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 National Financial Services 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.
National Financial Services LLC is the Fidelity Investments broker-dealer that provides clearing, execution, settlement, and custody services for broker-dealers, registered investment advisers, and Fidelity’s own retail and capital markets businesses. Established in 1983, it is one of the largest clearing providers in the industry and services millions of customer accounts through several thousand broker-dealer and adviser relationships.
National Financial Services LLC – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 13041
- Regulatory Events: 47
- Arbitration Events: 14
- Broker Employees: 2,094
National Financial Services LLC – In the News:
FINRA v. National Financial Services LLC (Case #2022076846301) – From April 2009 to at least May 2023, NFS failed to timely transfer over 5,600 Unit Investment Trusts (UITs) through the Automated Customer Account Transfer Service (ACATS), and it further failed to transfer approximately 4,000 of those UITs in kind, as customers had instructed. As a result, NFS violated FINRA Rules 11870(e) and 2010. Additionally, since at least April 2009, NFS has failed to establish, maintain, and enforce a supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures (WSPs), reasonably designed to achieve compliance with FINRA Rule 11870(e), in violation of FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010. For these violations, NFS is censured, fined $100,000, and agrees to an undertaking.
FINRA v. National Financial Services LLC (Case #2023077003601) – From January 2020 to July 2024, NFS misreported certain quantitative information or failed to disclose certain material aspects of the firm’s relationships with its execution venues in its Rule 606(a) quarterly reports under Regulation NMS of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Accordingly, NFS violated Rule 606(a) of Regulation NMS and FINRA Rule 2010. From September 2022 to April 2023, NFS erroneously excluded immediate-or-cancel (IOC) mid-point peg orders in its Rule 605 monthly reports under Regulation NMS. Accordingly, NFS violated Rule 605 of Regulation NMS and FINRA Rule 2010.
FINRA v. National Financial Services LLC (Case #2015045362401) – In connection with Matter Nos. 20150453624 and 20160523336, the Order Audit Trail System (“OATS”) Compliance staff of the Department of Market Regulation reviewed the firm’s compliance with FINRA Rule 7450 during the period of January 2, 2014 through May 10, 2015 (the “first review period”) and May 11, 2015 through June 22, 2017 (the “second review period”), respectively, collectively referred herein as the “relevant period.” As a result of these reviews, it was determined that the firm submitted Reportable Order Events (“ROEs”) to OATS during the relevant period that contained inaccurate data for institutional clients of the firm and institutional clients of a broker dealer affiliate of the firm. In addition, the firm failed to establish, maintain and enforce supervisory procedures, including written supervisory procedures (“WSPs”) and a system of follow-up and review, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with FINRA rules concerning OATS reporting requirements.
FINRA v. National Financial Services LLC (Case #2012034660901) – In connection with FINRA Matter No. 20120346609, the Short Sales Team of the Department of Market Regulation (the “staff”) reviewed certain securities with fail to deliver positions at a registered clearing agency that exceeded six consecutive settlement days to review for compliance with SEC Rule 204 of Regulation SHO during the time period from June 21, 2012 through September 30, 2012 (the “first review period”). In connection with FINRA Matter No. 20140417121, the staff reviewed certain securities with fail to deliver positions at a registered clearing agency that exceeded six consecutive settlement days to review for compliance with SEC Rule 204 of Regulation SHO during the time period from January 2, 2014 through March 31, 2014 (the “second review period”). Based on the findings of this review, the firm disclosed additional related conduct covering the period from June 2015 through July 2017. In connection with FINRA Matter No. 20150449465, the staff reviewed certain securities with fail to deliver positions at a registered clearing agency that exceeded six consecutive settlement days to review for compliance with SEC Rule 204 of Regulation SHO during the time period from October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “third review period”). Based on the foregoing reviews, the staff found that the firm violated SEC Rule 204 of Regulation SHO.
FINRA v. National Financial Services LLC (Case #2014039067601) – MSRB Rule G-17 requires that municipal securities dealers “not engage in any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice.” Rule G-17’s requirements apply to an underwriter’s activities conducted with a municipal securities issuer, including any commitments that the underwriter makes regarding the distribution of the issuer’s securities. An underwriter violates MSRB Rule G-17 by, among other things, making commitments to a municipal securities issuer and then failing to honor those commitments. From March 2012 through March 2014 (the “Relevant Period”), NFS participated as an underwriter in 24 municipal securities offerings issued by various states. During the Relevant Period, the lead underwriters communicated priority instructions for the offerings that required that orders from in-state retail customers be given priority over retail customers from other states. Specifically, the pricing wires sent to NFS for the 24 offerings in question specified that the priority of orders during the retail period was to fill in-state retail orders ahead of out-of-state retail orders.
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.