User:CRoetzer/Sandbox

What is Selling Away?
Selling away is a term in the U.S. securities brokerage industry to describe the inappropriate practice where an investment professional (such as a registered representative or other common terms such as "broker", "financial adviser", "adviser" or "rep") sells, or solicits you to purchase, securities not held or offered by the brokerage firm with which he/she is affiliated or "associated". The term can be expressed in a sentence simply as, "The broker was selling investments away from the firm."

More specifically, selling away describes the situation where the transaction or securities in question are not on the the member firm’s approved product list-- that is, the investment securities have not been subjected to the brokerage firm's due diligence process, received the necessary risk and compliance reviews and approvals, and so forth. The approved product list identifies the types of securities and investment that are approved for brokers to sell, provided such brokers have obtained the appropriate securities licenses for various types of investments. Brokers in the U.S. obtain such licenses or "series" by passing standardized FINRA exams such as the Series 6 or Series 7 exam. See List of Securities Examinations for types of securities licenses in the U.S.

Types of Investments, Selling Away Violates Securities Regulations
Selling away often involves investment securities that are in the form of a private placement or other non-public investment, though not always. Sometimes a transaction may not be an obvious or apparent 'investment' or security. Selling away may not always be deliberate or intentional or with even intent to deceive an investor, but in most cases, the broker knew what he/she was doing. Selling away is often associated with a broker's other ("outside") business activities (those other businesses or activities that a broker conducts outside or separate from his/her securities brokerage activities.) Generally, selling away is a violation of securities regulations and the firm's compliance procedures by which its brokers must abide.

Selling away situations result from a broker's desire to not pass up on earning a commission on an investment his client is willing to buy, and further, to not have to share any of the commission with his/her associated firm. Selling away schemes are particularly dangerous for investors because they usually end up becoming victims of theft, fraud or some other loss related to the investment. These schemes also often involve the sale of promissory notes which are essentially loan investments wherein the borrower promises to pay investors high interest rates in exchange for the loan amount from the investor. Once the investor (client) pays the money, the borrower sooner or later stops (or never begins) paying interest payments and the client’s investment vanishes.

Is the Broker's Firm Liable? What Do Firms and Clients Have to Prove?
According to attorney James J. Eccleston at his website http://www.FinancialCounsel.com, such "outside" investments often are the most egregious frauds and schemes. He explores the question whether a brokerage firm nonetheless can be held responsible for a client's losses a little deeper. Eccleston continues that the regulatory basis for selling away cases is found in NASD (now FINRA) Rule 3030 and NASD 3040. Rule 3030 provides that a brokerage firm adviser may not engage in any outside business activity unless he has provided prompt written notice to his or her brokerage firm. Rule 3040 provides that a brokerage firm adviser must not engage in private securities transactions (that is, selling away) and states the procedures that a brokerage firm must follow to approve of such investments. Once approved, the brokerage firm must supervise these private securities transactions.

Usually, however, the firm has no knowledge of such sales and activities. The question then becomes whether the brokerage firm should have known of the outside sales and activities. Robert Lowry, a securities law expert, suggests that the brokerage firm must demonstrate three things to prove it is not liable. First, that the firm has a reasonable supervisory system in place. Second, that the firm implemented its procedures in a reasonable fashion. Third, that the firm vigorously investigated red flags, which would have been any suggestion of irregularity or unusual trading activity, including client complaints and disciplinary actions by a securities regulator.

Lawyers for clients, on the other hand, must demonstrate that the brokerage firm essentially failed to execute properly on one or more of the three foregoing points; i.e. failed to establish and/or failed to implement reasonable supervisory procedures, or failed to properly follow-up on red flags. Robert Lowry suggests that client lawyers provide illustrations of how the brokerage firm's supervision fell through the cracks, thereby causing the client harm.

A survey of some NASD/FINRA disciplinary actions illustrates the broad scope of not only the types of investments that are "sold away" but also the types of brokerage firms. In one example, an adviser from Summit Capital Investment Group convinced 25 clients to invest in a fraudulent pay phone leasing deal. In another example, a rep from Linsco/Private Ledger Corporation (now rebranded LPL Financial) convinced clients to invest in a limited liability company (LLC) investing in real estate. Another example involved a PaineWebber rep who convinced clients to invest in an IPO trading program that was run by an outside entity.

