Enforcement Actions
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)
RESEARCH and ADVERTISING
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.
Robert Eugene Strong (Principal)
C0420050005
Securities and Exchange Commission sustained findings of violation and sanctions on appeal of a National Adjudicatory Council decision on appeal from Office of Hearing Officers decision. 

Chief Compliance Officer Strong failed to supervise a research analyst who sold securities in his personal trading account contrary to the recommendations contained in various firm research reports, and allowed the trader to execute purchase transactions during the blackout periods. Strong failed to include, or included insufficient or inaccurate required disclosures in research reports, and failed to timely file an annual attestation of supervisory procedures for research analysts.

http://sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2008/34-57426.pdf

Robert Eugene Strong (Principal): Fined $10,000
Bill Singer's Comment
An interesting case and I would recommend that you read the SEC Opinion.  I would note the following, as stated in that Opinion at pages 19-20:

In sustaining these sanctions, we note that NASD's National Adjudicatory Council ("NAC"), which considered Strong's appeal from NASD's hearing panel, reduced the sanctions from the nine-month supervisory suspension and $15,000 fine imposed by the hearing panel. In reducing the sanctions, the NAC noted that it did "not find Strong's violations to be egregious" as had the hearing panel. The NAC considered "the circumstances under which Strong was operating," finding that Strong was "the sole compliance person in a 40-person firm that had previously neglected compliance." The NAC also considered, as mitigating, that the misconduct at issue occurred "within months of Strong's joining the Firm and when Strong was attempting to fulfill the broad-based compliance responsibilities put upon him." According to the NAC, "Strong was overwhelmed by the enormity of the responsibilities [and] . . . not equipped to undertake the responsibilities required of him at the Firm." In addition, the NAC found that Strong did not "personally benefit in any way" from his misconduct. Based on those considerations, the NAC determined that "the minimum sanction suggested in the Guidelines for the supervisory and disclosure violations" was "appropriate."

Enforcement Actions
Search in Research and Advertising
Months
 
Research and Advertising Archive
Tags