Securities Lawyers Blog
We represent clients of financial advisors and brokerage firms in investment disputes against their firms, such as UBS Securities 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.
UBS Securities LLC is the main U.S. investment banking firm of UBS, offering a full range of investment banking services and acting as a broker-dealer, futures commission merchant, and primary dealer in U.S. government securities. Based in New York and registered with the SEC since 1978, the firm is a member of the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, and other major exchanges.
UBS Securities LLC – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 7654
- Regulatory Events: 309
- Arbitration Events: 4
- Broker Employees: 2,150
UBS Securities LLC – In the News:
FINRA v. UBS Securities LLC (Case #2019062435601) – From September 2015 through January 2019, UBS-S published inaccurate monthly statistics regarding execution of covered orders in violation of Rule 605 and FINRA Rule 2010. In addition, from September 2015 through November 2019, UBS-S’s supervisory system was not reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Rule 605. As a result, UBS-S violated FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. UBS Securities LLC (Case #2017056154401) – From January 2010 through September 2021, UBS failed to report and inaccurately reported OTC options positions to the LOPR in at least 7.1 million instances in violation of FINRA Rules 2360(b)(5) and 2010. In addition, from January 2010 through June 2018, UBS established certain options positions that exceeded applicable OTC position limits in violation of FINRA Rules 2360(b)(3) and 2010. Lastly, from November 2013 through November 2022, UBS failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including written procedures, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with FINRA Rule 2360(b)(5) in violation of NASD Rule 3010 and FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. UBS Securities LLC (Case #2017053191801) – This matter involves UBS’s failures to comply with TRACE reporting and related supervision requirements. From October 2016 through November 2020, UBS (i) failed to timely report approximately 10,500 corporate debt transactions; (ii) incorrectly appended the No Remuneration indicator to approximately 108,000 TRACE reports for corporate debt transactions; (iii) incorrectly reported approximately 5,800 internal transfers as corporate debt or Treasury transactions, when they were not reportable; (iv) reported the incorrect size of approximately 600 corporate debt transactions; and (v) inaccurately or untimely reported approximately 120 securitized products transactions in violation of FINRA Rules 6730 and 2010. In addition, between October 2016 and June 2022, the firm’s supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures (WSPs), was not reasonably designed to achieve compliance with TRACE reporting in violation of FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. UBS Securities LLC (Case #2017053779201) – From January 2011 through October 2017, UBS violated Regulation SHO Rule 200(f) and FINRA Rule 2010 by including securities positions of a foreign affiliate (UBS AG London) when calculating the net positions of four independent trading units. In addition, UBS violated NASD Rule 3010 and FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010 by failing to (1) establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Rule 200(f) from January 2011 through October 2017; and (2) establish, maintain, and enforce written procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Rule 200(f) from January 2011 through March 2020.2
FINRA v. UBS Securities LLC (Case #2016050211701) – From 2009 to 2018, UBS violated Rule 204 of Regulation SHO and FINRA Rule 2010. First, for approximately three years, UBS improperly used revocable volume-weighted- average price (VWAP) transactions or limit orders to address buy-in obligations for failure-to-deliver positions, resulting in approximately 5,300 violations of Rule 204(a) and at least 71,000 violations of the penalty box and pre-borrow requirements of Rule 204(b). Second, for nearly seven years, when UBS released shares from segregation in connection with customer long sales, UBS erroneously considered those shares available to close out a fail-to-deliver, causing UBS to undercalculate the shares it was required to borrow or purchase to comply with Rule 204(a). Third, during various time periods from 2009 to 2016, four of UBS’s order management systems did not restrict all short sales in securities with an unsatisfied close-out requirement, resulting in at least another 2,567 violations of Rule 204(b). From 2009 to August 2022, UBS also failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including written procedures, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Rule 204 of Regulation SHO. UBS did not enforce its written supervisory procedures regarding Rule 204. UBS also failed to identify numerous red flags indicating that its close-out actions did not comply with Rule 204(a). Therefore, UBS violated NASD Rule 3010 and FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.2
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.