August 7, 2015
This article updates a February 2015 BrokeAndBroker.com Blog. This UPDATE references a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the respondent in the FINRA AWC.
In 1997, a registered representative settled allegations of
industry misconduct pertaining to 1994 acts. He took a sit-down for 30 days and
paid a fine. Perhaps he didn't care all that much because in 1996, he left the
biz, never to return. Fast forward a couple of decades and, lo and behold, that
former respondent does care because he finds the allegations against him
permanently archived online. He sues. How
did it turn out? Read below.
Case In
Point
Alan Santos-Buch worked as a stockbroker from 1986
until 1996. As a result of alleged misconduct by Santos-Buch in 1994, the
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. ("NASD") (a self-regulatory
organization ("SRO") and predecessor in interest to the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. ("FINRA")), instituted disciplinary
proceedings against Santos-Buch in 1997. The allegations were eventually
resolved through an Acceptance, Waiver and Consent settlement ("AWC") whereby
Santos-Buch agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and serve a 30-day suspension.
Thereafter, NASD published information about the AWC in
its August 1997 "Notice to Members / Disciplinary Actions" (see
Page 432 of the Notice)
Alan M. Santos-Buch
(Registered Representative, South Norwalk, Connecticut) submitted a Letter of
Acceptance, Waiver and Consent pursuant to which he was fined $10,000 and
suspended from association with any NASD member in any capacity for 30 days.
Without admitting or denying the allegations, Santos-Buch consented to the
described sanctions and to the entry of findings that he signed and delivered
to a public customer a memorandum that stated that the customer's account would
be guaranteed against losses. The findings also stated that Santos-Buch stated
to the same customer that they shared an investment relationship which
allocated financial responsibility for certain changes in the value of the
account to him under certain
circumstances.
By way of recap, NASD conducted an investigation
of Santos-Buch that focused on a now 21-year-old allegation that the registered
person allegedly guaranteed a customer against losses. The investigation and
AWC largely took place about 18 years ago. The sanctions imposed were a $10,000
fine and a 30-day suspension.
At The Time
(1997)
When
Santos-Buch entered into his 1997 settlement with NASD, he argues that he had
believed that he had consented to NASD publishing one, and only one, Notice
to Members about his AWC. It was, to his understanding, a
one-and-done event. Pointedly, Santos-Buch asserts that in 1997, NASD did not provide for a permanent, ongoing disclosure of
his disciplinary history. Moreover, once
an individual ceased being associated with an NASD member firm, Santos-Buch
asserts that the public was not provided with further access to that
respondent's disciplinary history. Notably,
Santos-Buch was last registered with an NASD member firm in 1996 -- that's 19
years ago!
The Old
Squibs
While it was NASD's policy to generally publish a
one-time-only "squib" of its AWCs in 1997, the Internet was only in
its infancy. As such, even if the monthly notices were generally printed on
hard copy and disseminated in that form, the transition to what is now the
Digital Age was coming
into place. Although Santos-Buch's
assertions are hard to refute, it is similarly difficult
to discern any promise by NASD to
not archive its content in digital form and/or online. For many of us, we just
never quite saw the flood of online disclosure until, like a tsunami, it was
too late and it was upon us.
Disclosure Landscape
Changes
In 2000, the SEC authorized the Central
Registration Depositiory ("CRD") to extend the provision of
disciplinary histories to a period of two years.
In 2007, FINRA comes into
existence.
In 2009, FINRA Rule 8312 extended disclosures of regulatory
actions to a status of permanent availability. Consequently, Santos-Buch's AWC is now
available via FINRA's BrokerCheck website and other SRO
databases. Ouch!
Consider the current iteration of Rule 8312 and note some
of the sections that I have highlighted in
yellow:
8312. FINRA BrokerCheck
Disclosure
(a) In response to a written inquiry, electronic
inquiry, or telephonic inquiry via a toll-free telephone listing, FINRA shall
release through FINRA BrokerCheck information
regarding:
(1)
a current or former FINRA member or a current or former member of a registered
national securities exchange that uses the Central Registration Depository
("CRD") for registration purposes ("CRD Exchange")
(collectively, "BrokerCheck Firms");
or
(2) a current or
former associated person of a BrokerCheck
Firm.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (d) below, FINRA
shall release the information specified in subparagraph (2) below for inquiries
regarding a current or former BrokerCheck Firm, a person currently associated
with a BrokerCheck Firm, or a person who was associated with a BrokerCheck
Firm within the preceding ten years.
