Enforcement Actions
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)
OUTSIDE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
2009
NOTE: Stipulations of Fact and Consent to Penalty (SFC); Offers of Settlement (OS); and Letters of Acceptance Waiver, and Consent (AWC) are entered into by Respondents without admitting or denying the allegations, but consent is given to the described sanctions & to the entry of findings. Additionally, for AWCs, if FINRA has reason to believe a violation has occurred and the member or associated person does not dispute the violation, FINRA may prepare and request that the member or associated person execute a letter accepting a finding of violation, consenting to the imposition of sanctions, and agreeing to waive such member's or associated person's right to a hearing before a hearing panel, and any right of appeal to the National Adjudicatory Council, the SEC, and the courts, or to otherwise challenge the validity of the letter, if the letter is accepted. The letter shall describe the act or practice engaged in or omitted, the rule, regulation, or statutory provision violated, and the sanction or sanctions to be imposed.
Gail Sylvenia Frick
AWC/2008013428001
Frick engaged in outside business activities and private securities transactions without prior written notice to her member firm. Frick was provided a money order by a customer in order to open an account at her member firm on behalf of the customer’s children, misplaced the money order and, in an attempt to settle the customer’s potential complaint in this matter, deposited $1,100 of her own personal funds into an account at her firm for the benefit of the customer’s children without notifying the customer or the firm. Frick used the funds she had previously deposited into the account to purchase mutual funds for the account without the customer’s knowledge, authorization or consent.
Gail Sylvenia Frick: Fined $25,000; Suspended 15 months
Bill Singer's Comment
Talk about the kitchen sink: OBA, PST, Undisclosed settlement, and unauthorized purchase. Frankly, the sanction struck me as a bit generous --- Frick either had a good lawyer or got to FINRA on a good day.

If I have one quibble, it's that I don't think FINRA is on particularly sound ground if it cites an RR for the undisclosed settlement of a complaint if there isn't an actual complaint but merely a "potential" complaint (there we go again with those troublesome adjectives and adverbs). All customers have potential complaints about virtually everything. Likely, Frick "anticipated" that the customer would complain about the misplaced money order, but that's not the same thing as charging her with the undisclosed settlement of an actual complaint. What happened here is that a money order (apparently for $1,100) was lost and rather than ask the customer to provide a replacement, Frick simply went out of her own pocket to cover the funds. No...that doesn't make her actions right but it does put them in a far different light than describing the underlying conduct as settling a customer complaint. We need to be particularly precise when drafting regulatory opinions because they are often used to support sanctions to be imposed in other similar cases.
Enforcement Actions
Search in Outside Business Activities
Months
 
Outside Business Activities Archive
Tags