Securities Lawyers Blog
We represent clients of financial advisors and brokerage firms in investment disputes against their firms, such as Mizuho Securities USA LLC. Our services cover a wide spectrum of broker misconduct, including unsuitable investments, failure to supervise, and losses in various investment products. Our firm can analyze your brokerage accounts, determine the extent of your investment losses, and understand the issues and remedies available.
Mizuho Securities USA is a broker-dealer and futures commission merchant that provides securities and futures brokerage, origination and trading of debt and equity securities, and mergers and acquisitions advisory services. Headquartered at 1271 Avenue of the Americas in New York, the firm is a primary dealer in United States government securities and a wholly owned subsidiary of Mizuho Americas, which is ultimately owned by Japan’s Mizuho Financial Group, and it participates in Canadian underwritings through a subsidiary.
Mizuho Securities USA LLC – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 19647
- Regulatory Events: 15
- Broker Employees: 1,114
Mizuho Securities USA LLC – In the News:
FINRA v. Mizuho Securities USA LLC (Case #2022073298301) – Between October 2017 and December 2022, Mizuho prepared over 300,000 institutional customer confirmations containing inaccurate or incomplete information. These inaccuracies stemmed from three underlying issues, for some of which Mizuho had previously been warned by FINRA. As a result, Mizuho violated Rule 10b-10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act §17(a), Exchange Act Rule 17a-3(a)(8), and FINRA Rules 2232, 4511, and 2010. Between October 2017 and June 2022, Mizuho also failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including written procedures, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with confirmation requirements. This was again despite a previous warning from FINRA. From October 2017 to December 2019, although Mizuho conducted a review of a sample of customer confirmations, the firm failed to investigate red flags that its customer confirmations contained inaccurate or incomplete information. From December 2019 until March 2022, Mizuho did not conduct any supervisory review for the accuracy of customer confirmations, and no such review was memorialized in Mizuho’s written supervisory procedures until June 2022. As a result of these supervisory failures, Mizuho violated FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. Mizuho Securities USA LLC (Case #2018057735701) – From 2007 through the present, Mizuho excluded the electronic communications of certain senior management from its supervisory review process. Mizuho excluded these employees’ communications from review without assessing those employees’ relation to the securities business of the firm. As a result, Mizuho violated NASD Rules 3010 and 2110, and FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. Mizuho Securities USA LLC (Case #2016051884601) – From February 2015 through December 2016 (the “Review Period”), as a result of system-related issues connected to its third-party order management system (“OMS”), Mizuho overstated its trading volume in numerous securities it had advertised through Bloomberg, L.P. (“Bloomberg”), a private subscription-based provider of market data, in violation of FINRA Rules 5210 and 2010. For two of the Firm’s trading desks, the Firm also failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and written supervisory procedures (“WSPs”) that were reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the regulatory requirements under FINRA Rule 5210 that govern the accuracy of advertised trading volumes in violation of FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. Mizuho Securities USA LLC (Case #2015048170701) – In connection with FINRA Matter No. 20150481707, the Short Sales Team within the Department of Market Regulation (the “Staff”) conducted Cross Market Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 201 Short Exempt Sweeps that addressed activity during the period between July 2015 and February 2016 (the “Review Period”). The sweeps identify short sales executed during a Short Sale Circuit Breaker (“SSCB”) period, at a price at or below the national best bid (“NBB”), which were marked “short exempt” and reported to a trade reporting facility (“TRF”) or executed on an exchange. The purpose of the sweep is to validate that trades reported as short exempt had qualified for an exemption or other provisions set forth in the rule. In conjunction with its investigation, the Staff also reviewed the firm’s compliance with rules governing trade reporting of short sales executed during a SSCB and related supervision during the Review Period. Based on its reviews, the Staff found that the firm had incorrectly reported as short exempt riskless principal transactions when facilitating customer buy orders, had related supervisory deficiencies, and had deficiencies in its policies, procedures and supervision related to Rule 201(b) of Regulation SHO.
Gana Weinstein LLP has successfully handled hundreds of customer investment disputes with their brokerage firms. Our attorneys can help you detect and uncover suspicious activity in your accounts. Our consultations are free and we welcome all inquiries.