Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide summaries of selected Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) regulatory notices and disciplinary actions issued in October, November, and December 2011.

The paper provides Regulatory Notice 11‐49, October 2011, Advertising Regulation; Regulatory Notice 11‐52, November 2011, Senior Designations; Regulatory Notice 11‐54, November 2011, Branch Office Inspections; and the description of one disciplinary action in which a firm was sanctioned and an individual fined.

Notice 11‐49: to inform firms of recent developments regarding the application of rules governing communications with the public, FINRA is proving guidance to firms on communication with the public regarding exchange‐traded products, treasury inflation‐protected securities (TIPS), use of “FINRA” in firm trademarks, and identification of related prior filings when submitting new filings for review. Notice 11‐52: FINRA reminds firms of their supervisory obligations regarding the use of certifications and designations that imply expertise, certification, training or specialty in advising senior investors. Notice 11‐54: FINRA and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations provide broker‐dealer firms with information on developing effective policies and procedures for branch office inspections and remind firms of supervisory requirements under FINRA's supervision rule and notes common deficiencies and strong compliance practices. Trade Reporting Notice on TRACE Reporting Issues: FINRA answers selected member firm detailed questions on reporting issues related to The Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE), the vehicle developed by FINRA to facilitate the mandatory reporting of over the counter secondary market transactions in eligible fixed income securities. All broker/dealers who are FINRA member firms have an obligation to report transactions in corporate bonds to TRACE under an SEC approved set of rules.

These are direct excerpts designed to provide a useful digest for the reader and an indication of regulatory trends.

To summarize and interpret the examination priorities for 2017 published in early January by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

Summarizes some of the most important priorities raised by the OCIE and FINRA in the areas of senior investors, recidivist representatives, product suitability, complex investments and sales practices, cybersecurity, branch offices and anti-money laundering.

As in recent years, there is a significant overlap in priorities between the two regulators on issues of elderly investors, recidivist representatives, product suitability, and cybersecurity, among others.

Registered investment advisers and broker-dealers should note the key issues raised in both letters so that their compliance programs can address them in their policies, procedures, and controls before their next examination.

Practical guidance from lawyers whose practices focus on securities and broker-dealer enforcement defense.

The purpose of this paper us to summarize the remarks of the Commissioners and participants in several panel sessions and workshops during the 2013 annual “SEC Speaks” conference held by the Practising Law Institute in cooperation with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, discussing the SEC's accomplishments in 2012 and its agenda for 2013.

The paper summarizes remarks by Chairman Walter and Commissioners Aguilar, Paredes, and Gallagher; provides highlights from panel sessions and workshops concerning the Division of Corporation Finance, the Division of Trading and Markets, the Division of Enforcement, the Division of Investment Management, the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations as well as highlights from the panel sessions relating to Accounting, Risk, Strategy and Financial Innovation. Judicial and Legislative Developments, and Ethics.

The summaries provide an overview of the SEC's most important current rulemaking, projects and policy priorities.

The paper presents current SEC issues and developments addressed by experienced SEC lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize and analyze the 2019 broker-dealer examination priorities of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”).

This paper provides an overview of the FINRA and OCIE examination priorities for the year, details particular aspects of both regulators’ priorities that may be of interest to broker-dealers and provides practical tips to prepare for a regulatory exam.

In 2019, OCIE intends to prioritize retail investors, compliance and risk in registrants responsible for critical market infrastructure, digital assets, cybersecurity and anti-money laundering programs. FINRA will focus on a number of materially new areas of attention, as well as on sales practice, operational, market and financial risks.

Broker-dealer firms should review their policies and procedures in the areas highlighted by FINRA and OCIE, both to ensure that the procedures are consistent with existing regulatory requirements and to assure that firm personnel are actually complying with those policies and procedures. In situations where the firm’s practices have changed over time, firms should amend their policies and procedures to comport with current practices.

This paper provides an overview of the notable aspects of both regulators’ examination priorities that are particularly relevant to broker-dealers and recommends ways that firms can prepare for examinations on those issues.

This study aims to make some contribution to the process of corporate compliance governance in China.

This paper adopts qualitative method, literature research, case analysis and comparative methods to explore the Chinese compliance governance model in the field of collusive bidding crimes.

In the process of criminal prosecution of enterprises suspected of committing crimes, the judicial authorities should promote the restoration of normal production and operation of corporate enterprises by promoting the construction of corporate compliance, which is conducive to solving the difficult problem of attribution of collusive bidding crimes. In addition, corporate compliance under prosecutorial supervision is also conducive to optimizing the regulatory path of collusive bidding and achieving more effective prevention and control of unit crimes in the mode of co-regulation between the state and corporate.