(2) The following
information shall be released pursuant to this paragraph
(b):
(A) any information reported on the most recently filed Form U4,
Form U5, Form U6, Form BD, and Form BDW (collectively "Registration
Forms");
(B)
currently approved
registrations;
(C)
summary information about certain arbitration awards against a BrokerCheck Firm
involving a securities or commodities dispute with a public
customer;
(D)
the most recently submitted comment, if any, provided to FINRA by the person
who is covered by BrokerCheck, in the form and in accordance with the
procedures established by FINRA, for inclusion with the information provided
through BrokerCheck. Only comments that relate to the information provided
through BrokerCheck will be included;
(E)
information as to qualifications examinations passed by the person and date
passed. FINRA will not release information regarding examination scores or
failed examinations;
(F)
in response to telephonic inquiries via the BrokerCheck toll-free telephone
listing, whether a particular member is subject to the provisions of Rule 3170
("Taping
Rule");
(G) Historic Complaints (i.e., the information last
reported on Registration Forms relating to customer complaints that are more
than two (2) years old and that have not been settled or adjudicated, and
customer complaints, arbitrations or litigations that have been settled for an
amount less than $10,000 prior to May 18, 2009 or an amount less than $15,000
on or after May 18, 2009 and are no longer reported on a Registration Form),
provided that any such matter became a Historic Complaint on or after August
16, 1999; and(H)
the name and succession history for current or former BrokerCheck
Firms.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (d) below,
FINRA shall release the information specified in subparagraph (2)
below for inquiries regarding a person who was formerly associated with a
BrokerCheck Firm, but who has not been associated with a BrokerCheck Firm
within the preceding ten years,
and:
(A) was ever the subject of a final regulatory action as defined
in Form U4 that has been reported to the CRD system on a Registration Form;
or
(B)
was registered with FINRA or a CRD Exchange on or after August 16, 1999, and
any of the following applies, as reported to the CRD system on a Registration
Form:
(i)
was convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a
crime;
(ii)
was the subject of a civil injunction in connection with investment-related
activity, a civil court finding of involvement in a violation of any
investment-related statute or regulation, or an investment-related civil action
brought by a state or foreign financial regulatory authority that was dismissed
pursuant to a settlement agreement;
or
(iii) was named as a respondent or defendant in an
investment-related, consumer-initiated arbitration or civil litigation which
alleged that the person was involved in a sales practice violation and which
resulted in an arbitration award or civil judgment against the
person.
(2)
The following information shall be released pursuant to this paragraph
(c):
(A)
information regarding the event(s) enumerated in paragraph (c)(1)(A) or (B) as
reported on a Registration Form;
(B)
administrative information, including employment history and registration
history derived from information reported on a Registration
Form;
(C) the most
recently submitted comment, if any, provided to FINRA by the person who is
covered by BrokerCheck, in the form and in accordance with the procedures
established by FINRA, for inclusion with the information provided through
BrokerCheck. Only comments that relate to the information provided through
BrokerCheck will be included; and
(D)
information as to qualifications examinations passed by the person and date
passed. FINRA will not release information regarding examination scores or
failed
examinations.
For
purposes of this paragraph (c), a final regulatory action as defined in Form U4
may include any final action, including any action that is on appeal, by the
SEC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal banking agency, the
National Credit Union Administration, another federal regulatory agency, a
state regulatory agency, a foreign financial regulatory authority, or a
self-regulatory organization (as those terms are used in Form
U4).
