After discussing with his member firm the possibility of him participating as an exhibitor during a dental convention by representing the firm at a booth in the exhibition hall and distributing literature, Lopez did not follow up and formally request permission, contrary to the firm’s written procedures. Despite the lack of the firm’s approval, Lopez arranged for and participated as an exhibitor representing the firm by staffing an exhibition booth at the convention and distributed, or had available for distribution, literature about the firm and himself. 

Lopez provided FINRA with inaccurate and misleading information.

The Firm failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system or WSPs reasonably designed to detect and prevent the charging of excessive commissions on mutual fund liquidation transactions.

The Firm failed to put in place any supervisory systems or procedures to ensure that customers were not inadvertently charged commissions, in addition to the various fees disclosed in the mutual fund prospectus, on their mutual fund liquidation transactions. The firm’s failure to take such action resulted in commissions being charged on transactions in customer accounts that generated approximately $64,110 in commissions for the firm.

The firm had inadequate supervisory systems and procedures to ensure that a firm principal reviewed, and the firm retained, all email correspondence for the requisite time period; the firm failed to review and retain securities-related email correspondence sent and received on at least one registered representative’s outside email account, and the firm did not have a system or procedures in place to prevent or detect non-compliance.

The firm failed to conduct an annual inspection of all of its Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJ) branch offices.

The Firm failed to comply with various FINRA advertising provisions in connection with certain public communications, including websites, one billboard and one newsletter, in that a registered principal had not approved websites prior to use; websites did not contain a hyperlink to FINRA’s or Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC)’s website; one website, the billboard and the newsletter failed to maintain a copy of the communication beginning on the first date of use; and sections of websites that concerned registered investment companies were either not filed, or timely filed, with FINRA’s Advertising Regulation Department. In addition, websites contained information that was not fair and balanced, did not provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts represented, or omitted material facts regarding equity indexed annuities, fixed annuities and variable annuities. Moreover, websites contained false, exaggerated, unwarranted or misleading statements concerning mutual B shares; the firm’s websites and the billboard did not prominently disclose the firm’s name, and a website, in connection with a discussion of mutual funds, failed to disclose standardized performance data, failed to disclose the maximum sales charge or maximum deferred sales charge and failed to identify the total annual fund operating expense ratio, and a website, in a comparison between exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and mutual funds failed to disclose all material differences between the two products.

Furthermore,the firm failed to report, or to timely report, certain customer complaints as required; the firm also failed to timely update a registered representative’s Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration (Form U5) to disclose required information. The firm failed to create and maintain a record of a customer complaint and related records that included the complainant’s name, address, account number, date the complaint was received, name of each associated person identified in the complaint, description of the nature of the complaint, disposition of the complaint or, alternatively, failed to maintain a separate file that contained this information.

The firm failed to ensure that all covered persons, including the firm’s president and CEO, completed the Firm Element of Continuing Education (CE). The firm’s 3012 and 3013 reports were inadequate, in that the 3012 report for one year was inadequate because it failed to provide a rationale for the areas that would be tested, failed to detail the manner and method for testing and verifying that the firm’s system of supervisory policies and procedures were designed to achieve compliance with applicable rules and laws, did not provide a summary of the test results and gaps found, failed to detect repeat violations including failure to conduct annual OSJ branch office inspections, advertising violations, customer complaint reporting, and ensuring that all covered persons participated in the Firm Element of CE. FINRA also found that the firm’s 3013 report for that year did not document the processes for establishing, maintaining, reviewing, testing and modifying compliance policies to achieve compliance with applicable NASD rules, MSRB rules and federal securities laws, and the manner and frequency with which the processes are administered. In addition, the firm also failed to enforce its 3013 procedures regarding notification from customers regarding address changes.

A firm representative submitted a written request to conduct a live call-in finance- and investment-related radio show to be broadcast in Farsi; the firm had various written procedures relating to the supervision of its representatives’ public appearances, which, among other things, required that the first three radio shows be submitted to the firm’s advertising compliance department as soon as they had aired and that the advertising compliance department would contact representatives quarterly to request copies of specific shows during a randomly chosen date range for review.

