InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
NYDFS Fines Global Bank $350 Million for Alleged Foreign Exchange Trading Violations
On May 24, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) announced that it had assessed a $350 million fine against a global bank and its New York branch (Bank) as part of a consent order addressing allegations that the Bank’s foreign-exchange business had engaged in long-term violations of New York banking law. According to the announcement, NYDFS investigated alleged misconduct occurring between 2007 to 2013 and found the improper conduct “included collusive activity by foreign exchange traders to manipulate foreign exchange currency prices and foreign exchange benchmark rates; executing fake trades to influence the exchange rates of emerging market currencies; and improperly sharing confidential customer information with traders at other large banks.” Specifically, the violations include the following:
- collusion through on-line chat rooms to manipulate securities prices and artificially increase profits;
- improperly exchanging information about past and impending customer trades, including sharing confidential customer information via personal email, in order to maximize profits at customers’ expense;
- manipulating “the price at which daily benchmark rates were set—both from collusive market activity and improper submissions to benchmark-fixing bodies”; and
- “misleading customers by hiding markups on executed trades, including by using secretive hand signals when customers were on the phone; or by deliberately ‘underfilling’ a customer trades, in order to keep part of a profitable trade for the Bank’s own book.”
In addition to the $350 million monetary penalty, the Bank must, within 90 days of the consent order, submit written plans to (i) improve senior management’s oversight of the Bank’s compliance with New York laws and regulations governing its foreign exchange trading business; (iii) enhance internal controls and compliance to adhere to state and federal laws and regulations; and (iii) improve its compliance risk management and internal audit programs. Additionally, the Bank terminated certain employees involved in the misconduct and has agreed it will not—directly or indirectly—re-hire these individuals in the future. As part of this process, the Bank conducted an “employee accountability review” and disciplined other employees “for misconduct or supervisory failures.”
NASAA to Convene Roundtable on Cybersecurity Developments
On May 31, the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) announced it will hold a cybersecurity roundtable for industry experts to discuss latest developments as well as strategies for investment advisers and broker-dealers to protect personal client information. In addition to convening representatives from state securities agencies and the financial services industry, roundtable discussions will also feature representatives from the FBI, Treasury, and the SEC. The event will take place June 23 from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. in Washington, DC. Registration information can be accessed here.
SEC Requests Public Comments on Investment Adviser Conduct Rules
On June 2, 2017, Jay Clayton, Chairman of the SEC, requested public input on standards of conduct for investment advisers and broker-dealers. The SEC last solicited input on the regulation of investment advisers in 2013 and Clayton believes that advances in technology and changes in business models have since transformed the market for retail investment advice. Additionally, confusion surrounding investment adviser conflicts of interest, among other things, have prompted the SEC to seek feedback on the standards. Topics touched on in the request include:
- types of advisers providing investment advice and applicable standards of conduct for each;
- conflicts of interest;
- effects of market developments and advances in technology;
- fee-based vs. commission-based investment advice;
- department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule;
- pros and cons of multiple standards of conduct for advisers;
- effects on particular segments of the market;
- disclosure-based vs. standards-of-conduct-based regulatory action;
- who should be considered “retail investors”;
- how should “investment advice” be defined;
- costs and benefits of different regulatory approaches;
- comparison of U.S. regulation to non-U.S. regulation in this area;
- material changes since last data solicitation in 2013.
Clayton hopes his solicitation will garner “robust, substantive input that will advance and inform the SEC’s assessment of possible future actions.”
DOL Announces No Additional Delay for Fiduciary Rule
On May 22, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a news brief providing Fiduciary Rule guidance in anticipation of the upcoming June 9 partial effectiveness date. The Fiduciary Rule—a 2016 final rule expanding the definition of who qualifies as a “fiduciary” under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code—will go into effect as planned with full implementation on January 1, 2018. DOL Secretary Alexander Acosta wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs federal rulemaking, would not allow a further delay. “We...have found no principled legal basis to change the June 9 date while we seek public input,” Acosta wrote. “Respect for the rule of law leads us to the conclusion that this date cannot be postponed.” The DOL’s release also includes Frequently Asked Questions, which provides clarification on the release dates of the provisions and related prohibited transaction exemptions. Although Acosta declined to authorize a further delay, he said that the DOL will continue its review of the final rule pursuant to the President’s February 3 Presidential Memorandum on Fiduciary Duty Rule. (See previous InfoBytes summary here.)
