An irreverent Wall Street Blog

Unsettled Settlement of Managed Account Goof Prompts FINRA Expungement

January 29, 2019

You know that thought-piece about whether a tree makes a sound when it falls in the woods but no hears it? For the Wall Street version of that puzzler, try this: What if a customer inquires about a goof in his account; and the brokerage firm apologizes promptly for its error and credits every penny that was inadvertently charged in the transactions at issue -- is that a settled customer complaint or simply "case closed?" Now, we have to wrestle with the nuance between a mere inquiry and a complaint. Next, we have to figure out whether a voluntary correction is a settlement. Further, we have to figure out if the benefit of hindsight allows a compliance officer to exercise common sense and amend what was reported to a regulator. No . . . I don't want to lessen any investor protections afforded by FINRA's robust expungement regime; however, fair-play for registered representatives should not be an alien concept within such a regime,

Case In Point

In a FINRA Arbitration Statement of Claim filed in July 2018, associated person Claimant Jackson sought $1 in compensatory damages and the expungement of a customer complaint from his Central Registration Depository records ("CRD"). In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Donald Ray Jackson, Claimant, v. UBS Financial Services Inc., Respondent (FINRA Arbitration Decision 18-02710 ' January 25, 2019) http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/aao_documents/18-02710.pdf

Respondent UBS did not oppose Claimant's request for expungement, did not participate in the hearing, and agreed that a finding should be entered in favor of Claimant. 

Although the customer was notified of the expungement hearing, he did not participate in the hearing. 

Unsettling the Settlement

The FINRA Arbitration Decision notes that:

The Arbitrator reviewed the BrokerCheck Report for Claimant and noted that there was no written settlement agreement, although the occurrence was listed as "settled." Based on Claimant's testimony, the representations of Claimant's counsel, and Claimant's letter dated November 16, 2018, the Arbitrator found that the customer's account was restored at no cost to the customer within 24 hours after he made the complaint and that "settled" in this instance meant "case closed." 

Recommending Expungement

The sole FINRA Arbitrator denied Claimant Jackson's request for $1 in compensatory damages but recommended expungement based upon a FINRA Rule 2080 finding that the customers' claim, allegation, or information is factually impossible or clearly erroneous. The Arbitrator offered this excellent and persuasive rationale:

The customer has two accounts with Respondent, one managed account ("Managed Account") and one brokerage account ("Brokerage Account"). The customer called Claimant to buy two stocks that he specifically wanted. Claimant completed this transaction, purchasing the stocks, but inadvertently placed them in the customer's Managed Account, rather than his Brokerage Account. 

The Managed Account is automatically rebalanced on a regular basis. When the account was rebalanced, the two stocks were automatically sold. The customer caught this and called Claimant to tell him about it. Within 24 hours, the two stocks were repurchased and placed in the customer's Brokerage Account, all at no cost to the customer. The customer was satisfied with the correction and quick turnaround. 

With an abundance of caution, Respondent reported this incident as a customer complaint for the record, even though it was a call from a customer to his broker and rectified in 24 hours. The customer was properly notified of today's hearing, but did not join in on the telephonic hearing. Respondent's Statement of Answer to the claim, said: ". . . Respondent does not oppose the request for relief made by Petitioner (Donald Ray Jackson). The request should be granted . . ." This was an honest error and was quickly fixed by Claimant and Respondent, as soon as it was discovered. 

The event happened in 2005. When asked why Claimant waited so long to ask for expungement, Claimant stated that he did not realize he could have it expunged, until his boss recently told him he could. 

The complaint on Claimant's record serves no public purpose or useful benefit to customers and is misleading of the facts. Thus, it should be expunged from Claimant's CRD record

Bill Singer's Comment

Online FINRA BrokerCheck records as of January 29, 2019, disclose that Jackson was first registered in 1994 with UBS. The one and only disclosure on Jackson's BrokerCheck record under the heading "Customer Dispute - Settled" reflects a 2005 customer complaint seeking $27,594.08 in damages arising from an alleged sale of 1000 XEC and 600 ARLP on April 15, 2005. The complaint was reported "settled" on August 10, 2005, for $27,594.08, and UBS reported that Jackson contributed the entire sum. This appears to be the underlying matter that the FINRA Arbitrator recommended be expunged. As presently reflected on BrokerCheck, Jackson had consistently offered this "Broker Statement" by way of explanation:

POSITIONS WERE POSTED IN THE WRONG ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS A FEE BASED MODEL PORTFOLIO ACCOUNT. WHEN THE ERROR WAS DETECTED THE FA BROUGHT IT TO THE ATTENTION OF MANAGEMENT. POSITIONS WERE SOLD IN ERROR WHEN THAT ACCOUNT WAS REBALANCED TO THE MODEL. THE CLIENT WAS CHARGED NO COMMISSIONS ON THE TRADES AND THE POSITIONS WERE REINSTATED.


