FINRA Rules

FEDERAL COURT EXPANDS THE DEFINITION OF “CUSTOMER” FOR PURPOSES OF COMPELLING FINRA ARBITRATION

March 20, 2020 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
In Next Financial Group, Inc. v. GMS Mine Repair and Maintenance, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-168 (USDC W.D. Pa.), the federal court was asked to define the term “customer” as it relates to FINRA’s Code of Arbitration Procedure. The definition of that term carries significance because “customers” can compel a member firm to participate in FINRA arbitration whereas non-customers cannot. In the case at hand, GMS Mine Repair had no account with Next Financial and received no goods or services from Next Financial itself. This case bears some significance because the court compelled arbitration even though GMS Mine Repair was nothing more than an investor in the FAs outside business activity.

Background

The case arose from a supposedly fraudulent investment scheme perpetrated by Douglas P. Simanski, a former registered representative of Next Financial Group. According to BrokerCheck, Next Financial terminated Douglas Simanski in May 2016 because “RR sold fictitious investment and converted funds for his own personal use and benefit.” Mr. Simanksi currently has 30 disclosures on his BrokerCheck report, reflecting numerous settled customer claims. On November 2, 2018, the SEC filed a complaint against Mr. Simanski alleging that Simanksi “raised over $3.9 million from approximately 27 investors by falsely representing he would invest their money in one of three ventures: (1) a ‘tax free investment’ providing a fixed return for a specific number of years; (2) one of two coal mining companies in which Simanski claimed to have an ownership interest; or (3) a rental car company.” According to BrokerCheck, the SEC ultimately barred Simanski and Simanski plead guilty to criminal charges filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.

FINRA CHARGES AN FA FOR STRUCTURING CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS

March 12, 2020 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
On March 11, 2020, FINRA charged an FA with structuring cash transactions in his personal bank account so as to evade reporting requirements. This case is worth a read because it highlights FINRAs commitment to pursue AML and AML-like cases.

Case in Point

In Department of Enforcement v. David R. Oakes, Disciplinary Proceeding No. 2018057755201, FINRA charged the FA with violating Rule 2010 (FINRAs catchall rule) for allegedly structuring three $9,000 deposits (total of $27,000) of currency to his personal bank account between December 27 and December 29, 2017; (2) structuring two $6,500 (total of $13,000) withdrawals of currency from his personal bank account on August 23, 2017; and (3) structuring four withdrawals (total of $21,500) of currency from his personal bank account between August 1 and August 4, 2016. According to FINRA, each of these series of transactions was for the purpose of avoiding the filing of a Currency Transaction Report.

FA CLAIMS THAT FINRA OBTAINED HIS SETTLEMENT BY FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT

March 5, 2020 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
This is a classic case of buyer’s remorse. In the case at hand, FA Jeffrey Mohlman settled with FINRA by executing a letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (called an AWC) and, in so doing, agreed to a bar from the securities industry. Apparently displeased with his decision, he filed an action in court seeking almost $900,000 in damages by claiming that FINRA “committed fraud by inducing Plaintiff to fail to testify at a second disciplinary interview, thus allegedly fraudulently avoiding an alleged requirement that Defendants consider mitigating factors in the Plaintiff’s disciplinary case…” Mohlman’s claims received a chilly reception by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Mohlman v. FINRA, et al., Case No. 19-cv-154), which granted FINRA’s motion to dismiss on February 24, 2020.

Background

Mohlman entered the securities industry in 2001. In March 2015, Mohlman’s then-employer, Questar Capital Corporation, terminated his registration and filed a Form U5 claiming that Mohlman “resigned while under internal review for failure to follow firm policies and procedures regarding his participation in private securities transactions.” FINRA then launched an investigation and requested his appearance at an on-the-record interview (OTR) on September 11, 2015. On September 9, 2015, Mohlman’s lawyer informed FINRA that Mohlman received the OTR request but would be declining to appear. On September 17, 2015, Mohlman signed an AWC in which he agreed to a bar from the securities industry and waived various procedural rights.

FINRA BARS A SUPERVISOR FOR THE MISDEEDS OF ANOTHER

January 31, 2020 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
Courts call a lifetime bar “the securities industry equivalent of capital punishment.” PAZ Sec. Inc. v. SEC, 494 F.3d 1059, 1065 (D.C. Cir. 2007). It is a draconian measure which not only permanently removes you from the securities industry but also subjects you to “statutory disqualification” under Section 3(a)(39)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and all the collateral consequences that come with it.

Given the seriousness of a lifetime bar, a recently released AWC presents an alarming fact pattern in which a supervisor was barred due to the transgressions of an FA he failed to properly supervise. Let’s consider the case of Michael Leahy, FINRA Case No. 2019063631802. The question is, why did FINRA go after the supervisor with guns blazing?

The Applicable Rule: FINRA Rule 3110

FINRA Attacks Suitability By Challenging FAs Product Knowledge

January 6, 2020 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
On January 3, 2020, FINRA released an AWC for Robert James D’Andria, Case No. 2017056579502. At first blush the AWC seems rather plain vanilla. The FA recommended high-risk products, in this case leveraged and inverse exchange-traded notes and funds, to retail investors and FINRA deemed those recommendations to be unsuitable. FINRA suspended the FA for 2 months and fined him $5,000.

