FINRA revises and restructures registration and exam requirements

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-49
Author(s):  
Edward J. Johnsen ◽  
John H. Grady
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Regulatory Authority ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Securities Industry ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Limited Period

Purpose To explain a new set of rules, detailed in FINRA Regulatory Notice 17-30, proposed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and approved by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), that revise and streamline the number and types of proficiency exams broker-dealer personnel must take in order to become registered, as well as the categories of registration. Design/methodology/approach Discusses the background, including FINRA’s consolidation of National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) rules; the new registration regime; conditions for waivers; criteria for “permissive” registration; firms’ requirement to designate “Principal Financial Officers” and “Principal Operations Officers”; new categories of principal registration; FINRA’s elimination of certain registration categories; research analyst, research principal and supervisory analyst exam requirements; the ability of a registered representative to function as a principal for a limited period; the prohibition of unregistered persons to accept orders from customers; and the Securities Industry Essentials (SIE) Examination Content Outline. Findings The new structure is intended to bring greater consistency and uniformity to the qualification process. Among other changes, it eliminates several registration categories that either have become outdated or have limited utility, permits persons not yet associated with a broker-dealer or employed in the securities industry to take a preliminary registration exam prior to entering the securities industry, and makes other changes intended to modernize the registration and examination regime for broker-dealer personnel. Originality/value Practical guidance from lawyers with broad stock brokerage, investment management and related financial services experience.

A review of the SEC Participating Affiliate No-Action Letters’ relief from Investment Advisers Act of 1940 registration for foreign investment advisers

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 22-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy E. Cohen ◽  
David Y. Dickstein ◽  
Christian B. Hennion ◽  
Richard D. Marshall ◽  
Allison C. Yacker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Information Update ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers

Purpose To explain the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) staff’s (the “Staff”) participating affiliate exemption from investment adviser registration for foreign advisers set forth in a line of Staff no-action letters issued between 1992 and 2005 (the “Participating Affiliate Letters”) and to discuss recent guidance issued by the Staff in an information update published in March 2017 (the “Information Update”) with respect to complying with requirements of the Participating Affiliate Letters. Design/methodology/approach Reviews the development of the Staff’s approach regarding the non-registration of foreign advisers that rely on the Participating Affiliate Letters from prior to the issuance of those letters through the Information Update and sets forth recommendations for registered investment advisers and their participating affiliates. Findings While there are arguments that the Information Update goes beyond restating established standards and does not clearly explain whether submission of all listed documentation is required, the Information Update will likely standardize the information submitted to the SEC. Originality/value Practical guidance for advisers relying on the Participating Affiliate Letters from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

Heightened supervision of branch offices

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 18-21
Author(s):  
Daniel A. Nathan ◽  
Lauren Navarro ◽  
Kevin Matta
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Authority ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
National Examination ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
The Us ◽  
Branch Office ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose – To explain expectations of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as to what constitutes successful branch inspection programs for broker-dealers. Design/methodology/approach – Summarizes FINRA’s rules requiring firms to implement branch inspection programs; examines the SEC’s and FINRA’s joint 2011 National Examination Risk Alert, which expanded upon FINRA’s rules, requiring firms to conduct risk-based analyses on each branch office to determine the appropriate frequency, intensity, and focus of inspections; discusses FINRA’s expectation that firms examine their registered representatives’ financial circumstances to reduce the risk of fraud; explains how FINRA’s Comprehensive Automated Risk Data System may impact branch inspections; and recommends several sources that firms should review when implementing a successful branch inspection program. Findings – Regulators have heightened their expectations as to what constitutes successful branch inspection programs for broker-dealers. Practical implications – To avoid regulatory intervention and discipline, firms should continue to review their policies and procedures to ensure that their programs are sufficiently comprehensive. Originality/value – This article will encourage firms with branch offices to review their branch inspection programs, and assist those firms in implementing sufficiently comprehensive policies and procedures.

