securities securities derivative derivative litigation
play

Securities & Securities & Derivative Derivative - PDF document

Securities & Securities & Derivative Derivative Litigation Repor t t Litigation Repor 2004 Second Quarter SEC Appellate Decisions To keep our clients abreast of securities law developments, Carlton Fields' Inside This Issue:


  1. Securities & Securities & Derivative Derivative Litigation Repor t t Litigation Repor 2004 Second Quarter SEC Appellate Decisions To keep our clients abreast of securities law developments, Carlton Fields' Inside This Issue: Securities and Derivative Litigation Practice Group provides quarterly updates Form ADV Disclosure of of recent securities decisions. 1 This Update summarizes decisions of interest Directed Brokerage . . . . . . 1 within the United States SEC from April through June 2004. Collateral Industry Bar Vacated Form ADV Disclosure of Directed Brokerage in Part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 In the Matter of Clarke T. Blizzard and Rudolph Abel, Admin. Proc. NASD National Adjudicatory Council’s Denial of Member File No. 3-10007 (SEC 6/23/04) Firm’s Application For Continued Employment of Key Points: Statutorily Disqualified It is imperative that all reasons supporting Form ADV disclosures are fully disclosed. • Associated Person Is Directed brokerage is a material Form ADV disclosure item, and all reasons • Remanded . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 supporting the directed brokerage must be disclosed. The SEC has zero tolerance for subtle omissions pertaining to mandatory • Investment Company Form ADV disclosure items. Sanctioned and its Directors Barred for Disclosure and Summary: Securities Valuation Proceedings against former associated persons of an investment adviser were Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 dismissed following appeal from decision that they caused investment adviser NASD National Adjudicatory to fail to disclose all reasons for directing brokerage. Council’s Denial of Waiver of Testing Requirement Facts: Affirmed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The respondents were former associated persons of an investment adviser. Blizzard was employed in the marketing and sales department as a vice Registered Securities president and later as a managing director and in those capacities he had Association - Review of Denial championed the cause of directing brokerage to brokers who were referring of Member’s Continuance business to the adviser. Blizzard never was employed in a capacity where he Application . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 would have been responsible for the adviser’s disclosures in its Form ADV. NASD Disciplinary Sanctions Abel was the chief investment officer until his departure from the firm. Abel Sustained Against Associated chaired a committee on broker allocation and was presented with the idea of Person in Selling Away Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 directing brokerage to brokers who referred business. Abel approved of the concept provided that the brokers provided research to justify directing broker- age to brokers who would not satisfy the requirement of best execution based For more information about upon price. Abel was responsible for the contents of the adviser’s Form ADV Carlton Fields’ Securities & Derivative Litigation practice, disclosures and had signed a number of amendments to that form. In dicta, the please contact Russ Weigel at 305.539.7369 or 1 This Update is intended for the general information of readers, and is not intended as rweigel@carltonfields.com. legal advice or as a substitute for research and analysis of any of these issues. 1 Advertisement

  2. Carlton Fields • Securities & Derivative Litigation Report • SEC Appellate Decisions SEC described Abel’s failure to correct the adviser’s Collateral Industry Bar Vacated In Part Form ADV to disclose fully that brokerage is directed to referring brokers as “reckless.” In The Matter of Peter F . Comas, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-9803 (SEC 6/18/2004) Holding and Reasoning: The proceedings were dismissed against the two indi- Key Points: viduals after the SEC used this opportunity to remind Before the SEC can bar a registered entity or • the investment advisory community how seriously it associated person from the industry segments considers the failure to disclose all of the reasons for regulated by the SEC, i.e. securities brokers, directed brokerage even if the advisor has disclosed securities dealers, investment advisers, investment on its Form ADV most of the reasons for directing bro- companies, municipal securities dealers, and kerage to particular broker dealers. The SEC found securities transfer agencies, the SEC is required to that the adviser, which was not a party to these pro- bring an administrative proceeding within the ceedings, had directly violated the antifraud provi- industry segment for which the bar is sought. sions by failing to disclose on its Form ADV that it Collateral industry bars cannot be based directed brokerage to brokers who referred clients. upon proceedings brought in less than all of the However, the SEC dismissed the proceedings against industry segments regulated by the SEC. Abel on “equitable” grounds, finding that the proceed- ings were commenced one week prior to the expira- Summary: tion of the statute of limitations and that Abel lacked A former associated person of a broker dealer peti- sufficient ability to correct the adviser’s disclosure defi- tioned to vacate part of an industry bar he consented ciencies during his last week of employment at the to in SEC proceedings in 1999. The SEC vacated the adviser. Abel’s final week of employment was the bar to permit the respondent’s association with invest- only week of time available to the SEC to find action- ment advisers and investment companies. able misconduct. Abel’s failure to correct the adviser’s disclosure deficiencies in his last week of employment Facts: did not constitute an awareness that he was engaging In SEC proceedings brought against respondent in an improper activity. To support its “equitable” deci- Comas in 1999, he consented to a collateral industry sion as to Abel, the SEC cited 28 U.S.C. Section bar (barring him from association with any broker, 2462, which prohibits the assessment of a penalty, dealer, municipal securities dealer, investment compa- fine, or forfeiture for conduct charged more than five ny, or investment adviser, with the right to reapply years later, and the SEC then tossed out on limitations after eighteen months), a cease and desist order, and grounds all violations that Abel could have been liable payment of a civil money penalty. In the original for including the cease and desist order. As to proceedings, the SEC found, on the basis of Comas’ Blizzard, the SEC found that he never was responsible consent, that he aided and abetted and caused for preparing or reviewing the Form ADV or for deliv- fourteen instances of fraudulent violations by ering it to clients, nor did he have any compliance PaineWebber of the broker-dealer antifraud prohibi- responsibilities. Also, the SEC found that Blizzard had tions of Section 15(c)(1) of the Securities Exchange done all he could to ensure that the highest ranking Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 15c1-2, and personnel in the firm, i.e. Abel and his committee aided and abetted and caused eight instances of members, were aware of his recommendation that the violations by PaineWebber of the fictitious quotation firm direct brokerage to referring brokers and that he prohibitions of Exchange Act Section 15(c)(2) and had made them aware that several referring brokers Exchange Act Rule 15c2-7. In addition to the collater- did make it on to the firm’s allocation list. Thus, he al bar, Comas consented to the imposition of a cease was not found to have substantially assisted or to have and desist order proscribing him from committing or aided and abetted a violation by the adviser. causing future violations of the antifraud provisions 2

More recommend