Failure to Supervise

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).

LPL Financial Fined For Failure to Properly Supervise Variable Annuities Transactions

September 26, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

LPL Financial was recently fined $2 million and ordered to pay $820,000 in restitution, for violations pertaining to variable annuity exchanges. This settlement, which was reached with the Illinois Securities Department, resulted from LPL’s inadequate maintenance of books and records with regards to documenting 1035 exchanges. A 1035 Exchange is a tax-free exchange of an existing annuity contract for a new one. In order for the new contract to qualify as a Section 1035 Exchange, the policyholder must have exchanged his or her existing contract for an equivalent new contract. The annuitant or policyholder must also remain the same.

According to LPL’s BrokerCheck file, LPL “failed to enforce its supervisory system and procedures in connection with the documentation of certain salespersons’ variable annuity exchange activities.” LPL has indicated that it will seek to enhance its procedures relating to surrender charges that often result from variable annuity exchange transactions. This, LPL believes, would ensure accuracy in their books and records along with client disclosures.

The product at issue was variable annuities, which have been closely watched by regulators dues to the complexity of the product and high fee structures. Elderly investors have often been sold variable annuities, when they were entirely unsuitable, just so that brokers could earn increased commissions. Regulators have paid especially close attention to those advisors who have switched their clients from one variable annuity to another, just to enhance their commissions.

FINRA Alleges that Former Waddell & Reed Employee, Jeffrey Meyer, Engaged in 37 Private Placement Transactions without Proper Notice

September 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On August 21, 2014, Richard A. March, Senior Regional Counsel of FINRA’s Department of Enforcement filed a complaint against Jeffrey Meyer, a financial advisor in Lake in the Hills Illinois who was formerly associated with Waddell & Reed, Inc. The complaint alleges that while employed at Waddell & Reed and WRP Investments, Inc. Mr. Meyer acted outside the scope of his employment with those firms by participating in 37 private securities transactions totaling more than $1.5 million, without providing prior written notice to the firms of his proposed roles in the transactions. FINRA alleges that as a result of the foregoing, Mr. Meyer violated FINRA Rule 2010. FINRA Rule 2010 states that “A member, in the conduct of its business, shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.”

Mr. Meyer entered the securities industry in January 2000 as an investment company products and variable contracts representative with Franklin Financial Services, Corp. In February 2001 he became a general securities representative with Focused Investments, LCC. According to FINRA, United Private Capital, Inc. was a corporate entity that was established as an investment vehicle for FOREX currency trading. Between November 2008 and September 2009, United Capital sold corporate guarantees totaling $1 million to 20 investors and Mr. Meyer participated in each of the private securities transactions. Mr. Meyer, in some instances collected checks from customers and assisted them in preparing documents to effectuate the transactions. Furthermore, on at least one occasion, Mr. Meyer presented sales material to an individual who subsequently invested at United Private Capital.

In addition, according to FINRA, Mr. Meyer participated in private securities transactions related to commercial loans through Strategic Lending Solutions, LLC as well. Those promissory notes totaled approximately $300,000 with 13 investors. Mr. Meyer received a 2% payment based on the amount of the promissory note.

NEXT Financial Group Sanctioned Over Failure to Adhere to Industry Rules

September 3, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm NEXT Financial Group, Inc. (NEXT Financial) concerning allegations that: 1) between March 17, 2009, and August 26, 2011, NEXT Financial failed to timely and accurately amend registered representatives’ Forms U4 and U5 to disclose customer complaints, judgments and liens; 2) from January 1, 2010, through August 26, 2011, NEXT Financial permitted its former general counsel to directly supervise registered persons without a principal registration; and 3) from March 17, 2009, through August 10, 2012, NEXT Financial failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system that was reasonably designed to prevent and detect unsuitable sales of structured products to retail customers.

NEXT Financial is a general securities broker-dealer located in Houston, Texas and a member of FINRA since 1999. The firm currently has approximately 900 registered persons and 590 registered branch locations.

FINRA Rules require that every application for registration (Form U4) filed with FINRA shall be kept current at all times by supplementary amendments. Supplementary amendments must be filed within 30 days after learning of facts or circumstances that would require an amendment. FINRA also requires that a notice of termination (Form U5) be filed with FINRA within 30 days after an individual’s association with a member firm is terminated and the form must be kept current at all times by supplementary amendments.

