Articles Posted in Broker Misconduct

Ex-Oppenheimer Stockbroker Pleads Guilty in Insider Trading Case
David Hobson, an ex-Oppenheimer Holdings (OPY) investment adviser, was sentenced to six months behind bars for insider trading using information provided to him by a friend who was employed with Pfizer Inc. at the time.

Hobson pleaded guilty to the criminal charges against him. He was ordered to forfeit over $385K. His friend, Michael Maciocio, reached a plea deal with prosecutors for his part last year.

Hobson started insider trading in 2008 while employed at RBC Capital Markets and he continued with his illicit activities at Oppenheimer. He was Maciocio’s stockbroker.

Continue Reading ›

Voya Accused of Not Disclosing Revenue Received for Mutual Fund Sales
The US Securities and Exchange Commission said that Voya Financial Advisors (VOYA) would pay approximately $3.1M to regulators and investors for not telling customers about revenue the firm was paid related to a mutual fund program that didn’t bill transaction fees. Voya’s clearing broker-dealer paid the firm a percentage of the money made from the mutual fund sales. This was information that should have been shared with investors.

Also, since 2014, Voya and the third-party brokerage firm were involved in a separate agreement under which Voya provided certain administrative services in return for a percentage of service fees involving certain mutual funds. The regulator said that these payments were a conflict because they gave Voya incentive to preference these funds over other investments, which could have impacted what the firm recommended to advisory clients. As part of the settlement, Voya will pay about $2.6M of disgorgement, approximately $175K of interest, and a $300K penalty. The firm is not, however, denying or admitting to the SEC’s findings.

Fired Waddell & Reed Broker is Barred from the Securities Industry
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has barred an ex-Waddell & Reed Inc. broker from the industry. Paul D. Stanley was fired from the firm last year for allegedly violating its policies regarding supervision, compensation, and conduct.

Continue Reading ›

Martyn Dodgson, a former Deutsche Bank AG (DB) broker and managing director, and Andrew Hind, an accountant, were convicted of insider trading in London. The Financial Conduct Authority said that that Dodgson and another broker gave insider information about certain business deals to Hind, who then passed on the information to two other traders. They allegedly made $10.7M from trading half a dozen stocks in what is being called the largest insider trading case in the U.K.

The probe into the insider trading allegations, known as Operation Tabernula, has been going on for nine years. Already, three other convictions have been rendered related to the investigation. According to prosecutors, those involved employed conventional techniques and modern technology to conceal their trades. For example, they would meet at Indian restaurants where they’d hand over money in envelopes. They also purportedly used pay-as-you-go phones and encrypted memory sticks.

After investigators planted a bug in the office of day trader Benjamin Anderson, a conversation was recorded involving Iraj Parvizi, another day trader, in which Dodgson was described. Anderson and Parvizi, who were both acquitted of criminal charges, claimed that they had no reason to believe that the tips they were receiving was insider information.

It was in 2014 that former Moore Capital Management LLC trader Julian Rifat pleaded guilty to insider trading in an offshoot probe of this investigation. He admitted to sharing insider information that he received while employed at the firm to associate Graeme Shelley, who then traded to benefit the two of them. Shelley, who was formerly with Novum Securities, also pleaded guilty to insider dealing with Rifat and associate Paul Milsom, who entered his own guilty plea.

Continue Reading ›

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is proposing rules that would limit how much in political contributions brokers would be allowed to make to avoid conflicts of interest. FINRA is now calling for feedback during the comment period regarding the proposed rule, which runs for 21 days after notice is published in the Federal Register.

Under the proposed rule, brokers would have a contribution cap of $350 during an election year and $150 during any other year. Should a broker contribute beyond these caps, there would not be a penalty as long as a refund is issued within four months of the donation’s receipt. A failure to satisfy exemptions will lead to a bar for the broker from being allowed to solicit a government entity or official for business purposes for two years after the donation was made.

It was in 2010 that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted “pay-to-play” rules that placed investment advisers under the same limits.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has sent a targeted exam letter seeking to examine possible conflicts of interest in the way firms pay brokers. About a dozen brokerage firms received the letter, which the regulator said is aimed at gathering information as opposed to seeking out violations.

In its letter, the self-regulatory organization inquires about each firm’s different compensation practices, including common payout grids, mutual fund fees, and recruiting incentives. FINRA also wants to know about any compensation that firms may receive from product sponsors and how certain products are promoted. It also wants to learn about production thresholds that allow certain brokers to get bonuses and more compensation for additional revenue earned, improved compensation tied to revenue from certain product types, and policies for monitoring conflicts of interest as they relate to compensation.

FINRA Executive Vice President of Regulatory Operations/Shared Services Dan Sibears said that the SRO is conducting the sweeps to see if firms are properly managing conflicts of interest or if additional guidance needs to be issued. Enforcement actions typically do not result from this type of sweep unless egregious violations are discovered.

