Securities Industry Commentator by Bill Singer Esq

January 3, 2019

In the Matter of Megan Nina Weakland, Respondent (AWC 2016051302001, January 2, 2019). 
http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/fda_documents/2016051302001%
20Megan%20Nina%20Weakland%20CRD%204678321%20AWC%20va.pdf
For the purpose of proposing a settlement of rule violations alleged by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA"), without admitting or denying the findings, prior to a regulatory hearing, and without an adjudication of any issue, Megan Nina Weakland submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent ("AWC"), which FINRA accepted. In accordance with the terms of the AWC, FINRA imposed upon Weakland a $3,500 fine and a two-month suspension in all capacities. Weakland entered the industry in 2003 as a Sales Assistant, and from July 2006 through mid-August 2016, she was a Registered Sales Assistant with FINRA member firm Wells Fargo Advisors, Inc. The AWC asserts that Weakland voluntarily resigned from Wells Fargo on August 12, 2016, during a time when the firm was internally reviewing "issues involving accessing the Firm's systems under the user name and password of another team member, and performing account-related tasks under the username and password of the other team member." As set forth in the "Summary" portion of the AWC:

From July 2006 through August 2016 (the "Relevant Period"), Weakland shared a common password with the registered financial advisor (the "FA") for whom she worked. Weakland, with the FA's authorization, then used the common password to log into the FA's system "Worklist" to evidence the FA's approval of new accounts by affixing his electronic signature when, in fact, the FA had neither seen nor reviewed the account documents for those accounts.

By the foregoing, Weakland falsified Firm documents in violation of NASD Rule 2110 (from July 2006 through December 14, 2008) and FINRA Rule 2010 (from December 15, 2008 through August 2016), and violated NASD Rules 3110 (from July 2006 through December 4, 2011) and 2110 (from July 2006 through December 14, 2008) and FINRA Rules 4511 (from December 5, 2011 through August 2016) and 2010 (from December 15, 2008 through August 2016) by causing the Firm to create and maintain inaccurate books and records in violation of Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 17a-3 promulgated thereunder. 

Bill Singer's Comment: As I have long noted in many published articles over the years, I truly hate most of these FINRA "sales assistant" regulatory cases because of Wall Street's inbred sexism. More often than not, the sales assistant is a woman, and often a veteran employee at that -- but, you know, the industry's "girls" just never seem to rise up the ranks in the same numbers as the boys that they serve. Oddly, these female sales assistants always seem to be handling most of the grunt work that allows all of Wall Street's orders to get placed, reported, and processed but they lack that elusive quality to speak with a customer and get paid the full commission. Yeah, sure, that's it. Only men can do the old pump-and-dump. What I truly detest about these cases is how the member firm and FINRA always seems willing to quaff large quantities of Kool-Aid when investigating and charging the industry's sales assistants. I mean, seriously, you really think that lowly Ms. Weakland "shared" a password for over a decade (2006 through 2016) and no one, and I mean no one, at Wells Fargo even had a hint of the practice?  I mean, c'mon, how the hell did FA think the new accounts were getting processed? Keep in mind that we have this nugget in the AWC:

During the Relevant Period, Weakland, with the FA's authorization, approved new accounts appearing on the FA's Worklist by using their common password to access the FA's Worklist in the Firm's systems and by providing the FA's electronic signature. The new account approvals Weakland made represented to the Firm that the new accounts established had been reviewed and approved by the FA, which was not true. 

For companion AWCs involving the Team Leader and another Team Member, READ:

In the Matter of Steven Albert Gotter, Respondent (AWC 2016051302401, November 28, 2018). 
http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/fda_documents/2016051302401%20Steven
%20Albert%20Gotter%20CRD%201201173%20AWC%20jm.pdf ,the Respondent consented to a $10,000 fine; a four-months suspension in Principal-only capacity,  and a two-month suspension in all capacities; and as set forth in this AWC's "Overview":

From July 2006 through August 2016 (the "Relevant Period"), Gotter and his two registered sales assistants used the same password to access the Finn's systems. The two sales assistants then regularly used the common password to log into Gotter's system "Worklist" to evidence Goner's approval of new accounts by affixing his electronic signature when, in fact, Gotter never reviewed the account documents for the accounts that he purportedly approved. 

