Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: May 31, 2017
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comIn November 2016 the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved a rule proposal of FINRA that requires disclosure for transactions conducted by FINRA members with non-institutional customers. Dealers have to disclose on retail customer confirmations their mark-ups and mark-downs on most municipal and corporate bond transactions, calculated from the bond’s prevailing market price (PMP).
The amendment will become effective on May 14, 2018. The already existing Rules 2232 (a) and (b) will remain the same. Additionally to those, the amendment will introduce Rules 2232 (c), (d) and (e).
Through these amendments FINRA member firms then have to disclose additional transaction-related information to retail customers for trades in certain fixed income securities. The disclosure requirement is limited to certain principle transactions with non-institutional customers in corporate debt or agency debt securities.
FINRA and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) adopted these rules, which have to be followed by their members. Working closely together, they developed similar rules to the existing rules concerning the transaction cost information when acting as principal with customers for equity trades. The amendment is supposed to ensure consistent disclosures to customers across debt securities and shall reduce the operational burdens for the firms that trade multiple fixed income securities.
The new mark-up disclosure requirements of rule 2232 (c) require members to disclose to a non-institutional customer the amount of mark-up or mark-down the customer paid for a trade in a corporate or agency debt security, if the member also executes one or more offsetting principal trades in the same security on the same trading day which in the aggregate meet or exceed the size of the customer trade.
To illustrate the concept of the new rules, both FINRA and MSRB provided the following example:
If a dealer purchased 100 bonds at 09:30 am and then satisfied three customer orders for 50 bonds each in the same security on the same day without purchasing any more of the bonds, the proposal would require mark-up disclosure on two of the three trades, since one of the trades would have been satisfied by selling out of the member’s inventory rather than through an offsetting principal transaction by the member.
Two exceptions from Rule 2232 (c) are made by Rule 2232 (d):
Dealers have to calculate their mark-ups and mark-downs in accordance with the PMP guidance contained in FINRA Rule 2121 and have to express them both as dollar amount and a percentage of PMP.
The calculation of the mark-ups made by the members may be based on the information they have available as a result of reasonable diligence at the time they input relevant transaction information into systems to generate confirmations. Amended rule 2232 does not prevent members from maintaining real-time, intra-day confirmation generation processes. Third-party service providers can be engaged to facilitate mark-up disclosure consistent with rule 2232.
The new Rule 2232 (e) requires members to provide a reference and if necessary a hyperlink to a web page hosted by FINRA that contains TRACE publicly available trading data for the specific security that was traded, along with a brief description of the type of information available on that page.
Therefore FINRA provided a short Uniform Resource Locator (URL): https://bondfacts.finra.org/
This URL has to be either attached in print form in case of paper confirmations, or as a hyperlink to the web page in case of electronic confirmations.
Besides the obligation of providing a reference, Rule 2232 (e) further requires members to disclose the time of execution for all non-institutional customer trades in corporate and agency debt securities. Trade time disclosure is required even in cases where mark-up disclosure is not triggered.
Conclusion:
Paul Lieberman has more than three decades of experience preparing and revising policies and procedures, developing effective supervision structures, leading and coordinating internal investigations and defending regulatory enforcement proceedings before the SEC, FINRA and state securities departments/commissions.
Laura K. Kues assisted in the preparation of these Alerts. Laura graduated from Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz (Germany) in June 2015 (First State Exam) with the priority area in Competition Law Intern at Eaton & Van Winkle, LLP (USA) during the 2017 German legal clerkship at the district court of Mainz (Germany).
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

For battery energy storage system (BESS) developers, securing equipment and site control is only part of the development equation. A project must also connect to the electric grid, and increasingly, BESS interconnection is one of the biggest sources of schedule, cost, and contractual risk. Key Takeaways This article is Part 3 of our Battery Storage […]
Author: Nicholas Wall
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!