Failure to Supervise

Wedbush Securities Plagued by Numerous Regulatory Actions Part II

January 20, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

This post continues our examination of the numerous regulatory actions against Wedbush Securities, Inc. (Wedbush) for its failure to supervise the activities of its employees in various respects.

In November 2014, the SEC’s case was settled with Wedbush and two of its top officials have for market access violations. Wedbush settled by admitting wrongdoing in its actions, paying a $2.44 million penalty, and retaining an independent consultant. Wedbush’s former executive vice president Jeffrey Bell (Bell) and senior vice president Christina Fillhart (Fillhart) settled without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings. Bell and Fillhart agreed to pay a combined total of more than $85,000 in disgorgement and penalties. The SEC order found that Wedbush had inadequate risk controls in place before providing customers with access to the market including some anonymous overseas traders.

In a statement, Andrew Ceresney, director of the SEC Enforcement Division stated that “Wedbush acknowledges that it granted access to thousands of overseas traders without having appropriate safeguards in place.”

Wedbush Securities Supervisory Failures Exposed in Numerous Regulatory Actions Part I

January 20, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

In a slew of regulatory actions, Wedbush Securities, Inc. (Wedbush) has the firm under fire for its failure to supervise the activities of its employees in various respects. These complaints were recently capped off with an affirmation by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) appeals body, the National Adjudicatory Council (NAC), decision imposing more than $300,000 in fines and a month-long suspension of top executives for failures in their reporting duties. Decision Here.

Wedbush is a brokerage and investment banking firm founded by Edward Wedbush (Mr. Wedbush) and another individual in 1955. Wedbush registered with the NASD in 1955 and NYSE in the early 1970s. At present the firm employs approximately 900 employees. Mr. Wedbush joined the securities industry in 1955 when he formed the firm and has been registered as a general securities principal and representative since the firm’s inception.

A company’s culture is set at by those at the top running the company. And judging by the recent decision, Wedbush’s supervisory culture calls into question the handling of its client’s assets. The recent regulatory woes and saga first started on October 4, 2010, when FINRA’s Department of Enforcement filed a five-cause complaint alleging that during various periods between January 2005, and July 2010, Wedbush failed to properly report 81 disclosable events resulting in 38 Form RE-3 reporting violations, 113 Form U4 and U5 violations, and nine statistical reporting violations concerning customer complaints. FINRA also alleged that the firm and Mr. Wedbush failed to supervise the firm’s regulatory reporting.

Newbridge Securities Corporation Sanctioned By FINRA Over Sales Practices

January 7, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC) sanctioned Newbridge Securities Corporation (Newbridge) concerning allegations that the firm violated a host of sales obligations to customers that resulted in unfair trading practices.

FINRA found that in ten transactions, Newbridge sold corporate bonds to customers and failed to sell such bonds at a price that was fair taking into consideration all relevant circumstances such as the market conditions for the bonds at the time of the transaction and the expense involved. FINRA also alleged in another 10 transactions for a customer the firm failed to use reasonable diligence to ascertain the best market price and failed to buy or sell in such market so that the price to its customer was as favorable as possible at the time of the transaction. Next, FINRA found a total of at least 50 instances where the firm failed to execute orders fully and promptly.

Further, FINRA alleged that Newbridge executed 32 short sale orders but failed to mark the orders as being sold short. As a result, FINRA found that on 13 occasions the firm effected short sales in an equity security for its own account without borrowing the security or having reasonable grounds to believe that the security could be borrowed so that it could be delivered on the date delivery is due. FINRA also found that the firm, on 63 occasions, provided written notification to customers that failed to disclose information or disclosed inaccurate information. The information that was inaccurate included the correct trade price, the correct execution price(s), the price was exclusive of any commission equivalent, failed to disclose or to accurately disclose the compensation amount(s) charged to the customer, and/or inaccurately disclosed the firm’s compensation type.

FINRA Alleges Numerous Supervisory Failures at Sammons Securities Part II

December 26, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

This post continues our exploration of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC) that sanctioned brokerage firm Sammons Securities Company, LLC (Sammons) over allegations that Sammons failed to establish and maintain a system of supervision to comply with the securities laws.

FINRA member firms were required to conduct reviews of all outside business activities disclosed before to ensure that the disclosures complied FINRA standards. During FINRA’s investigation the regulator found that Sammons was unable to demonstrate that it had conducted a review. In addition, FINRA alleged that Sammons used a form to collect information from its brokers concerning their outside business activities but the form failed to request information sufficient to detect the occurrence of private securities transactions away from the firm.

Moreover, FINRA found that two Sammons brokers were operating registered investment advisors that held customer accounts at broker-dealers other than Sammons. FIRNA found that the representatives disclosed their advisory business as outside business activities to Sammons and those activities were approved. However, FINRA found that Sammons did not record or maintain the advisories securities transactions on the firm’s books and records, or supervise the correspondence of the business. As a result, FINRA found that the representatives’ participation in private securities transactions was unsupervised by the firm.

FINRA Sanctions Sammons Securities Company Over Host of Supervisory Failures Part I

December 25, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC), sanctioned brokerage firm Sammons Securities Company, LLC (Sammons) over allegations that Sammons failed to establish and maintain a system of supervision that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with securities laws. From March 8, 2010, through October 8, 2012, FINRA alleged that certain supervisory deficiencies existed at Sammons including the firm’s supervision of registered representatives, the firm’s due diligence processes and procedures, and some of its implemented customer safe-guards.

Sammons has been a FINRA member since January 2002, employs a total of 516 registered representatives, and operates from 357 branch office locations. Sammons’ compliance functions are conducted in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where its main registered Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJ) is located.

