forgeries or detect them after the fact.  Generally, electronic signatures have an audit trail with identifying information such as the recipient’s IP address and e-mail address.  Financial advisors have been admonished for sending documents to their personal e-mail addresses or to an assistant to sign the documents themselves.  Firms also found instances where documents were sent to an IP address that was the same as the registered representative or that was inconsistent with the customer address on file.  Sometimes representatives sent e-mails to the e-mail address associated with an outside business activity.  FINRA’s guidance recommends that firms review correspondence to look for these red flags.

FINRA reports that, in some cases, administrative staff raised issues to management about pressure by representatives to manipulate the digital signature process.  FINRA encourages training for such staff to encourage them to resists such pressure.

00025601-300x166
On July 15, 2022, FINRA filed Regulatory Notice 22-15 and announced the amendment of its Code of Arbitration for Industry Disputes to conform to the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-90, 136 Stat. 26 (2022).  The amendments permit person with claims of sexual assault or sexual harassment to pursue those claims in court irrespective of any agreements otherwise mandating arbitration.

Background

FINRA members historically forced employees to arbitrate claims of sexual harassment or assault by use of agreements containing pre-dispute arbitration clauses.  The pre-dispute arbitration clauses were typically contained within a Form U4, employment agreements or provisions within an employee manual that the employee was bound by.

00025601-300x166
Practitioners are familiar with the fact that a failure to respond to a FINRA Rule 8210 request almost automatically results in an industry bar.  Except when it doesn’t.  The Office of Hearing Officers (the “OHO”) recently published a decision in which it discussed what the Hearing Officer referred to as a “partial but incomplete response” to FINRA’s requests for testimony.

In March, the OHO rendered a decision against Jason DiPaola who was accused by FINRA Enforcement of taking discretion in his mother’s E-trade account without written instructions and without disclosing the account to his employer Chardan Capital Markets, LLC (“Chardan”) in violation of NASD Rule 3050.   Dep’t of Enforcement v. DiPaola, Discip. Proc. No. 2018057274302 (OHO Mar. 25, 2022).  The OHO, however, claimed that the “most serious allegation” was DiPaola’s failure to appear and provide on-the-record (“OTR”) testimony.

DiPaola was not a trader at Chardan and had no retail customers.  DiPaola worked in the firm’s equity capital markets group.  DiPaola was first interviewed by FINRA Staff in January of 2018.  The Staff obtained account statements for DiPaola’s E-trade accounts and his mother’s E-trade account.  FINRA also obtained over a million e-mails from Chardan.

00025601-300x166
On July 7, 2022, FINRA’s Office of Hearing Officers issued its decision in Dep’t of Enforcement v. Burford, Discip. Proc. No. 2019064656601 (OHO July 7, 2022).   Here, the Hearing Panel found that Burford caused no customer harm.  There was no evidence that Burford gained monetarily from his actions.  Burford was “polite, respectful, and cooperative” throughout the investigation and disciplinarily proceeding.  Nonetheless, the Hearing Panel refused to deem these factors “mitigating” and whacked Burford with a 6-month suspension – double the suspension sought by Enforcement – and $10,000 fine.  At its core, this is a case of registered representative alleged to have improperly taken instructions from a deceased customer’s widow.  This case highlights the perils of efforts by a financial adviser to assist an individual when those efforts skirt the policies of a broker-dealer.

Background Facts

Burford was registered with Hilltop Securities Independent Network, Inc.  In November 2019, Hilltop discharged Burford and filed a Form U5 alleging a “failure to follow firm policy regarding the death of a client.”

00025601-300x166
On May 16, 2022, FINRA published an Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (“AWC”) in which FA, Robert Bennett Zamani, accepted a 14-month suspension and a $27,500 fine for violations of FINRA Rule 3270 (Outside Business Activities), Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public), Rule 4511 (Books and Records) and, as always, Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor).  The investigation of Zamani was triggered by a Form U5 filed by his former firm, Morgan Stanley.

The Rule 4511 violation was based on Zamani’s alleged use of business-related text messages that were not retained by Morgan Stanley, effectively causing Morgan Stanley to violate its obligation to maintain such communications under Rule 4511.  This is an easily avoidable rule violation that many FAs fall prey to.

More interesting, however, are Zamani’s alleged violations of 3270 and 2210.  Zamani formed a company in 2015 before becoming associated with Morgan Stanley.  Without ever disclosing the company to Morgan Stanley, between January 2017 and April 2020, Zamani, through this company, offered subscription-based investment content.  On its website, which was established and operated by Zamani, the company touted itself as a subscription-based platform providing investment content for aspiring day traders to “learn from professionally licensed stock traders the skills needed to become a profitable trader.” The company maintained a blog on its website, containing investment-related content, and maintained a publicly-available YouTube channel, with investment-related videos and distributed periodic newsletters to subscribers.   Remarkably, during that 3-year stretch, Zamani earned $360,000 from his subscriber-based investment advice company.

00025601-300x166
Most financial industry professionals are familiar with the prohibition on “selling away,” the somewhat ambiguous term contemplated by FINRA Rule 3280.  FINRA Rule 3280 states that, “[n]o person associated with a member shall participate in any manner in a private securities transaction except in accordance with the requirements of this Rule.”  Among other things, the Rule requires a financial advisor to provide written notice prior to participating in a private securities transaction even when the financial adviser receives no compensation.

While it is generally understood that FAs cannot sell securities to customers that are not offered by their broker-dealer without first receiving permission from the broker-dealer, much of the guidance around this rule focuses on what qualifies as a private securities transaction (a term that is arguably poorly defined in the Rule).  Many financial advisers, however, are unaware of how broadly FINRA interprets what it means to “participate” in a private securities transaction.

FINRA recently made a determination (not yet publicly released) that a registered representative “participated” in a private securities transaction because he; a) set up a zoom conference call between the outside fund manager and the investor, b) forwarded the original offering materials to the investor, and c) forwarded amended offering materials approximately a year after the original investment.

00025601-300x166
When settling a FINRA investigation, the Staff drafts a letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) setting forth the terms of the settlement.  In the AWC, FINRA routinely demands the settling party consent to the following restraint on speech:

“Respondent may not take any action or permit to be made any public statement, including in regulatory filings or otherwise, denying directly or indirectly, any finding in this AWC or create the impression that the AWC is without factual basis.”

A matter before the U.S. Supreme Court may upend FINRA’s use of a gag order.

Contact Information