Brokerage Firm Safeguard Securities and Peter Mooney Sanctioned Over Numerous Supervisory Failures

August 22, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm Safeguard Securities, Inc. (Safeguard Securities) and broker Peter Mooney (Mooney) concerning allegations that during a FINRA examination of the firm Safeguard Securities provided certain outside business activity (OBA) forms to FINRA that had been backdated. FINRA found that Mooney, who signed the backdated forms, knew or should have known that the forms had been backdated. In addition, FINRA identified many supervisory and recordkeeping failures relating to: the review and retention of electronic communications; outside business activities; private securities transactions; the supervision of producing managers; and branch registration and fingerprinting of personnel.

FINRA found that Mooney was the firm’s principal and supervisor responsible for establishing and implementing supervisory procedures. FINRA alleged that Safeguard Securities, through Mooney, failed to establish and/or implement adequate supervisory procedures in numerous respects. First, it was alleged that the firm failed to establish and implement an adequate supervisory system for the review and retention of electronic communications relating to the business of the firm. For example, between July 14, 2008, and November 4, 2012, it was alleged that Safeguard Securities failed to maintain any record to evidence its review of electronic communications. Further, FINRA alleged that the firm failed to take any steps to monitor registered representatives who used e-mail addresses at domains other than the firm’s e-mail system.

In another instance of supervisory failure, FINRA alleged that during 2012, Mooney knew that a broker by the initials “WM” was engaging in private securities transactions for compensation. Notwithstanding the fact that the firm prohibited such activity, FINRA found that Mooney failed to take any steps to stop the broker’s participation in those transactions. Under NASD Rule 3040, a duty is imposed on member firms to supervise the transaction as if the transaction were executed on behalf of the member.

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch For Overcharging Mutual Fund Customers

July 17, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On June 16, 2014, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that it fined Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. $8 million for charging excessive fees relating to the sales of mutual funds in retirement accounts. FINRA also ordered Merrill Lynch to pay $24.4 million in restitution to those customers who had been wrongfully overcharged. The mandated restitution was in addition to the $64 million Merrill Lynch has already paid to compensate disadvantaged investors.

Mutual funds offer several different classes of shares. Each class has separate and distinct sales charges and fees. Generally, Class A shares have the lowest fees as compared to Class B and Class C. Class A shares, however, charge customers an upfront sales charge. This initial sales charge, however, is usually waived for retirement accounts, with some funds also waiving these fees for charities.

Merrill Lynch’s retail platform offers a variety of different mutual funds. Most of those funds explicitly offered to waive the upfront sales charges and disclosed those waivers in their respective prospectuses. According to FINRA, despite these disclosures, Merrill Lynch did not actually waive the sales charges many times since at least January 2006. On various occasions, Merrill Lynch charged the full sales charges to certain customers who qualified for the waiver. In doing so, Merrill Lynch allegedly caused nearly 41,000 small business retirement plan accounts and 6,800 charities and 403(b) retirement accounts for ministers and public school employees to pay sales charges when purchasing Class A shares. Those that did not want to pay the fee for the Class A shares were forced to purchase other share classes that needlessly exposed them to greater ongoing costs and fees. According to FINRA, Merrill Lynch became aware of the fact that its small business retirement plan customers were being overcharged, but yet they continued to sell the costly mutual fund shares and never reported the issue to FINRA for over five years.

Gilford Securities Fined by FINRA Over Deficient Supervisory Procedures

July 1, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned brokerage firm Gilford Securities, Inc. (Gilford Securities) concerning allegations that from April 2010 through March 2012, Gilford Securities failed to: (i) make certain disclosures in research reports; (ii) have approval of certain research reports; (iii) implement written supervision policies reasonably designed to comply with NASD Rule 2711; (iv) establish and enforce written supervisory control policies concerning the supervision of producing managers; and (v) implement a reasonably designed Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program (AMLCP).

Gilford Securities has been a FINRA member since January 1980, has eight branch offices, and 78 registered representatives. Gilford Securities’ principal place of business is New York, New York.

FINRA rules require disclosure of any material conflict of interests of the research analyst of which the research analyst knows or has a reason to know in the publication of the research report. FINRA found that from April 2010, through March 2012, Gilford Securities published 503 research reports. FINRA found that each of those reports failed to disclose that the research analyst received compensation of commissions on transactions the analyst’s customers made in the securities covered in violation of the FINRA Rules.