SEC Tag Archives — Securities Fraud Blog

The SEC fines multiple financial firms for failing to preserve text communications.

Published on: March 8, 2024 | by Greco & Greco, P.C.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently announced significant penalties against sixteen firms for widespread recordkeeping failures, amounting to over $81 million in combined fines. Among the firms involved were Northwestern Mutual Investment Services LLC, Guggenheim Securities LLC, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Cambridge Investment Research Inc., Key Investment Services LLC, Lincoln Financial Advisors Corporation, U.S. Bancorp Investments Inc., and The Huntington Investment Company. The penalties stem from the firms’ failure to maintain and preserve electronic communications, a violation of federal securities laws. These actions highlight the SEC’s commitment to enforcing compliance with recordkeeping requirements essential for monitoring and enforcing securities laws.

Of particular note is The Huntington Investment Company’s case, which stands out due to its self-reporting and cooperation with the SEC. As a result, Huntington was ordered to pay a lower civil penalty compared to other firms, totaling $1.25 million. This demonstrates the importance of voluntary disclosure and cooperation in regulatory investigations.

The investigations uncovered widespread use of unapproved communication methods, such as personal text messages, across all sixteen firms. Employees at various levels, including supervisors and senior managers, were involved in these violations. The failure to maintain and preserve required records potentially deprived the SEC of crucial information in various investigations.

J.P. Morgan fined for prohibiting harmed customers from contacting the SEC

Published on: February 23, 2024 | by Greco & Greco, P.C.

The Securities and Exchange Commission of the U.S. (the SEC) recently fined J.P. Morgan Securities $18,000,000 for taking various steps to prevent securities whistleblowers from contacting the SEC or other securities regulators. J.P. Morgan agreed to the Order which can be found here.

The alleged wrongdoing centered on the language included by J.P. Morgan in its settlement agreements with its advisory and brokerage firm customers to which it paid over $1,000.00. Virtually all FINRA securities firms and Registered Investment Advisors require a confidentiality clause to be included in any settlement agreement with a customer. These settlement agreements are often the result of various misconduct by the firms or their advisors, such as securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unauthorized trading, broker theft, recommended unsuitable investments, and churning. The reason why securities firms always require their settlements to be confidential is clear – they wish to hide their misconduct and the misconduct of their advisors from the public. FINRA’s Brokercheck report does require firms to disclose settlements with advisors/firms, but the details are often extremely general, and one has to look up the broker directly to find the disclosures.

According to the SEC Order, from 2020 to 2023 J.P. Morgan included language in 362 release agreements that prohibited customers not only from disclosing the amount of the settlement to the SEC, but also prohibited disclosing the facts related to the account (i.e. the misconduct). Although the releases did allow disclosure to the SEC in response to an inquiry, it did not allow the customers to initiate contact with the SEC.

SEC Orders Sanctions Against New York Investment Adviser for Allegedly Misusing Client Funds

Published on: September 28, 2023 | by Greco & Greco, P.C.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken significant action against Bruderman Asset Management, now known as Gary Goldberg Planning Services, LLC (BAM), and its founder, Matthew J. Bruderman. The SEC has instituted public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against these entities, with a final Order found here, citing violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The proceedings revolve around the alleged misuse of client funds by BAM, which raised over $6.1 million from investment advisory clients and directed these funds towards entities with ties to Bruderman. The SEC alleges that these actions violated various sections of the Advisers Act, including Sections 206(2) and 206(4), and Rule 206(4)-7.

According to the SEC Order, between February 2017 and August 2021, BAM, under Bruderman’s direction, persuaded at least thirteen investment advisory clients to invest substantial amounts totaling $6.1 million in entities where Bruderman had significant ownership and decision-making authority. Shockingly, these clients were not informed that their investments would temporarily be diverted to cover expenses unrelated to their intended investments or to repay loans made by Bruderman himself.

One particularly concerning example involved a $500,000 equity investment, where $400,000 was transferred to Bruderman’s personal bank account to repay a loan owed by one of the entities. The clients invested based on BAM’s advice, unaware of the temporary diversion of their funds. Despite BAM’s written policies requiring disclosure of material conflicts of interest, these conflicts remained undisclosed, leaving clients in the dark about the use of their investments.

U.S. SEC Warns Brokers About Sales Contests That Violate Regulation Best Interest

Published on: August 16, 2022 | by Greco & Greco, P.C.

The United States Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) recently issued a Staff Bulletin which discussed the use of sales contests or other sales incentives by FINRA Broker-Dealer firms in the context of SEC Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI).

Reg BI, 17 CFR 240-15l-1, specifically describes the “best interest” obligation as follows in section (a)(1):

“A broker, dealer, or a natural person who is an associated person of a broker or dealer, when making a recommendation of any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities (including account recommendations) to a retail customer, shall act in the best interest of the retail customer at the time the recommendation is made, without placing the financial or other interest of the broker, dealer, or natural person who is an associated person of a broker or dealer making the recommendation ahead of the interest of the retail customer.”