Securities Lawyers Blog
Our law firm represents individual and institutional investors that have been mistreated by their brokers and brokerage firms, such as Wells Fargo Securities, 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.
Wells Fargo Securities, LLC provides the capital markets and investment banking services of Wells Fargo, including debt and equity underwriting, mergers and acquisitions advice, loan syndications, sales and trading, and research. It serves corporations, financial institutions, and public entities throughout the United States, Latin America, Asia, and Europe.
Wells Fargo Securities, LLC – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 126292
- Regulatory Events: 161
- Broker Employees: 3,483
Wells Fargo Securities, LLC – In the News:
FINRA v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (Case #2021072404901) – From June 2015 to August 2021, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC sent to certain institutional customers approximately 2.27 million trade confirmations that failed to disclose that, for orders effected via multiple executions: (1) the prices reflected on the confirmations were average prices; and (2) details regarding the actual prices were available upon request. As a result, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC violated Exchange Act Rule 10b-10, promulgated under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and FINRA Rules 2232 and 2010. Additionally, during the same period, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC’s supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures, was not reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Exchange Act Rule 10b-10 and FINRA Rule 2232. First, before July 2020, the firm did not incorporate into its monthly reviews of trade confirmations a specific review for average-price disclosures. Second, after discovering its failure to disclose average-price information, the steps taken by Wells Fargo Securities, LLC were not reasonably designed to timely and effectively remediate the issue. As a result, the firm continued to send trade confirmations that omitted the required average-price disclosures. Accordingly, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC violated FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (Case #2017056834001) – From December 2016 to June 2018, Wells Fargo overstated its advertised trade volume on Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters, private subscription-based providers of market data, in violation ofFINRA Rules 5210 and 2010. The firm also failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with FINRA Rule 5210 in violation ofFINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (Case #2016049241601) – In Matter No. 20160492416, the Trading & Financial Compliance Examination (TFCE”) Fixed Income Trading Examination Team (TFCE Staff’) conducted a 2016 Fixed Income Trading Examination of the firm during the period of July 1, 2015 through July 20, 2015. The review period was expanded to February 12, 2014 through September 22, 2016 (Expanded review period”) after the firm identified additional instances upon request from TFCE Staff. In Matter No. 20160518234, the TRACE staff conducted a review of the firm’s TRACE- STAR No, 20160492416 (includes 20160518234 and 20170530765), (MM) eligible Agency Debt Securities submitted to TRACE during the period from July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016 (the “3Q16 review period”). In Matter No. 20170530765, the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE”) staff of the Market Regulation Department (the “TRACE staff”) of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“EMIR/VI conducted a review of the firm’s TRACE-eligible Asset-Backed Securities (ABS”) submitted to TRACE during the period from July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “2H16 review period”). As a result of the reviews, it was determined that the firm violated FINRA Rules 4511(a), 6730(a), 6730(c), 6730(c)(8), 6760(c), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC”) Rule 17a-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and NASD Conduct Rule 3010 (for conduct on or before November 30, 2014) and F1NRA Rules 3110 (for conduct on and after December I., 2014), and 2010.
FINRA v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (Case #2014040326101) – In connection with Matter No. 20140403261, FINRA Department of Market Regulation staff(“staff”) conducted a review of WCHV’s reporting of conventional (a/k/a Over the Counter [“OTC”]) options to the Large Options Positions Report (“LOPR”)1 for compliance with options reporting rules. Staff found that in early 2008, after WCHV had executed a large OTC options trade, the Firm conducted a review of OTC LOPR obligations, and ultimately decided to develop the necessary systems for the reporting of the OTC options trades that WCHV intermediated and had not been reporting.
FINRA v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (Case #2016049784101) – Beginning in October 2014 and continuing to the present (the “Relevant Period”), WF failed to maintain a vast number of electronic brokerage records in non-erasable and non-rewritable format, known as WORM format, as required by Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 17a-4(f) thereunder and FINRA Rule 4511. WF’s WORM-related deficiencies primarily occurred from February 2015 through April 2016 when, during this time, WF failed to maintain approximately 350 million records in WORM format. WORM stands for ”write once, read many,” and is intended to prevent the alteration or destruction of broker-dealer records stored electronically. During the Relevant Period, the Firms also experienced related audit and attestation deficiencies affecting the ability to adequately retain and preserve electronic records, in violation of Exchange Act Rule 17a-4(f) and FINRA Rule 4511. Finally, the Firms failed to enforce written supervisory procedures relating to the WORM requirement, in violation of NASD Rule 3010 and FINRA Rule 3110.
Gana Weinstein LLP has successfully litigated broker disputes through verdict or settlement. We represent both individuals and institutions throughout the country in FINRA arbitration, as well as commercial litigation in state and federal courts. Our consultations are both free and thorough and our securities litigation attorneys can help you uncover wrongful activity in your account.