RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeFINRA Immunity Without Transparency Is “A License to Steal”
Posted by Larry Doyle on March 2nd, 2010 10:40 AM |
Judge Jed Rakoff’s ruling to dismiss the complaint by Standard Investment Chartered v FINRA based on the regulator having absolute immunity generated a consistent response from readers and colleagues. What is the theme of that response?
A comment by Bill, a loyal Sense on Cents reader, seems to sum it up best:
Interesting that FINRA has the benefit of a quasi governmental entity, i. e. immunity, but not the customary burden of a governmental entity–transparency. Otherwise known as a license to steal. (more…)
FINRA Defense: Exhaustion and Immunity
Posted by Larry Doyle on December 2nd, 2009 9:24 AM |
Let’s revisit the case of Standard Investment Chartered v. FINRA. While I have written extensively on a host of issues related to FINRA, I believe the issues embedded in this specific case drive to the very core of our financial regulatory system. For those unaware of this case, a recent memorandum (link provided at end of this commentary) filed on behalf of the plaintiff highlights:
At the core of the case is the FINRA Defendants’ issuance of a proxy statement on December 14, 2006 (the “Proxy Statement”), which contained out-and-out material falsehoods and omitted essential facts bearing on the Transaction and on a proposed “Special Member Payment” that was to be made upon its completion. The most important false representation was that federal tax authorities limited a payment to NASD Members to $35,000. Second Amended Complaint (“SAC” or the “Complaint”) ¶ 13. The FINRA Defendants magnified the falsehood that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) limited NASD Member payments to $35,000 in many different forms, over and over, as if saying it enough times and wishing it to be true would somehow make it come true.
A claim of out-and-out material falsehoods against defendants, including then FINRA head and current SEC chief Mary Schapiro, is where the rubber meets the road. How have the defendants responded? Are they willing to embrace the virtues of transparency and integrity so badly needed to restore investor confidence? No, I don’t think so.
The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss this complaint. On what grounds do the defendants make their motion? The memorandum highlights: (more…)
