Securities Lawyers Blog
We represent clients of financial advisors and brokerage firms in investment disputes against their firms, such as Stonex Financial Inc.. 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.
StoneX Financial is a broker-dealer and futures commission merchant that provides clearing, execution, custody, risk management advisory and brokerage services across asset classes, including principal trading of fixed income and equity securities and market making in international equities. Organized in Florida in 1998 with its principal office in Winter Park, the firm is a wholly owned subsidiary of StoneX Group and has a presence in more than 15 states, Canada and Colombia.
Stonex Financial Inc. – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 45993
- Regulatory Events: 76
- Broker Employees: 583
Stonex Financial Inc. – In the News:
FINRA v. Stonex Financial Inc. (Case #2018057892701) – From July 2017 through March 2020, StoneX Financial failed to provide best execution with respect to 1,674 orders in OTC securities that it received from other broker-dealers for those brokers’ customers by failing to use reasonable diligence to ascertain the best market for the subject securities and by failing to buy or sell in such market so that the resultant prices to the customers were as favorable as possible under prevailing market conditions. As a result, StoneX Financial violated FINRA Rules 5310 and 2010. From July 2017 through March 2020, the firm also failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with FINRA Rule 5310 best execution obligations for customer orders in OTC securities in violation of FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. Stonex Financial Inc. (Case #2018059344901) – During two quarters, 3Q2017 and 2Q2018, StoneX failed to immediately display, route, execute, or cancel 27 out of 35 (77%) sampled exceptions of customer limit orders, 14 of which were cancel/replace orders. As a result, StoneX violated FINRA Rules 6460 and 2010. Further, from July 2017 through June 2018, StoneX failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including WSPs, that was reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Rule 6460 in violation of FINRA Rules 3110(a), 3110(b), and 2010.
FINRA v. Stonex Financial Inc. (Case #2017053820401) – Between January 2016 and October 2016, INTL liquidated low-priced securities for two foreign financial institutions, one of which was an investment management company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the other a broker based in Sweden. Respondent’s supervisory system was not reasonably designed to detect red flags associated with the trading or otherwise assess whether its customers were engaged in unlawful trading activity, such as manipulation of microcap securities and/or the sale of unregistered securities. As a result, INTL failed to satisfy its supervisory and anti-money laundering (AML) obligations, thereby violating FINRA Rules 3110, 3310, and 2010. In addition, from July 2017 until separate time periods in 2018 and 2019, INTL’s AML program for its newly-acquired clearing business had certain deficiencies in how it tracked (or failed to track) ACH transfers, foreign accounts that had common addresses, and customers that had previously been blocked by its direct business. These weaknesses in its AML program also violated FINRA Rules 3310 and 2010.
FINRA v. Stonex Financial Inc. (Case #2013038552201) – In Review No. 20130385522, the staff of FINRA’s Department of Market Regulation (“the staff”) conducted a Regulation SHO Rule 204 Sweep, for the period October 15, 2012 through September 13, 2013 (“the review period”). The firm failed to comply with Regulation SHO’s close out and pre-borrow requirements during the review period, in violation of Rule 204 of Regulation SHO.
FINRA v. Stonex Financial Inc. (Case #2015047592001) – In Review Nos. 20150475920 and 20160488992, FINRA’s Department of Market Regulation staff reviewed the firm’s compliance with OTC securities limit order display and order protection rules for the period July 1, 2015 through September 30, 2015. During the review period, the firm failed to display immediately seven customer limit orders in OTC securities in its public quotation, in violation of FINRA Rule 6460. In 18 instances, the firm also accepted and held 16 customer orders and failed to execute them up to the size and at the same or a better price at which it traded for its own account, in violation of FINRA Rules 5320 and 2010.
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.