And given those facts and Jackson's sterling quarter-of-a-century industry record, it took some 14 years and the filing of an idiotic arbitration against UBS in order for this stockbroker to clear his name of something that likely should never have been posted to begin with -- or, more to the point, should have been removed by a mere amendment. 

Grievance

The key issue in this expungement case involves distinguishing between a non-disclosable customer communication and a disclosable customer complaint. All of which presents some interesting issues for in-house compliance staff. Does it -- or should it -- matter how a customer wants to characterize a given communication? By way of illustration, just because I call a banana an orange doesn't make it so -- and you're sure as hell not going to get orange juice out of a banana. As such, let's take a look at some pertinent FINRA rules addressing the nature of customer complaints:

FINRA Rule 4513: Records of Written Customer Complaints

(a) Each member shall keep and preserve in each office of supervisory jurisdiction either a separate file of all written customer complaints that relate to that office (including complaints that relate to activities supervised from that office) and action taken by the member, if any, or a separate record of such complaints and a clear reference to the files in that office containing the correspondence connected with such complaints. Rather than keep and preserve the customer complaint records required under this Rule at the office of supervisory jurisdiction, the member may choose to make them promptly available at that office, upon request of FINRA. Customer complaint records shall be preserved for a period of at least four years.

(b) For purposes of this Rule, "customer complaint" means any grievance by a customer or any person authorized to act on behalf of the customer involving the activities of the member or a person associated with the member in connection with the solicitation or execution of any transaction or the disposition of securities or funds of that customer.

FINRA Rule 4530: Reporting Requirements

(a) Each member shall promptly report to FINRA, but in any event not later than 30 calendar days, after the member knows or should have known of the existence of any of the following:


(1) the member or an associated person of the member:
. . .

(B) is the subject of any written customer complaint involving allegations of theft or misappropriation of funds or securities or of forgery;
. . .

(G) is a defendant or respondent in any securities- or commodities-related civil litigation or arbitration, is a defendant or respondent in any financial-related insurance civil litigation or arbitration, or is the subject of any claim for damages by a customer, broker or dealer that relates to the provision of financial services or relates to a financial transaction, and such civil litigation, arbitration or claim for damages has been disposed of by judgment, award or settlement for an amount exceeding $15,000. However, when the member is the defendant or respondent or is the subject of any claim for damages by a customer, broker or dealer, then the reporting to FINRA shall be required only when such judgment, award or settlement is for an amount exceeding $25,000; or . . .
. . .

(d) Each member shall report to FINRA statistical and summary information regarding written customer complaints in such detail as FINRA shall specify by the 15th day of the month following the calendar quarter in which customer complaints are received by the member.

(e) Nothing contained in this Rule shall eliminate, reduce or otherwise abrogate the responsibilities of a member or person associated with a member to promptly disclose required information on the Forms BD, U4 or U5, as applicable, to make any other required filings or to respond to FINRA with respect to any customer complaint, examination or inquiry.In addition, members are required to comply with the reporting obligations under paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of this Rule, regardless of whether the information is reported or disclosed pursuant to any other rule or requirement, including the requirements of the Form BD. However, a member need not report: (1) an event otherwise required to be reported under paragraph (a)(1) of this Rule if the member discloses the event on the Form U4, consistent with the requirements of that form, and indicates, in such manner and format that FINRA may require, that such disclosure satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this Rule, as applicable; or (2) an event otherwise required to be reported under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this Rule if the member discloses the event on the Form U5, consistent with the requirements of that form

FINRA Minefield

FINRA member firm compliance departments uniformly characterize far too many "communications" from customers as involving a "complaint," when, in fact, the communication is merely an inquiry or comment. Further, not every customer complaint necessarily rises to the level of an event requiring disclosure; for example, a complaint that a stockbroker was rude on the telephone or that the firm's online platform is not user-friendly would not (absent more) require a regulatory disclosure.

