oppenheimer & co. inc. - finra · oppenheimer & co. inc. crd# 249 sec# 8-4077 main office...

BrokerCheck Report

OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.

Section Title

Report Summary

Firm History

CRD# 249

1

11

Firm Profile 2 - 10

Page(s)

Firm Operations 12 - 20

Disclosure Events 21

http://www.finra.org

About BrokerCheck®

BrokerCheck offers information on all current, and many former, registered securities brokers, and all current and formerregistered securities firms. FINRA strongly encourages investors to use BrokerCheck to check the background ofsecurities brokers and brokerage firms before deciding to conduct, or continue to conduct, business with them.

· What is included in a BrokerCheck report?· BrokerCheck reports for individual brokers include information such as employment history, professional

qualifications, disciplinary actions, criminal convictions, civil judgments and arbitration awards. BrokerCheckreports for brokerage firms include information on a firm’s profile, history, and operations, as well as many of thesame disclosure events mentioned above.

· Please note that the information contained in a BrokerCheck report may include pending actions orallegations that may be contested, unresolved or unproven. In the end, these actions or allegations may beresolved in favor of the broker or brokerage firm, or concluded through a negotiated settlement with noadmission or finding of wrongdoing.

· Where did this information come from?· The information contained in BrokerCheck comes from FINRA’s Central Registration Depository, or

CRD® and is a combination of: o information FINRA and/or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) require brokers and

brokerage firms to submit as part of the registration and licensing process, and o information that regulators report regarding disciplinary actions or allegations against firms or brokers.

· How current is this information?· Generally, active brokerage firms and brokers are required to update their professional and disciplinary

information in CRD within 30 days. Under most circumstances, information reported by brokerage firms, brokersand regulators is available in BrokerCheck the next business day.

· What if I want to check the background of an investment adviser firm or investment adviserrepresentative?

· To check the background of an investment adviser firm or representative, you can search for the firm orindividual in BrokerCheck. If your search is successful, click on the link provided to view the available licensingand registration information in the SEC's Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (IAPD) website athttps://www.adviserinfo.sec.gov. In the alternative, you may search the IAPD website directly or contact yourstate securities regulator at http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/P455414.

· Are there other resources I can use to check the background of investment professionals?· FINRA recommends that you learn as much as possible about an investment professional before

deciding to work with them. Your state securities regulator can help you research brokers and investment adviserrepresentatives doing business in your state.

·Thank you for using FINRA BrokerCheck.

For more information aboutFINRA, visit www.finra.org.

Using this site/information meansthat you accept the FINRABrokerCheck Terms andConditions. A complete list ofTerms and Conditions can befound at

For additional information aboutthe contents of this report, pleaserefer to the User Guidance orwww.finra.org/brokercheck. Itprovides a glossary of terms and alist of frequently asked questions,as well as additional resources.

brokercheck.finra.org


https://www.AdviserInfo.sec.gov

http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/P455414


http://brokercheck.finra.org/Support/Terms


CRD# 249

SEC# 8-4077

Main Office Location

85 BROAD STREET22ND,24TH FLOORNEW YORK, NY 10004Regulated by FINRA New York Office

Mailing Address

85 BROAD STREET22ND FLOORNY, NY 10004

This firm is a brokerage firm and an investmentadviser firm. For more information aboutinvestment adviser firms, visit the SEC'sInvestment Adviser Public Disclosure website at:

Business Telephone Number

212 668-8000

https://www.adviserinfo.sec.gov

Report Summary for this Firm

This report summary provides an overview of the brokerage firm. Additional information for this firm can be foundin the detailed report.

Disclosure Events

Brokerage firms are required to disclose certaincriminal matters, regulatory actions, civil judicialproceedings and financial matters in which the firm orone of its control affiliates has been involved.

Are there events disclosed about this firm? Yes

The following types of disclosures have beenreported:

Type Count

Regulatory Event 92

Arbitration 172

Bond 2

Firm Profile

This firm is classified as a corporation.

This firm was formed in New York on 12/23/1954.

Its fiscal year ends in December.

Firm History

Information relating to the brokerage firm's historysuch as other business names and successions(e.g., mergers, acquisitions) can be found in thedetailed report.

Firm Operations

Is this brokerage firm currently suspended with anyregulator? No

This firm conducts 19 types of businesses.

This firm is affiliated with financial or investmentinstitutions.

This firm does not have referral or financialarrangements with other brokers or dealers.

This firm is registered with:

• the SEC• 9 Self-Regulatory Organizations• 52 U.S. states and territories

www.finra.org/brokercheck User Guidance

1©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.

https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/IAPD/IAPDSummaryRouter.aspx?IndividualID=-1&FirmID=249&Source=Report


http://www.finra.org/brokercheck

http://www.finra.org/brokercheck_reports


This firm is classified as a corporation.

This firm was formed in New York on 12/23/1954.

CRD#

This section provides the brokerage firm's full legal name, "Doing Business As" name, business and mailingaddresses, telephone number, and any alternate name by which the firm conducts business and where such name isused.

Firm Profile

Firm Names and Locations

Its fiscal year ends in December.


SEC#

249

8-4077

Main Office Location

Mailing Address

Business Telephone Number

Doing business as OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.

212 668-8000

Regulated by FINRA New York Office

85 BROAD STREET22ND,24TH FLOORNEW YORK, NY 10004

85 BROAD STREET22ND FLOORNY, NY 10004

Other Names of this Firm

Name Where is it used

CAROLAN DIVISION OF OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. RI

FAHNESTOCK ASSET MANAGEMENT DIVISION OF OPPENHEIMER &CO. INC.

NY

FAHNESTOCK DIVISION OF OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. NY

FIRST OF MICHIGAN DIVISION MI

PEARL STREET INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT , DIVISION OFOPPENHEIMER & C

NY

REPARIAN PARTNERS, DIVISION OF OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. RI






This section provides information relating to all direct owners and executive officers of the brokerage firm.

Direct Owners and Executive Officers

Firm Profile

Position

Percentage of Ownership

Is this a public reportingcompany?

Position Start Date

Does this owner direct themanagement or policies ofthe firm?

VINER FINANCE INC.

PARENT CO.

75% or more

No

Domestic Entity

10/1983

Yes

Is this a domestic or foreignentity or an individual?

