No Result
View All Result
SUBSCRIBE | NO FEES, NO PAYWALLS
MANAGE MY SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Featured

Minimizing Liability Under the SEC’s Reg-BI

Litigation Risks Posed by the SEC’s Regulation Best Interest

by Pete Tepley and Meredith Lees
January 14, 2020
in Featured, Risk
"risk" spelled in vertical wooden blocks with man removing one block

RumbergerKirk’s Pete Tepley and Meredith Lees highlight litigation risks posed by the SEC’s Regulation Best Interest (Reg-BI), litigation risks that may arise from Reg-BI’s care and compliance obligations and best practices to mitigate those risks.

By looking beyond Reg-BI’s June 30, 2020 compliance date to some of the litigation risks posed by Reg-BI, this article addresses:

  • The possible litigation risks Reg-BI poses to broker-dealers and their associated persons;
  • whether new damages are available to customers under Reg-BI; and
  • strategies to mitigate the litigation risks.

Overview of Reg-BI

Reg-BI imposes a general obligation that is only satisfied when each of four component obligations are met: (1) the disclosure obligation, (2) the care obligation; (3) the conflict of interest obligation and (4) the compliance obligation.[1]

The General Best Interest Obligation

The general or “best interest” obligation states:

(1) A broker, dealer or a natural person who is an associated person of a broker or dealer, when making a recommendation of any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities (including account recommendations) to a retail customer, shall act in the best interest of the retail customer at the time the recommendation is made, without placing the financial or other interest of the broker, dealer or natural person who is an associated person of a broker or dealer making the recommendation ahead of the interest of the retail customer.

(2) The best interest obligation in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be satisfied if [the (i) the disclosure obligation; (ii) the care obligation; (iii) the conflict of interest obligation and (iv) the compliance obligation are met]” (BI-Standards at 765-768).

The Disclosure Obligation

The disclosure obligation requires broker-dealers and their associated persons:

“prior to or at the time of the recommendation, [to] provide the retail customer, in writing, full and fair disclosure of:

all material facts relating to the scope and terms of the relationship with the retail customer; and all material facts relating to conflicts of interest that are associated with the recommendation.”

According to the Small Entity Guide, “material facts relating to the scope and terms of the relationship” include:

  • the capacity in which the broker-dealer or associated person is acting;
  • material fees and costs for transactions, holdings and accounts;
  • the scope of the services, including material limitations on securities or investment strategies that can be recommended;
  • whether the account will be monitored and the frequency of monitoring;
  • the requirements to maintain an account;
  • the investment approach or strategy; and
  • the associated risks in standardized terms (See Id).

A “conflict of interest” is “an interest that might incline” a broker-dealer, or associated person “– consciously or unconsciously – to make a recommendation that is not disinterested.” Id. Examples include “conflicts associated with proprietary products, payments from third parties and compensation arrangements.” Id. Material facts will be interpreted consistent with the Basic v. Levinson standard — a fact will be material if there is a “substantial likelihood that a reasonable [retail customer] would consider it important.” Id.

The Care Obligation

Regarding the care obligation, which is applicable to firms and associated person, the Small Entity Guide states:

Under the care obligation, you must exercise reasonable diligence, care and skill when making a recommendation to a retail customer to:

  • Understand potential risks, rewards and costs associated with recommendation, and have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation could be in the best interest of at least some retail customers;
  • Have a reasonable basis to believe the recommendation is in the best interest of a particular retail customer based on that retail customer’s investment profile and the potential risks, rewards and costs associated with the recommendation and does not place the interest of the broker-dealer ahead of the interest of the retail customer; and
  • Have a reasonable basis to believe that a series of recommended transactions … is not excessive and is in the retail customer’s best interest when taken together in light of the retail customer’s investment profile.

Whether you have complied with the care obligation will be evaluated as of the time of the recommendation (and not in hindsight).

The Conflict of Interest Obligation

Under the conflict of interest obligation, a broker-dealer must establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to address conflicts of interest associated with its recommendations to retail customers.” Id. And they must be reasonably designed to:

  • disclose or eliminate all conflicts of interest associated with such recommendations;
  • mitigate conflicts of interest that incentivize associated persons to place their interest or the broker-dealer’s interest above the retail customer’s;
  • disclose material limitations (g., a limited product menu) on recommendations and any associated conflicts of interest and to prevent these limitations from causing the broker-dealer or the associated person to place their interest over the retail customer’s interest; and
  • “eliminate sales contests, sales quotas, bonuses and non-cash compensation” for sales of specific securities or types of securities in a limited time period (Id).

The Compliance Obligation

The compliance obligation requires broker-dealers to “establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with” Reg-BI, which  should take into account the nature of their operations, be designed to prevent violations, detect violations, promptly correct violations and include “controls, remediation of noncompliance, training and periodic review and testing” (Id).

What litigation risks will Reg-BI pose to broker-dealers and their associated persons?

While there will likely be disputes with retail customers regarding whether they received timely “full and fair” written disclosures concerning all material facts relating to (1) the “scope and terms of the relationship” and (2) the “conflicts of interest that are associated with the recommendation” under the disclosure obligation, the care and compliance obligations pose greater risks of increased litigation.

Even though the SEC has stated that it does not believe that Reg-BI “creates any new private right of action or right of rescission, nor do we intend such a result,” (BI-Standards at 43), the care and compliance obligations will likely increase litigation risks for two reasons:

  1. Most retail customer claims are brought as FINRA arbitrations. While the law is clear that there is no private right of action for violation of self-regulatory organization rules, like FINRA (see e.g., Liskey v. Oppenheimer & Co., 717 F.2d 314, 321 (6th Cir. 1983) (noting that district court had dismissed claims based on NYSE and NASD rules because there was no private right of action for violation of those rules)), customer claims in FINRA arbitrations routinely allege violations of FINRA rules as causes of action.
  2. Reg-BI’s obligations will likely be considered industry standards of care that are relevant to negligence and other claims. (See, e.g., Scott v. Dime Savings Bank, 886 F. Supp. 1073, 1080-81 (S.D. N.Y. 1995) (violation of NASD “suitability rules” could be viewed as evidence of whether broker-dealer acted reasonably under negligence claim)).

The Reg-BI care obligation imposes duties on broker-dealers and associated persons that exceed the current suitability requirements:

“The care obligation significantly enhances the investor protection provided as compared to current suitability obligations by:

  • explicitly requiring in regulation best interest that recommendations be in the best interest of the retail customer and do not place the broker-dealer’s interests ahead of the retail customer’s interests;
  • explicitly requiring by rule the consideration of costs when making the recommendation; and
  • applying the obligations relating to a series of recommended transactions (currently referred to as “quantitative suitability”) irrespective of whether a broker-dealer exercises actual or de facto control over a customer’s account. In addition, it is our view that a broker-dealer should consider “reasonably available alternatives” as part of having a reasonable basis to believe” that the recommendation is in the best interest of the retail customer, which we also believe is an enhancement beyond existing suitability expectations (BI-Standards at 253-254).

The care obligation “enhancements” over existing suitability requirements are areas of additional litigation risk, which include whether:

  • the broker-dealer or associated person exercised the required “reasonable diligence, care and skill” to meet the care obligation (see BI-Standards at 247);
  • the recommendation was in the best interest of the retail customer;
  • the broker-dealer or associated person put their interests ahead of the retail customer’s interests;[2] and
  • the firm had reasonable policies and procedures to ensure compliance with this requirement.

Litigation is also likely concerning whether a broker-dealer or associated person adequately considered the potential costs associated with a particular recommendation. These costs include “both costs associated with the purchase of the security, as well as any costs that may apply to the future sale or exchange of the security, such as deferred sales charges or liquidation costs” (BI-Standard s at 249.) Although the potential cost is not a dispositive factor, it must always be considered when making a recommendation (See Id).

Reg-BI’s requirement that “when making a recommendation to a particular retail customer, broker-dealers must weigh the potential risks, rewards and costs of a particular security or investment strategy in light of the particular retail customer’s investment profile” (see Id. at 270) adds another dimension of potential litigation risk. The investment profile must include “the retail customer’s age, other investments, financial situation and needs, tax status, investment objectives, investment experience, investment time horizon, liquidity needs, risk tolerance and any other information the retail customer may disclose” to the broker-dealer or associated person (BI-Standards at 768). “Broker-dealers must obtain and analyze enough customer information to have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation is in the best interest of a particular retail customer” (Id. at 276).

The SEC’s position that a “broker-dealer should consider ‘reasonably available alternatives’ as part of having a ‘reasonable basis to believe’ that the recommendation is in the best interest of the retail customer” (Id. at 254) is another area for potential litigation risk. Even though Reg-BI does not require an “evaluation of every possible alternative” or the recommendation of “the single ‘best’ of all possible alternatives that might exist” (Id. at 284-285), disputes may still arise over whether there was an appropriate comparative assessment of reasonably available alternatives, as well as over the adequacy of the policies and procedures concerning compliance with this obligation. There may also be an issue over whether the broker-dealer had “a reasonable process for establishing and understanding the scope of such ‘reasonably available alternatives’ that would be considered by particular associated persons or groups of associated persons (e.g., groups that specialize in particular product lines)” to fulfill the “reasonable diligence, care and skill requirements under the care obligation” (Id. at 287).

Are there new damages under Reg-BI?

Nothing in Reg-BI expressly creates different damages from those now commonly sought by retail customers, and only time will tell if claimants are able to develop viable claims for different damages.

Strategies to Mitigate Litigation Risk

Good contemporaneous documentation, which is important today, will be a key strategy for avoiding increased liability under Reg-BI. Whether the recommendation is in the best interest of the retail customer and did not place the interests of the broker-dealer ahead of those of the retail customer “must be based on information reasonably known to the associated person (based on her reasonable diligence, care and skill) at the time the recommendation is made” (See Id at 286).

