FINRA Lawyer Blog

RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA FROM THE CFTC

March 22, 2020 | Herskovits, PLLC

90-commodity-futures-trading-commission-300x200
Receiving a subpoena from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission often causes panic by the recipient given the civil and criminal penalties associated with Commodities Exchange Act violations. The recipient may have no advance notice of the subpoena and may be unaware if they are a target of the CFTC’s investigation or merely an individual or company that possesses records of interest to the government. This blog post outlines appropriate steps to take upon receipt of a CFTC subpoena.

CFTC’s Information Gathering Process

The Staff of the CFTC is empowered to initiate investigations of persons and companies suspected of having violated the Commodity Exchange Act. The Staff generally receives documents from voluntary productions and use of compulsory process (meaning, the issuance of subpoenas). Any request for a voluntary interview or the voluntary production of documents requires serious consideration and consultation with counsel. The Staff’s reach can extend internationally. The CFTC has Memoranda of Understandings with various foreign authorities, which enables the CFTC’s staff to obtain documents without resort to use of subpoena power.

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.

VIRGINIA BANS MANDATORY ARBITRATION IN ADVISORY AGREEMENTS

February 5, 2020 | Herskovits, PLLC

19-new-regulation-300x199
New Rule

Virginia recently added Section F to 21 VAC5-80-200 (Dishonest or Unethical Practices), which provides: “For purposes of this section, any mandatory arbitration provision in an advisory contract shall be prohibited.”

Background

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

UBS DEFAMES AN FA BUT STILL WINS BIG

January 10, 2020 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
This blog post looks at an interesting FINRA arbitration award issued on January 7, 2020: Daniel Paul Motherway v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., FINRA Arbitration No. 17-02799. This case seems to prove the old adage: a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client. Here we have an FA who proved, quite literally, that UBS defamed him, but was nonetheless ordered to stroke a check to UBS for more than $1 million.

Background Facts

On June 28, 2017, UBS fired Motherway and offered the following termination explanation on BrokerCheck: “Financial Advisor’s employment was terminated after review concluded that he made false claims of merchant fraud on his personal credit and debit cards to an affiliate of the firm and made conflicting statement during the review.”

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 HITS AN FA FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF AN ACCOUNT

December 29, 2019 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
On December 20, 2019, FINRA announced a settlement with John Carneglia. According to the AWC, Carneglia violated FINRA Rule 3210 for failing to notify his member firm of a brokerage account and violated FINRA Rule 3270 for failing to timely disclose an outside business activity.

Underlying Facts

Carenglia was registered with BNP Paribas from June 2006 through July 2017. According to FINRA, Carneglia didn’t inform BNP of his wife’s brokerage account and likewise failed to inform the firm that maintained his wife’s account of his association with BNP. Further, FINRA alleges that Carneglia was a member of an LLC that owned an income-generating rental property (ski-resort condominium), yet failed to timely notify BNP of that outside business activity.

FINRA LAWYER BLOG