Legal Name & CRD# (if any):

Position



Position Start Date


ALFANO, JEFFREY

DIRECTOR/E.V.P/CFO

Less than 5%

No

Individual

04/2006

Yes

5127693



Position


Position Start Date

BENEDETTO, JOHN ANTHONY

E.V.P DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS

Less than 5%

Individual

04/2014

710318








Direct Owners and Executive Officers (continued)

Firm Profile




Less than 5%

No

Yes

Position



Position Start Date


CAPEZZUTO, JAMES ANDREW

IA-CCO

Less than 5%

No

Individual

02/2015

No

1845909



Position



Position Start Date


LOWENTHAL, ALBERT GRINSFELDER

CHMN/DIR/CEO - OWNS 100% OF PHASE II FIN'L

Less than 5%

No

Individual

10/1985

Yes

313519



LOWENTHAL, ROBERT STEVEN

1639913








Firm Profile

Position



Position Start Date


DIRECTOR

Less than 5%

No

Individual

04/2018

Yes

1639913


Position



Position Start Date


MCGUIRE, JOHN THOMAS

MANAGING DIRECTOR/DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL- DIRECTOR OFLITIGATION

Less than 5%

No

Individual

01/2007

No

1123013



Position


Position Start Date


MCNAMARA, DENNIS PATRICK

E.V.P./CLO/SECRETARY

Less than 5%

Individual

01/2006

Yes

2938486









Firm Profile



No

Yes

Position



Position Start Date


SIEGEL, DOUGLAS THORNLEY

CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER

Less than 5%

No

Individual

02/2016

Yes

1143272



Position



Position Start Date


SPAULDING, LAWRENCE PETER

DIRECTOR

Less than 5%

No

Individual

08/2003

Yes

709233



WHALEY, MARK THOMAS

Individual

1029869









Firm Profile

Position



Position Start Date


MANAGING DIRECTOR - NAT'L SALES

Less than 5%

No

Individual

12/2014

Yes







This section provides information relating to any indirect owners of the brokerage firm.

Indirect Owners

Firm Profile

E.A. VINER INTERNATIONAL CO.

HOLDING CO.

VINER FINANCE INC.

75% or more

Domestic Entity

10/1983

Yes



Company through whichindirect ownership isestablished

Relationship to Direct Owner

Relationship Established




LOWENTHAL, ALBERT GRINSFELDER

OWNS 100%

PHASE II FINANCIAL INC.

75% or more

Individual

10/1985

Yes

313519









OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS INC.

Domestic Entity








Indirect Owners (continued)

Firm Profile

COMMON STOCK

E.A. VINER INTERNATIONAL CO.

75% or more

Yes

Domestic Entity

10/1983

Yes








PHASE II FINANCIAL INC.

OWNS CLASS B VOTING STOCK OF OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS.

OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS

75% or more

Foreign Entity

10/1985

Yes














Firm History

This section provides information relating to any successions (e.g., mergers, acquisitions) involving the firm.

No information reported.






Firm Operations

RegistrationsThis section provides information about the regulators (Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), self-regulatoryorganizations (SROs), and U.S. states and territories) with which the brokerage firm is currently registered andlicensed, the date the license became effective, and certain information about the firm's SEC registration.

This firm is currently registered with the SEC, 9 SROs and 52 U.S. states and territories.

SEC Registration Questions

This firm is registered with the SEC as:

A broker-dealer:

A broker-dealer and government securities broker or dealer:

A government securities broker or dealer only:

This firm has ceased activity as a government securities broker or dealer:

Yes

Yes

No

No

Federal Regulator Status Date Effective

SEC Approved 03/26/1955

Self-Regulatory Organization Status Date Effective

FINRA Approved 03/22/1945

Cboe Exchange, Inc. Approved 06/17/1981

Chicago Stock Exchange Approved 11/21/1981

NYSE American LLC Approved 02/25/1988

NYSE Arca, Inc. Approved 02/22/2008

Nasdaq ISE, LLC Approved 03/17/2004

Nasdaq PHLX LLC Approved 08/01/2008

Nasdaq Stock Market Approved 07/12/2006

New York Stock Exchange Approved 11/17/1982






Firm Operations

Registrations (continued)

U.S. States &Territories

Status Date Effective

Alabama Approved 10/29/1981

Alaska Approved 01/18/1994

Arizona Approved 11/15/1984

Arkansas Approved 01/23/1986

California Approved 07/29/1980

Colorado Approved 02/01/1983

Connecticut Approved 07/01/1971

Delaware Approved 04/10/1984

District of Columbia Approved 06/26/1986

Florida Approved 04/27/1983

Georgia Approved 11/05/1982

Hawaii Approved 08/20/1984

Idaho Approved 08/28/1984

Illinois Approved 10/28/1980

Indiana Approved 10/21/1981

Iowa Approved 07/15/1983

Kansas Approved 05/24/1984

Kentucky Approved 04/30/1984

Louisiana Approved 04/20/1983

Maine Approved 02/15/1984

Maryland Approved 10/03/1981

Massachusetts Approved 07/31/1981

Michigan Approved 02/03/1983

Minnesota Approved 07/15/1982

Mississippi Approved 05/29/1983

Missouri Approved 07/18/1983

Montana Approved 05/03/1984

Nebraska Approved 10/29/1984

Nevada Approved 07/19/1983

New Hampshire Approved 02/02/1983

New Jersey Approved 07/18/1983

New Mexico Approved 10/07/1981

New York Approved 01/02/1985

U.S. States &Territories

Status Date Effective

North Carolina Approved 07/06/1984

North Dakota Approved 12/01/1984

Ohio Approved 01/22/1993

Oklahoma Approved 05/01/1984

Oregon Approved 05/14/1984

Pennsylvania Approved 04/11/1972

Puerto Rico Approved 10/09/1984

Rhode Island Approved 02/01/1983

South Carolina Approved 06/05/1984

South Dakota Approved 10/22/1985

Tennessee Approved 04/11/1984

Texas Approved 07/25/1983

Utah Approved 04/02/1985

Vermont Approved 05/10/1984

Virginia Approved 08/03/1982

Washington Approved 07/19/1984

West Virginia Approved 09/18/1984

Wisconsin Approved 03/05/1980

Wyoming Approved 08/20/1984






Firm Operations

Types of BusinessThis section provides the types of business, including non-securities business, the brokerage firm is engaged in orexpects to be engaged in.

Other Types of Business

This firm does effect transactions in commodities, commodity futures, or commodity options.This firm does not engage in other non-securities business.

Non-Securities Business Description:

This firm currently conducts 19 types of businesses.

