FINRA has taken disciplinary actions against the following firms and individuals for violations of FINRA rules; federal securities laws, rules and regulations; and the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB).
Exemptive relief is denied due to a failure of the firm to develop and institute procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with Rule G-37.
Firm X's request for exemption is denied. The Rule imposes a requirement on all firms subject to its provisions to know them and to have in place supervisory procedures to reasonably insure compliance with the Rule. The language of the rule is clear with respect to the limitations imposed on member firms, as distinct from municipal financial professionals. In the instant matter, we cannot conclude that ignorance of the Rule's provisions constitutes reasonable justification or excuse for granting the requested exemption.
A conditional exemption is granted. The Committee determined that B's second contribution was a violation of MSRB G-37 (the Rule) because, when consolidated with the first contribution, the total was $480. This significantly exceeded the $250 de minimis contribution exemption in the Rule. However, the Committee found that the second contribution at issue resulted from human error rather than from insufficient compliance procedures, failure by the firm to educate key personnel, or ignorance by firm personnel of the Rule.
Exemptive relief is granted based on the determination that the dealer: (1) had developed and instituted procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the rule; (2) had no actual knowledge of the contribution prior to or at the time of the contribution; (3) had taken all available steps to cause the person involved in making the contribution to obtain a return of the contribution; and (4) had taken such other remedial or preventative measures as were appropriate under the circumstances.
It appears that the violation of the Rule, as described in your letter, relates directly to the failure of the firm to develop and institute procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance of the Rule i.e., for the review and approval of political contributions by a municipal finance professional prior to making the contribution. Accordingly, the firm's request for an exemption is denied.
The request for exemptive relief is denied. You represent that Firm had established comprehensive and detailed procedures which included the requirement to pre-clear political contributions. Indeed, the firm’s procedures were attached to your exemption request as "Attachment No. 2," and they require that "all public finance employees" of the firm obtain prior approval of political contributions. The CEO did not follow the firm’s established procedures. This lapse by a senior official is significant and leads us to conclude that the request for an exemption should be denied.
Exemptive relief is granted based on the following considerations: (1.) the de minimis nature of the Proposed Hire’s Contribution made more than one year ago; (2.) the Contribution was made by an individual who has never been employed in the municipal securities business.
Exemptive relief is granted based on the following considerations: (1.) the de minimis nature of the Contribution mitigates the probability that the payment will improperly influence issuer officials; (2.) the Contribution was made by an individual who has never been employed in the municipal securities business.
An exemption is granted based on consideration of the MSRB’s published interpretation of Rule G-37 regarding mergers of corporations in the municipal securities industry3 and on your representation that Individual will not be engaged in helping Firm A obtain municipal securities business or engaged in municipal securities representative activities before September 24, 2001, when the two-year ban under Rule G-37 would otherwise expire.