The firm approved the representative’s request and required the representative to provide a translated copy of the show upon a quarterly request, and an unaffiliated third-party translation company was to complete the translation. For five years, the representative, together with another representative, aired approximately 520 shows on a particular radio station; the format was typically a live call-in show, in Farsi, discussing financial issues and investments, but the firm failed to request or review copies or transcripts of the broadcasts.

Camarillo entered into a contract with a company to sell its private placements, and sold approximately $370,000 of these private securities to his customers, receiving over $13,000 in commissions, without providing notice to, or receiving approval from, his member firm.

Camarillo’s firm’s written procedures, which he attested to reading and understanding, instructed employees to provide notice to the firm’s compliance department and to seek the firm’s written approval prior to engaging in any securities transactions not executed through the firm. The company provided Camarillo with sales literature, and without submitting the brochure to his firm for approval, he distributed the brochure to his customers; the brochure contained several unwarranted, exaggerated and misleading statements, omitted material facts and ignored risk while guaranteeing success.

Camarillo did not have a reasonable basis to recommend that his customers purchase the securities, had no experience selling these types of products and did not conduct proper due diligence. Camarillo did not sufficiently understand the products offered through the company or how the investments were managed; all of Camarillo’s customers who invested in the products informed Camarillo that they were seeking preservation of capital and viewed the investments as a retirement investment. Camarillo did not investigate the claims made in the sales literature that the returns were guaranteed, he had no basis to recommend the investment to customers seeking preservation of capital, and his recommendations to invest in the company were unsuitable.

Camarillo’s customers lost tens of thousands of dollars by relying on his recommendation, because even after partial reimbursement from the company’s court-ordered receivership, Camarillo’s customers only recouped 69 percent of their investment. Moreover, the products, as marketed, were securities, the sale of which required Camarillo to possess a Series 7 license; at the time he sold the securities, Camarillo held only a Series 6 license.

The Firm failed to ensure that it established, maintained and enforced a supervisory system and written supervisory procedures (WSPs) reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the rules and regulations concerning private offering solicitations.

The firm’s procedures were deficient in that they failed to specify, among other things, who at the firm was responsible for performing due diligence, what activities by firm personnel were required to satisfy the due diligence requirement, how due diligence was to be documented, who at the firm was responsible for reviewing and approving the due diligence that was performed and authorizing the sale of the securities, and who was to perform ongoing supervision of the private offerings once customer solicitations commenced. As a result of the firm’s deficient supervisory system and WSPs, the firm failed to conduct adequate due diligence on private placement offerings. The Firm's WSPs required due diligence to be conducted on every private placement it offered, and required that such review had to be documented; the firm failed to enforce those provisions with respect to an offering. Had the firm conducted adequate due diligence, it reasonably should have known that the company had defaulted on its earlier notes offerings and that there was a misrepresentation in the private placement memorandum (PPM) with respect to principal and interest payments to investors in the earlier offerings. The Firm failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that it timely learned of the missed payments on the earlier notes offerings and disclosed them to prospective investors in the notes. Due to the firm’s lack of due diligence, DeRosa sold notes issued to customers, and in connection with those sales, the firm and DeRosa mischaracterized and/or negligently omitted certain material facts provided to investors. DeRosa sold $833,000 of the notes to customers and generated approximately $37,485 in gross commissions from the sales of the notes. Through DeRosa and another registered representative, the Firm solicited customers to invest in another company’s stock but failed to conduct adequate due diligence.

The owner of an investment banking firm represented that the customers’ funds would be wired to a client trust account at a bank and then forwarded to an escrow account, which a third party would control, before being invested; the firm did not take any steps to verify this claim before wiring the customer funds to the account. No one at the firm verified the existence of the client trust and escrow accounts, and, after the funds were wired, no one requested or received a bank account statement to verify the receipt and location of the funds; the firm failed to question why the wire instructions failed to reference the client trust account in the bank account title section on the form, but instead referenced the investment banking firm. Instead of directing the customers’ money into the escrow account, the owner of the investment banking firm kept the funds in bank accounts he controlled and used the funds for his own benefit.

