Industry Topics

Supreme Court Strips Securities and Exchange Commission of Its “Home-Field” Advantage

July 8, 2024 | Adam G. Schreck

In a major blow to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Supreme Court ruled in SEC v. Jarkesy that defendants against whom the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud are entitled to jury trials under the Seventh Amendment, rather than adjudication through the SEC’s “in-house” administrative law judges. While only time will tell just how impactful the Jarkesy decision will be, this ruling has the potential to dramatically reshape the SEC’s enforcement efforts as we know them today.

Following the Great Recession in 2008, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dobb-Frank), which authorized the SEC to impose civil penalties on defendants through in-house proceedings before administrative law judges or even SEC Commissioners themselves. With this built-in advantage, the SEC’s “win-rate,” as well as its ability to force defendants into unfavorable settlements, rose considerably. In essence, the SEC was authorized to serve as “judge,” “jury,” and “executioner.” If you are the target of an SEC civil action, you should consult an experienced SEC Defense Attorney, like the ones at Malecki Law.

The Jarkesy decision stripped the SEC of this “multi-role” position and relegated the SEC’s civil actions back into federal court, where the SEC was forced to fight its battles for much of its history. In or around 2010, the SEC began investigating Geroge Jarkesy, Jr. (Jarkesy) and his firm, Patriot28, LLC (Patriot28), for suspected securities fraud in connection to two investment funds that Jarkesy managed. The SEC’s enforcement action alleged that Jarkesy and Patriot28 defrauded investors through various misrepresentations and omissions. The case was initially adjudicated by an administrative law judge who submitted an initial decision in 2014. In 2020, the SEC issued its final order against Jarkesy and Patriot28, levying a $300,000 civil penalty against the defendants, disgorging profits earned by Patriot28 and barring Jarkesy from the securities industry.

Defamatory Form U5 Language Deters Investment Firms from Hiring Registered Representatives – Malecki Law Obtained a Favorable Award

June 21, 2024 | Malecki Law Team

The securities industry has become known for its “one strike and you’re out” mentality around Form U4 and U5 “marks” resulting from termination and customer complaints. FINRA Rule 4111 makes firms report employee U4/U5 “mark” statistics firmwide and formerly “explainable” situations are now acting like bars to employment in the industry. Unfortunately, this means that even good, honest registered representatives can face prejudice purely because of erroneous documentation, or defamatory language, particularly from former employers. If you are a registered representative that has faced unnecessary hardship because of false documentation or defamatory language from an employer, you should contact a securities law attorney, like the lawyers at Malecki Law in New York, to review your case.

The Form U5 is a form that contains mandatory disclosures, which discloses why a registered representative leaves an investment firm. The Form U5 is available to prospective firm employers, and certain U5 disclosures must also be posted on BrokerCheck, which is publicly available. Investment firm employers generally review the Form U5 of prospective employees meticulously, especially the “Reason for Termination” section. Language used by a former employer in this section, however minor, may have a significant impact on the future employer’s hiring decision. There have been 195 defamatory FINRA cases in 2023; 104 of which, were Form U5-based disputes.

Malecki Law recently obtained a favorable FINRA arbitration award in an intra-industry matter, O’Keefe v. UBS Financial Services, Inc. Malecki Law’s attorneys Jacqueline Candella, and Adam Schreck represented Claimant registered representative O’Keefe. Associates Candella and Schreck tried the case at an in-person hearing in New York City. O’Keefe requested that his Form U5 be amended to reflect his voluntary termination from his previous employer, and to expunge the false and misleading “Termination Explanation.” The Chairperson granted Claimant’s request, explaining that the expungement was, “based on the incorrect and defamatory nature of the information,” written on the Form U5. If you were faced with a similar Form U5 issue, you should consult with FINRA experts, like the lawyers at Malecki Law in New York.

Despite FINRA’s Increased Fines in 2023, the Number of FINRA’s Disciplinary Actions Continued Their Downward Trend

May 17, 2024 | Adam G. Schreck

In March 2024, Evershed Sutherland (US) LLP released its annual report (the Report) detailing disciplinary and enforcement actions initiated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) during the 2023 year. The Report outlines how FINRA seemingly stepped up its investigatory efforts in 2023, levying $89 million in fines against member firms and associated persons. Comparatively, FINRA reported just $54.5 million in fines during 2022, representing an increase of over 60%. Over a quarter of the fines handed out by FINRA last year can be attributed to the $24 million fine received by Bank of America Securities, Inc. for engaging in “spoofing” and related supervisory failures.

