Securities Lawyers Blog
The securities lawyers at Gana Weinstein LLP represent investors who have been mistreated by their brokers and suffered investment losses. Our firm is experienced in bringing claims against brokerage firms, such as Axos Clearing LLC, to hold Wall Street responsible for their misconduct. When a client contacts our firm they can expect that our attorneys will have the knowledge and ability to evaluate the potential claims and analyze their trading activity for red flags of misconduct. Our consultations are designed to help provide clients with all available options.
Axos Clearing is a clearing and custody firm that provides clearing, settlement, custody, securities and margin lending, brokerage platforms, and technology services to independent broker-dealers and registered investment advisors. Formerly known as COR Clearing and originally spun off from Mutual of Omaha in 2002 as Legent Clearing, the Omaha, Nebraska based firm became a subsidiary of NYSE-listed Axos Financial in 2019 and is registered as a broker-dealer in all 50 states.
Axos Clearing LLC – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 117176
- Regulatory Events: 13
- Arbitration Events: 1
- Broker Employees: 145
Axos Clearing LLC – In the News:
FINRA v. Axos Clearing LLC (Case #2018058344301) – The Securities and Exchange Commission adopted Rule 10b-16 (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-16) to require that broker-dealers extending credit in margin transactions have “established procedures to assure that each customer” receives certain initial and periodic disclosures. Rule 10b-16(a)(1) requires that the initial disclosure include a written statement disclosing “the annual rate or rates of interest that can be imposed.” The initial disclosure is designed to ensure that a customer, before account opening, understands the terms and conditions under which margin interest charges will be made, and to enable the customer to compare the various credit terms available. From January 2013 through October 2018 (the “Relevant Period”), Axos Clearing failed to have established procedures reasonably designed to assure that customers received the initial margin interest rate disclosures and failed to establish, maintain, and enforce a supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Rule 10b-16(a)(1). In fact, many customers did not receive the initial disclosure stating the annual rate or rates of margin interest that can be imposed. As a result, Axos Clearing violated SEC Rule 10b-16(a)(1), NASD Rules 3010(a) and (b), and FINRA Rules 3110(a) and (b) and 2010.
FINRA v. Axos Clearing LLC (Case #2014040462001) – In connection with 20140404620, the Short Sales staff of the Department of Market Regulation (the “staff”) reviewed the firm’s compliance with rules related to close-out requirements for short sales during the period October 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013. In connection with 20140438203, the staff reviewed the firm’s compliance with rules related to close-out requirements for short sales during the period July 1, 2014 through September 30, 2014. Based on the foregoing reviews, the staff determined that the firm violated SEC Rules 204(a)(1) and (2) of Regulation SHO.
Our attorneys have successfully represented hundreds of investors in investment disputes with their brokers and brokerage firms. Our consultations are free and we welcome all inquiries.