In addition, in connection with his sales of the company’s stock, DeRosa disseminated to prospective investors a presentation he had received from the owner of the investment banking company, which summarized the offering. Moreover, the presentation constituted sales literature but did not comply with the content standards applicable to communications with the public and sales literature. Furthermore, the presentation failed to provide a fair and balanced treatment of risks and potential benefits, contained unwarranted or exaggerated claims, contained predictions of performance and failed to prominently disclose the firm’s name, failed to reflect any relationship between the firm and the non-FINRA member entities involved in the offering, and failed to reflect which product or services the firm was offering.

Garden State Securities, Inc.: Censured; Ordered to pay jointly and severally with DeRosa, $300,000 in restitution to investors. FINRA did not impose a fine against the firm after it considered, among other things, the firm’s revenues and financial resources

Kevin John DeRosa (Principal):  Fined $25,000; Ordered to pay jointly and severally with Garden State $300,000 in restitution to investors; Suspendedfrom association with any FINRA member in any capacity for 20 business days, and Suspended from association with any FINRA member in any Principal capacity only for 2 months.

UBS failed to update the company codes in the client-based database after the individual responsible for that task left the firm.

The emails indicating that the company codes had been added were not sent to the firm’s Client Management Team (CMT) by another group at the firm, the Core Client Data Services Group (CCDS).

UBS employed Client Data Strategist (CDS), a senior officer in CMT. The CDS was in charge of producing a business object report that combined the research and revenue information for each client to create required non-investment banking disclosures in equity research reports. Unfortunately, the CDS continued to produce the business object report without confirming that the company codes were updated -- because the CDS continued to produce the reports, a file was created and uploaded in the firm’s central disclosure database, even though it contained incomplete information.

Since the reports were completed, email alerts were not triggered at the end of the process, and as a result of the failures during the update process, equity research reports the firm published failed to include one or more required non-investment banking disclosures (non-investment banking compensation, non-investment banking securitiesrelated services and non-securities services). As a result of certain information contained in the firm’s central disclosure database not being updated due to the update process failure, research analysts creating and sending information about the impacted subject companies to media outlets in connection with public appearances failed to disclose the firm’s non-investment banking related compensation and the types of services (non-investment banking securities-related services and non-securities services) it provided during the prior 12 months.

Moreover, the firm failed to adequately implement its supervisory procedures concerning compliance with NASD Rule 2711(h), and the firm failed to conduct follow-up and review to ensure that its employees were performing their assigned responsibilities of collecting and updating data to generate accurate disclosures, and to have a verification process to confirm that each group was performing its task to ensure the flow of updated information at each stage had accurate disclosures. The firm failed to adequately implement its written procedures that provided for step-by-step guidance for updating the required disclosures in the relevant databases in order to reasonably ensure that they were disclosed in the research reports and in public appearances.

Chakrabortti failed to ensure proper disclosure of his personal financial interests in the securities of companies that were subjects of his research reports and public appearances, although FINRA conceded that he informed his firm of his ownership interest in each security, gave advance notice of all transactions in these securities to the firm’s compliance department and provided the firm with a record of the transactions.

Certain of the research reports Chakrabortti co-authored included information reasonably sufficient upon which to base an investment decision in the companies in which he held shares, among other securities, but the reports did not disclose his personal financial position in some of the companies.

Chakrabortti made public appearances at which he mentioned one or more equity securities of individual companies but did not disclose his personal financial position in the securities in some of the companies. Because Chakrabortti’s disclosure of his personal financial holdings was incomplete in certain research reports and public appearances, these communications violated NASD Rule 2210(d)(1)(A), which requires sales material, including research reports, to provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts relating to the securities covered in the reports. Moreover, after disclosing all of his personal financial holding to his firm, Chakrabortti did not ensure that these holdings were subsequently disclosed in certain research reports, which caused his firm to publish incomplete research reports.