SEC publishes important guidance on the Custody Rule, participating affiliate arrangements, robo-advisers, Form PF and certain compliance topics

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 34-40
Author(s):  
Joyce E. Larson ◽  
Kara J. Brown ◽  
Ivet A. Bell
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Investors ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Regulatory Filing

Purpose To highlight guidance issued by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the benefit of investment advisers regarding certain obligations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) and the rules thereunder. Design/methodology/approach Summarizes recent guidance regarding issues related to several challenging Advisers Act requirements, including inadvertent custody and client account transfers under Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-2, the use of participating affiliate arrangements pursuant to the “Unibanco” no-action letters, unique considerations affecting automated advisers (i.e., “robo-advisers”), the top five most frequently identified compliance topics identified in examinations conducted by the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE), and recent guidance regarding the private fund regulatory filing Form PF. Findings This guidance may assist advisers in preparing for regulatory examinations and questions from institutional investors. While the recent guidance addresses important topics, the guidance also raises some practical questions. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

SEC charges “ICO Superstore” as unregistered broker-dealer

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-43
Author(s):  
John J. Sikora Jr. ◽  
Stephen P. Wink ◽  
Douglas K. Yatter ◽  
Naim Culhaci
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Securities Laws ◽  
Enforcement Activity

Purpose To analyze the settled order of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against TokenLot LLC (TokenLot), which was the SEC’s first action charging a seller of digital tokens as an unregistered broker-dealer. Design/methodology/approach Analyzes the SEC’s order within the context of other recent actions by the SEC on cryptocurrencies and digital tokens and discusses future implications of the order in this area. Findings The SEC’s order against TokenLot as an unregistered broker-dealer was a logical next step in its enforcement activity in the cryptocurrency and digital token space.The order demonstrates that the SEC expects firms in the cryptocurrency space to use the well-established constructs of federal securities laws to evaluate their business activities to ensure those activities are legally compliant. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers analyzing recent developments in a nascent area of SEC enforcement.

The SEC Speaks 2018: the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s current priorities and conference overview

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Gerald J. Russelo ◽  
Stephen L. Cohen ◽  
Jose F. Sanchez
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Regulatory Compliance ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Market Participants ◽  
The Us ◽  
Past Experiences ◽  
Insight Into

Purpose This paper aims to highlight certain comments made by US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) officials, which may provide insight into compliance and enforcement issues that may be important for market participants, including broker-dealers, investment advisors and reporting companies, in the future. Design/methodology/approach This paper explains comments made by SEC officials and highlights potential regulatory issues based on past experiences of attorneys within the firm, past comments made by the SEC and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and past regulatory exam results. Findings This paper summarizes remarks from the recent SEC Speaks 2018 Conference conducted by SEC officials related to the Commission’s regulatory and enforcement priorities. Issuers, brokers, advisors and other financial organizations should familiarize themselves with the themes and guidance discussed at the Conference to prepare for regulatory compliance challenges in the upcoming year. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

SEC flexes its muscle on accounting fraud and targets more individuals

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 50-53
Author(s):  
David Woodcock ◽  
Joan McKown
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Accounting Fraud ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
A Priority

Purpose To note the increase in accounting and financial reporting matters at the Securities and Exchange Commission by highlighting a number of recent cases filed by the agency. Design/methodology/approach The SEC recently announced the settlement or filing of a number of significant accounting fraud cases. Coupled with recent statements by the SEC and the Department of Justice, it is clear that accounting fraud is a priority and that individuals are in the cross-hairs. This article discusses a few of the recent cases and the trend toward more financial reporting and issuer disclosure cases. Findings The number of financial reporting and issuer disclosure cases will likely continue to increase. Individuals will be targeted in more of those cases, internal controls will be a focus, whistleblowers will continue to be important in this area, and SOX 304 clawbacks will continue to be a weapon for the SEC. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

SEC approves amendment to FINRA IPO allocation rule 5131, easing compliance for fund investors

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles S. Gittleman ◽  
Russell D. Sacks ◽  
Jennifer D. Morton
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Allocation Rule ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Guidance

Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to describe the recent amendments to FINRA's IPO Allocation Rule that were approved by the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a description of the IPO Allocation Rule and its operation, followed by a description of the IPO Allocation Rule amendments recently amended. Findings – On November 27, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved a change to FINRA's IPO allocation rule 5131 (the “amendment”). The amendment allows a fund of funds or other collective investment account that is investing in an IPO to rely on a written representation from an unaffiliated private fund investor that does not look through to its beneficial owners, provided that such unaffiliated private fund is managed by an investment adviser, has assets greater than $50 million, and meets certain other indicia of independence that are described. Originality/value – The paper provides practical guidance from experienced regulatory lawyers regarding an amendment to an important rule governing IPO sales and allocation practices.

