Industry Topics

FINRA Issues Regulatory Notice 11-39 to Address Business Use of Social Media Websites

August 23, 2011 | Malecki Law Team

The talk among New York securities lawyers this week was all about the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) release of Regulatory Notice 11-39 addressing business use of social media website in the wake of surging popularity of social media tools such as Facebook and Google+. These social media tools make connecting with friends, colleagues and third-parties easy, but also raise novel questions related to the extent to which associated persons may use these sites for business use and registered principals must supervise such use.

Securities Exchange Act Rule 17a-4(b)(4), which requires the retention of copies of communications between members, brokers or dealers and the public of “business as such,” underlies Regulatory Notice 11-39. Thus, a firm’s or an associated person’s communications with the public through social media posts may require pre-approval by the firm and/or registered principal, and be subject to regulation by FINRA, depending on whether the communication is related to the firm’s “business as such” and is “static” as opposed to “interactive.” Generally, all communications related to a firm’s business as such must be recorded and preserved, while all static posting is deemed an advertisement requiring the firm’s pre-approval under NASD Rule 2210.

Regulatory Notice 11-39 begins to address the grey area of posting to message boards. Associated persons, be they advertising in the first place or responding to questions via such message boards, are limited to what they can say and claim. Thus, postings in static forums or blogs on websites would require pre-approval of all statements made relating to the firm’s business.

New SEC Whistleblower Rules Become Effective

August 12, 2011 | Malecki Law Team

Today, the SEC‘s new whistleblower program under the Dodd-Frank Act becomes effective, and is on the minds of many New York securities lawyers. These new rules were devised in such a way to provide an incentive for would-be whistleblowers to come forward and assist the SEC with investigations of possible securities law violations. Under these new rules, if an individual provides the SEC with original information about possible federal securities laws violations, and that information leads to a recovery by the SEC of $1 million or more, that individual would be entitled to receive up to 30% of the sanctions received by the SEC.

Under the new rules, internal reporting is encouraged, but it is not required. Individuals may instead go directly to the SEC. However, the value of internal compliance programs is addressed in the release, and there are incentives in place in the new rules to urge whistleblowers to report internally first.

There are also a few groups of individual who, for public policy reasons, are excluded from participation under the new rules. These include: compliance and internal audit personnel; officers, directors, trustees and partners who only discover the violations as a result of internal compliance procedures; public auditors who learn of the violations in the course of an engagement. However, these people may be eligible under certain circumstances, such as: they reasonably believe that disclosure is necessary to prevent the company from causing substantial injury to the property or financial interests of the company or investors; they reasonably believe that the company is impeding an investigation of the misconduct; or at least 120 days have passed since the initial internal report. Attorneys are also excluded, provided that they learned of the violations directly from attorney-client communications.

FINRA Rule Proposal Could Set the Stage For Broker Class Actions

July 29, 2011 | Malecki Law Team

Investment News reports that FINRA has authorized its staff to propose a new rule that would ban “collective action” employment claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act from arbitration. This rule would have to be approved by the SEC before it could take effect, but it has potential longterm significance for New York securities lawyers and the American workforce at large.

Collective action claims differ from class actions in that a potential plaintiff must choose to “opt in” to the lawsuit, while class actions have the effect of automatically including covered plaintiffs, but allow individuals to opt out.

FINRA has maintained that its rules do not allow for collective or class actions in its dispute resolution system, but FINRA rules only mention class actions. Federal courts have repeatedly ordered that collective action wage and hour cases be heard in FINRA arbitrations.

Kovel Rule no Guarantee of Accounting Privacy in New York Audits and Investigations

June 24, 2011 | Jenice L. Malecki, Esq.

In Why Your CPA Might Blab, by Arden Dale, the Wall Street Journal reports what your CPA knows could be subject to disclosure. As New York business lawyers know from experience, your accountant is not your attorney and he or she is not your priest.

Certainly when facing an audit or investigation, the first order of business is to consult an experienced New York business attorney to help protect your rights. As a decision we secured earlier this month illustrates (Salt Aire Trading LLC v. Enterprise Financial Services Corp.), communications involving your accountant may be privileged if assisting your law firm in your defense.

