ARTICLE
30 June 2021

Broker-Dealer Settles FINRA Charges For Unsuitable UIT Rollover Recommendations

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 broker-dealer settled FINRA charges for failing to maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to ensure that its representatives were not recommending unsuitable short-term transactions in Unit Investment Trusts.
United States Finance and Banking

A broker-dealer settled FINRA charges for failing to maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to ensure that its representatives were not recommending unsuitable short-term transactions in Unit Investment Trusts ("UITs").

In a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent, FINRA determined that although one of the broker-dealer's market surveillance and monitoring specialists circulated guidance as to the appropriate UIT hold periods for clients, its supervisory system did not include any reports that would have identified (i) whether a representative had recommended a rollover of a UIT earlier than the recommended period or (ii) patterns of early rollovers. FINRA also found that the broker-dealer failed to identify thousands of instances in which its representatives provided unsuitable rollover recommendations.

As a result of its findings, FINRA determined that the broker-dealer violated NASD Rule 3010 and FINRA Rules 2010 ("Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade") and 3110 ("Supervision").

To settle the charges, the broker-dealer agreed to (i) a censure, (ii) a $3.25 million fine and (iii) payment of $8,437,223.38, plus interest, in restitution to the customers impacted by the conduct.

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