September 23, 2020
http://www.brokeandbroker.com/5448/finra-discovery-larson/
IN RESPONSE TO DEMAND, HELD OVER FOR
SECOND DAY. As with so many things in life and
regulation, this one is all about nuance. We have a largely unsympathetic
respondent, who does not seem to have had a firm grip upon his compliance
obligations. Accordingly, FINRA filed charges and its staff seems to have done
a commendable job making the counts stick. On top of that, we have persuasive
decisions from FINRA's Office of Hearing Officers and its National Adjudicatory
Council. As with all great beauties, however, there is a flaw. The flaw in this
regulatory matter is FINRA's violation of its Discovery rules. A pro se
respondent was asked to respond to Enforcement's misconduct at a time when the
challenge would have proven immense for a veteran industry lawyer. In the end,
someone has drawn a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
Without admitting or denying the allegations in an
SEC Complaint filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas
ttps://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2020/
comp24910.pdf, Verley
Lee "Rocky" Sembritzky consented to an order enjoining him from
violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and
Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
the registration provisions of Section 5 of the Securities Act. Bounty
of the Ocean Inc. and Ocean Harvest LLC consented to an order enjoining them
from violation Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act and Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Sembritzky also consented
to a permanent conduct-based injunction that prohibits him from directly or
indirectly, including but not limited to, through any entity owned or
controlled by him, soliciting or accepting funds from any person or entity for
any unregistered offering of securities, and to pay a $192,768 civil penalty.
Sembritzky, Bounty of the Ocean Inc. and Ocean Harvest LLC each agreed to pay on
a joint and several basis $6,646,132 in disgorgement with $911,521 prejudgment
interest. In part, the SEC Release alleged that
Sembritzky:
told investors that he was
building an advanced, eco-friendly desalination plant that would provide clean,
low-cost drinking water to Kenyans. According to the complaint, Sembritzky
misled investors as to the viability of his desalination process, falsely
assuring them that the technology had years of proven operational history. The
complaint further alleges that Sembritzky also claimed they would reap outsized
returns from sales of the lucrative minerals removed during the desalination
process. Sembritsky, according to the complaint, raised approximately $7.2
million from at least 20 investors in the United States between August 2015 and
March 2017, directing investors to send their funds to two entities he
controlled - Bounty of the Ocean Inc. and Ocean Harvest LLC. The complaint
alleges that only $650,000 of the $7.2 million raised made it to the project's
bank account. According to the complaint, Sembritzky spent the rest of the
money on such personal items as a $2 million condominium for his then-wife,
luxury cars, jewelry, and credit card
debt.
Commissioner Lee delivered a timely, thoughtful, and
compelling speech about the challenges of diversity on corporate boards. Her
contribution to the ongoing discussion and debate is considerable, and her
comments reflect a sensible appraisal of the issues. In her opening remarks,
Commissioner Lee states that [Ed: footnotes
omitted]
Today I want to talk you about a topic
that has dominated my thoughts recently, and I'm sure many of yours as well:
diversity and inclusion. I know that many of you have long advocated for
greater diversity on corporate boards and elsewhere. Recent events have
triggered an unprecedented national conversation on racial injustice that also
highlights the urgency of ensuring diverse perspectives and representation at
all levels of decision-making in our country. At the SEC, a number of recent
rulemakings have also pushed this issue to forefront. Our recent adoption of
amendments to Regulation S-K, for example, took a step forward by adding human
capital as a broad topic for possible disclosure, but declined to require,
among other things, disclosure of diversity data-even data that most companies
are already required to keep under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) rules. Our pending proposal under Rule 14a-8 also has implications for
promoting diversity and inclusion because it affects shareholder proposals
which often cover this topic. The topic has also been prominent on the agenda
of recent SEC advisory committee meetings, including last week's Asset
Management Advisory Committee meeting during which participants urged the SEC
to require diversity disclosure for public companies and registered entities.
And I'm pleased to see that the topics of diversity and inequality are on your
agenda for this conference as
well.
In recent months,
we've heard the topic of diversity and inclusion referred to as "timely."
Although there is truth in that, I balk a bit at the description because it
suggests that somehow its importance is new or trendy. Unfortunately, it is
almost an evergreen topic. One my grandmother talked to my mother about, my
mother to me, me to my daughters, and now them to theirs. And I know that
Black, Indigenous, and other people of color understand this dynamic likely
better than I. So, yes, the topic is timely in that it is currently capturing
the nation's attention, but the issue has long been a problem, and so today I
want to share my thoughts on the extent of that problem with respect to our
capital markets. I would also very much like to hear from your membership on
this issue, during today's Q&A or at any future point. Please consider
my door-virtual though it is these days-always open to
you.