Also, Chakrabortti did not inform his firm of certain of his public appearances in a timely manner, and did not obtain the firm’s approval to discuss certain issuers during his public appearances, and these omissions caused the firm to have incomplete records of his public appearances.

The Firm failed to adopt and implement WSPs reasonably designed to supervise its research analysts and ensure that its research reports complied with NASD Rule 2711. Although the firm maintained some relevant WSPs, those procedures did not provide any real guidance to its employees about the specific steps they needed to take to achieve compliance with Rule 2711. The WSPs required that all public appearances by firm analysts be approved by the research director, that the appropriate disclosures be made to the media outlet, that a record documenting the disclosures provided to the media be maintained, and that the firm’s marketing department receive a copy of such disclosure. The WSPs made the research analyst responsible for meeting these obligations but provided little or no guidance on how these tasks could be successfully carried out or supervised.

The WSPs contained provisions broadly describing what portions of draft research reports could and could not be provided to covered companies, but failed to provide specific guidance to firm employees regarding the manner in which these requirements were to be fulfilled.

The WSPs permitted the research department to send sections of a research report to a subject company before publication to verify the accuracy of information in those sections, provided that a complete draft of the research report was first provided to the compliance department.

The Firm sent research report excerpts to a subject company before its compliance department had received a complete draft of the report, and in one of those instances, the complete draft was not sent to the compliance department. Moreover, in connection with public appearances by its research analysts, the firm failed to retain records that were sufficient to demonstrate compliance by those analysts with the disclosure requirements of NASD Rule 2711(h).

The Firm approved advertising materials a registered representative used in his retail equity-indexed annuity (EIA) business conducted at workshops for senior citizens that contained false, exaggerated, unwarranted or misleading statements. The firm failed to document, with a principal’s signature or initial, its approval of a piece of advertising material the representative used and failed to maintain a record of its approval of a piece of the representative’s advertising material.

The firm did not supervise the representative’s workshops, in that it did not require him to produce a copy of the script for the workshops and did not attend any of the live workshops to confirm that the contents of the workshops complied with NASD rules and that only firm-approved materials were being used. If the firm had required the representative to submit a script and had attended his workshops, it would have discovered that he made statements, used materials and engaged in conduct that violated NASD Rules 2110 and 2210, and could have prevented further violations of these rules.

Genitrini advertised guaranteed returns on investments of up to 20 percent per year on a website belonging to a company he wholly owned. Genitrini claimed that his company was a full-service investment firm and would, among other claims, provide high-yield investment opportunities. The website declared that the company invested nationwide and all industries were considered, but did not disclose the nature of the investment product or the risks of investment.

Genitrini’s ads appeared on other websites guaranteeing returns, and his company’s contemplated private placement documents provided no assurance that by following its current investment strategy, it would be successful or profitable, although the subscription agreement also stated that the investments the company carried might be volatile and present operational risks.

Genitrini’s Internet ads constituted communications with the public; were not based on principles of fair dealing and good faith; were not fair and balanced; did not disclose risks associated with the investment; guaranteed promising returns that were exaggerated, unwarranted or misleading; and the predictions of performance were also exaggerated or unwarranted.

Genitrini’s private offering of securities, which involved promissory notes his company issued according to the private placement memorandum, was not made pursuant to an effective registration statement filed with the SEC; the offering was intended to be made pursuant to the exemption from registration in Section 4(2) of Rule 506 of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibits offers or sales of securities by any form of general solicitation or general advertising. Genitrini’s use of the Internet and his company’s website violated Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, and guaranteeing returns in the offer of securities over the Internet violated Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933.

In addition, Genitrini falsely described his work with his company on his member firm’s outside business activity disclosure form and also failed to disclose that he maintained a website for the company; Genitrini told his firm, in writing, that his business and website were for tax-planning services.

Mata participated in private securities transactions without prior written notice to, and prior written approval or acknowledgment from, his firm for these activities. Mata participated in outside business activities and failed to provide prompt written notice to his firm regarding these activities, for which he received compensation totaling $21,417.44.

Mata participated in numerous sales seminars with customers in which he failed to obtain prior written approval from a firm principal for the sales literature used in his seminars; failed to file the sales literature used in his seminars, which included information on variable contracts, with FINRA’s Advertising Regulation Department; and used sales literature in his seminars that was not fair and balanced, contained exaggerated or unwarranted claims, and contained predictions of performance.

Miller caused a research report to be published on a website that he had previously operated when he was the owner and president of a former FINRA member firm. Miller caused a press release to be issued by a public relations firm announcing the research report that was distributed to financial wire services. Miller did not inform or obtain approval from his member firm where he was registered regarding either the intention to publish the report on the former FINRA member firm’s website, or cause a press release to be issued announcing the research report. Neither the website nor the press release were approved by signature or initial and dated by a principal of firm where Miller was registered.

Miller’s firm filed an application with FINRA seeking approval for the firm to produce and distribute research reports. Miller was aware that the application had been filed and at the time the research report was published and the press release issued, the application was still pending and FINRA had not approved it. In addition, even though Miller knew that his firm had filed the application, he took no steps to ascertain whether or not the application had been approved. Moreover, he caused his firm to engage in the production and distribution of a research report at a time when it was not approved to do so. Furthermore, the research report and press release contained false information that stated it was prepared by a member firm although it had withdrawn its membership and was no longer a FINRA member firm.

Kallies executed purchases of exchange-traded fund (ETFs) in a managed joint account of public customers without the customers’ knowledge or consent, and without having obtained the customers’ prior written authorization to exercise discretion and his firm’s prior written acceptance of the account as discretionary.

Kallies made a presentation consisting of several slides to the customers in connection with an investment strategy program he was recommending and was considered “sales literature.” Kallies made the presentation without first obtaining approval from the appropriate registered principal of the firm, and it was never filed with FINRA within 10 business days of its first use. The presentation generally failed to disclose the risks of investing in the securities that were discussed, failed to disclose the general risks associated with investing in mutual funds and ETFs, and failed to disclose the heightened risk of investing in inverse types of ETFs. The absence of certain disclosures resulted in the presentation not being fair and balanced and not providing the investor with a sound basis for evaluating facts in regard to a particular security or service, and the slides contained unwarranted and/or misleading information.

Charts in some slides failed to include the total annual fund operating expense ratio, a prospectus offer and standardized average annual total returns for one, five and ten years; rather, they included the annualized rates of return, which is considered non-standardized performance and must be accompanied by the standardized performance listed. In addition, the charts in some slides failed to include the performance disclosures required by SEC Rule 482(b)(3); these disclosures generally require that the sales material disclose that the performance data quoted represents past performance, that past performance does not guarantee future results and that performance may be lower or higher.

Miller and another individual were trainees in a member firm’s professional development program and formed a partnership through which they jointly solicited and handled customer accounts as well as splitting any production credits that either generated.

As part of their efforts to attract clients, Miller and the individual created a spreadsheet that set a model fund portfolio that they either presented to potential customers during meetings or sent by email or mail to prospective customers. Miller and the individual sent a version of their model fund portfolio that included a mix of conservative and risky securities along with a chart of history of returns the individual securities and overall portfolio earned; Miller and the individual, in some communications with potential customers, misrepresented that this was a portfolio that they managed and that the stated returns were their returns. Neither Miller nor the individual sought or received a firm supervisor’s prior approval for the use of the model fund portfolio or permission of its dissemination, nor was the model portfolio’s spreadsheet filed with FINRA’s Advertising Regulation Department, within 10 business days after first dissemination of the material as required.

The model fund portfolios did not include any information regarding the risks associated with the funds, and the chart did not include a sound basis for the performance evaluation for each of the securities included in the portfolio. The model portfolio failed to identify or to display in a prominent fashion Miller’s and the other individual’s association with their firm. In addition,

Miller had his assistant type up a stop transfer letter and he forged the customer’s signature on the letter meant to prevent the customer from transferring his account to another firm. Moreover,Miller admitted to his branch manager that he had forged the stop transfer request and the firm immediately terminated Miller’s employment.

Beckett submitted an advertisement to a local newspaper, which listed an entity he owned as offering certain investments, including certificates of deposit (CDs) and fixed annuities, and that he did not submit the advertisement to his member firm for review and approval; moreover, the advertisement content included misleading statements regarding the offered investments.

Beckett maintained a website for an entity he owned, which was accessible to the investing public, and he failed to submit the website material to his firm for review until a later date. Beckett failed to obtain his firm’s written approval of the website content prior to its use.

Beckett completed an annual certification, which he provided to his firm and he answered “no” to the question asking whether he anticipated using any type of electronic communication systems such as the Internet for soliciting business.

Elverud caused his member firm to use Internet advertisements, websites and other public communications that were misleading, did not supply fair and balanced presentations of risks and rewards, or failed to give a sound basis for evaluating information. Elverud failed to approve or maintain records of public communications his firm issued. Elverud’s firm distributed a newsletter, which Elverud wrote, about a company whose securities the firm marketed; the letter was unduly and excessively positive, and failed to disclose material facts concerning the company’s financial difficulties, which caused the communication to be misleading.

Elverud made misrepresentations to investors through letters written on firm letterhead, about the securities the company issued, and the letters misrepresented the individual offers being made as a general reinvestment option to keep the investors from redeeming their holdings in the company’s securities, and omitted material information regarding the company’s financial difficulties.

Elverud caused his firm’s books and records identifying personnel holding supervisory and compliance responsibilities to be inaccurate. Elverud caused his firm to conduct a securities business while it was in violation of its net capital requirements.

Schurr engaged in an outside business activity involving a company, which was a marketing and advertising business through which she sought to generate leads for registered representatives and insurance agents. The company’s primary form of marketing was mass mailings, usually employing postcards that contained false and misleading statements that Schurr sent and caused to be sent to thousands of prospective customers. Schurr developed and directed the use of multiple false and misleading telephone operator scripts that were used in the company’s call center to respond to potential investors.

As a result of the misleading marketing practices involving her company, Schurr became the subject of state regulatory actions and willfully failed to timely update and amend her Form U4 to disclose these actions to FINRA as required.

Schurr associated with a FINRA registered member firm and acted in a registered capacity while subject to statutory disqualification.

Schurr provided false information and failed to disclose material information to the firm on firm annual compliance and outside business activity questionnaires concerning her outside business activity and regulatory actions.

In addition, Schurr failed to provide prompt and complete written notice to the firm of her outside business activities involving another insurance marketing firm when the other company was closed.

As President of his member firm, White permitted the creation and dissemination of misleading sales and advertising materials to various state securities regulators in an effort to draw scrutiny to a business established by former registered representatives who left the firm to start their own business selling oil and gas interests. White made it appear as if the documents had been generated by an entity the former registered representatives established. A firm employee drafted and assembled the mailings to create the appearance that an officer or employee of the former registered representatives’ new business had generated and authorized the mailings. The mailings contained a cover letter drafted to draw regulators’ interest to the former registered representatives’ entity.

The mailings appeared to be from the former registered representatives’ entity, listed the name of an officer or employee of the entity, contained a return address of the entity on the envelopes used in the mailings, included printouts from the entity’s website, provided an executive memorandum, and also provided a “Confidential Private Placement Memorandum” and “Subscription Agreement” which both listed the former registered representatives’ new business throughout the documentation.

Bonnell engaged in an outside business activity involving a company he owned and operated, which was a marketing and advertising business through which he sought to generate leads for registered representatives and insurance agents. The company’s primary form of marketing was mass mailings, usually employing postcards that contained false and misleading statements that Bonnell sent and caused to be sent to thousands of prospective customers.

Bonnell developed and directed the use of multiple false and misleading telephone operator scripts that were used in the company’s call center to respond to potential investors. As a result of the misleading marketing practices involving his company, Bonnell became the subject of several state regulatory actions and willfully failed to timely amend his Form U4 to disclose these actions to FINRA as required.

Bonnell associated with a FINRA registered member firm and acted in a registered capacity while he was subject to statutory disqualification. Bonnell provided false information, failed to disclose material information, and misrepresented material information on the firm’s annual compliance questionnaires concerning his outside business activity and regulatory actions.

In addition,Bonnell failed to provide prompt and complete written notice to the firm of his outside business activities involving another insurance marketing firm he operated after closing the other company. Moreover, Bonnell failed to adequately supervise certain representatives to ensure they filed accurate and timely updates disclosing state regulatory actions and outside business activity.

The Firm approved advertising materials registered representatives used during several public seminars; the firm sent invitations to members of the public, and the seminar attendees received supplemental materials designed to introduce the firm and the financial services it offered. The invitations failed to provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts regarding the products or services offered. The supplemental materials contained exaggerated and unwarranted language, and the seminar handout had unwarranted language.

The seminar presentations failed to explain a product or strategy.  The discussion of equity-indexed annuities (EIAs) failed to provide a balanced presentation and omitted information.  The discussion of variable annuities omitted material information.

The presentations failed to disclose

• that projections are hypothetical and are not guarantees,
• risks attendant with options transactions, and
• risks and rewards of real estate investment trusts (REITs) in a balanced way.

The discussion of expenses pertaining to mutual funds and variable annuities was misleading; discussion of annuities in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) was misleading.

The list of benefits and features of variable annuities failed to disclose potential restrictions and costs, discussion of 1031 exchanges failed to elaborate on Internal Revenue Code restrictions. The discussion of variable annuities provided an incomplete, and oversimplified presentation and representation that safety and protection are provided by diversification market index certificates of deposit, puts, and living benefits profits provided by variable annuities was promissory and exaggerated.

The firm failed to reasonably supervise its communications with the public and its supervision was not reasonably designed to meet the requirements of FINRA Rule 2210(b)(2). The firm’s procedures required the supervisory principal to evidence approval by signing public communications submitted for approval and use, but the supervisory principal only initialed a coversheet that did not identify which communication was approved. In addition, the firm failed to maintain records naming the registered principal who approved the public communication or the date approval was given, nor documentation establishing that a certified registered options principal approved options material or that the material had been properly submitted to FINRA’s Advertising Regulation Department for pre-approval.

Spomer engaged in an outside business activity without prior permission of his member firm by distributing unregistered securities through a non-FINRA regulated entity, and received in excess of $100,000 in compensation. Without his new member firm’s knowledge or authorization, Spomer distributed correspondence to non-firm customers who had bought the unregistered securities because the State of Texas ceased the business operations of the issuer and placed the issuer into receivership. Spomer’s letter used firm disclosure language at the bottom of the letter that gave the erroneous impression that the firm, with Spomer as agent, had issued the correspondence. Spomer failed to submit the letter to his member firm’s principal for prior approval, and failed to provide a sound basis for evaluating the security by promoting the “similar program,” and used improper promissory language to describe the product.

Spomer failed to respond to FINRA requests for information.

The Firm failed to

• establish certain elements of an adequate AML program reasonably designed to achieve and monitor its compliance with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act and implementing regulations promulgated by the Department of Treasury;
  
• establish policies and procedures reasonably expected to detect and cause the reporting of transactions required under 31 USC 5318(g) by failing to provide branch office managers with reports that contained adequate information to monitor for potential money-laundering and red flag activity; and for the firm’s compliance department to perform periodic reviews of wire transfer activity, require either branch managers or the AML compliance officers to document reviews of AML alerts in accordance with firm procedures, identify the beneficial owners and/or agents for service of process for some foreign correspondent banks accounts, and establish adequate written policies and procedures that provided guidelines for suspicious activity that would require the filing of a Form SAR-SF;
  
• establish policies and procedures that required ongoing AML training of appropriate personnel related to margin issues, entering new account information, verifying physical securities and handling wire activity;
  
• ensure that its third-party vendor verified new customers’ identities by using credit and other database cross-references, and after the firm determined that the vendor’s lapse was resolved, it failed to retroactively verify customer information not previously subjected to the verification process;
  