These are just some examples of selling away cases, for which the brokerage firm, while not knowing of the sales, may still be held responsible, even if only in part.

Does FINRA Always Get It Right?
Right or wrong, FINRA likely prevails with brokers and firms settling arbitration disputes/complaints according to FINRA's final decision, however, according to Nov. 2008 articles published online by Securities Industry News and Investment News, the SEC, in a highly unusual move, reversed FINRA in a recent selling away case appeal.

The SEC set aside a FINRA decision in a selling away case where reps allegedly engaged in private securities transactions in violation of NASD Conduct Rule 3040. In its Nov. 7, 2008 opinion, the SEC reversed FINRA predecessor NASD, explaining that the self-regulatory organization (SRO) had presented a “new theory of liability” that amounted to a novel interpretation of Rule 3040, which requires registered representatives to obtain approval before engaging in business activity away from their firm. It concluded that the record “provides insufficient support” that either of the two reps involved (James Browne or Kevin Calandro, two Dallas-based brokers formerly of PaineWebber Inc. of New York) participated in transactions in violation of the rule. “In sum, we … dismiss those charges,” said the commission. FINRA spokesperson Herbert Perone declined to comment on the decision.

For conduct dating to 1998, NASD had ordered that Browne be suspended for six months and fined $25,000, and Calandro three months and $5,000; because they were appealed, the suspensions never went into effect. The reps allegedly engaged in private deals without first providing written notice or obtaining approval from their member firm. The stock involved was that of e2 Communications, a software provider that filed for bankruptcy in 2002. Subsequent to e2’s bankruptcy filing, NASD filed a complaint alleging that between 1999 and 2000, Browne and Calandro referred a number of investors to the vendor and received compensation in the form of shares. In its explanation of liability, NASD said that “the receipt of selling compensation alone constitutes participation in the transactions for purposes of Rule 3040.”

In its ruling, the SEC countered that NASD had created a new interpretation of Rule 3040 without providing prior notice to the applicants. “This lack of notice alone raises sufficient concerns to warrant dismissal of the charges,” said the commission, adding that the SRO also failed to establish a connection between the reps’ referrals and the e2 stock transactions. “There was no proof that they were making introductions for investment purposes. Plus there was a significant time period between the introductions and the purchases,” said Brian Rubin, a Washington D.C.-based partner in law firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan (recently rebranded "Sutherland") who represented Browne in the appeal. Rubin added that he has been unable to find another instance of the SEC reversing an NASD ruling for at least a decade.

Rubin, a former NASD deputy chief counsel of enforcement, said it is not unusual for reps that are selling away to avoid telling their firms because they are selling questionable products. However, “In this case,” he said, “the representatives knew people at the firm, e2, and introduced friends and clients to persons involved at e2, for the purposes of networking and for potential business between the two sides--but not for investment reasons.” Mr. Browne, who was once one of PaineWebber's biggest producers, was fired from now defunct Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. of New York in 2003 because of the FINRA investigation, said Rubin. Browne now works for a hedge fund and Calandro now works at SMH Capital Inc., a subsidiary of Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. of Dallas.

In upholding the NASD hearing panel’s 2006 decision, the NASD National Adjudicatory Council in December 2007 agreed that the case presented “uncommon and unusual” facts, added Rubin. “In our view, NASD pushed the envelope too far with respect to this type of violation,” he said. “And the SEC agreed with us.” As a result, “Individuals and firms should think long and hard before they decide to settle with FINRA."

FINRA's theory in going after Mr. Browne and Mr. Calandro was that, since startups like e2 often seek funding from various individuals involved with the company, the brokers should have known that introducing their clients to e2 would lead those clients to make investments in e2. "This was a junk case that never should have been brought," said Mr. Calandro's attorney, E. Steve Watson of E. Steve Watson Attorney at Law in Allen, Texas. Watson said the decision will "cut down the boundaries" of prior selling-away cases that gave en-forcers wide latitude.

"I'm using it [the decision] a lot" in arguing other cases, said Jonathan Kord Lagemann, a Chatham, N.Y.-based defense attorney who is not connected to the case. "The moral here is ... there is value in forcing regulators to try their cases," said Pete Michaels, a defense attorney at Michaels Ward & Rabinovitz LLP in Boston who is not involved in the case.