In a typical suitability case, FINRA would claim that the account was over-concentrated in a given sector, or the position was too large relative to the portfolio as a whole, or the account was over-traded, or the investment was inconsistent with the investor’s stated investment objectives. And, in a typical case, FINRA would claim that the customer suffered meaningful losses.

In this AWC, however, FINRA does not claim that the investments were inconsistent with the customers’ investment objectives. Nor does FINRA claim that the investors were unsophisticated or otherwise lacked the ability to assess the merits of these investments. So, this begs the question: where’s the violation?

FINRA ARBITRATORS REFUSE TO PERMIT FAs TESTIMONY: BUT THEY DID HEAR FROM THE SUBSTITUTE TEACHER

December 30, 2019 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
FINRA published an interesting arbitration award on December 27, 2019. In Raymond James & Associates, Inc. v. Gregory D. Clark (FINRA Case Number 18-04011), Raymond James claimed that Mr. Clark breached a settlement agreement related to the repayment of a promissory note. Raymond James requested, and was awarded, compensatory damages of $206,000 plus interest pursuant to Florida Statutes § 55.03. You can access the Award by clicking here.

Things get interesting when analyzing the procedural rulings of this case.

Motion to Bar Presentation of Defenses and Facts

FINRA DROPS THE STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION HAMMER

December 17, 2019 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
On December 16, 2019, FINRA released the AWC in Matter No. 2018060843801 (In re Molteni) [click here to read the AWC]. At first blush, the AWC seems to concern a garden variety violation in which the FA failed to amend his Form U4 to disclose two federal tax liens. This doesn’t seem to be the violation of the century, right? Even FINRA’s Sanction Guidelines suggest a regulatory slap on the wrist of a modest fine and 10 day suspension.

So here is where things get interesting. FINRA more or less sanctioned Molteni in accordance with the Sanction Guidelines. They hit him with a $5,000 fine and a 3 month suspension. However, FINRA also found that he “willfully” failed to disclose the federal tax liens. In the world of FINRA regulation, the word “willful” carries an awful lot of weight.

What does it mean to act “willfully”?

FINRA ACCUSES NY LIFE OF FALSIFYING CUSTOMERS’ INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES: OUCH

November 21, 2019 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
FINRA wants a member firm to enforce its written supervisory procedures. And FINRA wants a member firm to recommend securities that fit within the customer’s investment objectives. And certainly FINRA wants a member firm to avoid falsification of business records. So what happens when a member firm doesn’t quite live up to FINRA’s expectations? Let’s play the over / under game and try to guess the size of the FINRA sanction when a member engages in the following misconduct:

Failure to enforce WSPs governing the sale of high-risk mutual funds subject to significant volatility
Failure to reallocate portfolios to reduce risk or otherwise update investment objectives to correspond with the assumption of additional risk

FINRA DINGS ANOTHER FA FOR A PRIVATE SECURITIES TRANSACTION VIOLATION

November 20, 2019 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
FINRA is on the look-out for violations of Rule 3280, which prohibits an FA from participating in a private securities transactions without giving written notice to the broker-dealer and receiving written approval. A “private securities transaction” is any securities transaction outside the scope of the FA’s employment with the broker-dealer. Private securities transactions remain a regulatory focus for FINRA. As noted by FINRAs CEO, Robert Cook, in the 2019 Risk Monitoring and Examination Priorities Letter: “we are particularly concerned about fundraising activities for entities that the associated persons control or in which they have an interest…”

Case In Point

In the Matter of Michael Jason Collins, FINRA Matter No. 2017056104801 (see the AWC itself)

Enforceability of a FINRA Arbitration Subpoena

October 21, 2019 | Herskovits, PLLC

google-post-800x600-4-300x225
FINRA operates the largest securities dispute resolution forum in the United States. Virtually all disputes between customers and brokerage firms are resolved by arbitration before FINRA. Similarly, virtually all disputes between employees and brokerage firms are likewise resolved by arbitration before FINRA.

It is common in any arbitration that a party may seek documents or testimony from a non-party. If the non-party is a FINRA member or an employee of a FINRA member, the arbitrators are free simply to “order” that person or company to testify or supply documents (FINRA Rule 12513). However, does the jurisdiction of FINRA arbitrator extend to companies or persons that are not FINRA members or employees of FINRA members? The answer is, kind of sort of yes, but with some wrinkles.

Let me explain and take it from the top. First, the laws in the United States favor arbitration. The Federal Arbitration Act (ʺFAAʺ), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., ʺreflects a legislative recognition of ʹthe desirability of arbitration as an alternative to the complications of litigation.ʹʺ Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., 815 F.2d 840, 844 (2d Cir. 1987). Thus, one question is: does FINRA even have a rule which permits an arbitrator to issue a subpoena to a non-member or an individual not employed by a member? The answer is, yes: FINRA Rule 12512 states, “Arbitrators shall have the authority to issue subpoenas for the production of documents or the appearance of witnesses.”