However, litigation over the recommendation will likely occur years later when circumstances may have changed, and memories have faded. Comprehensive contemporaneous documentation of the information known at the time of the recommendation as well as the analyses conducted by the firm or associated person prior to the recommendation of costs, reasonably available alternatives and other best interest factors will be key to defending the claim and mitigating potential exposure.

As the SEC notes, although Reg-BI does not require such documentation, “broker-dealers may wish to consider documenting the basis for determining that the recommendation is in the best interest of the retail customer when it is not evident from the recommendation itself” (Id. at 278). This is particularly important if the recommended security costs more than other alternative investments or results in greater remuneration to the firm or associated person.

Firms will also need to implement, test and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Reg-BI to meet their compliance obligation. These policies and procedures need to address the Reg-BI’s enhancements to existing suitability obligations. The steps that the firm uses to determine if costs are appropriately being taken into account, if reasonably available alternatives are required to be considered and if the customer’s interests are given priority will all be at issue in Reg-BI cases.

Robust policies and procedures that are utilized and enforced will help mitigate litigation exposure to Reg-BI’s enhanced obligations and will be key to the defense of customer claims.

 


[1] The SEC’s Small Entity Compliance Guide for Reg-BI (the “Small Entity Guide”) provides a good general overview of the obligations that Reg-BI imposes. It can be found at: https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/secg/regulation-best-interest. A more detailed granular level discussion of Regulation Best Interest can be can be found at https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2019/34-86031.pdf (“BI-Standards”). Another helpful source is FINRA’s Reg BI and Form CRS Firm Checklist, at: https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/reg-bi-checklist.pdf.

[2] While broker-dealers and associated persons “can and will have some financial interest in a recommendation …  the care obligation makes clear that these interests cannot be placed ahead of the retail customer’s interests when making a recommendation” (BI-Standards at 252).


Previous Post

5 Trends for Legal and Compliance to Watch in 2020

Next Post

Workplace Retaliation: A Culture of Fear

Pete Tepley and Meredith Lees

Pete Tepley and Meredith Lees

Pete Tepley is a commercial litigation attorney with RumbergerKirk. He represents securities broker dealers, including clearing brokers, and their registered representatives in customer, employment and industry disputes in FINRA arbitrations, as well as in state and federal courts. Pete is the Chair of RumbergerKirk’s Diversity and Inclusion Committee.
Meredith Jowers Lees is a commercial litigation attorney with extensive experience in securities and financial litigation at RumbergerKirk. She represents broker-dealers, including clearing brokers, in state and federal court and in FINRA arbitration in a wide variety of disputes including customer claims, raiding claims, violations of non-competition agreements, employment disputes, member-to-member claims, fraud claims, suitability claims, churning claims and trust-related claims.

Related Posts

Fox_DOJ Speeches_f

Analysis of Recent DOJ Statements

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 23, 2023

DOJ leaders provide insight into agency's plans. Analysis of Recent Statements DOJ Shaping the Future of Corporate Criminal Enforcement What’s...

Fox_2023 ECCP Update_f

2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 23, 2023

Keeping up with 2023 changes to DOJ guidelines. Additions, Deletions & Changes From 2020 2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs...

encompass update

Encompass Launches pKYC Maturity Model

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 22, 2023

KYC automation platform Encompass has unveiled a new perpetual Know Your Customer (pKYC) maturity model designed to help banks improve...

consilio onna partnership

Consilio, Onna Seek to Streamline eDiscovery for Cloud Apps

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 22, 2023

Legal technology provider Consilio has launched a new platform, Sightline Collect, powered by data management supplier Onna. The platform is...

Next Post
pop art image of fist punching left

Workplace Retaliation: A Culture of Fear

Compliance Job Interview Q&A

Jump to a Topic

AML Anti-Bribery Anti-Corruption Artificial Intelligence (AI) Automation Banking Board of Directors Board Risk Oversight Business Continuity Planning California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Code of Conduct Communications Management Corporate Culture COVID-19 Cryptocurrency Culture of Ethics Cybercrime Cyber Risk Data Analytics Data Breach Data Governance DOJ Download Due Diligence Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) ESG FCPA Enforcement Actions Financial Crime Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) GDPR HIPAA Know Your Customer (KYC) Machine Learning Monitoring RegTech Reputation Risk Risk Assessment SEC Social Media Risk Supply Chain Technology Third Party Risk Management Tone at the Top Training Whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Founded in 2010, CCI is the web’s premier global independent news source for compliance, ethics, risk and information security. 

Got a news tip? Get in touch. Want a weekly round-up in your inbox? Sign up for free. No subscription fees, no paywalls. 

Follow Us

Browse Topics:

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks Published by CCI
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • On Demand Webinars
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Well-Being
  • Whitepapers

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

Welcome to CCI. This site uses cookies. Please click OK to accept. Privacy Policy
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT