Eccleston Law: For Investors. For Advisors
About
Who We Are
Testimonials
Disclaimers
Attorneys
For Advisors
Broker Transition
Transition Negotiations
Employment Matters
State Registration Problems & Discipline
FINRA Matters
Promissory Note Matters
Team/Parnership Disputes
CFP Board Matters
FINRA Enforcement Matters
State Registration Problems & Discipline
Transition Contract Review
Broker Litigation & Arbitration
Employment Matters
Regulatory Matters
Strategic Consulting
Whistleblower Law
Promissory Note Matters
Compliance Protection
Lawyer Referral Network
Expungement of CRD/BrokerCheck Disclosures
For Investors
Securities Fraud
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Negligent Investment Management
Unauthorized Trading
Lawyer Referral Network
News & Articles
News
Articles
Financial Counsel Blog
Videos
Newsletter Signup
Contact
Site Menu
About
Who We Are
Testimonials
Disclaimers
Attorneys
For Advisors
For Advisors: Overview
Broker Transition
Broker Transition Overview
Transition Negotiations
Employment Matters
State Registration Problems & Discipline
FINRA Matters
Promissory Note Matters
Team/Parnership Disputes
CFP Board Matters
FINRA Enforcement Matters
State Registration Problems & Discipline
Transition Contract Review
Broker Litigation & Arbitration
Employment Matters
Regulatory Matters
Strategic Consulting
Whistleblower Law
Promissory Note Matters
Compliance Protection
Lawyer Referral Network
Expungement of CRD/BrokerCheck Disclosures
For Investors
For Investors: Overview
Securities Fraud
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Negligent Investment Management
Unauthorized Trading
Lawyer Referral Network
News & Articles
News
Articles
Financial Counsel Blog
Videos
Newsletter Signup
Contact

FINRA’s Latest Disciplinary Actions Reveal Interesting Enforcement Efforts

Posted on August 8th, 2014 at 10:56 AM

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:

FINRA (the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) recently published its disciplinary and other actions for July, 2014.  Several financial services firms and registered representatives were barred from the securities industry, sanctioned or fined.  Let’s highlight some of the more interesting actions.

            First, a New Jersey adviser named James Bracey IV agreed to the sanction of a bar from the securities industry.  Without admitting or denying the findings, he consented to findings of fact, including that he received a $175,000 loan from a customer of his brokerage firm without notifying the firm or obtaining its approval.  He obtained the loan in connection with one of his unapproved outside business activities, about which he also failed to notify his firm.  Finally, Bracey falsified the customer’s written wire transfer instructions in order to execute an unauthorized transfer of funds.  In short, the allegations, if true, taken together and even separately, would form the basis for the adviser to be barred from the industry.

            Second, a Philadelphia broker named Sean McDermott was sanctioned for deficiencies in his supervision of a broker at his firm.  Specifically, McDermott agreed to a sanction of a $15,000 fine, a one-year suspension from serving in any principal capacity, and a requirement that he re-take and pass the qualifying examination for him to serve as a principal (the “Series 24” examination).  Without admitting or denying the findings, McDermott consented to findings of fact, including that he was aware of a registered representative’s involvement in a limited partnership investment, whom he was charged with supervising, yet failed to recognize several red flags concerning the registered representative’s activities.  McDermott further consented to the fact that, if he had investigated, he could have detected the representative’s fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of material facts.  FINRA also focused on McDermott’s lack of email surveillance.   Specifically, McDermott knew that the representative used an outside email account for his limited partnership activities, yet McDermott failed to review those emails.  Email review is a critical part of a supervisor’s job duties, and it should be no surprise that FINRA identified that deficiency.

            Third, a Riverside, California adviser named David Trocasso was fined $10,000 and suspended for three months.  He consented to findings of fact related to his failure to report material information on his Form U-4, which in turn becomes information available for the public to view.  Specifically, Trocasso “willfully failed” to update his Form U-4 to disclose that he had filed for bankruptcy protection.  This disciplinary action should remind reps that important financial information, like filing for bankruptcy, being the subject of liens, or having a judgment against them, always must be reported in a timely fashion in order to avoid disciplinary action.

            Fourth, a St. Louis broker named Michael Wurdinger agreed to a six month suspension from serving in any principal capacity, and was required to re-take and pass the qualifying examination to serve as a principal.  In light of Wurdinger’s financial status, no fine was imposed.  This was another interesting failure to supervise case.  Wurdinger consented to the entry of facts, including that he failed to address numerous red flags indicating that debenture transactions that he actually approved indeed were unsuitable for the customers, or might have involved misrepresentations and omissions.  FINRA faulted Wurdinger for a limited review – he simply confirmed that “the forms submitted with the transaction were filled out in full.”  Unfortunately, the numbers involved were large; $4.3 million in sales to customers.  FINRA also took issue with the fact that Wurdinger had no prior experience in reviewing securities transactions for suitability, and that he lacked a basic understanding of the requirements for suitability.  Those suitability requirements included “the customer’s investment objectives, risk tolerances, financial conditions, ages or liquidity needs.”  Nor was FINRA pleased to learn that Wurdinger did not understand the unique features and risks of debentures. 

            As one can see, FINRA’s publication of its recent disciplinary actions sends a message as to what is not in compliance with securities rules and regulations.  Both reps and their firms should pay attention to the message.

The attorneys of Eccleston Law Offices represent investors and advisers nationwide in securities and employment matters. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 50 years in delivering the highest quality legal services.

Related Attorneys: James J. Eccleston

Tags:

Share

Return to Archive

Latest Articles
Best-Performing Energy Funds Suffered 10-Year Losses
March 1st, 2021 at 12:51 PM
Some Brokers Sold GPB Private Placements Allegedly with the Worst Wall Street Tactics
February 26th, 2021 at 1:32 PM
Read More »
Latest News
CFP Board is the New Sheriff and it Is Not Your Friend
October 24th, 2020 at 10:04 AM
Defending Against a Customer Complaint First Requires Selecting Correct Legal Counsel
October 15th, 2020 at 10:02 AM
Read More »
Share

Request a Free Consultation

Attorneys are standing by during regular business hours. Call us now for immediate service, or complete the form below and we will contact you as soon as possible.

Your E-mail Address:
 
Chicago
55 West Monroe St.
Suite 610
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312) 332-0000
(312) 332-0003
New York City
One Liberty Plaza
165 Broadway, 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10006
(312) 332-0000
(312) 332-0003
Boca Raton
2255 Glades Road
Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
(312) 332-0000
(312) 332-0003
2021 © Eccleston Law, LLC.
All Rights Reserved.
The law is continuously changing. Please do not rely on information found on this site without consulting a lawyer to determine if any recent changes in the law may have an impact.