Additionally, even if a communication involves what may be deemed a complaint, another important determination is whether the communication emanated from a customer or was transmitted subject to the customer's authorization (through a lawyer or agent as two common examples). At times, a customer's family member or friend may complain to an employer brokerage firm about a stockbroker who is servicing the subject customer. If the sender of that complaint is not the customer and not a "person authorized to act on behalf of the customer," then that communication may not require regulatory disclosure -- which is not to suggest that a firm's compliance department should not inquire as to the issues raised.

A peculiar quirk of FINRA's rules is that the self-regulator's reporting requirements require the prompt reporting of "any written complaint" but do not similarly address the mere "oral complaint. " Additionally, FINRA's reporting requirement limits the reporting of "any written customer complaint" to those "involving allegations of theft or misappropriation of funds or securities or forgery."

As if any normal human being would not, by now, be crumbling under the weight of FINRA's rules and their lack of meaningful guidance, you have to add to that pressing weight the need to discern between the obligations imposed upon a FINRA member firm to report events to the self-regulatory organization and the separate disclosure obligations of the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer("Form U4"). Notably, under the Form U4 heading "Customer Complaint/Arbitration/Civil Litigation Disclosure," we find, in part, the following:

(2) Have you ever been the subject of an investment-related, consumer-initiated (written or oral) complaint, which alleged that you were involved in one or more sales practice violations, and which:

(a) was settled, prior to 05/18/2009, for an amount of $10,000 or more, or;

(b) was settled, on or after 05/18/2009, for an amount of $15,000 or more?

(3) Within the past twenty four (24) months, have you been the subject of an investment-related, consumer-initiated, written complaint, not otherwise reported under question 14I(2) above, which:

(a) alleged that you were involved in one or more sales practice violations and contained a claim for compensatory damages of $5,000 or more (if no damage amount is alleged, the complaint must be reported unless the firm has made a good faith determination that the damages from the alleged conduct would be less than $5,000), or;

(b) alleged that you were involved in forgery, theft, misappropriation or conversion of funds or securities?

Ah yes, the regulatory minefield for the unwary:
  • FINRA Rule 4530(a)(1)(B) requires prompt reporting when an associated person is "the subject of any written customer complaint involving allegations of theft or misappropriation of funds or securities or of forgery."
  • Form U4, Item 14I (2) requires reporting of both written and oral investment-related, consumer-initiated complaints alleging a sales practice violation that settled for $15,000 or more.
To add to the confusion, Item 14I(3) on the U4 requires the reporting of only written investment-related, consumer initiated complaints made within the past 24-months alleging at least $5,000 in compensatory damages; but if no monetary amount is alleged, "the complaint must be reported unless the firm has made a good faith determination that the damages from the alleged conduct would be less than $5,000." On the other hand, if that same 24-month-complaint merely alleged that "you were involved in forgery, theft, misappropriation or conversion of funds or securities," then it has to be disclosed regardless of the dollars alleged.

Yeah, I know, that's all crystal clear. The important takeaway is that FINRA's regulatory scheme assumes too much and depends upon unmanageable notions such as common sense and reasonableness. Common sense? Reasonableness? Try referencing those concepts if you're a registered rep, associated person, or compliance office with the need to figure out just what constitutes a "grievance."  

In today's FINRA Arbitration, who in that mix of facts was reasonable when it came to reporting the customer's communication as a complaint . . . and leaving it for years on Jackson's CRD unamended? Who exercised common sense? How could so many folks reference the same FINRA rules yet come away with such different conclusions? A matter was not technically settled but reported as such -- but, perhaps, after all, it was settled but maybe not? An administrative error occurred during the attempted rebalancing of a customer's account. It was not intentional. When it was reported to the broker-dealer by the customer, it was rectified at no cost to the customer. Was there an imitating customer complaint? Frankly, I would think so at first blush -- but then, I have to parse through the rules and the "complaint" ultimately devolves into an inquiry as to why something happened, and that "something" was a goof, which was corrected at no charge to the client. At times I do see a customer complaint; however, while the customer's complaint involves the firm's business, I'm not necessarily seeing any alleged "sales practice violation." 

I could go on and on with the back-and-forth analysis but it's not going to be much more than an academic exercise. Ultimately, it just doesn't seem right that Jackson had to go through the legal fiction of suing his employer and incurring legal fees to revise the disclosure at issue. I would like to think that common sense would compel us all to agree that a mere telephone call to FINRA with follow-up supporting documentation could have carried the day -- but for the fact that FINRA remains an often impenetrable bureaucracy bereft of common sense or the motivation to drain its swamp.

Also READ:

  • FINRA Rule 2080: Obtaining Customer Dispute Expungement
  • FINRA Rule 2081: Prohibited Conditions Relating to Expungement of Customer Dispute
  • FINRA Rules 12805 and 13805: Expunging Customer-Dispute Information Under Rule 2080

READ the BrokeAndBroker.com Blog "Expungement" Archive









Permalink

Search BrokeAndBroker

Related Topics

Previous Entries

No Headlines Found

Tag Cloud

Bill Singer BrokeAndBroker FINRA Arbitration AWC SEC BrokerAndBroker Expungement Guest Blog Guest Blogger Aegis Frumento OBA Wells Fargo U5 BrokeAndBroker CRD InSecurities OHO Email Morgan Stanley Defamation U4 NAC ALJ Merrill Lynch BrokerCheck PST Supervision Whistleblower Statutory Disqualification Securities Industry Commentator Rule 3270 Suitability DOJ SDNY Promissory Note Rule 2080 Elderly Rule 2010 Willful WSP OIP Form U4 Wire Fraud Pro Se Rule 8210 EFL UBS Expenses RIA Form U5 Dodd Frank Stephen Kohn Business Expenses TRO Discretion Rule 1122 Bar Willfulness IRS Bank JP Morgan Fraud Discovery Wife Trump Ameriprise Husband NASD Bill SInger FAA Rule 3240 Borrowing Small Firm Conversion Supreme Court Rule 3280 Crypto Edward Jones Margin Wrongful Termination IRA Raymond James CCO Insurance 2Cir Estate Frumento Corrective Action Statement Outside Business Activities Stay Rule 12206 Mail Fraud Schwab arbitration Punitive Damages Tax LPL Promissory Notes Customer Bankruptcy Beneficiary Explained Decision TD Ameritrade Felony COVID Remand Citigroup Motion to Dismiss Options BrokeAndBroker.com Commissions Settlement Trust Case In Point OWB Injunction CFTC ACQ Board DCCir Rule 4511 OTR Initial Decision Retaliation Blockchain Sanctions Rule 3040 Tax Liens Ponzi Rule 2510 Wall Street Motion to Vacate Burris Due Diligence Forgery Spouses 9Cir Rule 4530 Discrimination Jurisdiction Eligibility Rule Unauthorized Discretion Reg SP Personal Expenses Unsuitability Offer of Settlement Rule 12200 Solicitation Outside Business Activity FBI Mandatory Arbitration SRO Insider Trading Bank of America Rule 3010 Compliance Failure to Supervise Checks NYSE Barclays Annuities Manifest Disregard ETF CRS Goldman Sachs Private Securities Transaction Divorce Disgorgement Loan Dissent FINRA Board Rule 3110 10Cir Class Action Cease And Desist PCAOB Fiduciary Conspiracy email Trustee Board of Governors Impersonation Power of Attorney Reimbursement Rule 9552 Credit Card IAR expungement VA Broker Protocol Unfair Competition Spoofing Spouse Cryptocurrency Customer Complaint Liens AML Zipper Emails Annuity Away Account T&P Tax Lien JPMorgan Complaint Indemnification Retirement Wey Disclosure Lucia SDFL Kokesh Due Process POA BD Breach of Contract Appeal MC-400 4Cir Lien Bitcoin Rule 12904 Willfully Coronavirus Public Interest Unauthorized Trading Postponement Racism BOP Severance REIT 3Cir Indictment Elder Abuse Securities Fraud Vacatur Fees Antitrust HFT Brummer Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Dakota Securities Rule 12805 CMA Net Capital Test Motion to Confirm Rule 2111 Signature Covid Hilton Weiner Whistleblowers Wire Rule 3050 WSPs insecurities guest blogger guest blog aegis