Despite FINRA’s bolstered fine revenue in 2023, FINRA ordered member firms to pay far less restitution to investors compared to past years. In 2023, FINRA ordered just $7 million in restitution compared to $21 million ordered in 2022, representing a 66% decrease. On December 6, 2023, FINRA announced sanctions against four firms, including M1 Finance LLC, Open to the Public Investing, Inc., SoFi Securities LLC, and SogoTrade, Inc., totaling over $2.6 million, which included $1 million in restitution paid to retail customers. Notably, this was the only million-dollar restitution ordered by FINRA in 2023, a stark decline from 2021 when FINRA handed out ten of such orders. If you are a financial professional who received an 8210 Request from FINRA, you should consult an experienced Securities Industry Regulatory Defense law firm, like Malecki Law in New York, to help navigate you through the process.

FINRA’s increased fine totals in 2023 were surprisingly achieved through comparatively fewer disciplinary actions. 2021 currently represents the high-water mark of FINRA disciplinary actions in recent years, totaling 569 actions. In 2023, FINRA initiated just 453 enforcement and disciplinary actions. This was the fewest number of disciplinary actions initiated by FINRA in the preceding decade and a stark contrast to FINRA’s disciplinary efforts between 2014 and 2017 when FINRA brought over one thousand disciplinary actions annually. The considerable drop-off in FINRA disciplinary actions since 2017 seems to coincide with Robert Cook taking over as FINRA’s President and Chief Executive Officer. Cook joined FINRA in August 2016 with a primary goal of taking “a fresh look at” FINRA’s enforcement program. If you are a stockbroker or financial advisor who is concerned with the language on your Form U5, you should consult a knowledgeable FINRA Expungement Attorney, like the attorneys at Malecki Law, to determine whether you can bring an action to have the concerning language removed from your Central Registration Depository (CRD).

AI, Oh My – SEC Announces First Ever “AI Washing” Enforcement Actions

May 9, 2024 | Adam G. Schreck

On March 18, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) announced that it had settled charges against two registered investment advisers (RIAs) related to false and misleading representations about each RIA’s alleged use of artificial intelligence (AI) in effecting financial services, conduct which the SEC coined as “AI Washing.” In total, the SEC collected $400,000 in civil penalties from the firms, with Delphia (USA) Inc. (Delphia) agreeing to pay $225,000 and Global Predictions Inc. (Global Predictions) agreeing to pay $175,000. As AI increasingly takes over the mainstream in the coming years, investors must remain attentive to the representations RIAs and broker-dealers make about utilizing AI in the financial services they offer to public investors.

Delphia is primarily in the business of offering robo-advisory services to retail investors. “Robo-advisors” are typically algorithm driven platforms that offer investors automated investment advice based on data provided to the platform by the investor with very little, if any, human interaction. In touting its robo-advisory services to the public, Delphia represented that investor data was actively utilized to “train” and “power” its proprietary algorithms that was capable of making investment predictions up to “two years into the future.” In reality, the SEC found that Delphia never successfully implemented its investor data-driven algorithms and misrepresented its AI capabilities to the public. Notably, Delphia was also investigated by the SEC for identical conduct in 2021. If you are being investigated by the SEC, you need skilled Regulatory Lawyers in New York, like Malecki Law, to get you through the investigation.

Global Predictions offers retail investors non-discretionary investment advice, namely portfolio allocation recommendations, through its proprietary investment application PortfolioPilot and the use of proprietary algorithms. Global Predictions represented to the public that it was the “first regulated AI financial advisor” and that it actively utilized AI capabilities in the services offered to investors. After its investigation, the SEC determined that Global Predictions made false and misleading representations on its Form ADV, press releases, website, social media accounts, and paid testimonials about the company’s AI capabilities which Global Predictions was unable to substantiate. The SEC also determined that Global Predictions violated the SEC’s Amended Marketing Rule and failed to implement policies and procedures related to achieve compliance with the same. If you have made investment decisions based on AI-related misrepresentations made to you by your investment adviser or stockbroker, you should consult an experienced, AI-Securities Fraud Attorney, like the ones at New York’s Malecki Law.

NYSBA’s Current State of Crypto Cases Panel

April 16, 2024 | Jacqueline Candella

On Wednesday, April 17, 2024, Malecki Law’s Jenice L. Malecki, Esq., will participate in a virtual panel organized by the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA). This is a joint effort by the NYSBA’s Commercial and Federal Litigation Section’s Securities Arbitration Committee and the Dispute Resolution Sections’ Securities Disputes Committee. Ms. Malecki will speak alongside her colleagues in the industry, Howard Fischer, and Joe Wojciechowski. If you incurred investment losses due to crypto-based products, you need to consult with a Crypto-Based Investment attorney in New York, like the lawyers at Malecki law.

The panel is called “The Current State of Crypto Cases: What Theories Are Being Developed to Support claims Relating to Crypto Losses?” It will begin at 12:00 p.m. EST and end at 1:00 p.m. EST. The panel will focus on liability related to crypto recommendations and broker-dealers. It is free to attend, please click here to register.

Ms. Malecki is looking forward to discussing her first-hand experiences with broker-dealer liability as it relates to crypto-based investment recommendations. Malecki Law has recently settled with a large crypto-based broker-dealer, where Ms. Malecki had the opportunity to learn more about broker-dealer liability in the context of crypto losses. Further, Ms. Malecki enjoys speaking on panels and sharing information with other lawyers in the industry, in an effort to protect investors like yourself. Did your broker recommend that you invest in crypto-based investments? Were those investment recommendations in your best interest? You should reach out to a Crypto-Based Investment law firm, like Malecki Law in New York.

Slow Progress for Women in the Financial Services Industry

November 27, 2023 | Malecki Law Team

In recent years, discussions about the gender pay gap have risen to the surface in a litany of industries and in just about every corner of the country. For far too long, women have earned less than their male counterparts, despite having the same, or better, job titles, backgrounds, and experience levels. In his article for Investment News, titled “’Murky disparity’ stalls progress,” Bruce Kelly explored the issue of gender pay disparities specifically as it relates to women working in the financial services industry.

According to the article, women only make up about 20% of financial advisors nationwide, and only about a third of the seats on the boards of S&P 500 companies are held by women. Jenice Malecki, the female founder of the New York-based securities law firm, Malecki Law, was quoted in the article, stating there are still plenty of pay disparities between employees of different genders at various firms. Ms. Malecki explained that she still gets contacted by women regarding their struggle with the glass ceiling they encounter in their employment and pay discrepancies. She added that, while some improvements have been made regarding pay disparities at the largest firms, those issues remain at firms that have smaller offices in various parts of the country. Smaller firms and satellite offices for larger firms generally operate with less oversight and supervision than their larger counterparts, allowing gender pay disparities to persist. If you are a female financial service professional and have suffered from unfair treatment at the hands of your employer, you should consult an experienced securities law attorney, like the ones at Malecki Law.

Another added layer to the pay disparity dilemma is the issue of transparency. Because of the lack of transparency, employees are unaware whether they are getting compensated equally as their peers. Few employees take the risk of complaining about this issue for various reasons, such as fear of retaliation or the loss of their job, so the lack of transparency remains, leading to the natural result of unequal pay. As Ms. Malecki explained in the article, many employees are not willing to challenge this unequal system, and as a result, numerous concealed disparities persist.

What if a Big Firm Misrepresents Its DEI Initiatives?

November 16, 2023 | Malecki Law Team

In the years following George Floyd’s death, many companies have introduced internal efforts to increase their diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives to protect those who have historically been disadvantaged. However, it is important that these companies are honest about their efforts, but in at least one case, it has been alleged a brokerage firm was repeatedly not honest.

Wells Fargo is at the center of Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) related lawsuits deriving from allegedly conducting fake job interviews to diverse applicants, in efforts to comply with their “Diverse Slating Policy.” On their second attempt at suing Wells Fargo, shareholders commenced a lawsuit alleging that both Wells Fargo and members of their board misrepresented the firm’s DEI initiatives and deprived job opportunities from members of underrepresented groups, groups the initiatives were meant to help. As the “S” in “ESG” stands for “social,” the topic of DEI falls underneath that umbrella. Many companies that establish policies to “enhance” diversity in the workplace fail to implement and/or report such practices, resulting in substantial scrutiny from both investors and the SEC.

“Well-intentioned people created these initiatives, but when they hit the ground, the energy was devoted not to implementing them but finding a way to get around them,” according to Linda Friedman, a lawyer who settled a class-action suit on behalf of 320 black financial advisors for $36 million in 2017 after the advisors sued the company for allegedly positioning them to work in poor neighborhoods while seemingly affording white financial advisors to newer clients and better opportunities. Following this lawsuit, along with the overwhelming impact of George Floyd’s death in 2020, many companies, including Wells Fargo, issued a “diverse slate” policy, otherwise known as a diverse search requirement. Specifically, Wells Fargo’s policy allegedly asserted that at least 50% of the prospective job candidates who are interviewed must represent a disadvantaged group or some kind of diversity component (including race/ethnicity, gender, LGBTQ, veterans, and people with disabilities) for most posted positions in the U.S. with compensation greater than $100,000 per year. See Complaint filed 6/28/22. Although this may seem like a step in the right direction, it is quite the contrary because over the following years, it is alleged that the policy caused confusion throughout the firm and resulted in negatively impacting the people these initiatives were intended to help.

Can My Broker or Investment Advisor Sell Me Cryptocurrency?

November 8, 2023 | Jacqueline Candella

Can my broker or investment advisor sell me cryptocurrency (“crypto”)? Is it an investment? The answer is not so simple; no, they cannot sell it directly, but they may try to sell it to you indirectly through a fund or private placement. Rest assured, it is still just as volatile and not appropriate for most investors. Malecki Law is looking into the sale of crypto-based products, as they have been on the rise. Although investors might be intrigued and ecstatic to get into the new shiny investment on the street, it is still a high-risk bet, no matter what your investment professional may say.

Investing in something new can be enticing, but it does not necessarily mean that it is in your best interest as an investor. If you were sold crypto-based products and sustained substantial losses, you need a Crypto-Based Investment law firm in New York, like Malecki Law, to review your potential claim.

What is crypto? Digital assets are the umbrella which crypto falls under. There is a wider range of assets that land under the digital assets umbrella, such as non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”). The common denominator of the variety of digital assets is that they tend to use blockchain technology. Crypto consists of a broad range of virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin (BTC) or Ethereum (ETH).

Know Your Custodian – Uniform Transfers and Gifts to Minors Acts

January 18, 2023 | Malecki Law Team

The Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (UTMA) and Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (UGMA) allow adults to give or transfer assets to minor beneficiaries. The slight difference between the accounts is that the UGMA is limited to financial assets while the UTMA includes any tangible or intangible assets. These accounts allow children to safely invest and build up capital legally before they become adults. There are also tax benefits to these accounts as contributions are made with after-tax dollars. If you believe your brokerage firm failed to supervise your trust account or the advisor managing your trust, you need to consult a New York Failure to Supervise Trusts Law Firm like Malecki Law.

Each of these accounts have a custodian who acts in the child’s interest as a fiduciary. This means that the investments made and the way the money in the accounts is managed must be for the child’s benefit. When the minor reaches the age of majority, the custodian no longer has authority to make decisions on behalf of the beneficiary and the beneficiary continues to monitor the account on their own. Additionally, once the money is transferred to the beneficiary, it is permanently their property.

FINRA Rule 2090, the “Know your Customer” rule, requires firms “verify the authority of any person purporting to act on behalf of the customer. So, brokerage firms and their members are supposed to know the essential details about who is acting on behalf of the customer (i.e. the custodian). Did your brokerage firm fail to “know” your custodian? Did you suffer losses because of this? You should reach out to a New York Failure to Supervise Trusts Lawyer like the lawyers at Malecki Law for a free consultation. The member must not only know the customer at the beginning of their relationship (account opening) but throughout the whole of the relationship. In line with this “Know your Customer” rule, firms are supposed to have a supervisory system for their members, which makes sure brokers are in compliance with procedures. The problem is that many firms do not have supervisory procedures in place for UT/UGMAs. In turn, the brokers do not know their customers, resulting in custodians not being monitored.

The Impact of Cloud Computing on the Securities Industry

October 14, 2022 | Malecki Law Team

Cloud computing is the delivery of computing services (i.e., storage and network infrastructure and software-as-a-service (“SaaS”)) on the internet rather than your computer’s hard drive. Currently, cloud computing is considered a valuable asset to firms, industry wide. It is important to have Malecki Law’s FINRA Regulatory Lawyers in New York assist in ensuring your firm’s storage systems are sufficient. As a result, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (“FINRA”) Office of Financial Innovation (“OFI”) published a report addressing the results of a study regarding the state of cloud adoption within the securities industry. In drafting the report, FINRA obtained data from roughly 40 broker-dealer firms, cloud service providers, industry analysts, and technology consultants.

The report noted that cloud computing strengthens a brokerage firm’s ability to scale operations, generate business continuity solutions and quickly deploy products. Moreover, firms claimed that there are both benefits and challenges regarding agility, resiliency, costs, cybersecurity, staffing, and operations. Additionally, many firms claimed that migrating to the cloud may allow them to be more innovative and offer products at a faster speed. Firms also felt that cloud computing enables them to more efficiently scale computer usage to assist with the increase in IT resources.

As part of its recommendations, FINRA advised broker-firms that use third-party service providers that they have an ongoing responsibility to monitor and supervise the provider’s performance and create oversight procedures. FINRA also encourages companies and vendors to “re-evaluate their approach to security, including reviewing cloud misconfigurations and poor access controls; update data-related policies and procedures if a firm’s cloud adoption leads to changes in how it collects, stores, analyzes, and shares sensitive customer data; create, maintain, and annually review a written business continuity plan, in line with the FINRA Rule 4370 (Business Continuity Plans and Emergency Contact Information); consider the risk posed by cloud vendors and service providers; ensure that any data and information stored in the cloud is compliant with Exchange Act Rule 17a -4, and are preserved in a non-rewriteable and non-erasable format.”