Notably, the DOL asserted that its general approach to implementation will be marked by an emphasis on compliance assistance (rather than citing violations and imposing penalties). Accordingly, during the phased implementation period, the DOL will not pursue claims against “fiduciaries who are working diligently and in good faith to comply with the fiduciary duty rule and exemptions,” or treat those fiduciaries as being in violation of the fiduciary duty rule and exemptions.
CFTC Announces Initiative for Fintechs
On May 17, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced an initiative called “LabCFTC” designed to engage innovators in the financial technology industry and “promot[e] responsible [fintech] innovation to improve the quality, resiliency, and competitiveness of the markets the CFTC oversees.” Located in New York, LabCFTC will address the regulatory challenges of increasingly automated trading and foster a regulatory environment more receptive to emerging fintech companies. The initiative will consist of two major components:
- GuidePoint will offer opportunities for fintech companies to engage with the CFTC on how to implement innovative technology into existing regulatory framework and navigate the regulatory process.
- CFTC 2.0 will initiate the adoption of emerging technologies in order to improve the CFTC's effectiveness and efficiency.
In prepared remarks issued before the New York FinTech Innovation Lab, CFTC Acting Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo stated that LabCFTC is “[t]wenty-first century regulation for 21st century digital markets and will help the CFTC cultivate a regulatory culture of forward thinking . . . , become more accessible to emerging technology innovators . . . , discover ways to harness and benefit from [fintech] innovation . . ., and become more responsive to our rapidly changing markets.”
SEC Reaches Settlement to Resolve Overcharge Claims
On May 10, the SEC announced a settlement of more than $97 million with a dually-registered investment adviser and broker-dealer (the Firm) over three sets of alleged violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Securities Act of 1933, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The first violation claims that two of the Firm’s advisory programs charged fees to more than 2,000 clients for due diligence and monitoring services of certain third-party investment managers and investment strategies that were, in fact, not being performed. Second, the Firm recommended “more expensive mutual fund share classes when less expensive share classes were available,” thereby collecting excess sales charges or fees of approximately $110,000 from 63 brokerage clients. Finally, 22,138 accounts paid excess fees due to Firm miscalculations and billing errors. In total, from September 2010 through December 2015, the Firm overcharged certain clients nearly $50 million in fees. Neither admitting nor denying the SEC’s findings, the Firm agreed to create a Fair Fund to refund advisory fees to harmed clients. Specifically, the Fair Fund will consist of almost $50 million in disgorgement, close to $14 million in interest, and a $30 million civil money penalty. Under the terms of the settlement, the Firm is also required to pay an additional $3.5 million in remediation to harmed advisory clients who had underperforming (and unmonitored) investments despite paying for third-party managers and investment strategies.
SEC Issues Investor Bulletin on “SAFE” Crowdfunding Security Offering
On May 9, the SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy released an Investor Bulletin addressing crowdfunding risks associated with Simple Agreements for Future Equity (SAFE) securities. Regulation Crowdfunding, adopted by the SEC in November 2015 and effective as of May 16, 2016, “permits individuals to invest in securities-based crowdfunding transactions subject to certain thresholds, limits the amount of money an issuer can raise under the crowdfunding exemption, requires issuers to disclose certain information about their offers, and creates a regulatory framework for the intermediaries that facilitate the crowdfunding transactions,” among other things. According to an updated investor bulletin from the SEC, the rule allows individual investors to participate in securities-based crowdfunding offerings through funding portals that are registered with the SEC and members of FINRA. To assist issuers, the SEC published Regulation Crowdfunding: A Small Entity Compliance Guide for Issuers, which outlines investor limits, restrictions, and exemptions.
SAFE securities. Unlike common stock, SAFE purchasers do not receive a current equity stake in a company. Rather, a SAFE offering is an agreement to provide a future equity stake based on the investment amount only if a particular triggering event occurs. Because of this, the SEC cautioned that investors should pay particular attention to the terms of a given SAFE offering, since there is no guarantee that the necessary triggering event will occur. Furthermore, the SEC warned investors to review other SAFE provisions such as conversion terms, repurchase rights, dissolution rights, and voting rights. The SEC noted that SAFEs were developed to give “sophisticated venture capital investors” the opportunity to invest in “hot” startups in need of capital while avoiding some of the more labored negotiations associated with equity offerings. Moreover, since SAFEs are not standardized, the SEC stressed the importance of investors having a detailed understanding of the terms of these types of offerings.