Continue Reading ›

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel arbitration panel says that Morgan Stanley (MS) must pay at least $2.4M to settle the latest client claims accusing its former broker, Steven Mark Wyatt, of mishandling their investments. The brokerage firm fired Wyatt in 2012.

According to a group of doctors and their loved ones, Wyatt, who was their broker, made unauthorized and excessive trades in the stock market that cost them during and after the 2008 financial crisis. Wyatt bought thinly-traded stocks for the investors and placed speculative bets on exchange-traded funds and other securities in their portfolios.

This is the latest batch of claims against Wyatt, Morgan Stanley, and managers at the Mississippi branch where he worked. The claimants believe that Morgan Stanley failed to detect warning signs of Wyatt’s purported wrongdoing. Other employees named in this securities case are adviser Hilary Zimmerman, currently a Morgan Stanley senior vice president, and branch manager Fred Eugene Brister III. The claimants contend that Brister failed to properly supervise Zimmerman and Wyatt. They say that their accounts were mismanaged and suspect trading occurred.

Continue Reading ›

Morgan Stanley Accuses Ex-Broker, Now With Ameriprise, of Trying to Take Clients

Morgan Stanley Wealth Management is suing one of its ex-brokers, John McCallion, who is now with Ameriprise Financial Services (AMP). The wirehouse claims that McCallion went into Morgan Stanley’s (MS) computer system before leaving the firm and changed his clients’ phone numbers so he could take their business with him.

The firm contends that while McCallion gave it a list of his clients’ information, he put the data on a USB drive that could not be opened on Morgan Stanley’s computers because of security issues. The Ameriprise broker has consented to a temporary restraining order that blocks him from pursuing the firm’s clients. He also is facing a FINRA arbitration claim over the matter. McCallion had at first tired to argue against the temporary order and he denied taking the confidential list or trade secrets.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is looking at a system that would let the SRO run analytics on the customers accounts at brokerage firms that would allow it to identify “red flags” involving business and sales misconduct involving branches, firms, and registered representatives. The agency is now seeking comments for its proposal for the Comprehensive Automatic Risk Data System (CARDS).

Upon implementation of CARDS, clearing firms and self-clearing firms would regularly turn in, in standardized, automated format, specific data about customer accounts and the customers accounts of each member account that they clear for. This would allow FINRA to conduct analytics so it can identify excessive commissions, churning, markups, pump and dump scamps, and mutual fund switches. The information would also be used to examine broker-dealers.

FINRA says it wants to be able to find the risks and red flags earlier. According to a notice from the SRO, the agency says that this type of automated reporting would get rid of some of the one-off reporting that brokerage firms now have to engage in. This would also let FINRA compare broker-dealers and identify trends and patterns in the industry.

US House Passes A Bill Prohibiting the US Labor Department DOL From Amending Its Definition of “Fiduciary” Until SEC’s Uniform Conduct Standard is Established

A bill that would not allow the Department of Labor to amend its rules regarding the definition of the term “fiduciary” until after Securities and Exchange Commission adopts its own rule that places broker-dealers and investment advisers under a uniform standard of conduct has passed in the US House of Representatives. The DOL has been trying to revise its definition of “fiduciary” in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Those who voted to prohibit revising the definition have been worried about possibly ending up with two rulemakings that were inconsistent with one another.

Reg A Plus Offerings and Their Oversight Get Capitol Hill Debate

The Securities and Exchange Commission wants comments on a proposed amendment to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s broker-deal supervision rules. The latter wants to change the rules by consolidating some of them, including NASD Rule 3010 and NASD Rule 3012 into its proposed Rules 3110 and 3120 that have to do with supervisory controls and the supervision of supervisory jurisdictions’ office and branch offices. The proposed rule change would eliminate NYSE Rule 342, which is related to supervision, approval, and controls, Rule 401 about business conduct, and Rule 354 regarding control persons, Rule 351e about reporting requirements. The consolidation is taking place because the SEC says some of the rules are duplicative.

FINRA also wants to eliminate proposed Rule 3110.03, which is a provision about the supervision and control of registered principals at one-person OSJs by a designated senior principal on the site. The SRO also is proposing to amend rule 3110.05 so that an Investment Banking and Securities Business member doesn’t have to perform detailed reviews of transaction if the member is using risk-based review system that is designed in a way so it can focus on areas that have the greatest risks of violation.

Meantime, proposed Rule 3110(b)(6)(D) will be changed so that it is clear that the rule doesn’t establish a strict liability to identify and get rid of all conflicts as they relate to an associated person that is supervised by supervisory personnel. There will have to be procedures to make sure that conflicts of interest don’t compromise the supervisory system.

Contact Information