FINRA found that Sammons’ supervisory and compliance functions were conducted by a company called BD OPS, LLC, (BD OPS), an entity under common ownership with Sammons. BD OPS performed all of the firm’s supervision and compliance and also provided supervisory and compliance services for another broker-dealer and its related investment advisor. As a result, FINRA found that the 35 supervisory personnel working for BD OPS were responsible for supervising a total of 1,274 registered representatives and 854 branch offices between the two broker-dealers.

Global Brokerage Services Fined Over Misleading Account Statements

December 12, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC), sanctioned brokerage firm Global Brokerage Services, Inc. (Global) over allegations that from approximately February 2011, to August 2013, Global failed to establish and enforce a reasonable supervisory system regarding the use of consolidated reports by registered brokers with the firm. FINRA found that Global’s brokers provided consolidated reports to their customers that lacked required disclosures and/or contained misleading information. ln addition, FINRA alleged that one the brokers disseminated consolidated reports that included his own inaccurate and potentially misleading valuations for non-traded REITs and other illiquid investments.

Global has been a FINRA member since 1995, employs fourteen registered representatives, and its main office is in Hunt Valley, Maryland.

FINRA found that certain of Global’s brokers created consolidated reports using Morningstar or Excel for distribution to their customers. FINRA alleged that Global failed to have written supervisory procedures specific to consolidated reports. Instead, FINRA determined that consolidated reports at Global were treated as correspondence requiring only a sample (10%) be reviewed on a quarterly basis.

Cantella & Co. Accused of Overcharging Client Commissions

December 11, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC), sanctioned brokerage firm Cantella & Co., Inc. (Cantella) over allegations that from approximately January 2006, to September 2011, the firm charged customers excessive commissions on approximately 1,270 equity transactions and 99 options transactions. FINRA also found that Cantella also failed to establish, maintain, and enforce an adequate supervisory system for the review of commissions charged.

Cantella has been a member of FINRA since 1983, the firm’s principal office is located in Boston, MA, and currently employs approximately 210 registered representatives working out of the principal office and 136 branch offices.

NASD Conduct Rule 2440 provides that all brokerage firms shall buy or sell at a security at a price which is fair, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances. The NASD established a policy that a mark-up of five percent may be deemed unreasonable and this policy applies equally to commissions on agency trades, and to mark-ups or mark-downs on principal transactions. In addition to the commission percentage other factors to be considered in determining the fairness of commission charges include: (i) the type of security involved; (ii) the availability of the security; (iii) the price of the security; (iv) the size of the transaction; (v) whether disclosure of the transaction cost was made to the customer prior to the trade’s execution; (vi) pattern of mark-ups; and (vii) the nature of the member’s business.

FINRA Sanctions Financial America Securities and John Rukenbrod Over Supervisory Failures

October 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Financial America Securities, Inc. (Financial America) and John Rukenbrod (Rukenbrod) concerning allegations that between August 2009, and May 2011, the firm, acting through Rukenbrod, failed to adequately supervise the business being conducted out of one of the firm’s branch offices. FINRA found that the firm: 1) failed to conduct any inspection of the branch office; 2) failed to review any incoming or outgoing e-mails of the three registered representatives operating out of the branch; 3) failed to adequately supervise private securities transactions engaged in by two of the registered representatives; 4) failed to ensure that all electronic communications were captured and retained; 5) failed to create and maintain a written report of inspections of the branch as required; and 6) failed to ensure that the firm’s securities business was supervised by a licensed securities principal.

Financial America has been a FINRA firm since 1970, employs 31 registered representatives, has two branches, and engages in a general securities business. Rukenbrod entered the securities industry in 1966 and cofounded Financial America in 1970.

FINRA alleged that two of Financial America’s representatives initialed “PC” and “CM” engaged in a securities business primarily in the sale of private placement offerings and Rukenbrod was the firm’s designated supervisor. In April 2010, FINRA found that Rukenbrod attended an investor presentation at PC and CM’s branch for a private placement offering. Rukenbrod turned down the offering and stated that the firm would not participate in the offering until certain due diligence procedures were agreed upon.

FINRA Sanctions Huntleigh Securities Concerning Non-Traditional ETF Sales Practices

October 17, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sanctioned brokerage firm Huntleigh Securities Corporation (Huntleigh) concerning allegations that the firm failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system regarding the sale of leveraged as well as inverse leveraged exchange traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws.

Huntleigh is a FINRA member firm since 1977 and has headquarter offices in St. Louis, Missouri. Huntleigh engages in general securities business and employs approximately 53 registered representatives across its five branch offices.

Non-Traditional ETFs contain drastically different risk qualities from traditional ETFs. While traditional ETFs simply seek to mirror an index or benchmark, Non-Traditional ETFs use a combination of derivatives instruments and debt to multiply returns on underlining assets, often attempting to generate 2 to 3 times the return of the underlining asset class. Non-Traditional ETFs can also be used to return the inverse or the opposite result of the return of the benchmark.

Choosing the Right Securities Arbitration Attorney

September 29, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

When to Call a Securities Arbitration Attorney

Securities arbitration attorneys, sometimes referred to as investment attorneys, FINRA attorneys, or securities attorneys, should be contacted whenever an investor believes he or she has been a victim of broker misconduct. An investor may have cause to retain a securities fraud attorney to file a lawsuit or arbitration claim if his or her broker failed to create a suitable investment strategy. An investor may also want to contact an attorney case if a broker made false or misleading statements about a security or omitted negative information about the risk of a security in order to persuade the investor to invest.

An investor may also want to seek legal counsel the investor’s broker bought or sold securities without prior consent (unauthorized trading) or excessively traded securities for the purpose generating commissions (churning).