Attention all brokers and registered persons. What do you think the NASD sanction against you would be if you provided "inaccurate and misleading" information to them? I know the answer, it is a permanent bar from the industry. Heck, if you put a false answer on your U-4 you will be barred.
But you are not a brokerage firm, nor are you a member of the NASD. Because if you were, it would be wrist slap time, not permanent bar time. The NASD just fined a group of subsidiaries of MetLife $5 million "for providing inaccurate and misleading information to NASD, allowing late trading of mutual funds, failing to produce e-mails in a timely fashion and other conduct that violates NASD's rules."
What? The late trading of mutual funds alone should generate a multi million dollar fine. You need to read the press release. The inaccurate information was in affirmative statements that the firm knew was inaccurate at the time the statement was made.
YOU would have your career taken away. MetLife pays a couple of bucks.
The Securities Law Blog has been providing investors, advisors and attorneys with news and expert commentary from top securities attorneys and regulators since 1995. Updated daily.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Borg elected president of NASAA
Joseph Borg is back for a third stint as the President of the North American Securities Administrators Association. Mr. Borg, who originally hails from New York, is the Director of the Alabama Securities Commission, and was the NASAA president in 2001 and 2002.
Attorneys in HP Scandal Lawyer Up
What a mess, and what were they thinking? The HP scandal grows, and now the lawyers have lawyers, including outside counsel Larry Sonsini.
The combined weight of investigations by state prosecutors, federal regulators and the Department of Justice has forced lawyers in Hewlett-Packard's boardroom mess to get their own attorneys.
A 'Nonprosecution Agreement' by Any Other Name...
As if the nuances of corporate governance aren't tough enough to fathom, now the government is playing word games. On Aug. 28, Prudential Financial, Inc., signed what it thought was a nonprosecution agreement with Michael Sullivan, the U.S. Attorney in Boston. But once the deal was done, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty called a press conference in Washington, D.C., to trumpet the 'deferred prosecution agreement.'
The issue is more than mere semantics, since a deferred prosecution agreement is more damaging to the company than a non-prosecution agreement, and it should have been hashed out in the negotiations. However, it appears that both sides decided to call the agreement, simply, "the Agreement" not labeling it.
Now the name of the document is important, and both sides are arguing over what to call it. Why did they not call it something in the beginning?
The issue is more than mere semantics, since a deferred prosecution agreement is more damaging to the company than a non-prosecution agreement, and it should have been hashed out in the negotiations. However, it appears that both sides decided to call the agreement, simply, "the Agreement" not labeling it.
Now the name of the document is important, and both sides are arguing over what to call it. Why did they not call it something in the beginning?
Morgan Stanley earnings soar 59 pct - Yahoo! News
You gotta love the brokerage business. Earnings up 59%, net income at 1.85 billion for the third quarter.
Broker-dealers hurting for pros in compliance - September 18, 2006 - Dan Jamieson - InvestmentNews
We have noticed in our practice an upswing in our broker-dealer compliance work. Firms are increasingly calling upon our firm, and we assume others, to address internal compliance issues. We learned today that it is not just us - there is a shortage of compliance personnel - Broker-dealers hurting for pros in compliance - September 18, 2006 - Dan Jamieson - InvestmentNews: "Broker-dealers hurting for pros in compliance"
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Princeton Researchers Hack Diebold Voting Machine
Well, this looks like the beginning of the end of the Diebold voting machine. Princeton University researchers have successfully hacked the machine, and claim that anyone can install vote stealing software on the machine in ONE MINUTE. The software is completely undetectable according to the research paper.
They have a video showing them corrupting an election, as well as their research on their site.
A summary:
They have a video showing them corrupting an election, as well as their research on their site.
A summary:
This paper presents a fully independent security study of a Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine, including its hardware and software. We obtained the machine from a private party. Analysis of the machine, in light of real election procedures, shows that it is vulnerable to extremely serious attacks. For example, an attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates. An attacker could also create malicious code that spreads automatically and silently from machine to machine during normal election activities — a voting-machine virus. We have constructed working demonstrations of these attacks in our lab. Mitigating these threats will require changes to the voting machine's hardware and software and the adoption of more rigorous election procedures.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Hewlett-Packard chair to step down
She is resigning at the end of the year over the brewing scandal regarding the investigation of telephone records of employees, but the California AG warned that company insiders are likely to face criminal charges.
Tags: Privacy, Corporate Malfeasance
Thursday, September 7, 2006
No Problem with Data Collection and Privacy?
It seems to me that too many people are unconcerned about the erosion of our privacy rights, and the data collection that is going on every minute of every day - not only by the government, but by private businesses. My point in all of this, aside from the simple and obvious constitutional violations when the government is involved is that the collection of such data is dangerous because that data will be abused.
And now it starts, Hewlett Packard is being investigated for purchasing, reviewing and investigating the private cell phone records of its own board members. Folks are calling for the head of HP Chairwoman Patricia Dunn, criminal charges are being considered. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said "I don't have a settled view on whether it was illegal yet, but it certainly was colossally stupid."
Other comments from the article
Still think the government employees are not going to abuse the records that they have to further their own political, business or personal interests? Are the days of Watergate, Hoover and domestic spying so far behind us that we have forgotten how far government and business leaders will go to further their own agenda?
And now it starts, Hewlett Packard is being investigated for purchasing, reviewing and investigating the private cell phone records of its own board members. Folks are calling for the head of HP Chairwoman Patricia Dunn, criminal charges are being considered. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said "I don't have a settled view on whether it was illegal yet, but it certainly was colossally stupid."
Other comments from the article
Peter Morici, professor at the Professor Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland: If the chairman thinks this is the way business ought to be conducted, maybe it's time for her to take a sabbatical. It's arrogant and inappropriate.
John W. Dienhart, business ethics professor at Seattle University: This sends a message to employees that the company is willing to do just about anything to protect itself... [t]his sends a bad message to existing employees, and it's bad for attracting good employees from outside the organization.
Still think the government employees are not going to abuse the records that they have to further their own political, business or personal interests? Are the days of Watergate, Hoover and domestic spying so far behind us that we have forgotten how far government and business leaders will go to further their own agenda?
Tags: Privacy, Corporate Malfeasance
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)