Good questions. But let us return to Darrel Uselton, who may have played a larger role in this mess than we'd originally thought. Darrel, you'll recall, is one of the principals of National Capital, a broker-dealerage in Oklahoma City. His brother Mark is one of his partners. His uncle Jack is another. I've already posted Darrel's employment records, and the disclosure infomation available from the NASD. The latter informed us that a few years ago Darrel worked for a firm called Edward D. Jones:
8/11/98: 11/09/93 EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION
TERMINATION TYPE: PERMITTED TO RESIGN; TERMINATION DATE: 11/9/1993; ALLEGATIONS: NOT PROVIDED; FIRM NAME: EDWARD D. JONES & CO. thn
I requested disclosure info for Jones as well. Oh my. I won't post all of it here as I got about 15 pages' worth. Customer complaints are one thing, but this outfit's been censured and/or fined by a number of the states in which it operates, and has run into difficulties with the NASD, the NYSE, and the CBOE. Here are the first few pages:
MEMBER FIRM: EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P.
BD NUMBER: 250
NASD Member Firm: EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P.
BD Number: 250
8/17/98 SUMMARY INFORMATION
8/17/98: 8/21/97 NYSE ARBITRATION
EDWARD D. JONES & CO. WAS NAMED IN A NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE ARBITRATION. THE ARBITRATION INVOLVED A PUBLIC CUSTOMER AND WAS FILED ON 11/10/95 ALLEGING: UNSUITABILITY, MISMANAGEMENT, CHURNING, UNAUTHORIZED TRADING AND VIOLATIONS OF VARIOUS STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTES. THE AWARD INCLUDED: CLAIM, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER $902,168.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER $122,000.00; POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER UNSPECIFIED, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER 10% FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION; COSTS, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER UNSPECIFIED, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER $11,000.00. [NYSE ARBITRATION CASE NO. 1993-003031]
8/17/98: 7/28/97 SEC ORDER
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER AGAINST EDWARD D. JONES & CO. THE ORDER REQUIRES THAT JONES & CO. TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF RULE 22c-1, CENSURES JONES & CO. AND ORDERS IT TO PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF $50,000.00. WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE SEC'S ALLEGATIONS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS(S): THAT BETWEEN JANUARY 1990 AND MARCH 1993, JONES & CO. UNLAWFULLY CHARGED COMMISSIONS IN REPURCHASING INTERESTS IN THREE UNIT INVESTMENT TRUSTS FROM JONES & CO. CUSTOMERS, PROFITING BY APPROXIMATELY $120,00.00, AND THAT JONES & CO. THEREBY VIOLATED RULE 22c-1 PROMULGATED UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT. [SEC REL. 34-38877/38880; IC-22766/22767]
8/17/98: 6/24/97 NASD ARBITRATION
SUBJECT OF AN NASD ARBITRATION AWARD. THE ARBITRATION INVOLVED A PUBLIC CUSTOMER AND WAS FILED BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING DISPUTE(S): EXECUTIONS-EXECUTION PRICE. THE AWARD INCLUDED: ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$9,375.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$9,375.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; ATTORNEY'S FEES, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$0.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; OTHER COSTS, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$150.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY. [NASD ARBITRATION CASE NO. 97-02233]
8/17/98: 5/27/97 NASD ARBITRATION
SUBJECT OF AN NASD ARBITRATION. THE ARBITRATION INVOLVED A PUBLIC CUSTOMER AND WAS FILED BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING DISPUTE(S): ACCOUNT RELATED-OTHER. THE AWARD INCLUDED: ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$2,500.00. RELIEF REQUESTS HAVE BEEN DENIED IN FULL. [NASD ARBITRATION CASE NO. 97-02513]
8/17/98: 4/23/97 NASD FINE
LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER AND CONSENT; EDWARD D. JONES & CO. WAS FINED $1,000.00 BY THE NASD FOR VIOLATING NASD CONDUCT RULE 3350. THE FIRM ALLEGEDLY EXECUTED FIVE SEPARATE SHORT SALE TRANSACTIONS IN A CERTAIN NASDAQ NATIONAL MARKET SECURITY AT OR BELOW THE CURRENT INSIDE BID WHEN THE CURRENT INSIDE BID WAS BELOW THE PRECEDING INSIDE BID IN THE SECURITY. THE FIRM ALSO CONSENTED TO A REMITTAL OF $7,307.77 OF REALIZED AND UNREALIZED FIRM AND CUSTOMER PROFITS RELATING TO THE TRANSACTIONS. [NASD COMPLAINT #CMS960137]
8/17/98: 4/21/97 NASD ARBITRATION
SUBJECT OF AN NASD ARBITRATION. THE ARBITRATION INVOLVED A PUBLIC CUSTOMER AND WAS FILED BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING DISPUTE(S): BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; SUITABILITY. THE AWARD INCLUDED: ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$74,000.00. RELIEF REQUESTS HAVE BEEN DENIED IN FULL. [NASD ARBITRATION CASE NO. 96-02801]
8/17/98: 3/21/97 NASD ARBITRATION