(d) FINRA shall not release:
(1) information
reported as a Social Security number, residential history, or physical
description, information that FINRA is otherwise prohibited from releasing
under Federal law, or information that is provided solely for use by
regulators. FINRA reserves the right to exclude, on a case-by-case basis,
information that contains confidential customer information, offensive or
potentially defamatory language or information that raises significant identity
theft, personal safety or privacy concerns that are not outweighed by investor
protection
concerns;
(2) information
reported on Registration Forms relating to regulatory investigations or
proceedings if the reported regulatory investigation or proceeding was vacated
or withdrawn by the instituting
authority;
(3) "Internal
Review Disclosure" information reported on Section 7 of the Form
U5;
(4) "Reason for Termination" information
reported on Section 3 of the Form
U5;
(5) Form U5
information for fifteen (15) days following the filing of such
information;
(6) the most
recent information reported on a Registration Form,
if:
(A)
FINRA has determined that the information was reported in error by a
BrokerCheck Firm, regulator or other appropriate
authority;
(B) the
information has been determined by regulators, through amendments to the
uniform Registration Forms, to be no longer relevant to securities registration
or licensure, regardless of the disposition of the event or the date the event
occurred;
(7)
information provided on Schedule E of Form
BD.
(e) Eligible parties may dispute the accuracy of
certain information disclosed through FINRA BrokerCheck pursuant to the
administrative process described
below:
(1)
Initiation of a
Dispute
(A)
The following persons (each an "eligible party") may initiate a
dispute regarding the accuracy of information disclosed in that eligible
party's BrokerCheck
report:
(i)
any current BrokerCheck
Firm;
(ii)
any former BrokerCheck Firm, provided that the dispute is submitted by a
natural person who served as the former BrokerCheck Firm's Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Legal Officer or Chief
Compliance Officer, or individual with similar status or function, as
identified on Schedule A of Form BD at the time the former BrokerCheck Firm
ceased being registered with FINRA or a CRD Exchange;
or
(iii) any associated person of a BrokerCheck Firm or
person formerly associated with a BrokerCheck Firm for whom a BrokerCheck
report is
available.
(B)
To initiate a dispute, an eligible party must submit a written notice to FINRA,
in such manner and format that FINRA may require, identifying the alleged
inaccurate factual information and explaining the reason that such information
is allegedly inaccurate. The eligible party must submit with the written notice
all available supporting
documentation.
(2)
Determination of Disputes Eligible for
Investigation
(A)
FINRA will presume that a dispute of factual information is eligible for
investigation unless FINRA reasonably determines that the facts and
circumstances involving the dispute suggest
otherwise.
(B)
If FINRA determines that a dispute is eligible for investigation, FINRA will,
except in circumstances involving court-ordered expungement, add a general
notation to the eligible party's BrokerCheck report stating that the eligible
party has disputed certain information included in the report. The notation
will be removed from the eligible party's BrokerCheck report upon resolution of
the dispute by FINRA. In disputes involving a court order to expunge
information from BrokerCheck, FINRA will prevent the disputed information from
being displayed via BrokerCheck while FINRA evaluates the matter.
(C)
If FINRA determines that a dispute is not eligible for investigation, it will
notify the eligible party of this determination in writing, including a brief
description of the reason for the determination. A determination by FINRA that
a dispute is not eligible for investigation is not subject to
appeal.
(3)
Investigation and Resolution of
Disputes
(A)
If FINRA determines that the written notice and supporting documentation
submitted by the eligible party is sufficient to update, modify or remove the
information that is the subject of the request, FINRA will make the appropriate
change. If the written notice and supporting documentation do not include
sufficient information upon which FINRA can make a determination, FINRA, under
most circumstances, will contact the entity that reported the disputed information
(the "reporting entity") to the CRD system and request that the
reporting entity verify that the information, as disclosed through BrokerCheck,
is accurate in content and presentation. If a reporting entity other than FINRA
is involved, FINRA will defer to the reporting entity about whether the
information received is accurate. If the reporting entity acknowledges that the
information is not accurate, FINRA will update, modify or remove the
information, as appropriate, based on the information provided by the reporting
entity. If the reporting entity confirms that the information is accurate in
content and presentation or the reporting entity no longer exists or is
otherwise unable to verify the accuracy of the information, FINRA will not
change the information.
