Enforcement Actions
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)
CASES OF NOTE
2009
NOTE: Stipulations of Fact and Consent to Penalty (SFC); Offers of Settlement (OS); and Letters of Acceptance Waiver, and Consent (AWC) are entered into by Respondents without admitting or denying the allegations, but consent is given to the described sanctions & to the entry of findings. Additionally, for AWCs, if FINRA has reason to believe a violation has occurred and the member or associated person does not dispute the violation, FINRA may prepare and request that the member or associated person execute a letter accepting a finding of violation, consenting to the imposition of sanctions, and agreeing to waive such member's or associated person's right to a hearing before a hearing panel, and any right of appeal to the National Adjudicatory Council, the SEC, and the courts, or to otherwise challenge the validity of the letter, if the letter is accepted. The letter shall describe the act or practice engaged in or omitted, the rule, regulation, or statutory provision violated, and the sanction or sanctions to be imposed.
Michael Keith Paul
AWC/2007010688901
Paul's member firm warned him not to exercise discretion in customers’ variable annuity sub-accounts and required him to sign a warning letter to evidence his understanding of the firm’s policies regarding the use of discretion within customer accounts. Nevertheless, Paul exercised discretion in customers’ accounts without discussing the transactions with the customers. Paul had verbal authority from the customers to exercise discretion but no written permission. The transactions did not result in any fees or charges to the customers nor did the transactions yield any compensation for Paul
Michael Keith Paul: Fined $5,000; Suspended 10 business days
Bill Singer's Comment
Take note -- careful note -- of this case because it appears that a smart lawyer (or, if Paul handled his own case, hats off to him) took a bad situation and made it as good as possible. By settling this case via the AWC route, Paul was able to exert some influence over the outcome of the case, as opposed to relying upon a Hearing Panel.  Among the manifestations of the likely quid-pro-quo granted to him for settling seems to be a willingness by FINRA to note two facts that slant this case a bit more favorably in Paul's direction. One, that Paul had "verbal" discretion even if not "written." Two, that the transactions did not financially harm the customers or financially benefit Paul.  Years from now, when potential employers read this case (or potential litigants against Paul), those two clarifications may have a major impact on how the case is interpreted.

Separately, compliments to FINRA for providing a more even-handed statement of facts.  Moreover, given the additional context, we now better understand why Paul received such a relatively light fine and suspension.

Enforcement Actions
Search in Cases of Note : FINRA
Months
 
Cases of Note : FINRA Archive
Tags