SUBJECT OF AN NASD ARBITRATION AWARD. THE ARBITRATION INVOLVED A PUBLIC CUSTOMER AND WAS FILED BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING DISPUTE(S): BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED - FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; OMISSION OF FACTS. THE AWARD INCLUDED: ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$19,905.40, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER $20,000.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; OTHER COSTS, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER $0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$0.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; ATTORNEY'S FEES, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$6,000.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; PUNITIVE/EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$0.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY. [NASD ARBITRATION CASE NO. 96-02698]
8/17/98: 11/07/96 PENDING SEC COMPLAINT
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) INSTITUTED AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15(b), 19(h) AND 21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND SECTIONS 9(b) AND 9(f) OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940, AGAINST EDWARD D. JONES & CO. (JONES & CO.), A REGISTERED BROKER-DEALER. THE SEC ALLEGES THAT JONES & CO. UNLAWFULLY CHARGED COMMISSIONS IN REPURCHASING INTERESTS IN THREE UNIT INVESTMENT TRUSTS FROM JONES & CO. CUSTOMERS, PROFITING BY APPROXIMATELY $120,000. AS A RESULT, THE ORDER ALLEGES THAT JONES & CO. VIOLATED RULE 22c-1 PROMULGATED UNDER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT IN THAT JONES & CO. REPURCHASED THE INTERESTS AT A PRICE WHICH WAS NOT BASED ON THE CURRENT NET ASSET VALUE OF THE UIT INTERESTS. THE ORDER ALSO ALLEGES THAT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS CAUSED JONES & CO.'S VIOLATIONS BY AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSIONS CHARGED BY JONES & CO. A HEARING WILL BE HELD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORDER ARE TRUE AND TO DETERMINE WHAT REMEDIAL SANCTIONS, IF ANY, ARE APPROPRIATE AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. [SEC REL. 34-37926; IC-22316]
8/17/98: 9/26/96 DISMISSED NYSE COMPLAINT
SUBJECT OF A COMPLAINT THAT WAS DISMISSED BY THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE. [NYSE DOCKET/CASE NO. HPD# 95-171]
8/17/98: 7/22/96 NASD ARBITRATION
SUBJECT OF AN NASD ARBITRATION AWARD. THE ARBITRATION INVOLVED A PUBLIC CUSTOMER AND WAS FILED BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING DISPUTE(S): MISREPRESENTATION; OMISSION OF FACTS; ACCOUNT RELATED - FAILURE TO SUPERVISE. THE AWARD INCLUDED: ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$8,939.13, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$9,209.13 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$0.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER $0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$0.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$0.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; OTHER COSTS, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$0.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; OTHER COSTS, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$0.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; OTHER COSTS, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$0.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; OTHER COSTS, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$0.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; ATTORNEY'S FEES, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER $0.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; ATTORNEY'S FEES, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$0.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; ATTORNEY'S FEES, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER $0.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; ATTORNEY'S FEES, AMOUNT ASKED BY CUSTOMER-$0.00, AMOUNT AWARDED TO CUSTOMER-$0.00 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY. [NASD ARBITRATION CASE NO. 96-00173]
8/17/98: 4/12/96 FLORIDA STIPULATION ORDER AND FINE
STIPULATION ORDER AND CONSENT AGREEMENT; THE FIRM AGREED WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM ANY AND ALL VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 517, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND AGREES SEVERAL RESTRICTIONS ON ITS OPERATIONS IN FLORIDA INCLUDING: FLORIDA BASED PRINCIPALS FOR ALL NON-OSJ BRANCH OFFICES IN THE STATE; ANNUAL INSPECTIONS BY THE FIRM OF ALL OSJ AND NON-OSJ BRANCH OFFICES IN FLORIDA; AND TO RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF BRANCH OFFICES IN THE STATE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. THE FIRM ALSO AGREES TO PAY $15,000 TO THE DEPARTMENT'S ANTI-FRAUD TRUST FUND. THE DEPARTMENT AGREES TO APPROVE THE REGISTRATION OF THE PENDING BRANCH OFFICES WHICH WERE OPERATING IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA LAW. THE STATE ALLEGED THAT WHILE PROCESSING APPLICATIONS FOR BRANCH OFFICES IN FLORIDA, IT DISCOVERED THAT FIRM WAS OPERATING UNREGISTERED BRANCH OFFICES IN THE STATE. **RELIEF GRANTED FROM ALL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON THE FIRMS OPERATIONS IN FLORIDA PER STIPULATION AND CONSENT AGREEMENT DATED 4/24/92**. [FLORIDA DOCKET/CASE NO. 92.133.DOS]
And so on and on and on... Wonder what Darrel did that caused him to be "permitted to resign"? Really, you wouldn't think an outfit like this would be too particular.
If anyone wants to see the whole thing, ask me and I'll email it to you.
|