In a FINRA expungement arbitration, the sole FINRA
Arbitrator recommended expungement based upon the following rationale, which is
unusual and, as such,
noteworthy:
The Underlying Litigation involved a family dispute
between the Customer and his parents over control of a family foundation,
created and controlled by the parents. The Customer filed a civil litigation
case alleging, "Plaintiff alleges that [Claimants'] took direction from
individuals allegedly lacking authority to give instructions on a family foundation
account."
The Customer was only a member of
the foundation's officers for two years. During Claimants' entire time as
brokers for the foundation account, they, at all times, only took instructions
from authorized foundation officers. The UBS Corporate Resolutions form
completed for the foundation named the Customer as president of the family
foundation from June 13, 2014 to May 10, 2016, his parents were also named
board members. All were authorized signers. The Customer was removed from the
foundation by a new corporate resolution dated June 3, 2016, at all other times
other family members were legally in control of the
foundation.
The family settled their
differences in the Underlying Litigation, and as part of that settlement, the
Customer withdrew his claims against Claimants and
Respondent.
The Customer, in the settlement
agreement, acknowledged that Claimants did nothing wrong. Respondent and
Claimants did not contribute to the settlement in the Underlying
Litigation.
The claim, allegation, or
information is factually impossible or clearly erroneous. Claimants were not
involved in any questionable activity.
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, Harry
Rosenberg submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent ("AWC"),
which FINRA accepted. The AWC alleges that Harry Rosenberg entered the industry
in 1995 and by January 2011, he was registered with Voya Financial Advisors,
Inc. The AWC alleges that Harry Rosenberg "does not have any disciplinary
history with the Securities and Exchange Commission, any state securities
regulators, FINRA, or any other self-regulatory organization." In
accordance with the terms of the AWC, FINRA found that Rosenberg had
violated Article V, Section 2(c) of FINRA's By-Laws and FINRA
Rules 1122 and 2010; and the self regulator imposed upon him an $8,000 fine and
a two-month suspension in all capacities. As alleged in part in the
AWC:
On April 23, 2015, an investor in a gold mining company,
Investor A, who was not a customer of the firm, filed a complaint in New York
State court against Respondent, the company, and other defendants, alleging,
inter alia, that Respondent and the other defendants made fraudulent
misstatements regarding Investor A's investments in the company. Respondent
obtained notice of the complaint by June 2, 2015, the date on which the Respondent's
legal counsel filed an Answer on the Respondent's behalf, jointly with the
other defendants. Respondent did not amend his Form U4 to disclose the
litigation in response to Question 14I(1), nor did he inform the firm that he
had been sued.
During July 2016, Respondent
falsely responded "no" to a question contained in the Firm's annual business
questionnaire that asked, among other things, whether, Respondent had been the
subject of any litigation during 2015 or
2016.
During April 2018, Investor A
entered into a settlement agreement that required the gold mining company to
compensate Investor A. Respondent was not required to compensate Investor A and
the litigation was
dismissed.
Respondent did not amend his Form
U4 to disclose the litigation until FINRA inquired with the firm about it in
April 2019. By virtue of the foregoing, Respondent violated FINRA Rules 1122
and 2010 and Article V, Section 2(c) of FINRA's
By-Laws.
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, Deborah Leah
Beal submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent
("AWC"), which FINRA accepted. The AWC alleges that Deborah Leah
Beal entered the industry in 2008 and by 2013 was registered with J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC. The AWC alleges that Deborah Leah
Beal "does not have any disciplinary history with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, any state securities regulators, FINRA, or any other
self-regulatory organization." In accordance with the terms of the AWC,
FINRA found that Rosenberg had violated FINRA Rule 2010; and the self
regulator imposed upon him an $5,000 fine and a two-month suspension in any
capacity. As alleged in part in the
AWC:
On May 13, 2019, Respondent transferred all funds held by
112 customers in bankdeposit sweep accounts to money-market mutual fund sweep
accounts, because the money-market mutual fund sweep account provided a higher
rate of return. To transfer these funds, Respondent effected 118 transactions
totaling $704,379.80. Respondent executed these transactions without obtaining
authorization from the customers. In addition, Respondent did not possess
discretionary authority over the customers' accounts. On the same day she
effected the transactions, Respondent informed the registered representative to
whom she reported that she had done so, and he subsequently notified the
firm.
Respondent did not receive any
compensation in connection with executing the transactions. The customers'
accounts did not suffer any losses, and the customers did not incur any fees in
connection with the transactions.