More On Legal & Compliancefrom The Advisor's Professional Library
- The New and Improved Form ADV Whether an RIA is describing its investment strategy in advertisements or in the new Form ADV Part 2, it is important the firm articulates material risks faced by advisory clients and avoids language that might be construed as a guarantee.
- RIAs and Customer Identification Just as RIAs owe a duty to diligently protect their clients privacy and guard against theft, firms also play a vital role in customer identification. Although RIAs are not subject to an anti-money laundering rule, securities regulators expect advisors to address these issues in their policies and procedures.
FINRA reached a decision in a convoluted case involving Merrill Lynch (BAC) and a Brazilian heiress on Tuesday, requiring Merrill Lynch to pay $3.6 million.
The case involves losses that Camelia Nasser de Kassin said resulted from unauthorized trading by her brother, Ezequiel. She had been seeking $21 million related to losses on nearly $390 million in trades. The Nassers are a prominent banking family in Brazil.
“Based upon the testimony given by [Marc] Bonnant [of Merrill] at the hearing, the panel concluded that Bonnant's attention to his fiduciary responsibilities to claimant was less than adequate,” the FINRA arbitration panel said in its decision. “The panel admonishes [Merrill Lynch] for lapses in record keeping and supervisory procedures.”
It also stated, “There was no evidence, however, that these deficiencies were either widespread throughout [Merrill’s] organization, meriting further action, or material to the claims before the panel.”
The case was filed in the name of Sophin Investments, which had been established to handle Kassin's inheritance from the banker Edmond Safra, according to The Wall Street Journal. It also comes on the heels of other litigation dating to 2008, when Merrill won a $99 million judgment against the Nasser family, a Reuters report said earlier this week.
In the recently settled FINRA decision, losses stemmed from investments in firms such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers through naked puts. This prompted Sophin to argue that Merrill was not properly supervising staff, and Merrill responded with a counterclaim.
FINRA ruled that Merrill must pay Sophin $6.1 million, and that Sophin must give Merrill $2.5 million.