Compliance governance corporate crime is at a nascent stage in China, and this study seeks to provide some reference for future compliance review governance in China through the analysis of specific business crime cases.

The author, Director of the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations at the SEC, talks about how the anti‐money laundering laws apply to securities firms while also discussing a new examinations initiative that the SEC, NYSE, and NASD are undertaking to focus the industry's attention on compliance programs that detect and prevent money laundering.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize and comment on a July 22, 2008 SEC ComplianceAlert letter, which summarizes findings from recent compliance examinations by the SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations of investment advisers, mutual funds, broker‐dealers, and transfer agents, identifies some issues of particular concern, and suggests some solutions.

The areas of concern for investment advisers and mutual funds include personal trading by an advisory staff, proxy voting and funds' use of proxy voting services, valuation and liquidity in high‐yield municipal bond funds, and soft dollar practices. The areas of concern for broker‐dealers include securities firms targeting seniors by providing free‐lunch sales seminars, valuation and collateral management processes, broker‐dealers affiliated with insurance companies, solicitations of advisory services, mortgage financing as credit for the purchase of securities, and supervisory arrangements and practices under the Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction.

The paper finds that while the ComplianceAlert points to the danger of certain deficient practices in the areas of concern, it also emphasizes throughout the importance of strong, well documented policies, procedures, controls, supervision, record‐keeping, and compliance reviews.

The paper is a practical explanation of SEC guidelines by experienced securities lawyers.

To explain a guidance update issued in February 2017 by the staff of the Division of Investment Management (Staff) at the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on how robo-advisers may meet their disclosure, suitability and compliance obligations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act).

Examines the update’s guidance on three areas – the substance and presentation of disclosures, the provision of suitable investment advice, and the adoption and implementation of effective compliance programs – and then raises practical considerations for robo-advisers.

The update reflects the Staff’s increasing concern about the potential risks of the robo-adviser platform and provides a listing of key issues that the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) – which recently added “electronic investment advice” as a new focus for its 2017 examinations – may zero in on when examining robo-advisory firms.

Robo-advisers should carefully review the Staff’s update to evaluate whether their firms’ operations address the guidance.

Practical advice from experienced securities regulatory lawyers.

To describe the broad range of reform initiatives that has been undertaken in response to a series of mutual fund scandals that have become apparent starting in 2003. This is the second of a two‐part article. The first part, in Volume 7, Number 1, is a chronology of developments related to the fund scandals since 1 January 2003.

Describes SEC reforms, including governance reforms; compliance reforms; SEC‐directed expanded disclosure regarding fund expenses and costs; reforms with respect to share distribution practices; reforms addressing market timing, selective disclosure, and fair value pricing; other reform initiatives including codes of ethics for investment advisers and a requirement that hedge fund advisers register with the SEC; an enhanced surveillance and inspection program for mutual funds; and enforcement activities. Describes private civil suits brought against fund companies, legislative proposals, the roles of NASD and New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the development of “best practices” guides by industry groups, and measures being promoted by institutional investors.

A broad range of reform initiatives has been undertaken by the SEC; NASD; and the New York, Massachusetts, and California Attorneys General. Both the US House of Representatives and the Senate have held hearings and proposed legislation, which at the moment appears dormant. Independent directors of only one mutual fund have been implicated in the trading abuse scandals. Hundreds of private civil lawsuits have been brought by fund shareholders against fund groups but virtually none has resulted in substantial restitution to plaintiffs.

A detailed and comprehensive analysis of reform initiatives in response to mutual fund scandals since 2003.

To provide an overview of the new uniform definition of “branch office” and to discuss how that definition will influence broker‐dealer supervisory programs.

Discusses the new definition of “branch office”, describes new NASD and New York Stock Exchange supervisory control system requirements and supervisory requirements for branch offices and other locations, and suggests guidelines for developing a branch office or remote office supervisory program.

In the current regulatory environment, no broker‐dealer should overlook regular and rigorous attention to supervision of branch offices and other remote locations. And in light of the new definition of a branch office, each broker‐dealer must include in its review and analysis a close evaluation of how the broker‐dealer supervises every location where broker‐dealer personnel engage in activities on behalf of the broker‐dealer and must document that evaluation.

Important reference for broker‐dealers’ branch office supervisory programs that underscores the need to pay proper attention to remote locations.