In that case, plaintiffs submitted to an in camera review of IRS audit documents for which attorney-client privilege was claimed. Plaintiffs claimed the documents were produced by plaintiffs’ attorneys and accountants for the purpose of legal advice. Defendants in the case contested attorney-client privilege. As the court noted, generally attorney-client privilege cannot be asserted in the presence of a third party, in this case the accountant. An exception would be if the accountant was facilitating attorney-client conversation, such as acting as an interpreter.The court found in this case that the accountant did act as a facilitator and that the plaintiffs met their burden of proof. Still, the court ruled portions of the documents not covered by attorney-client privilege must be disclosed.

A New York Resident’s Intervention Helps Bring Settlement With Hedge Funds

June 15, 2011 | Malecki Law Team

The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend about how one New York resident investor who lost his small stake in Washington Mutual once it was seized by the United States government in 2008 played a pivotal role in protecting the rights of similarly places investors. New York securities and whistleblower lawyers know there too be all too many investors in the same boat.

Nate Thoma, a self-taught trader who was wiped out when the U.S. government intervened in WaMu, discovered that he could recoup his losses by investing in trust preferred securities, which he bought through online trading account when they became available. The trust preferred securities essentially places the holder in the front of the line for any money distributed from WaMu’s estate once it emerged from bankruptcy. The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Thoma suspected hedge funds were buying substantially more blocks of these trust preferred shares while also owning the bank’s bonds.

And in December 2010, Mr. Thoma explained his theory to the Delaware bankruptcy court judge in the case In re Washington Mutual, Inc.: since the hedge funds were both bond holders in settlement talks, and owners of substantial swaths of trust preferred shares, were the hedge funds acting in the trust preferred holders’ best interest when they negotiated on their behalf?

Goldman Sachs Pays $10 Million to Settle Allegations of Questionable Investor Relations

June 9, 2011 | Jenice L. Malecki, Esq.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. will pay $10 million after Massachusetts securities regulators contended its “research huddles” were dishonest and unethical, according to a Wall Street Journal article “Goldman Fined $10 Mln By Massachusetts Over Research ‘Huddles'” by Liz Moyer that has New York securities lawyers singing the court’s praises.

The state said the “huddles,” which included communications between top analysts and top clients, gave special access, information and tips to select clients, which other clients did not receive. Goldman admitted no wrongdoing; investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority are ongoing.New York securities attorneys note the increasing number of investigations into the advice investment firms are doling out in the wake of the economic collapse; some have been accused of touting the safety of real estate securities even as they were moving top clients and funds out of real-estate-backed products.

An experienced law firm should be brought in to handle audits and investigations in New York at the earliest possible stages of such cases. In many cases, how you handle requests for information and respond to investigative entities — both formally and informally — can have a dramatic effect on the outcome of your case. As Peter Henning at the New York Times recently reported in “Zealous Advocacy vs. Obstructive Conduct”, there can be a fine line between zealous advocacy and obstruction — a fact both executives and their attorneys must always be aware. At the same time, you need a law firm with the knowledge, experience and resources to stand up for your rights — not to cave to government intimidation.

SEC Approves New Whistleblower Rules to Provide Cash Award to Insiders Who Report Securities Fraud

May 26, 2011 | Malecki Law Team

On Wednesday May 25, 2011, the SEC approved new rules to flesh out a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act which provides for large cash rewards for employees who report suspected securities fraud through internal compliance programs or directly to the SEC. Under the new law, employees who report securities fraud either directly to the SEC or internally may be eligible, provided the firm passes on the information to the agency. The provision is thought by many a victory for New York whistleblowers and whistleblower attorneys alike.

Many firms were concerned that direct reporting to the SEC would make the large compliance programs these firms put in place in response to Sarbanes-Oxley essentially obsolete. In response, the SEC agreed to consider an employee’s participation in her company’s internal compliance program as a factor that could increase the amount of the reward. Under these new rules, some rewards can be as high as 30% of the penalty paid.

To be eligible for the reward, an individual must be a whistleblower. To be treated as a whistleblower from the date they report violations internally, an employee must also report the information to the SEC within 120 days.