FINRA

May

2014

FINRA Approves Expanded Background Check for Brokers

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:

FINRA has approved rules to expand the obligations of firms to check the background of applicants for registration, as well as transfers, to verify the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in an applicant’s Form U4. FINRA, other regulatory organizations and states use the U-4 to elicit employment background, disciplinary and other information to register individuals, and in turns to make certain information available to investors.

Separately, FINRA also plans to perform an initial search of public financial records for all registered representatives. Additionally, FINRA will conduct a search of publicly available criminal records for all registered individuals who have not been fingerprinted within the last five years. Once those searches are completed, FINRA will conduct periodic reviews of public records to ascertain the accuracy and completeness of the information.

The attorneys of Eccleston Law Offices represent investors and advisers nationwide in securities and employment matters. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 50 years in delivering the highest quality legal services.

Apr

2014

FINRA Suspends Wells Fargo Advisor for Downloading Confidential Customer Information from Prior Employer

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:

FINRA enforcement has sanctioned a Wells Fargo Advisor with a 90-day suspension for taking more information than is allowed when he left a credit union affiliated with Raymond James Financial Services to join Wells Fargo Advisors (then Wachovia Securities) in late November 2008.

Prior to resigning from the credit union, where Steven Tomlinson had worked as manager of the investment services group as well as a Raymond James branch manager, Tomlinson allegedly used a personal flash drive to download confidential customer information, including account balances, social security numbers, dates of birth, and quarterly account statements. Of the 2,000 customers whose information he downloaded, only about 200 were his clients.

According to FINRA, Tomlinson provided the flash drive to a Wells Fargo administrative assistant so she could create mailing labels for announcements that he had joined Wells Fargo. While she worked with the flash drive, Tomlinson did not supervise the administrative assistant, and never informed her that the drive contained confidential information, was unencrypted and was not password protected.

This disciplinary decision underscores the need for reps to hire competent financial services employment attorneys to effectuate a move from one firm to another firm.

Mar

2014

Wirehouses Update Succession Plans for Retiring Advisers

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:

According to InvestmentNews, wirehouse firms, where 30% of advisers are planning to leave the business in the next decade, have been updating their succession programs for aging advisers with new names, higher payouts and lower barriers to entry, as the competition for the assets of retiring advisers heats up in the brokerage industry.

The basic processes for retiring at a wirehouse are similar across the firms. They all aim to provide retiring advisers who meet certain criteria a share of the total revenue from their book for up to five years after they retire. Moreover, the wirehouses have been refining that original plan, and adding more flexibility and options in recent years as new channels come into the marketplace.

Payouts at the wirehouses have been steadily increasing and this year reach as much as 250% of an advisor’s book of business, depending on length of service, size of the book and other firm metrics.

Advisors at the higher end of the range are generally serving on a team, are 55 or older, have been with the firm for a good part of their career and have a number of fee-based accounts and younger clients.

For example, Morgan Stanley is updating its Former Financial Adviser Program this year to provide additional payouts to both lower producing and top-tier advisers. Bank of America Merrill Lynch‘s original Client Transition Program paid out between 70% and 80% of trailing-12 production over four years, but it was updated for 2013 to pay up to 160% of trailing-12 with a minimum of 100%.

The payout is matched with where the adviser falls on the production grid. Even though the payouts are still somewhat lower than the independent space, where the income is often taxed as a capital gain rather than as ordinary income, the wirehouses benefit from the structure and sense of stability the programs provide.

TEAMING UP

As wirehouses encourage their advisors to team up, they also are doing more to bolster the partnership between the retiring advisor and his or her successor.

Morgan Stanley requires its advisors to have been on a team for at least one year, and will offer enhanced payouts to lower-producing advisors who join a team.

Merrill Lynch’s program is not open to any advisors who have not been on a team for three years.

UBS Wealth Management Americas’ Transitioning Financial Adviser Program provides for a five-year payout, but two of those years are spent in the office in a consulting role, helping clients get to know their new advisors.

Wells Fargo Advisors’ program will pay up to 160% of trailing-12 revenue and will provide a loan to the inheriting adviser for up to 200% of the departing advisor’s book value.