(B)
FINRA will notify the eligible party in writing that the investigation has
resulted in a determination
that:
(i) the information is inaccurate or not accurately
presented and has been updated, modified or
deleted;
(ii)
the information is accurate in content and presentation and no changes have
been made;
or
(iii) the accuracy of the information or its
presentation could not be verified and no changes have been
made.
(C)
A determination by FINRA, including a determination to leave unchanged or to
modify or delete disputed information, is not subject to
appeal.
(f) Upon written request, FINRA may provide a
compilation of information about FINRA members, subject to terms and conditions
established by FINRA and after execution of a licensing agreement prepared by
FINRA. FINRA may charge commercial users of such information reasonable fees as
determined by FINRA. Such compilations shall consist solely of information
selected by FINRA from Forms BD and BDW and shall be limited to information
that is otherwise publicly available from the SEC.
Supplementary Material
***
.01 Availability and Format of Information Regarding Persons Associated
with a Member Prior to 1999. Certain types of information about some persons
formerly associated with a member, but who have not been associated with a
member since January 1, 1999, may not be available through BrokerCheck. Types
of information that may be unavailable for these persons may include the
following: administrative information (e.g., employment and registration
history) and information as to qualifications examinations. In addition, FINRA
may release a composite report that includes information from multiple
Registration Forms for such persons.
.02 Disputes Not Eligible for Investigation. For
purposes of paragraph (e) of this Rule, examples of situations in which FINRA
will determine that a dispute is not eligible for investigation include, but
are not limited
to:
(a) a dispute that involves information that was
previously disputed under this process and that does not contain any new or
additional
evidence;
(b) a dispute that is brought by an individual or
entity that is not an eligible party;
(c) a dispute that does not challenge the accuracy of
information contained in a BrokerCheck report but only provides an explanation
of such information;
(d) a dispute that constitutes a collateral attack on
or otherwise challenges the allegations underlying a previously reported matter
such as a regulatory action, customer complaint, arbitration, civil litigation,
or
termination;
(e) a dispute that consists of a general statement
contesting information in a BrokerCheck report with no accompanying
explanation;
and
(f) a dispute that involves information contained in
the CRD system that is not disclosed through
BrokerCheck.
.03 Availability of Information Regarding Firms and
Associated Persons Registered Exclusively With a CRD Exchange. Information
about firms and associated persons that have been registered exclusively with a
CRD Exchange is available through BrokerCheck only if the firm or associated
person has been registered with a CRD Exchange on or after August 16,
1999.
Back To The Future
All of which brings us back to a very unhappy Santos-Buch,
who asserts that FINRA has no right to permanently display his AWC because the
rules that now permit such publication were not in effect at the time of his
1997 settlement. To some extent, he argues an inappropriate ex post
facto application by a regulator that didn't exist.
Federal
Lawsuit
Santos-Buch sued FINRA in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") based upon allegations of breach of
contract and invasion of privacy; and he
sought:
- A declaratory judgment to prohibit notice of the 1997 FINRA
disciplinary action as a WebFile;
- Removal of the 1997 notice of disciplinary action from
FINRA's BrokerCheck database;
- A judgment permanently enjoining FINRA from disclosing Santos-Buch's
disciplinary action in response to BrokerCheck
inquiries;
- And
damages for both the breach of contract and invasion of
privacy.
FINRA moved to dismiss
citing:
- lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon
Santos-Buch's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies; and,
- monetary damages were barred by FINRA's immunity to suits
for damages when acting in a regulatory
capacity.
SDNY
granted FINRA's Motion to Dismiss.Alan Santos-Buch, Plaintiff,
v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Defendant (Opinion and Summary
Order,
United States District Court For the Southern District of New York, 14-2767-CV,
July 8, 2014) . In explaining some of the facts and circumstances
presented by the parties, SDNY noted (Ed: Footnotes
omitted]:On December 18,
1998, the NASDR submitted a proposal to make a portion of the CRD's
registration information available on the Internet. The SEC approved the
proposal, and on August 16, 1999, the NASDR made certain BrokerCheck
information available on the Internet. To
obtain BrokerCheck information one must go to FINRA's website, submit an
information request form, and agree to FINRA's terms of
service. . .