NCUA Collects $445 Million from International Bank Due to Faulty Mortgage-Backed Securities, Recovers Nearly $4.7 Billion to Date
On May 1, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) announced it has collected $445 million from a Switzerland-based bank over claims stemming from losses borne by two liquidated credit unions related to faulty mortgage-backed securities they bought from the bank. As part of the settlement, NCUA will dismiss its 2012 lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Kansas on behalf of the credit unions and brought against the bank for violations of federal and state laws through its alleged misrepresentations in the sale of mortgage-backed securities. Notably, the bank is not admitting fault as part of the deal. The $445 million in recoveries will be used to pay claims against the liquidated corporate credit unions, “including those of the Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization Fund.” “This latest recovery . . . provide[s] a measure of accountability for the firms that sold faulty securities to the corporate credit unions,” acting NCUA Chairman Mark McWatters said. “It remains incumbent on NCUA to provide transparency in terms of the settlements, the legal fees and other costs that go with them, and how these affect the Stabilization Fund.” To date, NCUA’s recoveries from financial institutions alleged to have sold faulty securities to five corporate credit unions, leading to their collapse, have reached nearly $4.8 billion.
FINRA Releases New Guidance on Rules Concerning Digital Communications
On April 25, FINRA issued new guidance on the application of its rules governing communications with the public concerning social media networking sites and online business communications. In 2010 and 2011, FINRA released Regulatory Notices 10-06 and 11-39 to provide initial guidance on these specific rules, and in 2013, “adopted amendments to Rule 2010 that codif[ied] guidance provided in the Notices with respect to the supervision of interactive social media posts by member firms.” In December 2014, FINRA issued its Respective Rule Review Report, which was designed to “assess whether the communications rules are meeting their intended investor protection objectives . . . and to take steps to maintain or improve the effectiveness of the rules.” FINRA Regulatory Notice 17-18 is the response to the report’s request for additional guidance and provides examples of how FINRA applies its rules to the following topics: text messaging, personal communications, hyperlinks and content sharing, native advertising, online testimonials and endorsements, correction of third-party content, and BrokerCheck. FINRA further notes that Regulatory Notice 17-18 is intended to deliver further guidance and does not alter principles previously provided in prior notices.
District Court Says Bank/RMBS Trustee Must Face Suit Filed by Institutional Investors Claiming Breach of Trust Agreement
On March 30, a federal court in the Southern District of New York denied in part a bank’s motion to dismiss claims brought in five consolidated actions by institutional investors alleging breach of contract and conflict of interest in connection with billions of dollars of alleged losses stemming from the bank’s role as a trustee of 53 residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). The RMBS investors alleged, among other things, that the trustee took “virtually no action” to require lenders to repurchase or cure defaulted or improperly underwritten loans that backed the securities, despite having knowledge of “systemic violations.” The investors further alleged that the trustee’s failure to take corrective action was due to concerns that it might expose its own “misconduct” in other RMBS trusts and/or jeopardize its business dealings with lenders and servicers.
Ultimately, the Court granted in part and denied in part the bank-trustee’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs may pursue breach of contract and conflict of interest claims related to the trusts, as well as certain claims alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and due care. In reaching its conclusion, the Court explained that, having identified internal bank documents that raise legitimate questions about whether bank officials knew about lenders’ “alleged breaches of the trusts’ governing agreements” and failed to address the problems, the plaintiffs’ allegations “go far beyond many other RMBS trustee complaints, which themselves have been found sufficient to state a claim.” The Court did, however, dismiss the investors’ claims that alleged negligence and those alleging a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and negligence because, among other reasons, “[a] tort claim cannot be sustained if it ‘do[es] no more than assert violations of a duty which is identical to and indivisible from the contract obligations which have allegedly been breached.’” The Court also nixed several claims asserting violations of certain provisions of the New York law governing mortgage trusts for which no private right of action exists.