An irreverent Wall Street Blog
by Bill Singer
Join BrokeAndBroker blog on Facebook  Follow the BrokeAndBroker blog on Twitter  Connect with BrokeAndBroker on LinkedIn  Join Bill Singer on Google+  Subscribe to RSS Feed

Grandstanding on Wall Street: Regulators Play to the Crowd
Written: June 10, 2005

The American Conference Institute (ACI) annually runs some 500 legal seminars worldwide featuring leading experts and lawyers. Among the more titillating conferences ACI will be running in 2005 are: Preparing for the Future of Finite and Structured Risk (Re)Insurance and Drafting Successful Patent Applications for Biotechnology Related Inventions. As you can tell from the titles, ACI conferences are the real McCoy, often costing nearly $2,000, lasting for two eight-hour days, and qualifying for state continuing legal education credits. These arenít your excuses for a golf or tennis junket.

On May 24 and 25 of this year, the Broker Dealer Defense Forum held its second annual conference in New York City; this one was entitled: Prevailing Against Customer Claims: Strategies for Discovery, Arbitration Hearing and Proceedings. My former law partner, Aegis Frumento, now one of the country's top defense lawyers at the law firm of Duane Morris, put in a tremendous amount of time to prepare an informative program filled with the top attorneys and consultants. Without question this is a defense lawyerís seminar --- you sort of get that idea from the name of the forum and from the panel topics. At least that's what a reasonably intelligent person would have inferred.

Practicing law on Wall Street involves three factions: the defense bar (the industryís interest), the plaintiffís bar (the public customer and industry employees), and the regulators (state, SRO, and federal). Itís a fact of the securities industry that youíre often here today and there tomorrow . . . former regulators become customer or industry attorneys, in-house lawyers become regulators or plaintiffís lawyers, and the permutations go on and on. And while we donít all like each other, we all tend to understand that everything is intertwined among the three interest groups --- frankly, we all depend on each other . . . for business as well as the fair resolution of disputes. Moreover, there are many lawyers such as myself who represent both the industry and public customers; so the lines are often further blurred.

ACI invited representatives from the New York State Attorney Generalís Office, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the New York Stock Exchange, and the NASD to speak on this yearís Broker Dealer Defense Forum panels. Thereís nothing unusual about that. It happens numerous times each year at different seminars run by many interest groups. Itís a healthy and important aspect of these seminars. We debate each other, we criticize certain regulatory initiatives, the regulators criticize industry trends, and the folks attending the seminar benefit from the debate and learn valuable lessons. No one on either side of the table benefits from uninformed lawyers or poorly represented clients.

A few weeks before the scheduled May 24th kick-off of the ACI BD Defense Forum, the SEC, the NYSE, and the NASD withdrew from the conference --- after the brochures were printed, after folks had paid to hear them speak, after they had previously agreed to attend. In the NASDís March 16th letter, that organization conceded that the regulator had ďagreed to participate [in January 2005]Ē but was ďdisturbed to receive the brochure for the program . . . the title and content presents a pure anti-consumer tone.Ē In the NYSEís April 7th email, the organization said that the withdrawal was ďdue to the anti-investor tone of the programís brochure. It would be inappropriate for me, or any of my colleagues, to be associated with the conference. I regret any inconvenience that my withdrawal from the program may cause you.Ē

Without questions the organizers, panelists, and attendees of the ACI conference were shocked and disappointed with the SEC, NASD, and NYSEís actions --- personally, I found them childish and disgraceful. Yet another sad example as to how everything in this country has become so polarized that professional men and women of good will and intent canít even sit down and civilly discuss and debate the law. Oddly, the New York State Attorney Generalís Office had the courage to send a speaker --- and she was warmly greeted and her remarks well noted by those in attendance. But, of course, the AGís office really seems to have been the only regulator doing a meaningful job these past few years. Maybe they simply understand the dynamic of Wall Street far better than their peers.

What bothers me most about the SEC and the SROsí withdrawals is that they were done after those principled folks had already agreed to participate. Bad form. Atrocious behavior. Silly posturing. Moreover, those industry speakers whose names were prominently featured in the brochure are all well known to the regulatory community --- those panel members are among the leading practitioners in the industry and from many prominent brokerage and law firms. We all deal with our regulatory counterparts everyday. Did the SEC and the SROs suddenly think we had all become monsters? Couldnít our regulatory colleagues have simply stated their disapproval about the alleged bias of the seminar during their prepared remarks? Is slamming the door in the industryís face the only clever resolution these folks could think of? What the regulators seem not to have understood is a basic fact about Wall Street --- your word is your bond on the Street . . . you agree to a trade and you're bound to it (sorry, doesn't matter if you like me or not).

I donít buy the explanations from the NYSE and the NASD. Those regulators donít seem to have much problem attending far flung conferences at resorts where tennis and golf are in abundance. When the NYSE and NASD were under attack by the SEC and the United States Department of Justice, those SROs didnít seem to have any problem going out and hiring major law firms to help them prevail against the pending claims --- in some cases they even dragged their feet when it came to timely producing information. Of course, Iíve never heard those same SROs voice any objection about appearing at plaintiffsí bar seminars where the panels consider the mirror image: How to beat the BDs and their employees. Personally, I have no problem with the regulators speaking at such functions. Regulators are supposed to be referrees or umpires. They are supposed to call the game fairly, regardless of whether the industry or the public customer is ready to score. Similarly, while the regulators prime mission is to protect the public, I never thought that was supposed to come at the expense of fairplay. Or so I thought.

I donít know what irks me more. The sheer stupidity of a regulator not willing to appear at a defense bar seminar or the hypocriscy of the decision. Iím still trying to understand the alleged ethics of the decision. Did these high-minded folks fail to recall that the NASD is marketing the following seminar on June 20 and 21, 2005: NASD Nuts and Bolts Compliance Conference: Understanding Regulatory and Ethical Fundamentals . Letís see, my oh my, the NASD is charging nearly a $1,000 a person for the privilege of attending. You think that maybe the NASD will manage a tidy profit? They couldnít possibly have decided to withdraw from the ACI conference because it was being run about one month before theirs? Oops, look at what else I uncovered . . . on June 20th at 11:45 AM to 1 PM the NASD panel is entitled: Dealing Effectively with Customer Complaints. What do they mean ďdealing effectivelyĒ? Shouldnít it be called Immediately Paying Any and All Customer Complaints Because Thatís What Regulators Believe You Must Do? Isnít there something anti-consumer about suggesting that the industry ďdealĒ with customer complaints --- I mean, gee, thatís like a gambling term for card players, no? I also notice that the NASD is promoting two ďNetworking Lunches.Ē Is that really appropriate for an industry regulator? Isnít there a chance that participants at this conference will use the networking lunch as an opportunity to locate effective defense counsel or to exchange information on how to prevail against customer complaints?

Iím not attending the NASDís conference. Iím boycotting it. More importantly, does the NASD really think itís sensible to schedule such an important two-day training conference all the way off in New York City? I mean, can smaller BDs really afford the cost of such a trip for their staff? I mean, should a regulator be facilitating the absence of such folks for two full days when they could be back at the home office writing checks for the full amounts of every customer complaint?

Given that the industry is so disgusting and unsavory to the regulators, how about this for another ethical decision --- letís prevent any SEC or SRO employee from accepting any job with any broker dealer for three years after they leave the regulator. It seems to me as very unprincipled for a regulator to take all those valuable skills acquired on the job protecting the public and then using them on behalf of firms that, omigod!!!, might want to prevail against frivolous customer complaints. Maybe the SEC, NYSE, and NASD ought to sue those departing regulators for training fees, just like the practice on Wall Street. Now thatís an inspired idea. Mayabe I'll ask ACI to run a program on ethical lapses in Wall Street regulation and invite the regulators to speak too.

The NASDís conference is somewhat aptly named: Nuts and Bolts Compliance Conference.. Nuts . . . indeed.

Previous Entries
November 22, 2014
Walking And Chewing Gum At the SECYeah, I know . . . Iím getting older and grouchier and if I were nominated for Curmudgeon of the Year, I would proba... Read On
November 21, 2014
Yeah, I know . . . Iím getting older and grouchier and if I were nominated for Curmudgeon of the Year, I would probably complain about that accolade a... Read On
November 21, 2014
Few battles on Wall Street become more pitched than those involving disputes over a registered person's commissions, fees, or bonuses.  Typically... Read On
November 20, 2014
First: Study. Second: Study more. Third: Take the test. Fourth: Pass the test.  Four simple steps you need to follow in order to p... Read On
November 19, 2014
We got this registered person who is acting as the CFO of his son's company and is also promoting an anti-wrinkle cream.  How do those two roles ... Read On
November 18, 2014
Stockbroker, Compliance, Legal, and Regulatory JobsEmployment Page Jobs#wallstreetjobs @brokeandbrokerNOTICE TO EMPLOYERS... Read On
November 17, 2014
According to the homepage of The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") Dispute Resolution:FINRA operates the largest dispute resolution... Read On Job Search
Related Topics
    Tag Cloud
    Internet FINRA Bear Stearns Bloomberg SEC NASD NYSE Money Laundering Due Diligence Waiver Forbes China Chepucavage Broy Woody Allen Madoff NAC NPR Marketplace Stanford UBS Ketchum Antitrust NASDAQ RRBDLAW Schapiro Bill Singer BrokerAndBroker USERRA Morgan Keegan Arbitration Counterclaim Khuzami BrokeAndBroker Aleynikov Goldman Sachs brokeandbroker Promissory Note U4 Bill SInger EFL CFTC Huffington Post Flash Crash arbitration RBC Ponzi Affinity Fraud Wachovia Raymond James Expungement Fraud Securities Fraud Outside Business Activity Registered Rep Magazine FOREX FBI Banc of America Pro Se Supreme Court Morgan Stanley Smith Barney E*Trade Margin email Galleon Penson U5 Defamation Protocol Wells Fargo Punitive Damages Citigroup Merrill Lynch ARS Employee Forgivable Loan Street Legal Morgan Stanley AWC Fidelity Bankruptcy Broke And Broker HFT David Sobel Day Trading Ameriprise Commissions Spouse Schwab Commission CRD Kenneth Starr IRS CNBC Complaint ATM Skimming Hacking Phishing Malware Naskovets Poteroba Koval Lincoln Financial Selling Away Outside Business Activities Rakoff 2nd Circuit Second Circuit IRA 401k Forgery Tax Email Netschi Moore Whistleblower Street Sweeper Tran Bharara Facebook Online Severance Bonus Eligibility Rule TD Ameritrade Hedge Fund SAC 1099 Smith Barney Lehman Brothers SIPC IC3 Scottrade Lehman JPMorgan Chase Hertz Insider Trading Bank of America Department of Justice Elles Bribe Auction Rate Securities Raiding Spam Edward Jones Medicare Diabetes Dow Schumer Thain Walter Bid Rigging Real Estate Discrimination Wall Street Statutory Disqualification Form U4 Form U5 Indictment Boyland DOJ Corruption bill singer FTC Do Not Call FINRA Arbitration Costa Rica Settlement LIBOR Varney Plea Rule 8210 Eligibility RRBDlaw Appeal Fowler LPL Johnson US Airways Reg D MSSB Vault Loan SunTrust Discovery Employment Rosenthal Recruiting Lawyer Trading Platform JP Morgan Employment Tuesday Wrongful Termination Bank Guarantee WaMu Solicitation REIT Martin Credit Cards Rule 3050 Away Account Credit Repair PN Advisor Placement Group Forex Mortgage Private Placement Moon Merrill Anderson Exam Lee Borrowing Tax Lien Conversion Oppenheimer Wedbush Felony Misdemeanor Expenses ING Lien OTR Estate Jobs Florida Credit Card Elderly Flash Drive Annuity Expense Reimbursement FNMA BrokeAndBroke TIC DWI Promissory Notes Suitability Will POA Power of Attorney Casino NSF MF Global Counterfeit Preet Bharara Corzine Hacker RIA Prison Disclosure NASAA Aguilar FCPA Subway Identity Theft Gold Dell Bar Injunction Bank Deutsche Bank Hospital God HSBC Private Placements Eric Stein Wire Fraud CCO Joshua Brown Backstage Wall Street Obstruction of Justice Reuters Retaliation Variable Annuity Arbitraiton Outside Account Options Telephone Wine Social Media ADA Pacifico Non-Prosecution Agreement Confirm Tax Fraud Retirement OBA Equity Indexed Annuities EIA MetLife Continuing Education Cheating OIP Tax Liens Willful CE Unregistered Impersonation Annuities BBVA Business Expenses ETF JOBS Act Mail Fraud Parking Variable Annuities Signatures BitTorrent Impersonator Wire Transfer Wire Crowdfunding Nasdaq Away Accounts WSP Laptop Dodd Frank Checks RMBS AML PST Solicited Unsolicited Congress SRO Wife Discretion Non-Solicitation Restaurant Commodities Private Securities Transaction Offer of Settlement Money Market employment jobs Great Recession Chase Investment Services Arrest Barclays Liens Failure To Supervise Apple Time And Price T&P Willfully Husband Letter of Authorization LOA Sexism Debit Card Knight Test Practice Sale Unfair Competition Signature Judgments Undisclosed Settlement Trainee Fee Trust Laser Side Bar Mattera Female Sales Assistant Kennedy Charge Sexist NML Argentina Embezzlement Silver Investor Alert Judgment Bank Fraud Deceased TSSB Mary Jo White Trustee Motion To Dismiss Frumento Conspiracy 6th Circuit Proctor Rule 3040 Class Action Beneficiary NYAG Schneiderman Gallagher White Self Regulation Short Sale Compromise Website TRO Supervision Vacatur SDNY BrokeAndBroker Bill Singer Piwowar Stifel Rule 1122 Article V signature Confidential Inside Information VA Regulation SP Customer Rule 3270 Rule 3240 Annual Compliance Questionnaire OWB 2Cir Stockbrokers
    Email Bill Singer Connect with Bill Singer on Facebook Follow Bill Singer on Twitter Link up with Bill Singer on LinkedIn Join Bill Singer on Google+