frumento Rule 2150 Employment Sexism Whistleblowing Statute of Limitations Marijuana PNC RR Suspension Gensler NASDAQ Deceased Widow Private Securities Transactions Examination Bureau of Prisons Money Laundering OIG BrokeAndBroker.com Blog Robinhood Stifel Nicolaus Sanction Guidelines Deutsche Bank PIABA Loans Bonus Rule 2081 Apple Stifel Signatures DNJ Non Solicitation Audit Will DOL Puts Bonds Leggett Puerto Rico Rule 13200 Preliminary Injunction Confidential Information Enforcement 11Cir Botkin Rule 4513 Misdemeanor Charles Schwab Self Regulation Great Recession OSHA Elder Fraud Mortgage TOD Absolute Immunity JPMS Margin Call Unjust Enrichment Mutual Funds CPA Membership Continuance Credit Suisse Statutory Disqualification Committee Hacking Registration Commission Unsuitable Small Firm Governor NoCA Website Rationale Diversity 1Cir supervision NDCA TheBlot Exam Pennystocks Standing Appointments Clause Arbitraiton Undisclosed Settlement ADA JPM Test Center Passcode BrokeAndbroker Inability to Pay RBC money laundering Mother IPO Finra Election Away Accounts Scottrade Immunity Rule 2210 Testimony Real Estate Robert Cook Annual Compliance Questionnaire AAA TCR Feigenbaum Spoliation Cannabis Statement of Corrective Action WB-APP Rule 13805 Waiver 6Cir Trade Secrets Written Supervisory Procedures 9/11 securities industry commentator State Actor E*Trade Rule 12504 Concentration Reg S-P Bandimere BrokeandBroker Extraordinary Cooperation Rule 9554 CEO Excessive Trading Sexist Affiliate Variable Annuities Michael King Biden Variable Annuity Hurry Sarbanes Oxley Form ADV brokeandbroker FINOP Compensation Imposter Michael King Associates Tortious Interference Solicited Irreparable Harm Restitution Johnny Burris Newman Superior Court FMLA Unsolicited DMD NRF Wachovia Facebook Star Wars Series 7 Medical Condition BrokeAndBroker Bill Singer FINRA Small Firm Rule 12212 Termination Fidelity Hester Peirce DDC Churning Conflict of Interest EDNY Ethereum Administrative Remedies Circuit Court Taxes Confidentiality Trading Platform Customer Information Non-Solicitation Subpoena Default Motion to Compel Sharemaster Financial Professionals Coalition Beneficiaries Research Sexual Discrimination ICO Talman Harris High Frequency Trading Pennystock Self Reporting Constitution Continuing Education Life Insurance Scottsdale 10b-5 Customers McDuff Self Directed PAQ Kon Social Media Marines Vietnam Marine Corps Honorarium Whitman Relevant Disciplinary History Consent Order Ride the Thunder Employment Agreement VIX IM Mutual Fund Service Hugh Hewitt Funds Rule 3030 Wanger Extraordinary Circumstances Stipulated Award Internet Rule 3310 Flash Crash Boycott Saad RMBS Hearing Sexual Harassment Government Accountability Project Information NSF SunTrust Cheating Check Kiting Guitron Obstruction RICO Lawyers Debit Card Wedbush Yesenia Guitron Testing ATM 5Cir Probate Respondeat Superior Privilege FNMA FINRA AWC Private Placement Dementia Scholander Interactive Brokers FOCUS Layering Nondisclosure Annual Audit Falsification 17a-5 Check JP Morgan Securities Guest Bloggers EEOC Lawyer Morgan Stanely Federal Reserve Chevron Son Revocation Capital Gains securities fraud Conflict SP Pension Prudential Oral Discretion Shah Gilani Slander Charity Penalty OWWP Hedge Fund Confirm Disciplinary History wire fraud Attorneys Fees WBAPP GameStop mail fraud Amazon Client Information Gamification Regulation SP Outside Counsel Fiduciary Duty Rory Flynn Acosta DCO Rule 1210 Blackbook Forex Executor Relevant Transamerica Liquidation NY Life Res Judicata Offset Puerto Rico Bonds Permanent Bar ARS Form TCR CDO SD FCI Rule 13504 Death Peirce ACH Joint Account Over Concentration WhatsApp Tesla FCI Beaumont FAP Zoom Texting Newport Coast Securities LLC Jennifer Tarr Obstruction of Justice Christian Stanley Rule 21F Arbitration Civil Rights Unauthorized Practice of Law Taft Correctional Institution Cold Spring Advisory Group Reverse Life Insurance Lehman Third Party Vendor Deferred Compensation Bear Stearns Oppenheimer Rule 13104 MSSB Elder Law 40 Act Withdrawals Rule 2430 Expert Witness Leveraged ETF Google OCIE Crime Embezzlement Control Person Non Solicit Securities America Libel Pruco Time And Price Commodities Fraud Verbal Discretion For Cause Book of Business First Amendment fraud NYG Capital Turnover EDPA bill singer Counterclaim Subject Matter Jurisdiction Tennis Court Mistake Trade Practices Oilpro Charge Rule 13904 Rule 12104 Calls Cantor Fitzgerald Allocation Compliance Questionnaire Trading Jay Clayton Retired Woman With Cane 10b-10 Constructive Discharge Rule 3210 Johnson Purshe Kaplan DAO Powell wrongful termination AWC. FINRA FINRA Arbitration Teleconference Finder\'s Fee Rule 12203 Hotel Jarkesy Nationwide ESOP Kierkegaard Motion Reason for Termination LIBOR AXA YouTube Administrative Process SDOH Non-Disclosure ESG CE Fernandez Trader Tax Advice Pham Panama Telephone Vungarala Cherry Picking Expulsion Lorenzo Nicolas Corcione Fundacion Nicor Ten Commandments Credit Cards SDCA Retroactive Bar Collateral Bar Municipal Advisor Fine Financial Disclosure Retroactive Pershing GME FNI Media sexism NRSRO DRS NFT Section 1332 Exception Reports Schottenstein Bartko FINRA Foundation Negligence Private Placements ALJ Grimes Third Party Beneficiary Transparency JOBS Act Last Known Address QuadrigaCX Mantar GAP Rule 21F-17 In House Counsel CD NYAG Communications Undertaking expenses Promoter SLUSA Accounting JAMS In Connection With Deceased Customer MAP reimbursement TSSB HSBC false statements AMC Rule 13206 Reg SHO DMCA Gross Ruder Task Force Confidential Audit Committee Sharing Agreement Books and Records Kiting Rule 144 VXX Corporate Governance Motion to Compel Arbitration Back Dated Equity ACT! Tysk Altered Apartment Particularity Declaratory Judgment Rule 13212 Lek Rule 13201 Ethics Court of Appeal Orders Daspin Rule 2140 APA Title VII Motion to Exclude Section 206 PSRO Joint Production Discharge Exception Report Salman Stephen A. Kohn Self Regulatory Organization Investment Advisers Act Kent Transitional Bonus UIT MSPB Ruemmler Production Bonus Burden of Proof Notice Alcoholism Jury Instructions Harris finra Confirmation NPI Sterne Agee ALJ Foelak NMS Covid-19 Shotgun Pleading Risk Romer Article V Motiion to Acquit Fraudulent Inducement Grievance LOA annuities Wires Crowdfunding Hacker Confidential Customer Information defamation Rule 12511 Bob Dylan Data Meals Office of Special Counsel Escrow Clearing Firm Bill singer Unauthorized Trades Stipulation Reasonable SIFMA S&P Microcap elderly Motion to Postpone Electronic Communications Fidelity Brokerage Services Public Arbitrator Dostoevsky Bezos Municipal Bonds Berthel Fisher ETFs Expert EDVA FOREX Currency CNBC Income Capitalism No Show Series 79 Guardian Punitive Cryptocurrencies PN Exotic ETF Clayton Lexicon Reg D Ecuador Production Hayden Newbridge MDLA Daughter Witness Tampering JPMorgan Chase NYLIFE Non-Solicit Rule 420 Voya Principal Quasi Governmental Exemption Non Compete College Solomon Day Trading Disability Regulation Elon Musk Restaurant Private Actor Disparate Treatment Abstention AI Chief Compliance Officer Willfull Nietzsche Bequest Rule 2330 Rule 9216 Unregistered Fee Conflicts Rule 1031 Game of Thrones whistleblower Initials Perjury Investment Adviser Howey Harassment Vaccarelli Led Zeppelin Broke And Broker Judgments Traders Exhaustion Doctrine SIE Success Fee TradeStation ADR