Justia Badge
Super Lawyers badge
Avvo Rating badge
AV Preeminent badge

47-stock-market-pricing-300x200
What is a securities dealer?  The answer is more complicated than people might think.  On August 2, 2022, the SEC announced that it had reached a settlement with a Long Island firm, Crown Bridge Partners, LLC (“Crown Bridge”) and the two brothers who owned the firm Soheil and Sepas Ahdoot, for failing to register as a dealer.  As part of the settlement, the Defendants agree to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $8,390,601.27 and a civil penalty of $810,307, and to a five-year penny stock bar.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Crown Bridge purchased approximately 250 convertible notes from approximately 150 penny stock issuers.  In all, during the Relevant Period, Crown Bridge sold into the public markets approximately 35 billion shares of unrestricted, post-conversion shares of penny stock issuers, for millions of dollars in profits.  Soheil and Sepas initially found companies interested in issuing convertible notes by reviewing OTCMarkets.com, a website that includes a news feed of SEC filings and press releases from penny stock issuers.  They used the website to identify issuers that appeared to need or had expressed a need for financing. They then cold called the issuers directly.  Over time, as Crown Bridge grew its business and became known in the industry, issuers, brokers, and finders reached out directly to Soheil and Sepas to seek funding.

Absent their apparent failure to register Crown Bridge as a Dealer under Exchange Act Section 15(a) [15 U.S.C.§ 78o(a)], Soheil and Sepas executed what appears to have been a very shrewd and successful business plan.  Crown Bridge purchased convertible notes directly from penny stock issuers.  They negotiated the terms of the notes that led to millions of dollars in profits when the notes were converted into shares of stock.  The notes typically contained terms that were highly favorable to Crown Bridge and reduced Crown Bridge’s exposure to market risk such as a conversion discount ranging from 25% to 50% to the prevailing “market price,” a term the notes typically defined as the lowest trading price, or lowest closing bid price, of the issuer’s common stock during the 10 to 25 days on or before the date of the conversion notice.  Also critical was Crown Bridge’s right to convert the notes in increments, enabling Crown Bridge to convert what it could sell immediately, while shielding the remaining balance from exposure to market price movements.

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.”

33-sec-300x199
In April 2018, the SEC proposed a new regulation that would govern the standard of conduct that applies when broker-dealers make recommendations to retail customers.  Specifically, the proposal sought to established an express best interest obligation that would require all broker-dealers and associated persons to act in the best interests of their retail customers at the time a recommendation is made without placing the financial or other interests of the broker-dealer or associated person ahead of the interests of the retail customer.

At the time, the Commission received over 6,000 comments on the proposed rule.  Ultimately, in July 2019, the SEC adopted Rule 15l-1(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Reg BI”).  On June 15, 2022, the SEC filed the first complaint for a violation of Reg BI since it was enacted.  The SEC filed a complaint against Western International Securities, Inc. (“Western”) and five of its registered representatives for violating Reg BI in connection with the sale of high risk, illiquid and unrated debt securities known as L Bonds issued by GWG Holdings, Inc. (“GWG”).

Compliance with Reg BI consists of four components: the Disclosure Obligation, the Care Obligation, Conflict of Interest Obligation, and the Compliance Obligation.  Registered representatives must comply with the Disclosure Obligation and the Care Obligation, which include:

Since 1972 the Securities & Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has maintained a rule that imposes a gag order on settling defendants in civil enforcement actions.  In 2003, Barry D. Romeril, CFO for Xerox, entered into a consent agreement with the SEC that included the following language:

“Defendant understands and agrees to comply with the [SEC]’s policy ‘not to permit a defendant . . . to consent to a judgment or order that imposes a sanction while denying the allegation in the complaint . . . .’ 17 C.F.R. § 202.5. In compliance with this policy, Defendant agrees not to take any action or to make or permit to be made any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the complaint or creating the impression that the complaint is without factual basis. If Defendant breaches this agreement, the [SEC] may petition the Court to vacate the Final Judgment and restore this action to its active docket. Nothing in this paragraph affects Defendant’s: (i) testimonial obligations; or (ii) right to take legal or factual positions in litigation in which the [SEC] is not a party.”

Language to this effect is in every consent agreement with the SEC.  The CFTC and FINRA also place substantively identical injunctions regarding what defendants can say about their cases once they settle.

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
On May 6, 2022, FINRA released a “Discussion Paper – Expungement of Customer Dispute Information” (the “Discussion Paper”) to address what FINRA clearly sees as problems with the current system for expunging customer complains.  Let’s be clear from the outset, FINRA is openly hostile to the expungement of customer complaint information.  FINRA is particularly hostile to what they describe as “straight-in” expungement arbitrations where the financial advisor seeks expungement by naming their  firm as the respondent (typically after a customer arbitration has settled).

As many practitioners know, FINRA passed an amendment, effective September 14, 2020, establishing a minimum filing fee for expungement arbitrations.  The Discussion Paper touts the success of this amendment in reducing the number of straight-in expungement actions by 37% between 2019 and 2020.  Thus, FINRA makes it clear that its goal is reduction of expungement claims rather than making sure the claims have merit.

The tone of the Discussion Paper starts off somewhat defensive as FINRA makes sure to let the public know how few expungements are actually awarded every year.  Between January 2016 and December 2021, approximately 8 percent of financial advisors registered with FINRA had a customer dispute disclosure on their record and only 1 in 10 had customer dispute information expunged during that time period.  If expungement of customer dispute information is so rare, it is hard to understand why FINRA has as they put it, “engaged in longstanding efforts with NASAA and state securities regulators to explore a redesign of the current expungement process.”  I recently blogged about the Alabama Securities Commission’s (“ASC”) intervention into an expungement award confirmation proceeding and the ASC’s very dim view of the “straight-in” expungement process.  In light of the intervention and then the subsequent release of this Discussion Paper, it seems likely that more state regulators than just Alabama are unhappy with the current expungement system.

00025601-300x166
At a FINRA arbitration in September 2021, Mr. Kent Kirby, a financial advisor at UBS Financial Services, Inc., sought the expungement from CRD of five customer complaints spanning a time frame from 2002 through 2011.  Mr. Kirby was successful in obtaining an award expunging all five occurrences despite the fact that one customer opposed the expungement in a pre-hearing brief and at the hearing.  In a detailed award, the arbitrator found that each of the claims against Mr. Kirby were “factually impossible or erroneous” as required by FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1)(A)  and “false” as required by FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1)(c).  Mr. Kirby then filed an action in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida to confirm the award.   Kent Kirby v. FINRA, Case No. 50-2021-CA-013816 (15th Judicial Cir., Palm Beach County, FL).

Many are familiar with FINRA Rule 2080, which involves the expungement of customer complaint information from a registered representative’s Form U4 and from the Central Registration Depository (“CRD”).  Rule 2080 requires any arbitration award granting expungement of customer complaint information to be confirmed by a court order.  In addition, the rep must name FINRA as a part to the court proceeding or request FINRA to waive that requirement.

What many practitioners may not know is that when FINRA receives a request for a waiver, it takes that request, along with accompanying documents, and sends it to all of the state regulators in each state where the individual is registered.  See https://www.finra.org/registration-exams-ce/classic-crd/faq/finra-rule-2080-frequently-asked-questions

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.

Contact Information