Similarly, during a six and one-half year portion of the Relevant Period, while Gotter was tasked with performing supervisory functions at the Lake Oswego branch office of the Firm, Gotter also authorized one of his two sales assistants to sign his name on documents to evidence his supervisory review and approval of branch correspondence and branch check logs that he had not, in fact; reviewed. 

By the foregoing, Goiter caused the falsification of Firm documents in violation of NASD Rule 2110 (from July 2006 through December 14. 2008) and FINRA. Rule 2010 (from December 15, 2008 through August 2016), and violated NASD Rules 3110 (from July 2006 through December 4. 2011) and 2110 (from July 2006 through December 14, 2008) and FINRA Rules 4511 (from December 5, 2011 through August 2016) and 2010 (from December 15. 2008 through August 2016) by causing the Firm to create and maintain inaccurate books and records in violation of Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 promulgated thereunder. Gotter also failed in his capacity as a supervisor to enforce the Firm's written policies and procedures regarding the confidentiality of passwords. delegation of supervisory authority and falsification of documents in violation of NASD Rules 3010(b) (from July 2006 through November 30, 2014) 2110 (from July 2006 through December 14, 2008) and FINRA Rules 3110(b) (from December 1. 2014 through August 2016) and 2010 (from December 15. 2008 through August 2016).  

In the Matter of Holly Louise Walcher, Respondent (AWC 2016051302301, November 28, 2018). 
http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/fda_documents/2016051302301%20Holly
%20Louise%20Walcher%20CRD%201512169%20AWC%20va.pdf ,the Respondent consented to a $5,000 fine and a two-month suspension in all capacities; and as set forth in this AWC's "Overview":

From July 2006 through August 2016 (the "Relevant Period"), Walcher shared a common password with the registered financial advisor ("FA") for whom she worked. Walcher, with the FA's authorization, then routinely used the common password to log into the FA's system "Worklist" to evidence the FA's approval of new accounts by affixing his electronic signature when, in fact, the FA had neither seen nor reviewed the account documents for those accounts. 

Similarly, during a six and one-half year portion of the Relevant Period, while the FA was tasked with performing supervisory functions at the Lake Oswego branch office of the Firm, Walther, with the FA's authorization, signed his name on documents to evidence the FA's supervisory review and approval of branch correspondence and branch check logs that the FA had neither seen nor reviewed. 

By the foregoing, Walcher falsified Firm documents in violation of NASD Rule 2110 (from July 2006 through December 14, 2008) and FINRA Rule 2010 (from December 15, 2008 through August 2016), and violated NASD Rules 3110 (from July 2006 through December 4, 2011) and 2110 (from July 2006 through December 14, 2008) and FINRA Rules 4511 (from December 5, 2011 through August 2016) and 2010 (from December 15, 2008 through August 2016) by causing the Firm to create and maintain inaccurate books and records in violation of Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 promulgated thereunder.  

Finally -- shame on FINRA for throwing yet another industry female under the bus without so much as a nod that she may have been harassed or urged or intimidated or whatever into keeping her mouth shut and doing what she was told to do or expected to do. Imagine what might have happened to Weakland's career if in 2006 or 2007 or 2008 or any of the years within the decade cited, she walked into her manager's office and said, hell no, I'm not using FA's password or electronic signature in order to facilitate new account openings. Also READ:

Another Wall Street Fall Girl Takes A FINRA Flop (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog, September 25, 2015)
http://www.brokeandbroker.com/2908/sexism-finra/

FINRA Bars Female Sales Asst Instructed To Impersonate Customers (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog, October 10, 2014)
http://www.brokeandbroker.com/2566/finra-commonwealth-impersonation/

Getting The Wall Street Girl To Do It (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog, April 21, 2014)
http://www.brokeandbroker.com/2566/finra-commonwealth-impersonation/

Sexist Double Standard? Female Sales Assistant Sanctioned By FINRA (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog, October 26, 2012)
http://www.brokeandbroker.com/1716/finra-sexist-female-sales-assistant-awc/

Wall Street's Women Set Up For Regulatory Failure (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog, July 25, 2012)
http://www.brokeandbroker.com/1579/finra-women-regulatory-failure-sexism/

http://www.brokeandbroker.com/4369/aegis-frumento-use-case/
Many things are countable and transferable, and could be tokenized. But that doesn't mean they should be. There have to be reasons to adopt new ways to do things. What critical need can a blockchain application satisfy better than any other alternative? What real problem can a blockchain application solve that an existing technology can't? Good ideas for use cases are a dime a dozen. A blockchain application that protects us from contaminated lettuce is a game-changer. But to pay for that lettuce with bitcoin instead of dollars is just an affectation.

Interactive Brokers, LLC and Kevin Michael Fischer, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Richard W. Barry, as Receiver for Osiris Fund Limited Partnership, Defendant/Respondent (Opinion, Superior Court of New Jersey/Appellate Division, A-4197-1714 / December 31, 2018) http://brokeandbroker.com/PDF/InteractiveNJAppDiv.pdf As set forth in the Appellate Division's Opinion:

After the New Jersey Attorney General discovered Osiris Fund Limited Partnership (Osiris), a hedge fund founded by Peter Zuck, perpetrating a Ponzi scheme which defrauded its investors of more than $6.5 million, the Attorney General instituted suit against Zuck and Osiris. Osiris operated through the securities trading platform of plaintiff Interactive Brokers, LLC (Interactive ), and plaintiff Kevin Michael Fisher, as an Interactive employee, assisted Osiris in using Interactive's platform. 

Under a consent order, Zuck was determined to have violated securities laws and defrauded investors, and he was ordered to pay restitution of $7,564,273. Defendant Richard Barry (the Receiver) was appointed as receiver for Osiris. 

Page 2 of the Opinion

Receiver Barry filed a FINRA Arbitration Statement of Claim in 2017 against Interactive Brokers and Fischer asserting  1) negligence and/or failure to supervise; 2) breach of implied/express contract, implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and industry rules; 3) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; 4) aiding and abetting common law fraud; 5) unsuitability; 6) fraudulent conveyance; and 7) unjust enrichment. Interactive and Fischer filed for declaratory and injunctive relief in the New Jersey Chancery Division seeking:

1) a declaration that the Receiver "brought claims against [p]laintiffs in an arbitration commenced before [FINRA] that are beyond" his powers in the appointment order; and 2) "injunctive relief to prevent the Receiver from continuing . . . the FINRA arbitration." Plaintiffs alleged the claims were "beyond the scope of the Receiver's authority" because the Receiver grounded his claims on the damages incurred by Osiris's investors, rather than Osiris itself.

Page 5 of the Opinion

In its May 16, 2018, Decision and Order, the Chancery Division denied Interactive and Fischer's request for preliminary injunction and granted Barry's motion to compel the FINRA arbitration and dismiss the civil court Complaint. As cited in the Appellate Division Opinion. the Chancery Court found that:

1) "the claims set forth in the Receiver's Statement of Claim [were] brought on behalf of Osiris Fund itself, not Osiris Fund's investors"; 2) the Receiver's ability to file the Statement of Claim with FINRA was authorized under the trial court's appointment order, N.J.S.A. 49:3-69(c), and N.J.S.A. 14A:14-1 to -27; 3) the Receiver's claims arose from a dispute between Interactive and Osiris, mandating a resolution in arbitration under the Agreement; and 4) the in pari delicto defense plaintiff asserted was grounded in the merits of Receiver's arbitration claims, and therefore required an arbitrator's determination. 

Page 6 of the Opinion

Interactive and Fischer appealed to the Appellate Division arguing that Chancery Court had erred in denying the preliminary injunction and finding that the Receiver's claims belonged to Osiris rather than that firm's investors; and in finding that the Receiver's claims were subject to arbitration. 

The Appellate Division found that the Receiver's authority to bring the FINRA arbitration action derived from his statutory powers under state law. In affirming the lower court, the Appellate Division Opinion states in part that:

It is clear a receiver's action is not invalidated, even if the return of assets to the receivership may ultimately benefits its investors. Here, the Statement lists Osiris as its sole claimant. The Statement charges plaintiffs with aiding and abetting Zuck in his fraudulent conduct and details their substantial participation in the wrongdoing. These are claims that belong to Osiris, which was harmed when its funds were removed for unauthorized purposes. It is entitled to the return of the unlawfully transferred monies. The Receiver cannot be deprived of standing to pursue Osiris's legal remedies, even if the defrauded investors become the recipients of the recovered assets. As a result, we are satisfied the Chancery judge did not abuse his discretion in denying plaintiffs' preliminary injunction as they failed to demonstrate a "reasonable probability of ultimate success on the merits." Crowe v. De Gioia, 90 N.J. 126, 133 (1982). 

We are also unpersuaded by plaintiffs' argument that the Receiver's claims are not subject to arbitration. In our de novo review of the arbitrability of a claim, we consider whether: 1) the parties entered into a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate disputes; and 2) the dispute falls within the scope of the agreement. Hirsch v. Amper Fin. Servs., LLC, 215 N.J. 174, 187- 88 (2013). "In reviewing such orders, we are mindful of the strong preference to enforce arbitration agreements, both at the state and federal level." Id. at 186.

Plaintiffs contend this dispute does not fall within the scope of the Agreement because Osiris is the customer under the Agreement, not Osiris's investors. In light of our resolution of this issue, the Receiver has brought claims on behalf of Osiris and not the investors, and, therefore, the Receiver is plaintiffs' customer. Since the Agreement requires "any" dispute or claim arising between Osiris and plaintiffs to be arbitrated by FINRA, this dispute falls within the Agreement's scope and is subject to FINRA arbitration. 

Pages 9-10 of the Opinion

ALSO READ:

11th Circuit Rejects Mandatory FINRA Arbitration By Customers (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog, 
September 25, 2018)
http://www.brokeandbroker.com/4200/finra-11cir-arbitration/

FINRA Arbitrators See No UBS, Citigroup, or Merrill Customers And Dismiss Case  (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog, January 23, 2018)
http://www.brokeandbroker.com/3786/finra-arbitration-jurisdiction/

Widow Lacks Standing In FINRA Arbitration Involving Husband's IRA  (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog, December 8, 2017)
http://www.brokeandbroker.com/3711/widow-ira-finra/

GUEST BLOG: Who Is A Customer For Purposes of FINRA Arbitration Rule 12200 by Martin P. Unger Esq  (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog, September 16, 2016)
http://www.brokeandbroker.com/3247/martin-unger-arbitration-customer/

In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Lorenzo Christopher Philip Mittleman, Claimant, v. UBS Financial Securities, Inc., Respondent (FINRA Arbitration 18-01482, January 2, 2019)
http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/aao_documents/18-01482.pdf_
In a Statement of Claim filed in April 2018, associated Person Mittleman sought the expungement of a settled customer complaint that he did not contribute to.  Respondent UBS did not oppose the requested expungement and participated in the hearing. The sole FINRA Arbitrator made a Rule 2080 finding that the customers' claim, allegation, or information is false. In recommending the expungement of the complaint, the FINRA Arbitrator offered the following rationale:

The customer, in the underlying dispute, alleged that the purchase of Body Drama common stock (BRDM) in his accounts was not authorized. The evidence indicates that this allegation was false. 

The credible testimony of the Claimant, as well as the facts outlined in his Statement of Claim and in his IAPD report, indicate that the customer's accounts were nondiscretionary. Claimant testified credibly that, after a telephonic conversation with the customer, the purchase was fully authorized, and this testimony was supported by the following Broker Statement in his IAPD Report made at or around the time that the customer's claims were settled: "TO PRESERVE CLIENT RELATIONS, PAINEWEBBER SETTLED FOR $18,000. TRADE WAS FULLY AUTHORIZED. THE CLIENT DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM ABOUT THE TRADE BEING UNAUTHORIZED UNTIL ALMOST 2 MONTHS AFTER TRADE DATE WHEN STOCK PRICE HAD DECLINED SHARPLY. ALTHOUGH REGISTRANT WAS FORCED TO PAY HALF THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT, REGISTRANT VEHEMENTLY DENIES ANY WRONGDOING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS INVESTMENT." 

Respondent, as well as the Firm Statement in Claimant's IAPD Report, also stated that the "trade was fully authorized", and in its settlement agreements with the account holders, Respondent disputed the customer's claims and denied liability.