ARTICLE
25 October 2021

Broker-Dealer Settles Charges For Signing Noncompliant Arbitration Settlement Agreement

CW
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Contributor

Cadwalader, established in 1792, serves a diverse client base, including many of the world's leading financial institutions, funds and corporations. With offices in the United States and Europe, Cadwalader offers legal representation in antitrust, banking, corporate finance, corporate governance, executive compensation, financial restructuring, intellectual property, litigation, mergers and acquisitions, private equity, private wealth, real estate, regulation, securitization, structured finance, tax and white collar defense.
A broker-dealer settled FINRA charges for violating FINRA Rule 2081 ("Prohibited Conditions Relating to Expungement of Customer Dispute").
United States Finance and Banking
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

A broker-dealer settled FINRA charges for violating FINRA Rule 2081 ("Prohibited Conditions Relating to Expungement of Customer Dispute").

In a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent, FINRA found that the broker-dealer signed an arbitration settlement agreement with a customer providing that the customer would not oppose, or otherwise interfere with, a request to expunge the dispute information from the Central Registration Depository ("CRD") System. FINRA found that the broker-dealer "inadvertently" failed to remove the provision permitting expungement from the CRD of the complaint against the broker-dealer's registered representative before entering into the FINRA arbitration settlement agreement.

As a result of its findings, FINRA determined that the broker-dealer violated FINRA Rules 2081 and 2010 ("Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade").

To settle the charges, the broker-dealer agreed to (i) a censure and (ii) a $20,000 fine.

Commentary

FINRA Rule 2081 expressly prohibits a broker-dealer from entering into a settlement agreement of the type that is the subject of this enforcement action. The broker-dealer was charged with violating that rule and agreed to a disciplinary action for such violation.

What purpose does the additional charge under Rule 2010 ("Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade") serve? FINRA has developed the practice of adding on a Rule 2010 violation to almost every single enforcement action. The Rule should be retitled the "Prohibition against Violating Pretty Much Any Other FINRA Rule." Or, if that is all Rule 2010 means, it should just be repealed as it serves no independent purpose.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More