FINRA found that from February 2011 through December 2015, CGMI displayed to its brokers, retail customers and supervisors inaccurate research ratings for more than 1,800 equity securities -more than 38 percent of those covered by the firm. Because of errors in the electronic feed of ratings data that the firm provided to its clearing firm, the firm either displayed the wrong rating for some covered securities (e.g., "buy" instead of "sell"), displayed ratings for other securities that CGMI did not cover or failed to display ratings for securities that CGMI, in fact, rated. The firm's actual research reports, which were available to brokers, and the research ratings appearing in those reports, were not affected by these errors.The inaccuracies in the research ratings feed had widespread, adverse consequences. As a result of the errors, CGMI brokers solicited thousands of transactions inconsistent with the firm's actual ratings and negligently made inaccurate statements to customers about those ratings. They also solicited transactions that violated certain firm-managed portfolio guidelines, which were premised on CGMI research ratings. For example, the portfolios were prohibited from containing equity securities the firm had rated "sell." Because CGMI brokers relied on inaccurately displayed ratings, many customers' portfolios improperly included "sell"-rated securities. CGMI supervisors, relying on those same inaccurate ratings, failed to detect and prevent a substantial number of transactions that were actually inconsistent with CGMI research or portfolio guidelines. The firm also made materially inaccurate statements and omissions regarding more than 19,000 research ratings on customer account statements, sent more than 1,000 customer email alerts with inaccurate ratings, and displayed inaccurate ratings on online portals available to customers.
"Writs of habeas corpus" ordering release from federal custody "may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a); accord Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition because "the habeas statute does not list the Court of Federal Claims among those courts empowered to grant a writ of habeas corpus"). No statute or rule gives me the authority to grant Neman's petition. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 556, 557 (defining the scope of administrative hearings); 17 C.F.R. § 201.111 (enumerating powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission's hearing officers).
A fascinating aspect of ALJ Patil's rationale is found in his consideration of whether Neman is likely to engage in future violations and if he has shown remorse for his misconduct. In pertinent part, the Initial Decision asserts: