More On Legal & Compliancefrom The Advisor's Professional Library
- 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.
- Client Commission Practices and Soft Dollars RIAs should always evaluate whether the products and services they receive from broker-dealers are appropriate. The SEC suggested that an RIAs failure to stay within the scope of the Section 28(e) safe harbor may violate the advisors fiduciary duty to clients, so RIAs must evaluate their soft dollar relationships on a regular basis to ensure they are disclosed properly and that they do not negatively impact the best execution of clients transactions.
After the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hit Deutsche Bank with a $1.5 million penalty and disgorgement of profits of $123,198, the bank has struck back, with its energy trading unit denying charges that it rigged the energy market in 2010 and saying that the penalties should be dropped.
Bloomberg reported Wednesday that in a Sept. 5 order, FERC’s enforcement staff said the bank’s energy unit, Deutsche Bank Energy Trading LLC, provided false information regarding its trading activities in the California energy market in early 2010.
However, the unit said in a filing appearing on FERC’s website Wednesday, “The legal position enforcement has taken here is radical. If the commission does not abandon these deeply flawed allegations now, they will be overturned by a federal district court.”
The bank’s filing said that its energy trading unit “did not intentionally trade against its interests,” contrary to FERC’s enforcement unit findings after its investigation was complete. The filing also said, “Traders saw arbitrage opportunities—the chance to ‘buy low and sell high’” because the prices at one power-delivery point were “significantly” lower than they were in another delivery point.
The bank said in its filing that FERC’s enforcement office took the position that “knowingly trading in two related markets is per se unlawful market manipulation, even if the trading is profit-seeking in both markets. Accepting that mistaken contention would mark a sea change in commission precedent.”
Agency spokesman Craig Cano said in the report that FERC had no comment; he was quoted saying, “The commission will consider the response.”
Also under investigation for alleged trader manipulation in electricity markets are JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Barclays. The agency is cracking down on market manipulation, and since January of last year has announced 11 investigations into the activity. In March one of those investigations resulted in FERC reaching a record $245 million settlement with Constellation Energy Group.
On Oct. 31, FERC proposed another record fine against Barclays, totaling $469.9 million in penalties and an additional $18 million on four former Barclays traders who allegedly gamed markets in the Western U.S. The bank and traders were given 30 days to respond.