(a) Forbids the use of private mobile phones and other devices with mobile data connectivity on trading floors. Only employer owned devices are allowed, as long as they prevent the use of unmonitored apps. The employer must put in place adequate measures to enforce such policy such as requesting that personal devices be handed in before entering trading floor(b) Imposes criminal penalties on market participants found to have used such devices to exchange market sensitive information(c) Creates a rebuttable presumption of breach of the relevant rules on the individuals and their employers in cases of insider trading, market manipulation or antitrust infringement in cases where such chatrooms content cannot be retrieved.
[(1)] The information provided by the Claimant was significant as it alerted Enforcement staff to the violations, which would have been difficult to detect in the absence of Claimant's information and bore a close nexus to the Commission's charges; (2) Claimant provided exemplary assistance to the Enforcement staff, saving Commission resources and accelerating the pace of the investigation; (3) The underlying Enforcement action was programmatically significant; and (4) The amounts available for collection in the matter were limited.
[T]he causes of action relate to Claimants' allegation that, while registered with Brokers International, Perry was the President of Brendanwood Financial Brokerage, LLC ("Brendanwood"). Claimants further allege that, due to a failure to supervise, an unnamed party ("Unnamed Party"), also serving as an officer at Brendanwood, funneled seventy-eight (78) checks, one wire transfer, and one ACH account transfer into a business account and, thereafter, the funds were misappropriated by the Unnamed Party or others for personal use and consumption.
Pursuant to Rule 12504(a)(6)(B), Respondents were not associated with the account, security or conduct at issue. It appears that the Unnamed Party was the wrongdoer, and may have defrauded Claimants by misappropriating funds from Claimants' accounts. As such, Claimants' dispute is not with Respondents. Claimants were not customers of either Brokers International or Perry, and there was no written agreement between the named parties. Claimants never opened an account with or purchased any securities from Respondents. The Unnamed Party was not an associated person of Brokers International, not a financial advisor, and not licensed or authorized to sell securities. Respondents were not required to supervise the Unnamed Party.Furthermore, the dispute is not connected with the business activities of a member or an associated person. Claimants were sold insurance products. Rule 12200 of the Code exempts disputes involving the insurance business activities of a member that is also an insurance company from arbitration. The activities in this case involved the purchase of insurance products from a company that engaged the services of an agent of a member. No securities were purchased or sold by an associated person of a member.
In 2008, the New Jersey Bureau of Securities (NJ Bureau) issued a Summary Revocation Order and Assessment of Monetary Penalties revoking Datys' agent registration and assessing civil monetary penalties against Datys in the amount of $6,000 for failing to comply with a heightened supervisory agreement with the firm. In 2006, the NJ Bureau had conditioned Datys' registration upon his entering into this agreement with the firm. The NJ Bureau found that Datys failed to comply with the agreement by failing to disclose four items to the NJ Bureau: (1) an action impacting Datys' registration in Colorado; (2) a New Jersey customer complaint; (3) a Texas civil litigation suit; and (4) a supervisory change.In 2014, the NJ Bureau assessed a civil monetary penalty for Datys in the amount of $15,000, as set forth in a Consent Order, after finding that Datys continued to actively transact business for up to four New Jersey residents between May 2008 and August 2012 and caused certain clients to change their principal address from their New Jersey residential addresses to their New York business addresses, despite the fact that the clients were still residing at the New Jersey addresses, after his registration in New Jersey had been revoked.
From 2012 to 2016, in connection with two securities offerings, Datys offered and sold 24 promissory notes issued by WestPark Capital Inc.'s parent company, WestPark Capital Financial Services LLC, to 14 customers, raising a total of $2,713,200. Datys violated NASD Rule 2310 and FINRA Rules 2111 and 2010 by failing to have a reasonable basis to recommend these notes to customers. In addition, Datys made negligent misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the sale of the offerings, in violation of FINRA Rule 2010 and in contravention of Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933.