FINRA publishes guidance on research conflict of interest rules

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-50
Author(s):  
Timothy Burke ◽  
Jason Pinney
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Valuable Insight ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Risk Levels ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Research Analysts ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose To explain recent guidance released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) regarding research analyst conflicts of interest that arise during the underwriter selection process. Design/methodology/approach The article discusses the risks associated with different communications between research analysts and issuers during the three phases of the underwriter selection process: the pre-IPO period; the solicitation period; and the post-mandate period. Findings While many questions remain, the FINRA guidance provides valuable insight to firms regarding the types of communications between research analysts and issuers that are permitted during different periods in the solicitation process. The risk levels associated with different types of communications during those time periods range from low to high to “unmanageable”. The article provides practical guidance on what research analysts can say and do during the different periods. Practical implications Broker-dealers should evaluate their policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the new FINRA guidelines. Originality value Practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers who are on the front lines in dealing with these issues.

FINRA’s disciplinary actions in 2017: increased restitution ordered with minimal changes in number of cases

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-23
Author(s):  
Brian Rubin ◽  
Adam Pollet
Keyword(s):  
Money Laundering ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Disciplinary Actions ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Electronic Communications ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Past ◽  
Expert Analysis ◽  
Research Analysts ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) 2017 disciplinary actions, the issues that resulted in the most significant fines and restitution and the emerging enforcement trends from 2017 and beyond. Design/methodology/approach The approach of this paper discusses the disciplinary actions in 2017 and prior years, details the top 2017 enforcement issues measured by total fines assessed, including anti-money laundering, trade reporting, electronic communications, books and records, research analysts and research reports, and explains current enforcement trends, including restitution, suitability cases and technological issues. Findings In 2017, restitution more than doubled from the prior year, resulting in the fourth highest total sanctions (fines combined with restitution and disgorgement) assessed by FINRA over the past 10 years. Practical implications Firms and their representatives should heed the trends in both the substantial restitution FINRA is ordering and the related enforcement issues in the cases FINRA has brought. Originality/value This paper provides expert analysis and guidance from experienced securities enforcement lawyers.

SEC approves long-anticipated FINRA research rules

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Natterson Kroll ◽  
John Ayanian
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Equity Research ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Research Analysts ◽  
Required Disclosures ◽  
Insight Into

Purpose To analyze the changes to the FINRA equity research rules and evaluate concerns that may be important to and have an impact on equity research activities following the effective date. Design/methodology/approach This article provides an overview of the changes reflected in FINRA Rule 2241 pertaining to equity research analysts and research reports, as well as changes to licensing requirements for equity research analysts. It highlights potential issues for firms and provides some commentary on how these issues should be considered in light of FINRA’s articulated position and assurances FINRA has given to the SEC. Findings This article concludes that firms should anticipate these changes and begin a comprehensive review of research policies and procedures, the personnel who prepare research reports and the scope of their research products so as to be compliant with Rule 2241 from its effective date. Firms should also begin an investigation of technologies used to gather, produce and disseminate research and required disclosures to ensure they meet the new requirements when they are effective. Originality/value This article provides insight into the new FINRA Rule 2241 and practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

MSRB publishes its first compliance advisory for broker-dealers

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 49-51
Author(s):  
Scott R. Anderson ◽  
Kate S. Poorbaugh
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Compliance Programs ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Effective Compliance ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose To summarize the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s 2016 Compliance Advisory for brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers. Design/methodology/approach Summarizes several Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) rules that the Compliance Advisory highlights as presenting key compliance risks for brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers. Discusses the factors included in the Compliance Advisory that dealers should consider when evaluating compliance procedures and controls. Findings By highlighting some key compliance risks and providing considerations tailored to those risks, the Compliance Advisory can be used as a tool to aid dealers in developing and assessing effective compliance programs. Practical implications Dealers should consider reviewing their firms’ existing compliance policies and procedures in light of the considerations discussed in the Compliance Advisory. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services regulatory lawyers.

Financial institutions and the new class action under Italian law: a compliance approach

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 9-14
Author(s):  
Francesco Falco
Keyword(s):  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Content Type ◽  
New Class ◽  
Italian Law ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose To explain the impacts of the class action, as recently amended by the Italian Parliament, and help financial institutions to develop a compliance approach in order to avoid and/or mitigate the relevant risks. Design/methodology/approach This article provides an overview on the Italian class action, as recently amended by the Italian Law No. 31/2019, examines the relevant impact for financial institutions (taking into account some recent case law) and identifies possible compliance solutions to avoid/mitigate the relevant risks. Findings The recent amendments to the Italian class action may increase risks for financial institutions. Practical implications (Optional) Financial institutions should examine their relationships with stakeholders in the light of the new Italian class action in order to implement policies and procedures to prevent the relevant risks. Originality/value Practical guidance from an experienced lawyer in the litigation and compliance fields.

OCIE to investment advisers: focus on these five problem areas

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 16-18
Author(s):  
Brynn D. Peltz ◽  
Ilan S. Nissan ◽  
Evyn W. Rabinowitz
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Funds Management ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose To explain a Risk Alert published on February 7, 2017 published by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) describing the five compliance topics most frequently identified in deficiency letters sent to investment advisers after the completion of an OCIE examination. Design/methodology/approach Discusses deficiencies noted by the OCIE relating to the Compliance Rule, required regulatory filings, the Custody Rule, the Code of Ethics Rule, and the Books and Records Rule. Findings The OCIE published the Risk Alert with its noted deficiencies only one month after releasing its exam priorities for the year. Practical implications All investment advisers should consider reviewing their compliance practices, policies and procedures in light of the deficiencies and weaknesses identified in the SEC Risk Alert. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced lawyers specializing in asset and funds management.

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 administrative law judge bars investment manager for misrepresenting GIPS compliance

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 38-40
Author(s):  
Michael S. Caccese ◽  
Douglas Y. Charton ◽  
Pamela A. Grossetti
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Performance Standards ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Investment Performance ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Investment Manager ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose – To explain an administrative law judge (ALJ) decision, along with a censure, fine, and industry disbarment, against an investment adviser for misleading advertising and false claims of compliance with Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS). Design/methodology/approach – Explains the background to GIPS, the investment adviser’s GIPS violations, the significance of the case, and lessons to be learned by investment advisors on compliance with GIPS standards. Findings – The decision is particularly significant because the ALJ issued such severe sanctions based solely on false claims of GIPS compliance notwithstanding the fact that all reported performance returns were accurate and no investors relied on or were harmed by the false claims of compliance. Practical implications – The Zavanelli case should serve to put firms on notice that persistent noncompliance with the GIPS standards can have serious consequences and that all marketing materials should be subject to effective review and approval policies and procedures prior to distribution or publication to ensure compliance with the GIPS standards. Originality/value – Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

SEC issues Staff Legal Bulletin after four-year comprehensive review of proxy system

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-65
Author(s):  
John E. Sorkin ◽  
Abigail Pickering Bomba ◽  
Steven Epstein ◽  
Jessica Forbes ◽  
Peter S. Golden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose – To provide an overview of the guidance for proxy firms and investment advisers included in the Staff Legal Bulletin released this year by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after its four-year comprehensive review of the proxy system. Design/methodology/approach – Discusses briefly the context in which the SEC’s review was conducted; the general themes of the guidance provided; the most notable aspects of the guidance; and the matters that were expected to be, but were not, addressed by the SEC. Findings – The guidance does not go as far in regulating proxy advisory firms as many had anticipated it would. The key obligations specified in the guidance are imposed on the investment advisers who engage the proxy firms. The responsibilities, policies and procedures mandated do not change the fundamental paradigm that has supported the influence of proxy firms – that is, investment advisers continue to be permitted to fulfill their duty to vote client shares in a “conflict-free manner” by voting based on the recommendations of independent third parties, and continue to be exempted from the rules that generally apply to persons who solicit votes or make proxy recommendations. Practical implications – The SEC staff states in the Bulletin that it expects that proxy firms and investment advisers will conform to the obligations imposed in the Bulletin “promptly, but in any event in advance of [the 2015] proxy season.” Originality/value – Practical guidance from experienced M&A lawyers.

FINRA report on broker-dealer management of conflicts of interest

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-64
Author(s):  
Scott Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Management ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Information Collection ◽  
Focus Attention ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures

Purpose – To summarize the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority report on broker-dealer conflicts of interest. Design/methodology/approach – Discusses background of recent FINRA information collection effort on conflicts of interest upon which FINRA based the report. Outlines FINRA objectives for firms to review their current conflicts management systems. Discusses three key areas where firms should focus attention, including examples of possible practices firms can undertake: a firm's general conflicts of interest framework across all business lines; new products creation and distribution; and compensation practices. Findings – The report highlights areas that FINRA expects broker-dealers to consider in reviewing their compliance policies and procedures to assess whether firms should implement changes to their own conflict management frameworks. FINRA will evaluate whether to pursue future conflicts management rulemaking if broker-dealer firms do not make adequate progress on conflicts management. Originality/value – Practical explanation by experienced financial services lawyer.

2020 SEC risk alert provides guidance for private fund advisers

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-54
Author(s):  
Kenneth Breen ◽  
Phara Guberman
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Expert Analysis ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
The U.S

Purpose To analyze the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) June 2020 Risk Alert, which identified three categories of deficiencies that the SEC regularly finds in its reviews of advisers to private funds, in order to understand its guidance and recommend best practices. Design/methodology/approach The study discusses the categories of deficiencies that the SEC regularly finds in its reviews of private fund advisers, current SEC enforcement trends, and recommendations for disclosures, internal controls, policies and procedures. Findings The SEC will expect private funds to identify and remedy regular deficiencies in three primary categories: gaps in client and investor disclosures regarding conflicts of interest; deficiencies in disclosures related to fees and expenses; and issues with policies and procedures regarding the treatment of material nonpublic information. Practical implications Private fund advisers should expect increased scrutiny during examinations on the identified deficiencies and use this opportunity to be proactive in addressing these issues. Originality/value Expert analysis and guidance from experienced securities enforcement attorneys.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document