Types of Business

Exchange member engaged in exchange commission business other than floor activities

Broker or dealer making inter-dealer markets in corporation securities over-the-counter

Broker or dealer retailing corporate equity securities over-the-counter

Broker or dealer selling corporate debt securities

Underwriter or selling group participant (corporate securities other than mutual funds)

Mutual fund retailer

U S. government securities dealer

U S. government securities broker

Municipal securities dealer

Municipal securities broker

Broker or dealer selling variable life insurance or annuities

Put and call broker or dealer or option writer

Investment advisory services

Broker or dealer selling tax shelters or limited partnerships in primary distributions

Broker or dealer selling tax shelters or limited partnerships in the secondary market

Trading securities for own account

Private placements of securities

Broker or dealer selling interests in mortgages or other receivables

Other - MUNICIPAL ADVISORS






Firm Operations

Clearing Arrangements

This firm does hold or maintain funds or securities or provide clearing services for other broker-dealer(s).

Introducing Arrangements

This firm does not refer or introduce customers to other brokers and dealers.






Firm Operations

Industry Arrangements

This firm does not have books or records maintained by a third party.

This firm does have accounts, funds, or securities maintained by a third party.

This firm does have customer accounts, funds, or securities maintained by a third party.

This firm does not have individuals who control its management or policies through agreement.

This firm does not have individuals who wholly or partly finance the firm's business.

Control Persons/Financing

Name: R.J O'BRIEN & ASSOCIATES

Business Address: 555 WEST JACKSON BLVD.CHICAGO, IL 60601

Effective Date: 09/29/1995

Description: R.J O'BRIEN IS A CLEARING MEMBER OF ALL FUTURES EXCHANGESAND PROVIDES OMNIBUS CLEARING FOR COMPANY.

Name: R.J. O'BRIEN & ASSOCIATES

Business Address: 555 WEST JACKSON BLVD.CHICAGO, IL 60601

Effective Date: 09/29/1995

Description: R.J O'BRIEN THROUGH ITS OMNIBUS ACCOUNT HOLDS SEGREGATEDFUNDS, ELIGIBLE SECURITIES AND COMMODITY POSTIONS FORCLIENTS OF COMPANY.






Firm Operations

Organization AffiliatesThis section provides information on control relationships the firm has with other firms in the securities, investmentadvisory, or banking business.

This firm is, directly or indirectly:

· in control of· controlled by· or under common control withthe following partnerships, corporations, or other organizations engaged in the securities or investmentadvisory business.

Yes

Yes

ISRAEL

Yes

01/01/2008

50 DIZENGOFF STREETTEL AVIV, ISRAEL

OPPENHEIMER ISRAEL LTD. is controlled by the firm.

APPLICANT OWNS 100% OF THE VOTING STOCK OF OPPENHEIMERISRAEL. APPLICANT ALSO PERFORMS CLEARING FUNCTIONS FOROPPENHEIMER ISRAEL.

Description:

Investment AdvisoryActivities:

Securities Activities:

Country:

Foreign Entity:

Effective Date:

Business Address:

Yes

Yes

HONG KONG

Yes

11/01/2008

5/F HENLEY BLDG5 QUEENS ROAD ENTRALHONG KONG, CHINA

OPPENHEIMER INVESTMENTS ASIA LTD. is under common control with the firm.

UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP OF OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS INC. THEAPPLICANT. ALSO PERFORMS CLEARING FUNCTIONS FOR OPPENHEIMERASIA.

Description:



Country:

Foreign Entity:

Effective Date:

Business Address:






Firm Operations

Organization Affiliates (continued)

Yes

Yes

UK

Yes

09/01/2008

6 GRACECHURCH STREETLONDON, ENGLAND EC3VOAT

OPPENHEIMER EUROPE LTD. is under common control with the firm.

UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP OF OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS INC. THEAPPLICANT. ALSO PERFORMS CLEARING FUNCTIONS FOR OPPENHEIMEREUROPE.

Description:



Country:

Foreign Entity:

Effective Date:

Business Address:

Yes

No

No

06/06/2006

85 BROAD STREETNEW YORK, NY 10004

140485

OPPENHEIMER ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC is under common control with the firm.

UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP OF OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS INC.Description:



Country:

Foreign Entity:

Effective Date:

Business Address:

CRD #:

No

12/01/1999

200 PARK AVENUE24TH FLOORNEW YORK, NY 10166

108178

ADVANTAGE ADVISERS MULTI-MANAGER, L.L.C. is under common control with the firm.

Country:

Foreign Entity:

Effective Date:

Business Address:

CRD #:






Firm Operations


Yes

No




Country:

Yes

No

No

01/01/2003


108180

ADVANTAGE ADVISERS MANAGEMENT, LLC is under common control with the firm.




Country:

Foreign Entity:

Effective Date:

Business Address:

CRD #:

Yes

No

No

10/13/2004


133243

OPPENHEIMER INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LLC is under common control with the firm.




Country:

Foreign Entity:

Effective Date:

Business Address:

CRD #:


105559

OPPENHEIMER ASSET MANAGEMENT is under common control with the firm.

Business Address:

CRD #:






Firm Operations


Yes

No

No

01/28/2003





Country:

Foreign Entity:

Effective Date:

Business Address:

No

Yes

No

11/17/1994

375 RARITAN CENTER PKWYEDISON, NJ 08837

37674

FREEDOM INVESTMENTS, INC. is controlled by the firm.

OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. OWNS 100% OF COMMON STOCK OF FREEDOMAND CLEARS FOR FREEDOM ON A FULLY DISCLOSED BASIS.

Description:



Country:

Foreign Entity:

Effective Date:

Business Address:

CRD #:

This firm is not directly or indirectly, controlled by the following:

· bank holding company· national bank· state member bank of the Federal Reserve System· state non-member bank· savings bank or association· credit union· or foreign bank






Disclosure Events

All firms registered to sell securities or provide investment advice are required to disclose regulatory actions, criminal orcivil judicial proceedings, and certain financial matters in which the firm or one of its control affiliates has been involved.For your convenience, below is a matrix of the number and status of disclosure events involving this brokerage firm orone of its control affiliates. Further information regarding these events can be found in the subsequent pages of thisreport.

Final On AppealPending

Regulatory Event 0 92 0

Arbitration N/A 172 N/A

Bond N/A 2 N/A






Disclosure Event Details

What you should know about reported disclosure events:

1. BrokerCheck provides details for any disclosure event that was reported in CRD. It also includessummary information regarding FINRA arbitration awards in cases where the brokerage firm wasnamed as a respondent.

