On August 3, 2017, the Department of Labor released a fourth set of FAQs related to its new “investment advice” fiduciary definition and related exemptions, which became applicable on June 9. Like the May FAQs, the three new FAQs are positioned as transition period guidance, although their content is not so limited.
Additional contributor to this post:
W. Mark Smith, marksmith@eversheds-sutherland.com
2016 will be remembered as an historic year: the Olympics, the Chicago-Cleveland World Series, and the presidential election. In the regulatory world of FINRA, there was also an historic year as FINRA continued its trend of ordering significant fines, shattering its
previous record set in 2014. If firms and their representatives were not paying attention to this trend, they should be now. Although some have speculated about a reduction in the SEC’s Enforcement program with the new administration, FINRA shows no signs of slowing down. By analyzing FINRA’s 2016 sanctions and cases, including the issues that resulted in the most significant fines and emerging enforcement trends, what predictions can we make about key issues for FINRA for 2017 and beyond?
Additional contributor to this post:
FINRA recently held a Blockchain Symposium which included a Regulator Forum with representatives from FINRA, OCC, CFTC, the Federal Reserve and the SEC. The regulators discussed the work they have undertaken to assess the use of DLT in the financial services industry, and the regulatory considerations associated with potential uses of DLT. The Symposium follows FINRA’s publication of a report earlier this year discussing the implications of DLT for the securities industry and soliciting comments from market participants.
Additional contributor to this post:
Issa J. Hanna, issahanna@eversheds-sutherland.com
On June 29, 2017, the Department of Labor released a request for information, seeking public comments yet again on its new “investment advice” fiduciary definition and related exemptions which became applicable on June 9.
Additional contributor to this post:
W. Mark Smith, marksmith@eversheds-sutherland.com
The issues for broker-dealers are complicated because a good deal of research (or sleuthing) needs to be undertaken to grasp the breadth of potential liability a broker-dealer may face for not reacting to an indication of senior exploitation among the broker-dealer’s client base. This is an area where red flags mean everything and consistency in the law is a goal still to be achieved. In short, each state endeavors to protect its elderly and vulnerable populations from financial exploitation in its own unique way. A broker-dealer cannot wait until a particular case of potential financial exploitation presents itself; the complexity of determining the broker-dealer’s obligations under state law, if not researched in advance, could cause a broker-dealer to unwittingly expose itself to civil and/or criminal liability.
Additional contributors to this post: