ARTICLE
6 January 2020

Firm Settles FINRA Charges For Inaccurately Coding Options Orders

CW
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Contributor

Cadwalader, established in 1792, serves a diverse client base, including many of the world's leading financial institutions, funds and corporations. With offices in the United States and Europe, Cadwalader offers legal representation in antitrust, banking, corporate finance, corporate governance, executive compensation, financial restructuring, intellectual property, litigation, mergers and acquisitions, private equity, private wealth, real estate, regulation, securitization, structured finance, tax and white collar defense.
A firm settled FINRA charges for inaccurately coding options orders submitted by customers on the firm's online trading platform.
United States Corporate/Commercial Law

A firm settled FINRA charges for inaccurately coding options orders submitted by customers on the firm's online trading platform.

The alleged failures resulted in a violation of FINRA Rule 3110 ("Supervision"), among other securities regulations. FINRA Rule 3110 requires broker-dealers to establish, maintain and enforce both supervisory systems and written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to supervise broker-dealers' activities and the activities of their representatives.

According to the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent, the firm routed to options exchanges orders that were marked as "Customer" rather than as "Professional Customer." This resulted in the execution of approximately 500,000 mismarked options orders. FINRA alleged that the miscoding (i) led to inaccurate order records and (ii) potentially caused "those orders to be given undue priority for execution on the options exchanges." FINRA determined that the firm failed to implement (i) a supervisory system to detect whether customers' options orders were coded accurately and (ii) a written supervisory procedure for orders executed on the firm's online trading platform.

Without admitting to or denying the charges, the firm agreed to a censure and to pay a fine of $250,000.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More