2. Certain thresholds must be met before an event is reported to CRD, for example: o A law enforcement agency must file formal charges before a brokerage firm is required to disclose a

particular criminal event.3. Disclosure events in BrokerCheck reports come from different sources:

o Disclosure events for this brokerage firm were reported by the firm and/or regulators. When the firmand a regulator report information for the same event, both versions of the event will appear in theBrokerCheck report. The different versions will be separated by a solid line with the reporting sourcelabeled.

4. There are different statuses and dispositions for disclosure events: o A disclosure event may have a status of pending, on appeal, or final.

§ A "pending" event involves allegations that have not been proven or formally adjudicated.§ An event that is "on appeal" involves allegations that have been adjudicated but are currently

being appealed.§ A "final" event has been concluded and its resolution is not subject to change.

o A final event generally has a disposition of adjudicated, settled or otherwise resolved.§ An "adjudicated" matter includes a disposition by (1) a court of law in a criminal or civil matter,

or (2) an administrative panel in an action brought by a regulator that is contested by the partycharged with some alleged wrongdoing.

§ A "settled" matter generally involves an agreement by the parties to resolve the matter.Please note that firms may choose to settle customer disputes or regulatory matters forbusiness or other reasons.

§ A "resolved" matter usually involves no payment to the customer and no finding ofwrongdoing on the part of the individual broker. Such matters generally involve customerdisputes.

5. You may wish to contact the brokerage firm to obtain further information regarding any of thedisclosure events contained in this BrokerCheck report.

Regulatory - Final

This type of disclosure event involves (1) a final, formal proceeding initiated by a regulatory authority (e.g., a statesecurities agency, self-regulatory organization, federal regulator such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,foreign financial regulatory body) for a violation of investment-related rules or regulations; or (2) a revocation orsuspension of the authority of a brokerage firm or its control affiliate to act as an attorney, accountant or federalcontractor.

Disclosure 1 of 92

Reporting Source: Firm

Allegations: THE INVESTIGATION DETERMINED THAT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 2007 ANDJUNE 2017, RESPONDENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH NAC 90.392, WHICHREQUIRES THE LICENSING OF ALL BROKER-DEALER BRANCH OFFICES INTHE STATE OF NEVADA.

Current Status: Final






Initiated By: STATE OF NEVADA

Principal Sanction(s)/ReliefSought:

Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)

Other Sanction(s)/ReliefSought:

CONSENT AGREEMENT & ORDER IN LIEU OF CEASE & DESISTPROCEEDINGS

Date Initiated: 11/20/2018

Docket/Case Number: 116-116-MCF

Principal Product Type: No Product

Other Product Type(s):

Allegations: THE INVESTIGATION DETERMINED THAT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 2007 ANDJUNE 2017, RESPONDENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH NAC 90.392, WHICHREQUIRES THE LICENSING OF ALL BROKER-DEALER BRANCH OFFICES INTHE STATE OF NEVADA.

Resolution Date: 11/20/2018

Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: CONSENT AGREEMENT & ORDER IN LIEU OF CEASE & DESISTPROCEEDINGS

Sanction Details: CIVIL FINE - $8,000.00 AND INVESTIGATIVE FINE - $569.58

Sanctions Ordered: Monetary/Fine $8,000.00

Consent

Disclosure 2 of 92

i

Reporting Source: Regulator

Allegations: OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. ("OPPENHEIMER"), AN EXCHANGE TPHORGANIZATION, WAS CENSURED, FINED $700,000, OF WHICH $625,000SHALL BE PAID TO CBOE AND AN UNDERTAKING WHEREBY WITHIN THIRTY(30) DAYS OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE LETTER OF CONSENT BY THEBUSINESS CONDUCT COMMITTEE, A REGISTERED PRINCIPAL OFOPPENHEIMER SHALL SUBMIT TO CBOE, CARE OF FINRA MARKETREGULATION - LEGAL (CHICAGO), A SIGNED, DATED ATTESTATIONPROVIDING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: (1) A REFERENCE TO THISMATTER; AND (2) A REPRESENTATION THAT OPPENHEIMER HASIMPLEMENTED REMEDIATION TO ADDRESS THE REPORTING ISSUESDESCRIBED BELOW, FOR THE FOLLOWING CONDUCT. OPPENHEIMER: (I)IN THAT IN AT LEAST 1.5 MILLION INSTANCES, OPPENHEIMER: (I) FAILED TOSUBMIT REPORTABLE POSITIONS TO THE LOPR; (II) SUBMITTED REPORTSTO THE LOPR WITH INCORRECT POSITION QUANTITIES; (III) SUBMITTEDREPORTS TO THE LOPR THAT FAILED TO IDENTIFY CUSTOMER ACCOUNTSAS ACTING IN-CONCERT; (IV) SUBMITTED REPORTS TO THE LOPR WITHINVALID OR MISSING FIELDS, SUCH AS CUSTOMER ADDRESS OR TAX IDINFORMATION; OR (V) INCORRECTLY REPORTED AS-OF TRANSACTIONS;(II) FAILED TO ESTABLISH ADEQUATE SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES,INCLUDING WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES AND A SEPARATESYSTEM OF FOLLOW-UP AND REVIEW, REASONABLY DESIGNED TOENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH EXCHANGE RULE 4.13, WHICH RESULTED INTHE LOPR REPORTING VIOLATIONS; AND (III) FAILED TO ADEQUATELYSUPERVISE ITS LOPR REPORTING ACTIVITY SO AS TO ENSURECOMPLIANCE WITH EXCHANGE RULE 4.13, WHICH RESULTED IN THE LOPRREPORTING VIOLATIONS. (EXCHANGE RULES 4.2 - ADHERENCE TO LAW,4.13 - REPORTS RELATED TO POSITION LIMITS, AND 4.24 - SUPERVISION)







Initiated By: CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE





Docket/Case Number: 17-0049/ 20150451860

Principal Product Type: Options


OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. ("OPPENHEIMER"), AN EXCHANGE TPHORGANIZATION, WAS CENSURED, FINED $700,000, OF WHICH $625,000SHALL BE PAID TO CBOE AND AN UNDERTAKING WHEREBY WITHIN THIRTY(30) DAYS OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE LETTER OF CONSENT BY THEBUSINESS CONDUCT COMMITTEE, A REGISTERED PRINCIPAL OFOPPENHEIMER SHALL SUBMIT TO CBOE, CARE OF FINRA MARKETREGULATION - LEGAL (CHICAGO), A SIGNED, DATED ATTESTATIONPROVIDING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: (1) A REFERENCE TO THISMATTER; AND (2) A REPRESENTATION THAT OPPENHEIMER HASIMPLEMENTED REMEDIATION TO ADDRESS THE REPORTING ISSUESDESCRIBED BELOW, FOR THE FOLLOWING CONDUCT. OPPENHEIMER: (I)IN THAT IN AT LEAST 1.5 MILLION INSTANCES, OPPENHEIMER: (I) FAILED TOSUBMIT REPORTABLE POSITIONS TO THE LOPR; (II) SUBMITTED REPORTSTO THE LOPR WITH INCORRECT POSITION QUANTITIES; (III) SUBMITTEDREPORTS TO THE LOPR THAT FAILED TO IDENTIFY CUSTOMER ACCOUNTSAS ACTING IN-CONCERT; (IV) SUBMITTED REPORTS TO THE LOPR WITHINVALID OR MISSING FIELDS, SUCH AS CUSTOMER ADDRESS OR TAX IDINFORMATION; OR (V) INCORRECTLY REPORTED AS-OF TRANSACTIONS;(II) FAILED TO ESTABLISH ADEQUATE SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES,INCLUDING WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES AND A SEPARATESYSTEM OF FOLLOW-UP AND REVIEW, REASONABLY DESIGNED TOENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH EXCHANGE RULE 4.13, WHICH RESULTED INTHE LOPR REPORTING VIOLATIONS; AND (III) FAILED TO ADEQUATELYSUPERVISE ITS LOPR REPORTING ACTIVITY SO AS TO ENSURECOMPLIANCE WITH EXCHANGE RULE 4.13, WHICH RESULTED IN THE LOPRREPORTING VIOLATIONS. (EXCHANGE RULES 4.2 - ADHERENCE TO LAW,4.13 - REPORTS RELATED TO POSITION LIMITS, AND 4.24 - SUPERVISION)


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: A TOTAL FINE OF $700,000 OF WHICH $625,000 SHALL BE PAID TO CBOEAND THE REMAINDER TO NASDAQ PHLX LLC

Sanction Details: A CENSURE AND A TOTAL FINE OF $700,000 OF WHICH $625,000 SHALL BEPAID TO CBOE AND THE REMAINDER TO NASDAQ PHLX LLC

Sanctions Ordered: CensureMonetary/Fine $625,000.00

Consent

iReporting Source: Firm

Allegations: DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN JANUARY 19, 2010 AND JUNE 30, 2015 (THEREVIEW PERIOD), THE FIRM OVER-REPORTED OPTIONS POSITIONS TOTHE LARGE OPTIONS POSITION REPORT (LOPR) IN APPROXIMATELY260,890 INSTANCES BECAUSE OF A CODING ERROR IN ITS LOPR LOGICTHAT CAUSED: (I) RECORDS THAT WERE PROCESSED ON AN "AS OF"BASIS TO CLOSE A POSITION TO BE ERRONEOUSLY PROCESSED AS NEWOPENING POSITIONS RATHER THAN CLOSING POSITIONS; AND (II)DISPARATE REPORTING OF CANCELLATION AND REBOOKING ACTIVITY TOTHE LOPR FOLLOWING TRADE CORRECTIONS. AS A RESULT, THE FIRMVIOLATED CBOE (EXCHANGE) RULES 4.2, 4.24 AND 4.13. DURING THEREVIEW PERIOD, THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM WAS INADEQUATEWITH RESPECT TO ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULESGOVERNING THE REPORTING OF OPTIONS POSITIONS TO THE LOPRSYSTEM. ADDITIONALLY, DURING THE REVIEW PERIOD AND THROUGHMAY 2017, THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES WEREINADEQUATE WITH RESPECT TO ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE WITH THERULES GOVERNING THE REPORTING OF OPTIONS POSITIONS TO THELOPR SYSTEM. SPECIFICALLY, THEY FAILED TO SPECIFY: (I) WHATREVIEWS THE FIRM CONDUCTED, INCLUDING THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN INCONNECTION WITH SUCH REVIEWS, TO DETECT ISSUES RELATING TOTHE FORMATTING OF ITS LOPR REPORT, ACTING-IN-CONCERT ACTIVITY,AND REJECTED LOPR SUBMISSIONS; (II) THE PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLEFOR CONDUCTING SUCH REVIEWS; (III) THE FREQUENCY OF SUCHREVIEWS; AND (IV) HOW THE REVIEWS ARE TO BE DOCUMENTED. AS ARESULT, THE FIRM VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULES 748(G) (FOR THE PERIODPRIOR TO NOVEMBER 23, 2012), 748(H) (FOR THE PERIOD ON AND AFTERNOVEMBER 23, 2012), AND 707.







Initiated By: CBOE


Other


N/A


Docket/Case Number: 20150451860



DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN JANUARY 19, 2010 AND JUNE 30, 2015 (THEREVIEW PERIOD), THE FIRM OVER-REPORTED OPTIONS POSITIONS TOTHE LARGE OPTIONS POSITION REPORT (LOPR) IN APPROXIMATELY260,890 INSTANCES BECAUSE OF A CODING ERROR IN ITS LOPR LOGICTHAT CAUSED: (I) RECORDS THAT WERE PROCESSED ON AN "AS OF"BASIS TO CLOSE A POSITION TO BE ERRONEOUSLY PROCESSED AS NEWOPENING POSITIONS RATHER THAN CLOSING POSITIONS; AND (II)DISPARATE REPORTING OF CANCELLATION AND REBOOKING ACTIVITY TOTHE LOPR FOLLOWING TRADE CORRECTIONS. AS A RESULT, THE FIRMVIOLATED CBOE (EXCHANGE) RULES 4.2, 4.24 AND 4.13. DURING THEREVIEW PERIOD, THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM WAS INADEQUATEWITH RESPECT TO ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULESGOVERNING THE REPORTING OF OPTIONS POSITIONS TO THE LOPRSYSTEM. ADDITIONALLY, DURING THE REVIEW PERIOD AND THROUGHMAY 2017, THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES WEREINADEQUATE WITH RESPECT TO ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE WITH THERULES GOVERNING THE REPORTING OF OPTIONS POSITIONS TO THELOPR SYSTEM. SPECIFICALLY, THEY FAILED TO SPECIFY: (I) WHATREVIEWS THE FIRM CONDUCTED, INCLUDING THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN INCONNECTION WITH SUCH REVIEWS, TO DETECT ISSUES RELATING TOTHE FORMATTING OF ITS LOPR REPORT, ACTING-IN-CONCERT ACTIVITY,AND REJECTED LOPR SUBMISSIONS; (II) THE PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLEFOR CONDUCTING SUCH REVIEWS; (III) THE FREQUENCY OF SUCHREVIEWS; AND (IV) HOW THE REVIEWS ARE TO BE DOCUMENTED. AS ARESULT, THE FIRM VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULES 748(G) (FOR THE PERIODPRIOR TO NOVEMBER 23, 2012), 748(H) (FOR THE PERIOD ON AND AFTERNOVEMBER 23, 2012), AND 707.


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered:

Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED AND FINED $625,000.


Decision & Order of Offer of Settlement







Firm Statement THE FIRM MADE AND ENTERED INTO AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT,STIPULATION OF FACTS AND CONSENT TO SANCTIONS, PURSUANT TOEXCHANGE RULE 4.13, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THESEPROCEEDINGS AND TO SETTLE AND CONCLUDE ALL DISCIPLINARYACTIONS BY THE EXCHANGE BASED ON OR ARISING OUT OF THE FACTSHEREINAFTER STIPULATED. THE FIRM STIPULATES TO THE FACTS,CONSENTS TO THE CONCLUSION OF VIOLATIONS OF CERTAINPROVISIONS OF EXCHANGE RULES, AND CONSENTS TO THE IMPOSITIONOF SANCTIONS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,CONSENTING TO PAY THE FINE IMPOSED BY THE BUSINESS CONDUCTCOMMITTEE CONSISTENT WITH THE OFFER, AND TO COMPLY WITH ALLOTHER SANCTIONS, ALL AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, WITHOUTADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS OR CONCLUSIONS IN THESTATEMENT OF CHARGES. IN DETERMINING TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER,THE COMMITTEE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE FIRM'S ENSUINGCOOPERATION THROUGHOUT FINRA'S INVESTIGATION AND THESUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES IMPLEMENTED BY THE FIRM,INCLUDING SIGNIFICANT SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS.

Disclosure 3 of 92

i


Allegations: DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN JANUARY 19, 2010 AND JUNE 30, 2015 (THEREVIEW PERIOD), THE FIRM OVER-REPORTED OPTIONS POSITIONS TOTHE LARGE OPTIONS POSITION REPORT (LOPR) IN APPROXIMATELY260,890 INSTANCES BECAUSE OF A CODING ERROR IN ITS LOPR LOGICTHAT CAUSED: (I) RECORDS THAT WERE PROCESSED ON AN "AS OF"BASIS TO CLOSE A POSITION TO BE ERRONEOUSLY PROCESSED AS NEWOPENING POSITIONS RATHER THAN CLOSING POSITIONS; AND (II)DISPARATE REPORTING OF CANCELLATION AND REBOOKING ACTIVITY TOTHE LOPR FOLLOWING TRADE CORRECTIONS. AS A RESULT, THE FIRMVIOLATED NASDAQ PHLX LLC (EXCHANGE) RULES 1003 AND 707. DURINGTHE REVIEW PERIOD, THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM WASINADEQUATE WITH RESPECT TO ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE WITH THERULES GOVERNING THE REPORTING OF OPTIONS POSITIONS TO THELOPR SYSTEM. ADDITIONALLY, DURING THE REVIEW PERIOD ANDTHROUGH MAY 2017, THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURESWERE INADEQUATE WITH RESPECT TO ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE WITHTHE RULES GOVERNING THE REPORTING OF OPTIONS POSITIONS TO THELOPR SYSTEM. SPECIFICALLY, THEY FAILED TO SPECIFY: (I) WHATREVIEWS THE FIRM CONDUCTED, INCLUDING THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN INCONNECTION WITH SUCH REVIEWS, TO DETECT ISSUES RELATING TOTHE FORMATTING OF ITS LOPR REPORT, ACTING-IN-CONCERT ACTIVITY,AND REJECTED LOPR SUBMISSIONS; (II) THE PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLEFOR CONDUCTING SUCH REVIEWS; (III) THE FREQUENCY OF SUCHREVIEWS; AND (IV) HOW THE REVIEWS ARE TO BE DOCUMENTED. AS ARESULT, THE FIRM VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULES 748(G) (FOR THE PERIODPRIOR TO NOVEMBER 23, 2012), 748(H) (FOR THE PERIOD ON AND AFTERNOVEMBER 23, 2012), AND 707.







Initiated By: NASDAQ PHLX LLC


Other


N/A





DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN JANUARY 19, 2010 AND JUNE 30, 2015 (THEREVIEW PERIOD), THE FIRM OVER-REPORTED OPTIONS POSITIONS TOTHE LARGE OPTIONS POSITION REPORT (LOPR) IN APPROXIMATELY260,890 INSTANCES BECAUSE OF A CODING ERROR IN ITS LOPR LOGICTHAT CAUSED: (I) RECORDS THAT WERE PROCESSED ON AN "AS OF"BASIS TO CLOSE A POSITION TO BE ERRONEOUSLY PROCESSED AS NEWOPENING POSITIONS RATHER THAN CLOSING POSITIONS; AND (II)DISPARATE REPORTING OF CANCELLATION AND REBOOKING ACTIVITY TOTHE LOPR FOLLOWING TRADE CORRECTIONS. AS A RESULT, THE FIRMVIOLATED NASDAQ PHLX LLC (EXCHANGE) RULES 1003 AND 707. DURINGTHE REVIEW PERIOD, THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM WASINADEQUATE WITH RESPECT TO ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE WITH THERULES GOVERNING THE REPORTING OF OPTIONS POSITIONS TO THELOPR SYSTEM. ADDITIONALLY, DURING THE REVIEW PERIOD ANDTHROUGH MAY 2017, THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURESWERE INADEQUATE WITH RESPECT TO ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE WITHTHE RULES GOVERNING THE REPORTING OF OPTIONS POSITIONS TO THELOPR SYSTEM. SPECIFICALLY, THEY FAILED TO SPECIFY: (I) WHATREVIEWS THE FIRM CONDUCTED, INCLUDING THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN INCONNECTION WITH SUCH REVIEWS, TO DETECT ISSUES RELATING TOTHE FORMATTING OF ITS LOPR REPORT, ACTING-IN-CONCERT ACTIVITY,AND REJECTED LOPR SUBMISSIONS; (II) THE PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLEFOR CONDUCTING SUCH REVIEWS; (III) THE FREQUENCY OF SUCHREVIEWS; AND (IV) HOW THE REVIEWS ARE TO BE DOCUMENTED. AS ARESULT, THE FIRM VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULES 748(G) (FOR THE PERIODPRIOR TO NOVEMBER 23, 2012), 748(H) (FOR THE PERIOD ON AND AFTERNOVEMBER 23, 2012), AND 707.


Resolution:



Regulator Statement THE FIRM MADE AND ENTERED INTO AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT,STIPULATION OF FACTS AND CONSENT TO SANCTIONS, PURSUANT TOEXCHANGE RULE 960.7, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THESEPROCEEDINGS AND TO SETTLE AND CONCLUDE ALL DISCIPLINARYACTIONS BY THE EXCHANGE BASED ON OR ARISING OUT OF THE FACTSHEREINAFTER STIPULATED. THE FIRM STIPULATES TO THE FACTS,CONSENTS TO THE CONCLUSION OF VIOLATIONS OF CERTAINPROVISIONS OF EXCHANGE RULES, AND CONSENTS TO THE IMPOSITIONOF SANCTIONS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,CONSENTING TO PAY THE FINE IMPOSED BY THE BUSINESS CONDUCTCOMMITTEE CONSISTENT WITH THE OFFER, AND TO COMPLY WITH ALLOTHER SANCTIONS, ALL AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, WITHOUTADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS OR CONCLUSIONS IN THESTATEMENT OF CHARGES. IN DETERMINING TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER,THE COMMITTEE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE FIRM'S ENSUINGCOOPERATION THROUGHOUT FINRA'S INVESTIGATION AND THESUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES IMPLEMENTED BY THE FIRM,INCLUDING SIGNIFICANT SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS. (ASSOCIATED CASENO. PHLX ENFORCEMENT 2017-14)

Does the order constitute afinal order based onviolations of any laws orregulations that prohibitfraudulent, manipulative, ordeceptive conduct?

No








THE FIRM MADE AND ENTERED INTO AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT,STIPULATION OF FACTS AND CONSENT TO SANCTIONS, PURSUANT TOEXCHANGE RULE 960.7, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THESEPROCEEDINGS AND TO SETTLE AND CONCLUDE ALL DISCIPLINARYACTIONS BY THE EXCHANGE BASED ON OR ARISING OUT OF THE FACTSHEREINAFTER STIPULATED. THE FIRM STIPULATES TO THE FACTS,CONSENTS TO THE CONCLUSION OF VIOLATIONS OF CERTAINPROVISIONS OF EXCHANGE RULES, AND CONSENTS TO THE IMPOSITIONOF SANCTIONS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,CONSENTING TO PAY THE FINE IMPOSED BY THE BUSINESS CONDUCTCOMMITTEE CONSISTENT WITH THE OFFER, AND TO COMPLY WITH ALLOTHER SANCTIONS, ALL AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, WITHOUTADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS OR CONCLUSIONS IN THESTATEMENT OF CHARGES. IN DETERMINING TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER,THE COMMITTEE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE FIRM'S ENSUINGCOOPERATION THROUGHOUT FINRA'S INVESTIGATION AND THESUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES IMPLEMENTED BY THE FIRM,INCLUDING SIGNIFICANT SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS. (ASSOCIATED CASENO. PHLX ENFORCEMENT 2017-14)


Initiated By: NASDAQ PHLX LLC


Allegations: DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN JANUARY 19, 2010 AND JUNE 30, 2015 (THEREVIEW PERIOD), THE FIRM OVER-REPORTED OPTIONS POSITIONS TOTHE LARGE OPTIONS POSITION REPORT (LOPR) IN APPROXIMATELY260,890 INSTANCES BECAUSE OF A CODING ERROR IN ITS LOPR LOGICTHAT CAUSED: (I) RECORDS THAT WERE PROCESSED ON AN "AS OF"BASIS TO CLOSE A POSITION TO BE ERRONEOUSLY PROCESSED AS NEWOPENING POSITIONS RATHER THAN CLOSING POSITIONS; AND (II)DISPARATE REPORTING OF CANCELLATION AND REBOOKING ACTIVITY TOTHE LOPR FOLLOWING TRADE CORRECTIONS. AS A RESULT, THE FIRMVIOLATED NASDAQ PHLX LLC (EXCHANGE) RULES 1003 AND 707. DURINGTHE REVIEW PERIOD, THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM WASINADEQUATE WITH RESPECT TO ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE WITH THERULES GOVERNING THE REPORTING OF OPTIONS POSITIONS TO THELOPR SYSTEM. ADDITIONALLY, DURING THE REVIEW PERIOD ANDTHROUGH MAY 2017, THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURESWERE INADEQUATE WITH RESPECT TO ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE WITHTHE RULES GOVERNING THE REPORTING OF OPTIONS POSITIONS TO THELOPR SYSTEM. SPECIFICALLY, THEY FAILED TO SPECIFY: (I) WHATREVIEWS THE FIRM CONDUCTED, INCLUDING THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN INCONNECTION WITH SUCH REVIEWS, TO DETECT ISSUES RELATING TOTHE FORMATTING OF ITS LOPR REPORT, ACTING-IN-CONCERT ACTIVITY,AND REJECTED LOPR SUBMISSIONS; (II) THE PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLEFOR CONDUCTING SUCH REVIEWS; (III) THE FREQUENCY OF SUCHREVIEWS; AND (IV) HOW THE REVIEWS ARE TO BE DOCUMENTED. AS ARESULT, THE FIRM VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULES 748(G) (FOR THE PERIODPRIOR TO NOVEMBER 23, 2012), 748(H) (FOR THE PERIOD ON AND AFTERNOVEMBER 23, 2012), AND 707.








