Supervision

Opening Session/Firm Culture/CCO Liability. If you are reading this blog, then you, like me, have been probably eagerly waiting for the start of SIFMA’s annual Compliance and Legal conference not just for the jumbo shrimp at the reception, but also to learn some insights from the regulators about their concerns and intentions. If you

Yesterday, FINRA released its annual Examination Priorities Letter in which it set forth the top issues that would guide its examinations in the coming year. Running 13 pages in length (while complaining about having to be so “brief”), FINRA set forth some of the “many areas of potential concern” it expects to encounter this year.

I posted several blogs this summer about our victory over the SEC in the Robare case (which, naturally, has been appealed by the SEC’s unhappy Division of Enforcement). One of the key elements in our ability to prevail in that matter was my client’s extensive use of outside securities consultants to assist in the preparation

I am currently in the midst of a FINRA examination that is largely focused on the adequacy of the due diligence that my broker-dealer client conducted of a private placement. What is puzzling about the exam is that FINRA is not just interested in the due diligence that was conducted prior to effecting any sales

We have previously posted on the issue of CCO liability, a very sensitive subject, to say the least, for many readers of this blog.  If this is a subject that interests you, then there was a very intriguing development this past week in this area that merits your attention.

It came in the form of

Yesterday, the SEC held its 2015 “National Compliance Outreach Program for Broker-Dealers.” The program was designed to “provide[] an open forum for regulators and industry professionals to share strong compliance practices and promote the exchange of ideas to develop an effective compliance structure.” In the spirit of this cooperation, SEC Chairwoman White opened the conference

There are lots of FINRA rules, so many that some don’t get the attention they deserve because others, like the suitability rule or the supervision rule, generally hog the limelight. Moreover, some rules have such narrow application that you may not realize they even exist because they impact only a very few people or entities.

I wish I was able to report some fireworks, or something semi-controversial, but FINRA and its hand-picked panelists managed to avoid saying anything particularly remarkable in any way. If you have never attended one of these conferences, and think that people come to learn cutting edge strategies, forget it. It is all very basic, very

Just a week ago, I ran a post about FINRA’s Sanction Guidelines, suggesting that they appear to have no relevance anymore, given the vast disparity between fines that FINRA is actually imposing in settled cases, on the one hand, and the supposed maximum fines described in the Sanction Guidelines, on the other. In an excellent

I read with interest the press release FINRA issued this week announcing an $11.7 million settlement with LPL, principally over what FINRA characterized as “widespread supervisory failures.” There were two things most noteworthy to me.[1] The first, interestingly, is not the size of the monetary sanctions (a $10 million fine plus $1.7 million in