No more bullsh*t: securities opinions after Omnicare

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 6-13
Author(s):  
Aegis Frumento ◽  
Stephanie Korenman
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Pension Fund ◽  
Content Type ◽  
District Council ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Securities Laws

Purpose – To review and analyze the implications for rendering opinions in connection with the sale of securities in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Omnicare, Inc. et al. v. Laborers District Council Constr. Ind. Pension Fund, et al. Design/methodology/approach – Analyzes the Omnicare holding and dissent in light of past practices and decisions and discusses how the case changes the risks of liability for rendering opinions in registration statements, and by necessary implication in other contexts where the securities laws proscribe either the statement of untrue “facts” or, by omissions, the making of misleading “statements.” Findings – Omnicare opens issuers and securities professionals to liability for rendering opinions that are not reasonably based in facts and rationality. Because the measure of such reasonableness depends on the reasonable investor, makers of opinions will need to take more matters into consideration in rendering opinions than they might have previously, when the only test of an opinion was whether it was genuinely believed by its maker. This creates a number of unresolved issues, but it also suggests that prudence will dictate more detailed disclosure and documentation of the bases of opinions than has been thought necessary until now. Originality/value – Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

What is a Regulation SHO bona-fide market maker?

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Bergmann ◽  
James P. Dombach
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Market Maker ◽  
Market Making ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
Administrative Proceeding ◽  
Practical Guidance

Purpose To summarize and analyze guidance provided by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on what constitutes “bona-fide market making” for purposes of Regulation SHO’s exception to the locate requirement. Design/methodology/approach Explains SEC guidance on this subject, focusing on statements by the SEC and its staff related to Regulation SHO and SEC enforcement matters, including a recent SEC administrative proceeding providing concrete examples of activity that does not constitute bona-fide market making. Findings While there is still a lot of room for additional SEC guidance on what constitutes bona-fide market making, the SEC has provided some details on the specific type of trading that would not fall within the Regulation SHO exceptions applying to bona-fide market making activities. However, there is still a large gap between the type of activity that most likely falls within the exception and the concrete examples analyzed by the SEC. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers that consolidates SEC guidance on the bona-fide market making exception.

US Supreme Court clarifies liability standard under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for statements of opinion in registration statements

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-42
Author(s):  
Richard Parrino ◽  
Douglas Schwab ◽  
David Wertheimer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Pension Fund ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to examine the US Supreme Court’s much anticipated decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Const. Indus. Pension Fund. In this 2015 case, the Supreme Court announced important principles for interpreting the application of the two bases for liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 to statements of opinion expressed in registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with public securities offerings. Design/methodology/approach – The article examines the Supreme Court’s articulation of the standards federal courts must apply under Section 11 to determine if opinion statements were untrue statements of a material fact or misleading because they omitted material facts necessary to make the statements of opinion not misleading. The paper identifies a number of the complexities involved in the Supreme Court’s approach and emphasizes the nuanced assessment of the facts surrounding opinion statements courts will be required to undertake by Omnicare. Findings – The Omnicare decision has significant implications for the litigation of Section 11 claims challenging statements of opinion and for the preparation of registration statement disclosures. The Omnicare decision dramatically alters the standards for reviewing Section 11 claims premised on opinions long applied in a number of US federal appellate circuits. The decision is likely to result in more Section 11 claims based on supposedly misleading opinion statements, and potentially in a greater number of Section 11 claims that survive at least an initial motion to dismiss. Omnicare highlights the importance of including in registration statement disclosures meaningful cautionary statements identifying important facts that could cause actual outcomes to differ materially from views expressed in an opinion. Originality/value – Expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document