OFFER OF SETTLEMENT; CENSURED, FINED $10,000, PROHIBITED FROM MAKING A MARKET SECURITIES LISTED IN NASD COMPLAINT NO. MS-676 FOR FOURTEEN CALENDAR DAYS, AND SUSPENDED FROM ACTING AS A SOES ORDER ENTRY FIRM BY THE NASD FOR TEN BUSINESS DAYS AND; DIRECTED TO ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT SPECIFIC SUPERVISORY AND COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES RELATED TO THE AREAS IN THE COMPLAINTS. THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE FINDINGS, WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FOLLOWING ALLEGATIONS: (1) THE FIRM FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION (c) 3.(C) OF THE RULES OF FAIR PRACTICE AND PROCEDURES FOR SOES IN THAT DURING THE PERIOD FROM IN OR ABOUT MARCH, 1989 THROUGH IN OR ABOUT MAY, 1989, A CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL ENTERED ORDERS IN SOES WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE AGGREGATED SINCE THE ACCOUNTS WERE UNDER SAID INDIVIDUAL'S COMMON CONTROL AND THE ORDERS WERE ENTERED WITHIN A FIVE MINUTE PERIOD OF EACH OTHER. IF AGGREGATED AS REQUIRED, THE ORDERS WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE EXCEEDED SOES MAXIMUM ORDER SIZE LIMITS AND, THEREFORE, WERE DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEETING THE LIMITS. EACH OF THE THIRTY FOUR ALLEGED DIVIDED ORDER CONSTITUTED SEPARATE AND DISTINCT VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE III, SECTION 1 OF THE RULES OF FAIR PRACTICE BY THE FIRM AND SAID INDIVIDUAL. (2) THE FIRM ASSISTED BY SAID INDIVIDUAL, FAILED TO MAKE AND KEEP CURRENT A MEMORANDUM OF BROKERAGE ORDERS WHICH REFLECTED THE EXCERCISE OF DISCRETION, WHEN DISCRETION WAS, IN FACT, EXERCISED WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN OF THE TRANSACTIONS FOR SAID DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNTS, SUCH FAILURES CONSTITUTED VIOLATIONS OF RULE 17a-3(a)(6) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 BY FIRM AND SAID INDIVIDUAL. (3) THE FIRM FAILED TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND ENFORCE WRITTEN PROCEDURES WHICH WOULD HAVE ENABLED THEM TO SUPERVISE PROPERLY THE ACTIVITIES OF ASSOCIATED PERSONS TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOES RULES AND INTERPRETATIONS AND WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION'S RULES RELATING TO THE MAINTENANCE OF ACCURATE BOOKS AND RECORDS INCLUDING THE REFLECTION ON AN ORDER TICKET OF THE FACT THAT DISCRETION WAS EXERCISED WITH RESPECT TO A SPECIFIC TRANSACTION, SUCH FAILURE CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE III, SECTION 1 AND 27 OF THE RULES OF FAIR PRACTICE AS TO THE FIRM. [NASD COMPLAINT NO. MS-827]
I thought Datek was a new company, apparently they have been making markets since at least 1989.
|