• establish procedures reasonably expected to detect and cause the reporting of suspicious transactions required under 31 USC 5318(g), in that it failed to include in its AML review the activity in retail accounts institutional account registered representatives serviced;
  
• review accounts that a producing branch office manager serviced under joint production numbers;
  
• evidence in certain instances timely review of letters of authorization, correspondence, account designation changes, trade blotters, branch manager weekly review forms and branch manager monthly reviews; failed to follow procedures intended to prevent producing branch office managers from approving their own errors;
  
• follow procedures intended to prevent a branch office operations manager from approving transactions in her own account and an assistant branch office manager from reviewing transactions in accounts he serviced;
  
• establish procedures for the approval and supervision related to employee use of personal computers and, during one year, permitted certain employees to use personal computers the firm did not approve or supervise,
  
• include a question on thefirm’s annual acknowledgement form for one year that required its registered representatives to disclose outside securities accounts and the firm could not determine how many remained unreported due to the supervisory lapse;
  
• follow policies and procedures requiring the pre-approval and review of the content of employees’ radio broadcasts, television appearances, seminars and dinners, and materials distributed at the seminars and dinners; representatives conducted seminars that were not pre-approved by the firm’s advertising principal as required by its written procedures; the firm failed to maintain in a separate file all advertisements, sales literature and independently prepared reprints for three years from date of last use; and a branch office manager failed to review a registered representative’s radio broadcast. A branch office manager failed to maintain a log of a registered representative’s radio broadcasts and failed to tape and/or maintain a transcript of the broadcasts and there was no evidence a qualified principal reviewed or approved the registered representative’s statements. Branch office managers did not retain documents reflecting the nature of seminars, materials distributed to attendees or supervisory pre-approval of the seminars; retain transcripts of a representative’s local radio program and TV appearances or document supervisory review or approval of materials used; and retain documents reflecting the nature of a dinner or seminar conducted by representatives or materials distributed;
  

• record the identity of the person who accepted each customer order because it failed to update its order ticket form to reflect the identity of the person who accepted the order; and

• to review Bloomberg emails and some firm employees’ instant messages

The Firm distributed a document, Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options, that was not current, and the firm lacked procedures for advising customers with respect to changes to the document and failed to document the date on which it was sent to certain customers who had recently opened options accounts. Also, the firm’s compliance registered options principal did not document weekly reviews of trading in discretionary options accounts.

Brandstaetter created and distributed illustrations that promoted an options trading strategy to members of the public that contained numerous false, exaggerated, unwarranted or misleading claims and statements. Brandstaetter sent the illustrations to one of the customers, she had not completed an options trading agreement with Brandstaetter’s member firm and she had not been furnished with an options disclosure document prior to (or contemporaneous with) the receipt of the illustrations. Brandstaetter did not seek or receive approval of the documents from his firm’s options principal prior to the dissemination of the materials.

Brandstaetter exercised discretion in a customer’s account without her written permission or the firm’s approval, although he was aware that his firm’s written supervisory procedures prohibit discretionary trading within customer accounts.

Pollock sold to customers installment plan contracts offered by a non-profit corporation that represented itself to the public as a charitable organization, but Pollock lacked a reasonable basis to recommend the purchase of the contracts to his customers given his failure to perform a reasonable investigation concerning the product. Pollock reviewed information on the non-profit corporation’s website and spoke to its personnel, he took their representations at face value and failed to independently verify those representations. Pollock did not contact the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to confirm the tax-exempt status or the availability of a tax deduction to investors, and did not seek to understand how the non-profit corporation arrived at its figures regarding tax benefits; Pollock also misrepresented to his customers that they could take charitable tax deductions in connection with their respective investments, which was not true.

In connection with the solicitation of these installment plan contracts, Pollock provided his customers with illustrations and other sales materials that contained misleading and incomplete information. Pollock failed to provide his member firm with written notice of his participation in the above-referenced transactions or receive its written approval to participate in those transactions, and he did not present the flow chart and 1099 Statement for review to a registered principal of his firm prior to using them in connection with the sales of the installment plan contracts.