BROWSE BY TOPIC
Stories of Interest
- FINRA Board of Governors - Election Notice
- Trump Signs Biggest Rollback of Bank Rules Since Financial Crisis
- SEC Commissioners Hold Investor Town Hall in Atlanta
- SEC Proposes FAIR Act Rules to Promote Research Reports on MFs, ETFs, Other Funds
- FINRA Markup/Markdown Analysis Report - Phone Workshop, WebEx Presentation
- NASAA Announces Coordinated International ICO and Crypto Crackdown
- New York Investment Advisor Settles SEC Insider Trading Charges
- Supreme Court Backs Companies Over Worker Class-Action Claims
- Bank of America Introduces Erica, Its AI Financial Assistant
- Banks Are Getting Another Volcker Rule Win
- Citigroup to Pay $7.3Mn Fine for Substandard IPO Work
- FINRA Stretches Definition of Participating in a Private Securities Transaction - Bill Singer
- Post Mortem Auto-Pilot Trading Sends Stockbroker's Career into Head-On Regulatory Crash
- Wells Fargo Has Shown Us Its Contemptible Values
- UBS to Counter Trading Troubles With M&A Work
- SEC Moves Quickly To Shut Down Fake Pre-IPO Share Scam
- SEC Testimony: Oversight of the SEC Division of Enforcement
- FINRA Modifies 'Agency Debt Security' in Rule 6710
- Is Jamie Dimon Doing a U-Turn on Bitcoin?
- After New Yorker's Racist Rant Goes Viral, His Law Firm Gets Pummeled with 1-Star Yelp Reviews
We seek to provide information, insights and direction that may enable the Financial Community to effectively and efficiently operate in a regulatory risk-free environment by curating content from all over the web.
Stay Informed with the latest fanancialish news.
NEWSLETTERS & ALERTS
Wide Scale Proxy Voting Fraud Took Down Firm, But Not Senior Management
by Howard Haykin
It’s a somewhat confounding case. Realty Capital Securities (“RCS”), a broker-dealer, was charged in November 2015 with violating Massachusetts securities laws when certain of its brokers participated in a proxy voting fraud. The brokers, it seems, submitted fake proxy votes in connection with 2015 annual shareholder meetings of certain investment funds sponsored by American Realty Capital (“ARC”), an affiliate of the broker-dealer.
In early December RCS agreed to pay a $3 million fine and terminate its Massachusetts securities license in order to settle the Massachusetts charges. By January 2016, RCS shuttered its door when it withdrew its broker-dealer registration with the SEC. [Click on NYTimes, 12/2/15]
Yet, Massachusetts regulator William Galvin wasn’t finished. In June 2016, the securities regulator fined 7 other broker-dealers a total of $238,000 because their brokers worked with RCS brokers in submitting unauthorized proxy votes for the ARC-sponsored nontraded REITs. Those firms were: (i) Voya Financial Advisors; (ii) FMN Capital Corp; (iii) Invest Financial Corp.; (iv) Newbridge Securities; (v) Pariter Securities; (vi) Platinum Wealth Partners; and, (vii) TKG Financial.
WHICH BRINGS US TO THE VEXING QUESTION. Having presented a proxy voting scam so egregious that a broker-dealer paid a $3 million fine and shut down its operations, how then is it possible that just a handful of lower level registered reps / wholesalers were charged in the ‘crime’?
- In the nearby Financialish post, ‘Newbie Broker Gets 2-Year Suspension After Impersonating Fund Shareholders’, we see that FINRA issued a 2-year sanction against a newly-minted rep who participated in the proxy voting fraud by impersonating shareholders of the investment funds.
- In recent articles in other publications, we learn that at least 2 other RCS brokers were alleged to have taken part in the proxy fraud. However, both individuals refused to cooperate with FINRA investigators and were barred from the industry.
Yet, nowhere else could I find any records to indicate that principals or senior management of RCS were ever sanctioned in connection with this case. From FINRA's BrokerCheck records, I was able to identify RCS's CFO, COO and CCO during the Relevant Period. But none had any disciplinary disclosures in their files.
FINANCIALISH TAKE AWAYS. It once again adds up to frustration with FINRA and other regulators. Are regulators afraid to hold managerial and supervisory types responsible for violative actions at their financial services firms? When did regulators stop referring to the “KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN” standard for judging negligence?
More importantly, when will regulators return to the “KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN” standard?