.
Page 4 of the SDNY Opinion and
Order
In explaining the
actual point of contention, SDNY offers this] [Ed: Footnotes
omitted]:
Originally, the
CRD did not provide access to information of people who were no longer
associated with an NASD member firm. On February 7, 2000, however, the SEC
approved an amendment to IM 8310-2 that allowed the CRD to include disciplinary
information for individuals who had been associated with a member firm within
the prior two years. Because Santos-Buch had not been associated with a member
firm in four years, his disciplinary information was not initially included in
the CRD.
E. 2009
Amendment to Rule
8312
In 2009, FINRA proposed and the SEC approved an
amendment to FINRA Rule 8312. The rule provided that "Final Regulatory
Actions,"as defined by U4 registration forms, for people who were formerly associated
with a member firm would become permanently available. Under the U4
registration form, Santos-Buch's AWC is a final regulatory action. Thus,
information regarding Santos-Buch's AWC became available on the BrokerCheck
website. In addition to BrokerCheck and FINRA's Final Disciplinary Action
online database, FINRA has also created a WebFile that includes Santos-Buch's
disciplinary action as a searchable PDF. .
Pages 6 - 7 of the SDNY Opinion
and Order
In considering Santos-Buch's
argument that FINRA's publication of a nearly two-decades-old regulatory is a stigma, the
SDNY dismissed that contention [Ed: Footnotes
omitted]:
Next,
Santos-Buch alleges a constitutionally vested interest in his reputation under
the "stigma-plus" test This argument also fails. First,
SantosBuch has not satisfied the "stigma-plus" test because he is not a
government employee. Second, relying on Valmonte v. Bane,
Santos-Buch argues that public disclosure of his disciplinary action places an
undue burden on his employment prospects and injures his reputation. In
Valmonte, however, the court held that "Valmonte is not going to be refused
employment because of her reputation; she will be refused employment simply
because her inclusion on the list results in an added burden on employers who
will therefore be reluctant to hire her." But public disclosure of
Santos-Buch's disciplinary action places no undue burden on employers. Instead,
it reveals to potential clients that Santos-Buch has previously violated a fair
practice rule. As such, Santos-Buch has no vested due process interests and
raises no "substantial constitutional questions" that would allow him to avoid
exhausting the administrative remedies made available to aggrieved parties
under the Exchange Act. . .
Pages 15 -16 of the
SDNY Opinion and Order
Federal
Appeal
Santos-Buch appealed the SDNY's grant of FINRA's Motion
to Dismiss to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit ("2Cir"), which affirmed SDNY. Concurring with the
lower court, 2Cir held that challenges to FINRA's rules, such as those set
forth by Santos-Buch, must proceed exclusively before the SEC and would not be
properly before a court unless Santos-Buch could prove that the SEC lacked
power to grant him effective relief.
As to whether FINRA's alleged misconduct raised
"constitutional issues" that could properly be presented to a federal court,
2Cir found that the case involved no state action because FINRA is a private
actor whose conduct is not fairly attributable to the government and,
accordingly, the SRO dould not have violated Santos-Buch's due process rights
or the Ex Post Fact clause. As to further
issues alleging that FINRA may not have properly followed its own rules, 2Cir
held that there was no private right of action in such circumstances. Set out
in stark terms is this finding:
While
Santos-Buch's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief for publication of
his disciplinary action via Web File are not subject to the Exchange Act's exhaustion requirement because they
challenge neither the disciplinary action taken by FINRA, nor a FINRA rule, they were also properly dismissed.
Santos-Buch alleges that the Web File publication violates his substantive due process
rights, but he
fails to state a due process claim because FINRA is not a state actor that can be
held to constitutional standards. To the extent that his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief rest
instead on FINRA's failure to comply with its own rules, as is required
by
statute, see 15 U.S.C. § 78s(g)(1) ("Every [SRO]
shall comply
with . . . its own rules."), we have held that there is no implied private right of action
to enforce this statutory
obligation, see Desiderio, 191 F.3d at
208.
Page
4 of 2Cir Summary Order
In addressing Santos-Buch's claims for monetary
relief, 2Cir found that as an SRO, FINRA and its officer were entitled to
absolute immunity from the private damages sought in connection with what was
deemed the discharge of regulator responsibilities.
Bill Singer's Comment
A fascinating battle. It's hard not to feel some sympathy for
Santos-Buch, particularly when you consider that his underlying misconduct
consisted of guaranteeing against losses, not the worst of all Wall Street
sins. Similarly, given that he has been
out of the business since 1996 and virtually all of the online disclosure came
after that date, you have to wonder whether there was an unfair dragging of the
disclosure of his case into a very wide
net.
That being said, there are also two points in FINRA's favor.
One, the advent of newer technology does not necessarily come with a promise
that it will not be adapted to update legacy systems. Just think about the transition from vinyl to
tape to CD to DVD to digital download to streaming. A second point in FINRA's
favor is that it expanded its online disclosure in response to a storm of
public and political protest about the relatively hidden nature of its prior
protocol.
In the end, it's a balancing act between Santos-Buch's
expectations and FINRA's obligations. Personally, I don't like the outcome in
this case but I do understand the merits. Perhaps this case will serve as a
warning for other future respondents about the impact and ramification of
settling with FINRA rather than fully contesting the case.
UPDATE
The
BrokeAndBroker.com Blog has recently obtained a copy of the
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari filed in Alan
Santos-Buch, Petitioner, v. Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc., Respondent (Supreme
Court of the United States). Regardless of where you stand on the question
presented, I urge all serious industry participants to read this articulate Petition,
which clearly sets forth the salient points in the debate over the
efficacy and limits of Wall Street self-regulation.
In seeking to appeal
from the 2Cir to the US Supreme Court, the Petition explains
that:
The Second Circuit rejected the
claim, holding that FINRA was not a state actor and not subject to due process.
As a result of the Second Circuit decision, a split now exists within the
Circuits, since the Fifth and Tenth Circuits have previously held that FINRA is
subject to due process claims. The existence of the split has been acknowledged
by the Eleventh Circuit, which, itself, has declined to weigh in on the issue.
Thus the specific question presented is:
Whether FINRA's performance of its responsibilities
in disciplining members and associated persons and disclosing disciplinary
information about them to the public is subject to the restraints of the due
process clause of the United States Constitution, Fifth
Amendment.
Page ii of the
Petition
The gist of Petitioner
Santos-Buch's appeal to the Supreme Court is preliminarily encapsulated as
follows:
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
If FINRA were considered a state
actor, at minimum Santos-Buch's due process claims seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief to terminate the wrongful website publication would proceed
since neither sovereign immunity (Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 757 (1999)) nor
common law absolute immunity (Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1242 (11th Cir.
2000); Tarter v. Hury, 646 F.2d 1010, 1012 (5th Cir.1981)) bars non-monetary
claims.
The Second Circuit, however, affi
rmed the dismissal of Santos-Buch's due process claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief aimed at terminating FINRA's wrongful "proactive" publication
of the 17-year old disciplinary action on its website.
The Second Circuit held that FINRA
was not a state actor-i.e., was not sufficiently like the government-to be
subjected under a due process theory to Santos-Buch's claims for declaratory
and injunctive relief terminating the wrongful website publication.
With respect to Santos-Buch's
claims for money damages, the Second Circuit did an about face and found that
FINRA was sufficiently like the government that it should be afforded absolute
immunity.
Notably, the Second Circuit
decision strongly suggests that, had FINRA been a state actor, a due process
violation would have occurred since, as the decision found, there was no avenue
for Santos-Buch to obtain administrative review of his wrongful website
publication claim before the SEC. (Pet. App.
6a.)
Pages 10 - 11 of the
Petition
In my capacity as a regulatory lawyer, I am intrigued by this claim and the ensuing legal battle. If nothing else, Santos-Buch's legal team has done an exceptional and commendable job for the client. Although my expectation is that the Supreme Court will not grant Cert, I would welcome an airing of many of the issues inherent in this appeal. Stay tuned.
Also
READ:
Reappraising Self-Regulation: