Skip to content

Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Insights

  • About Us
  • Contributors
  • Resources
  • Presentations
  • Visit the Faegre Drinker website

And Now for the SEC’s First Substantive Reg BI Action

We have made it a point previously in this blog to track developments of the SEC’s Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI), even speculating more aggressive enforcement actions could be coming due to certain Reg BI deficiency letters sent to firms late last year. Since Reg BI went into effect in June 2020, however, many have waited with bated breath to see what enforcement of the regulation would look like in practice. While the SEC has pursued some cases regarding firms missing deadlines and omitting certain information in disclosure documents, it had taken no further action until June. On June 15, 2022 the SEC finally took its first substantive Reg BI action by filing a civil regulatory complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Western International Securities, Inc. and five of its brokers for allegedly selling a risky debt security, known as corporate L Bonds, to its retail customers. The Complaint invokes Section 15l-1(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 — Regulation Best Interest — and seeks to enjoin the Defendants from the acts, practices and courses of business described in the Complaint.

Western and the Defendant brokers who were all independent contractors of Western sold L Bonds, which were offered by GWG Holdings, Inc. The Complaint alleges these L Bonds were “high risk, illiquid, and only suitable for customers with substantial financial resources.” Between July 2020 and April 2021, Western’s brokers recommended and sold approximately $13.3 million of its corporate L Bonds. Western received a commission of 3.25-5% of the value of each L Bond and its independent brokers received 85-90% of that commission with Western receiving the remaining approximate 10% of the commission. In addition, Western received .75% of the total value of each 2-year and 3-year L Bond it sold and 1% of the total value of every 5- and 7-year Bond it sold. The Defendant brokers received aggregate commissions each of between approximately $5,400 and $32,500 for the sales of the L Bonds during this time period. The SEC claims that Western and its brokers ran afoul of Reg BI by recommending L Bonds to retail customers without a reasonable basis to believe the investments were in those customers’ best interest. The SEC accused Western of 1) not meeting the Reg BI Care Obligation, which requires brokers to understand the risks, rewards and costs associated with the products before recommending them, and 2) not meeting the Reg BI Compliance Obligation, which requires creating, maintaining, and enforcing written policies and procedures that adhere to Reg BI. Western had conducted training of the brokers but the SEC alleges the training was not sufficient. It also had written supervisory procedures, but the SEC alleges those, too, were lacking as was supervision.

Western’s time to answer has been extended until September 14, 2022. Therefore, it is still early in this litigation. However, earlier this month, there was a FINRA action filed in Los Angeles against Western also alleging that Western failed to undertake reasonable due diligence before selling GWG L Bonds to its customers.

FINRA reports the top 15 categories of complaints filed in its forum. For the first time since June 30, 2020, when Reg BI became enforceable, Reg BI claims are among the top 12 categories of FINRA claims.

Some considered the June 2022 Western complaint to be Chairman Gary Gensler’s first step in making good on his promise to put some teeth into Reg BI, after over a year of failing to do much of anything. The Director of Investor Protection at the Consumer Federation of America, Micah Hauptman, called the SEC enforcement “welcome news” and said that the SEC is entering a “more aggressive enforcement of Reg BI” that will send a “powerful message to the brokerage industry that business as usual won’t be tolerated.” However, others, like the president of the Institute for the Fiduciary Standard, Knut Rostad, are not nearly as convinced. Mr. Rostad believes it was “not a Reg BI case,” but “a suitability case,” which was the Pre-Reg BI standard for brokers. The suitability standard requires that a broker make recommendations that are suitable based on a client’s personal situation, but the standard does not require the advice to be in the client’s best interest over and above that of the broker’s interest.

We believe Western is a Reg BI case. In Western, the clients were given disclosures and they made representations about their qualifications to own the L Bonds. Notwithstanding this, the SEC claims the disclosures made to the clients and representation from the clients still did not make the bonds in these seven clients’ best interest. Arguably even without Reg BI, the L Bonds would have been found unsuitable for these clients given their risk tolerances, age, sophistication, and retirement status. However, it is also clear that merely going through the disclosure motions without assessing the particular product for the particular client raises to the level of violating Reg BI. In fact, many of what Western is alleged to have lacked is what FINRA found lacking in its examination of broker-dealers in the 2022 Report on FINRA’s Examination and Risk Monitoring Program. Western is likely the bellwether of things to come for SEC enforcement of Reg BI and where the SEC goes, FINRA is sure to follow. Watching the Western case unfold should be illuminating.

This may be a good time to review the 2022 Report on FINRA’s Examination and Risk Monitoring Program and compare its findings to your training, supervision and WSPs. Enforcement is clearly the theme for 2022; therefore, if you have not yet done so, it is time to ensure your firm will meet the standard. We are happy to assist you in doing so.

The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.

Subscribe and Receive Alerts to New Articles

SUBSCRIBE
August 25, 2022
Written by: Sandra D. Grannum, Emmanuel L. Brown and Jamie L. Helman
Category: Enforcement, FINRA, Regulation Best Interest, SEC, Suitability
Tags: Best Interest Standard of Care, Broker-Dealers

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: Compliance with PTE 2020-02: Mitigating Conflicts of Interest
Next Next post: What Broker-Dealers Need to Know About Correcting PTE 2020-02 Mistakes

Subscribe to Alerts

Recent Posts

  • Managing IRAs: Charging Different Fees for Different Investments
  • FINRA Is Conducting a Targeted Exam of “Crypto Assets”
  • Recent State Fiduciary and Best Interest Developments
  • Rollover Recommendations – Do the SEC and DOL Requirements Align?
  • Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Digest – Summer 2022

Categories

  • 12b-1 Fees
  • 3270
  • 3280
  • 3290
  • Anti-Money Laundering
  • Arbitration
  • BD
  • Best Execution
  • Best Interest Contract Exemption
  • Best Interest Standard of Care
  • Business Continuity Planning
  • Churning
  • Class Certification
  • Compensation Issues
  • Compliance
  • Concurrent jurisdiction
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Congress
  • Covered class actions
  • Covered securities
  • Credit
  • Cryptocurrencies
  • Customer Due Diligence Rule
  • Customer Protection
  • Cybersecurity
  • Dark Pools
  • Data Integrity
  • DOL Fiduciary Rule
  • Elder Abuse
  • Enforcement
  • Event Study
  • Examination
  • Exchange-Traded Funds (“ETF”)
  • exemptions
  • Fair Pricing
  • Fees
  • Fiduciary
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Financial Services
  • FinCEN
  • FINRA
  • FINRA 2018 Annual Regulatory and Examination Priorities Letter
  • FINRA 360
  • FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure 12204
  • FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure 13204
  • FINRA Notice 13-45
  • FINRA Regulatory Notice 16-25
  • FINRA Rule 12200
  • FINRA Rule 13200
  • FINRA Rule 2111
  • FINRA Rule 2165
  • FINRA Rule 2232
  • FINRA Rule 3310(c)
  • FINRA Rule 4210
  • FINRA Rule 4512
  • FINRA Summary Report
  • Fixed Income
  • Fraud
  • Goldman v. City of Reno, 747 F.3d 733(2014)
  • Goldman v. Golden Empire Schools Financing, 767 F.3d 210(2014)
  • IA
  • Impartial Conduct Standards
  • In the Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Respondent (AWC 2009020188101/January 25, 2012)
  • Initial Coin Offerings
  • Investment Recommendation
  • Investor
  • IRA
  • Liquidity
  • Manipulation
  • Margin
  • Market Access
  • Market Access Controls
  • Mortgage
  • Mutual Funds
  • New FINRA Rule
  • OCIE
  • Office of the Solicitor General
  • Options
  • Outside Activities
  • Outside Business Activities (“OBA”)
  • Policies and Procedures
  • Price Impact
  • Private Securities Transactions (“PST”)
  • Private Securities Transactions of an Associated Person”
  • Prohibited Transactions
  • Prudence
  • Quantitative Suitability
  • Reading Health v. JP Morgan, No. 16-4234 (3d Cir. Aug. 7, 2018)
  • Reasonable Fees
  • Recommendation
  • Regulation Best Interest
  • Regulation SHO
  • Regulatory Notice 18-13
  • Retirement Account
  • Risk
  • Rollovers
  • SEC
  • SEC 2018 National Exam Program Examination Priorities
  • SEC Reg BI
  • SEC RIA Interpretation
  • Securities Act of 1933
  • Securities Class Action
  • Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA)
  • Senior Safe Act
  • Seniors
  • Service Providers
  • Short Sales
  • Suitability
  • supervision
  • Supreme Court
  • Surveillance
  • Technology Governance
  • UBS v. Carilion Clinic, 706 F.3d 319(2013)
  • Uncategorized
  • Unit Investment Trusts (“UIT”)
  • Verification of Assets and Liabilities

archives

  • 2023
    • January 2023
  • 2022
    • December 2022
    • November 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
  • 2021
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • October 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
  • 2020
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
  • 2019
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
  • 2018
    • December 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
  • 2017
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
  • About Us
  • Contributors
  • Resources
  • Presentations
  • Visit the Faegre Drinker website

© 2023 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved. Lawyer Advertising.
Privacy Policy

We use cookies to improve your experience with our website. By browsing our site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies. For more information about how we use cookies, please review our privacy policy and cookie policy. OK
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT