Acting through Rooney, Fox Financial
Rooney failed to detect that customer funds had been commingled because he had neglected to obtain copies of the escrow account statements and to maintain such statements among the firm’s records.
The firm’s test of its system of supervisory controls was flawed because it failed to include a review of its private placement business, and Rooney stated in his annual certification of compliance that the firm had established and maintained policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with FINRA rules. In addition,the firm failed to evidence its supervision over Rooney, in that Rooney was the only principal who had signed Subscription Agreements indicating approval of the customer’s investment in an offering.
Fox Financial Management Corporation: Censured; Fined $40,000
James Edward Rooney Jr. (Principal): Fined $20,000; Suspended 15 business days in Principal capacity only
Lau sold preferred stock through a private placement while not appropriately registered to sell that product.
Lau informed a customer about a private offering of preferred stock in a company, stating that he intended to invest in the company, and provided the customer with brochures, disclosure documents and an application, including a subscription agreement, to invest in the company. The customer completed the application for a $300,000 investment in the company and returned it to Lau. Because Lau knew that he was not appropriately registered to sell the product to the customer, he asked his supervisor to sign the subscription agreement as the selling representative.
The supervisor agreed and signed the subscription agreement, and submitted the application, including the subscription agreement, to the member firm for processing. The firm approved the investment and executed the transaction; and, as such, Lau caused the firm’s books and records to be inaccurate by having his supervisor sign the subscription agreement as the selling representative.
Acting with others, Jones participated in a fraudulent scheme to solicit investments in an unregistered hedge fund and its general partner. Jones engaged in a variety of fraudulent and deceptive sales practices and disregarded his duties and obligations of fair dealing to his customers. Jones knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the hedge fund was engaging in a highly speculative trading strategy involving futures contracts and that information the hedge fund manager supplied, which Jones used, contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions, including a pending Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) fraud action against the hedge fund manager, the fund’s theoretical and unproven performance figures, the highly speculative nature of the hedge fund’s trading strategy, and the significant risks associated with an investment in the hedge fund and its general partner.
Jones ignored many “red flags,” including those in the hedge fund’s Private Placement Memorandum (PPM). Jones solicited his customers without conducting a reasonable investigation to determine whether the hedge fund and its general partner were suitable investments and without regard as to whether his customers were capable of evaluating and bearing the risks associated with such investments.
Acting through its chief compliance officer (CCO), the firm:
Acting through a registered representative, the firm
Acting through the registered representative and CCO, the firm failed to perform adequate searching inquiries and take necessary steps to ensure that transactions did not involve distributions of unregistered and/or restricted securities.
Acting through a registered representative and firm principal, the firm sold securities to public investors using a private placement memorandum that omitted to disclose a convicted felon’s association with the issuer, a material fact to any reasonable investor.
Acting through various FINOPs, the firm
Acting through the CCO and other compliance officers, the firm
The firm had additional supervisory deficiencies, including that
Acting through a supervising principal, the firm failed to reasonably supervise registered representatives working out of the unregistered branch office.
Acting through firm officers, the firm failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to supervise the sales activities of firm personnel conducted outside of its registered offices, and failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system for determining whether customer securities were properly registered or exempt from registration.
Acting through its CCO, the firm failed to implement adequate procedures to ensure that the firm did not telephone persons who stated they did not wish to receive calls and/or who registered on the national do-not-call registry, and failed to adequately update and maintain a do-not-call list.
Acting through various supervisors, the firm failed to perform heightened supervision over numerous individuals.