LOWER THRESHOLD

Firms are also lowering the thresholds for entry into their succession plans to make it easier for recently recruited advisors to take advantage of the program.For example Morgan Stanley’s plan has one of the lowest length of service requirements at three years..

Advisors already at the wirehouses are generally receiving large offers, but should still be careful to consider how much they are being offered and compare that with offers at other firms or other channels.

Mar

2014

FINRA Will Renew Push for Shift in Investment Adviser Oversight

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:

FINRA plans to renew its lobbying efforts for legislation that would shift oversight of financial advisers away from the SEC and into the hands of a self-regulating body, Investment News reports.

In 2012, FINRA first attempted to push such legislation. Its efforts were resisted by advisors and the measure died. FINRA backed down when the new Congress convened last year and the champion of the SRO bill, Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., relinquished his seat as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

FINRA is motivated to expand its regulatory authority because the brokerage industry is shrinking.

Over the past two years, FINRA has maintained that it isn’t mounting a lobbying campaign to become the adviser SRO and isn’t engaged in talks with the House or Senate. But FINRA has repeatedly stated that adviser oversight should be increased.

Both FINRA and the Investment Adviser Association (“IAA”) agree that there is a regulatory gap regarding investment advisers. The SEC currently examines only about 8 percent of the nearly 11,000 registered investment advisors in the country on an annual basis.

The SEC’s failure to examine more investment advisers largely is due to a lack of resources. In adopting the current budget, Congress denied the SEC’s request to hire an additional 250 investment adviser examiners.

The restrictive budget leaves the door open for FINRA and its allies to argue that inadequate adviser oversight should be addressed by contracting out this critical function to a private organization like FINRA.

Feb

2014

FINRA Moves Forward with SEC Approvals Related to BrokerCheck, Arbitration and Expungement

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:

FINRA’s board authorized FINRA to seek comment on a revised proposal to amend Rule 2210 (communications with the public) to require firms to include a readily apparent reference and link to BrokerCheck on any member firm’s website that is available to retail investors.

The board also authorized FINRA to file with the SEC proposed amendments to the customer and industry codes of arbitration procedure to refine and reorganize the definitions of “nonpublic” and “public” arbitrator.

In addition, the board authorized FINRA to file with the SEC proposed Rule 2081, which would prohibit conditioning an arbitration settlement on the expungement of the customer dispute information.

Finally, the board authorized FINRA to file with the SEC proposed amendments to Rule Series 9800 (temporary cease and desist orders), Rule Series 9550 (expedited proceedings) and related rules in the Code of Procedure.

Feb

2014

FINRA Proposes Greater Transparency in Non-traded REIT Statements

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:

FINRA has proposed rule changes that would disclose a more accurate cost of shares of a non-traded real estate investment trust (REIT).

The new rule change would consider the various fees and commissions paid to brokers and dealer managers, reducing the share price reflected on customer account statements.The proposed rule has two methodologies that broker-dealers can use when an estimated value is presumed reliable: net investment and independent valuation.

With net investment valuation, non-traded REITs now do not have to show an estimated per-share valuation until 18 months after the sponsors stop raising funds, which in many cases can take two or three years. The FINRA proposal drastically speeds up the process by which investors would see a more accurate valuation (e.g. less than $10 per share).

The alternative method is independent valuation. This could be used at any time. It would consist of the most recent valuation disclosed in the issuer’s periodic or current reports and would require a third-party valuation determination.

Feb

2014

FINRA May Curb Brokers’ Ability to Cleanse CRD Records

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:

FINRA intends to modify the expungement processby proposing to eliminate brokers’ ability to demand CRD expungement as a condition in a settlementagreement with an investor.

In recent guidance to arbitrators, Finra underscored the “extraordinary nature of expungement relief” and urged them to consider carefully whether clearing a broker’s record could deny important information to investors reviewing a rep’s background.

We will update readers as this effect unfolds.

Nov

2013

Jim Eccleston: Panel Orders First Command to Pay $1.1M to Former Advisors

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:

A FINRA arbitration panel has ordered First Command Financial Planning (“First Command”) to pay $1.1 million in deferred compensation to a group of eight advisors and staff who left the firm back in May 2012. According to the arbitration award, First Command “switched back to a commissions sales model, hurting their business.” In addition, the panel reprimanded First Command for filing U5 termination forms saying the reps were let go for wrongdoing, and ordered their disciplinary records to be expunged to indicate they left voluntarily. The dispute occurred in 2012, when a branch manager left First Command with his team to form an independent hybrid firm clearing through LPL Financial (“LPL”).

Oct

2013

Jim Eccleston: Non-Solicitation Agreements: What Can You Say Without Crossing the Line?

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law:

John Lindsey, a former Edward Jones broker, found himself in hot water after accusations that he violated his non-solicitation agreement. In March 2012, Mr. Lindsey left Edward Jones to go independent, taking with him about half his clients. In response, Edward Jones promptly filed a request for an injunction and temporary restraining order. Edward Jones claimed Mr. Lindsey had violated his one-year non-solicitation agreement by misappropriating client information and wrongly soliciting clients. Specifically, Edward Jones’ non-solicitation agreement prohibits an advisor from soliciting clients of the firm for one year after the advisor’s departure.

In May 2012, the Ventura County Superior Court in Ventura, California granted the injunction, upholding Edward Jones’ non-solicitation agreement. However, Judge Tari Cody’s also found that nothing in that agreement prohibited Mr. Lindsey from servicing Edward Jones clients who reached out to him directly. Subsequent to the ruling, Edward Jones asked a FINRA arbitration panel to make the injunction permanent and requested $5 million in compensatory damages. Both of those requests were denied.

The arbitrators’ decision reaffirmed previous guidance given by FINRA’s predecessor, the National Association of Securities Dealers, which had issued a notice stating “that obtaining temporary restraining orders to prevent customers from following a registered representative to a different firm may be similar to the unfair practice of delaying transfers” of clients to a new advisor.

FINRA’s position has been that firms cannot do anything to stop clients from going to a broker of their choice. The court’s ruling reflects a similar position, stating that “[n]othing herein [the non-solicitation agreement] shall prohibit [Mr. Lindsey] or anyone else from: (a) continuing to provide services to [Mr. Lindsey’s] clients who have already moved business away from Edward Jones; (b) providing services to persons who have indicated that they wish to transfer their accounts from Edward Jones to permit [Mr. Lindsey] to continue as their financial advisor.”

The attorneys of Eccleston Law represent investors and advisers nationwide in securities and employment matters. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 50 years in delivering the highest quality legal services.

Oct

2013

Jim Eccleston: FINRA’s Proposed Procedure for Reps Not Named in Arbitration to Obtain Expungement of U-4 and U-5 Filings

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law:

FINRA has proposed new rules that would permit unnamed financial advisers who are the “subject of” allegations of sales practice violations made in investment-related customer-initiated arbitration claims, but who are not named as parties to the arbitration, to seek expungement relief by initiated In reexpungement proceedings at the conclusion of the underlying customer-initiated arbitration case. Specifically, the following are the new proposed FINRA rules: Rule 12100(z) (“Unnamed Person”); Rule 12806 (“Expungement of Customer Dispute Information by Persons Named as Parties); Rule 13100(cc) (“Unnamed Person”); Rule 13806 (“Expungement of Customer Dispute Information by Persons Named as Parties); and Rule 13807 (“Expungement of Customer Dispute Information by an Unnamed Person”).

The current Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes and the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes do not provide unnamed persons with express procedures to seek expungement of those types of allegations. The SEC is expected to set an approval date of early 2014.

There are several benefits for brokers. First, the new rules would allow unnamed brokers to use this explicit procedure instead of having to intervene in the arbitration filed by the investor or initiate a new arbitration case in which the broker requests expungement relief and names the investor or firm as the respondent. Another benefit is that the expungement proceedings would commence only after the underlying customer arbitration is concluded. Another benefit is the possibility that the arbitrator reviewing the In reexpungement proceedings will already be familiar with the case. Under the proposed rules, the public chairperson of the underlying arbitration would handle the In reexpungement proceedings.

While our adviser clients currently do have avenues for expungement, FINRA’s new rule proposals greatly would expedite and simplify the entire process.