Securities Lawyers Blog
Our law firm represents individual and institutional investors that have been mistreated by their brokers and brokerage firms, such as RBC Capital Markets, LLC. Many investors do not recognize broker misconduct in their accounts, and those that do are often hesitant to seek help. Broker misconduct spans many issues that violate industry rules, including unauthorized trading, breach of fiduciary duty, unsuitable asset allocation, and churning. The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP can analyze your accounts and investments to determine if there was misconduct in the handling of your account.
RBC Capital Markets, LLC is the U.S. broker-dealer of Royal Bank of Canada, providing full-service brokerage, investment banking, municipal and fixed income trading, and clearing and custody services for correspondent firms and investment advisors. The firm also houses RBC Wealth Management in the United States and is a member of the New York Stock Exchange and other securities and commodities exchanges.
RBC Capital Markets, LLC – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 31194
- Regulatory Events: 373
- Arbitration Events: 114
- Broker Employees: 6,300
RBC Capital Markets, LLC – Investment Advisors:
- SEC #: 13059
- Assets Under Management: $310,428,968,904
- ADV Form Employee: 8,781
RBC Capital Markets, LLC – In the News:
FINRA v. RBC Capital Markets, LLC (Case #2022075967301) – From February 2016 through September 2023, RBC failed to develop and implement an anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program reasonably designed to detect and cause the reporting of suspicious transactions, in violation of FINRA Rules 3310(a), 3310(f)(ii) and 2010. For these violations, RBC is censured and fined $275,000.
FINRA v. RBC Capital Markets, LLC (Case #2019063914601) – From January 2016 to at least December 2023, RBC’s supervisory system did not provide certain customers with mutual fund sales charge waivers and fee rebates to which they were entitled through rights of reinstatement offered by mutual fund companies. Consequently, eligible customers across more than 1,450 accounts paid approximately $265,000 in excess sales charges and fees during that period. Therefore, RBC violated FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. RBC Capital Markets, LLC (Case #2015046503001) – Between 2010 and 2019, RBC sent approximately 940,000 trade confirmations to customers that contained inaccurate information. In addition, between 2006 and 2021, RBC failed to send millions of trade confirmations to customers as required. Accordingly, the firm violated Exchange Act Rule 10b-10, promulgated under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Section 17(a) and Exchange Act Rule 17a-3, FINRA Rules 2232, 4511, and 2010, and MSRB Rules G-15 and G-8. RBC also violated NASD Rules 3010 and 2110, FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010, and MSRB Rule G-27 by failing to establish, maintain, and enforce a supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with requirements for trade confirmations. Additionally, from 2012 to 2016, RBC violated FINRA Rule 2010 by violating Regulation T of the Federal Reserve Board by extending credit to certain customers of RBC and RBC’s introducing firms.
FINRA v. RBC Capital Markets, LLC (Case #2020066722501) – From August 28, 2015, to November 2, 2020, the firm reported to FINRA a total of 11,626,033 orders with an inaccurate capacity code as a result of two separate issues, in violation of FINRA Rules 7230A(d)(7), 7230B(d)(7), 7330(d)(7), and 2010. The order memoranda associated with these transactions also included the wrong capacity, in violation of Exchange Act § 17(a), Exchange Act Rule 17a-3, and FINRA Rules 4511(a) and 2010. Additionally, the firm’s supervisory system relating to the accuracy of the capacity codes it reported was not reasonably designed because its reviews excluded certain order flows, in violation of FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. RBC Capital Markets, LLC (Case #2019061442501) – From January 2017 to December 2018, RBC failed to establish and maintain a reasonable supervisory system to monitor whether its registered representatives recommended to retail customers short-term trading of syndicate preferred stocks that was unsuitable, including for the purpose of capturing sales concessions and commissions. While the firm’s procedures called for supervisors to closely examine representatives’ short-term trading of preferred stocks, the firm’s electronic surveillance of short-term trading in preferred stock was unreasonably designed, and it failed to monitor for that activity. During the relevant period, representatives recommended a number of the firm’s retail customers purchase syndicate preferred stocks, and then sell the positions within 180 days, and the customers sustained losses on these transactions. Based on the above conduct, RBC violated FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
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.