FINRA Recently Announced Revisions to its Sanction Guidelines
On May 2, 2018, The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced revisions to its Sanction Guidelines to reflect changes to General Principle No. 2. FINRA now advises that when the current violation and a respondent’s disciplinary history, including a history of arbitration awards and arbitration settlements, form a pattern, adjudicators should consider imposing more stringent sanctions.
According to FINRA, “These Sanction Guidelines revisions allow adjudicators to consider more completely a respondent’s interactions with customers and regulators. Adjudicators will no longer be limited from considering what, in some cases, could be an extensive series of arbitration awards and arbitration settlements that share similarities with the violations found in a disciplinary case.” The changes will impact disciplinary complaints filed on or after June 1, 2018. See FINRA Regulatory Notice 18-17 and FINRA FAQ.
Revisions to General Principle No. 2
The newly added section in General Principal No. 2 of the Sanction Guidelines directs adjudicators to specifically consider whether the misconduct in the current disciplinary case, together with regulatory actions and arbitration history, establishes that the respondent has a pattern of causing harm. The revisions replace the term “disciplinary history” with “Disciplinary and Arbitration History,” which is defined as:
[D]isciplinary history by regulators, and arbitration awards and arbitration settlements resulting from disputes between a customer and the respondent, including those when the respondent is the subject of an arbitration claim that only names a FINRA member firm.
The term “Disciplinary and Arbitration History” includes arbitrations that a customer filed involving investment-related disputes that have been resolved through an adverse award or settlement. The definition excludes customer-initiated arbitration claims that have been filed but not resolved. It also excludes customer complaints when no arbitration claim has been filed and settlements reached with a customer when no arbitration claim was filed. Dismissals and withdrawals of customers’ arbitration claims also will not be relevant to determinations of disciplinary sanctions.
When FINRA’s Department of Enforcement asserts that a respondent has arbitration awards or arbitration settlements that are relevant to determining sanctions, adjudicators will rely on the information about those awards or settlements that are included in the Central Registration Depository. The parties may not collaterally attack or seek to undermine the validity of an arbitration award or arbitration settlement.
When evaluating factors that establish or negate a pattern of causing harm, FINRA advises that adjudicators should draw on their experience and exercise their judgment. “Adjudicators should consider the nature, severity, and frequency of all disciplinary history, adverse arbitration awards and arbitration settlements, or a combination of these events, as well as the length of time between events, the isolated nature of an event, or other extenuating circumstances.” See FAQ Answers 19 through 22. When such a pattern is established, an adjudicator should consider imposing more severe sanctions than what would have been imposed if no pattern existed.
If you have any questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Paul Lieberman, at 201-806-3364.
What Business Owners Get Wrong Before Meeting a Litigation Attorney
What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Arbitration vs. Litigation vs. Mediation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Know Before Signing a Contract
Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Can You Own Part of a New Jersey Business Without a Written Agreement?
Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Crisis-Proofing Your New Jersey Business: Building a Crisis Response Plan Before You Need One
For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Monmouth County's Next Development Wave: What Developers and Investors Need to Know
Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Are Your Conversations with AI Shielded from Discovery? Courts Are Split
Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
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!