Other


N/A





Resolution:



Firm Statement THE FIRM MADE AND ENTERED INTO AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT,STIPULATION OF FACTS AND CONSENT TO SANCTIONS, PURSUANT TOEXCHANGE RULE 960.7, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THESEPROCEEDINGS AND TO SETTLE AND CONCLUDE ALL DISCIPLINARYACTIONS BY THE EXCHANGE BASED ON OR ARISING OUT OF THE FACTSHEREINAFTER STIPULATED. THE FIRM STIPULATES TO THE FACTS,CONSENTS TO THE CONCLUSION OF VIOLATIONS OF CERTAINPROVISIONS OF EXCHANGE RULES, AND CONSENTS TO THE IMPOSITIONOF SANCTIONS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,CONSENTING TO PAY THE FINE IMPOSED BY THE BUSINESS CONDUCTCOMMITTEE CONSISTENT WITH THE OFFER, AND TO COMPLY WITH ALLOTHER SANCTIONS, ALL AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, WITHOUTADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS OR CONCLUSIONS IN THESTATEMENT OF CHARGES. IN DETERMINING TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER,THE COMMITTEE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE FIRM'S ENSUINGCOOPERATION THROUGHOUT FINRA'S INVESTIGATION AND THESUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES IMPLEMENTED BY THE FIRM,INCLUDING SIGNIFICANT SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS. (ASSOCIATED CASENO. PHLX ENFORCEMENT 2017-14)



Disclosure 4 of 92

i


Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IN SIXTRANSACTIONS, IT PURCHASED MUNICIPAL SECURITIES FOR ITS OWNACCOUNT FROM A CUSTOMER AND/OR SOLD MUNICIPAL SECURITIES FORITS OWN ACCOUNT TO A CUSTOMER AT AN AGGREGATE PRICE(INCLUDING ANY MARK-UP OR MARK-DOWN) THAT WAS NOT FAIR ANDREASONABLE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL RELEVANT FACTORS,INCLUDING THE BEST JUDGMENT OF THE BROKER, DEALER ORMUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER AS TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THESECURITIES AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION AND OF ANY SECURITIESEXCHANGED OR TRADED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION, THEEXPENSE INVOLVED IN EFFECTING THE TRANSACTION, THE FACT THATTHE BROKER, DEALER, OR MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER IS ENTITLEDTO A PROFIT, AND THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THE TRANSACTION.







Initiated By: FINRA





Principal Product Type: Debt - Municipal




Resolution:


Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED, FINED $20,000, AND ORDERED TO PAY$10,301.44, PLUS INTEREST, IN RESTITUTION TO CUSTOMERS. FINES PAIDIN FULL ON JULY 14, 2017.


No

Sanctions Ordered: CensureMonetary/Fine $20,000.00Disgorgement/Restitution

Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)





https://www.finra.org/industry/disciplinary-actions/finra-disciplinary-actions-online?search=2013038869101



Initiated By: FINRA










Resolution:


Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED, FINED $20,000, AND ORDERED TO PAY$10,301.44, PLUS INTEREST, IN RESTITUTION TO CUSTOMERS.



Disclosure 5 of 92

i







Disclosure 5 of 92


Initiated By: FINRA







Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED ON43 OCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER THE CALL DATE AND DOLLAR PRICE OF THE CALL IN 43TRANSACTIONS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES EXECUTED ON THE BASIS OF AYIELD TO CALL. THE FINDINGS STATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED ON THREEOCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER THE CORRECT LOWEST EFFECTIVE YIELD IN THREETRANSACTIONS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES AND PROVIDED ON ONEOCCASION WRITTEN NOTIFICATION IMPROPERLY DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER A YIELD TO CALL IN ONE TRANSACTION IN A MUNICIPALSECURITY WITH A VARIABLE INTEREST RATE.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED AND FINED $20,000. FINES PAID IN FULL ON12/15/16.


No










Initiated By: FINRA







Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED ON43 OCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER THE CALL DATE AND DOLLAR PRICE OF THE CALL IN 43TRANSACTIONS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES EXECUTED ON THE BASIS OF AYIELD TO CALL. THE FINDINGS STATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED ON THREEOCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER THE CORRECT LOWEST EFFECTIVE YIELD IN THREETRANSACTIONS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES AND PROVIDED ON ONEOCCASION WRITTEN NOTIFICATION IMPROPERLY DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER A YIELD TO CALL IN ONE TRANSACTION IN A MUNICIPALSECURITY WITH A VARIABLE INTEREST RATE.



Resolution:





Disclosure 6 of 92

i


Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT OVER THECOURSE OF SEVERAL YEARS, IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, ANDIMPLEMENT SUPERVISORY SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES REASONABLYDESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN SECURITIESREGULATIONS AND FINRA AND NASD RULES, AND TO REPORT VIOLATIONSOF THOSE RULES TO FINRA WHERE APPROPRIATE. THE FINDINGS STATEDTHAT THE FIRM FAILED TO REPORT REQUIRED INFORMATION TO FINRA,APPLY APPLICABLE SALES CHARGE WAIVERS TO ITS CUSTOMERS, ANDPRODUCE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO CUSTOMERS WHO HAD FILEDARBITRATIONS AGAINST IT FOR FAILING TO SUPERVISE A FORMERREGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT INPARTICULAR, THE FIRM FAILED TO TIMELY MAKE 365 REQUIRED FILINGSWITH FINRA PURSUANT TO FINRA RULE 4530 AND ITS PREDECESSORRULES, TO REPORT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, REGULATORY FINDINGS OFSECURITIES LAWS VIOLATIONS, DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THEFIRM AGAINST ITS EMPLOYEES, SETTLEMENTS OF SECURITIES-RELATEDARBITRATION AND LITIGATION CLAIMS, AND THE INSTITUTION OFSECURITIES-RELATED CIVIL LITIGATION AGAINST THE FIRM. THE FIRM DIDNOT MAINTAIN PROCEDURES THAT GAVE DIRECTION TO THE FIRM'SEMPLOYEES ON MAKING THE DISCLOSURES REQUIRED BY FINRA RULES4530(A), (B), AND (F). THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THAT THE FIRMFAILED TO TIMELY FILE REQUIRED FORM U4 AMENDMENTS DISCLOSINGTHAT TWO OF ITS EMPLOYEES HAD RECEIVED WELLS NOTICES FROMTHE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. ALTHOUGH THE FIRM HADIMPLEMENTED REVISED REPORTING PROCEDURES AS A RESULT OF AFINRA INVESTIGATION THAT SUBSEQUENTLY RESULTED IN A PREVIOUSLETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER, AND CONSENT, IT FAILED TOIMPLEMENT PROCEDURES THAT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED ITS SEPARATEREPORTING OBLIGATIONS PURSUANT TO FINRA RULES 4530 (A), (B), AND(F), AND ITS OBLIGATION TO REPORT REGULATORY EVENTS ON FORMSU4. THE FIRM FAILED TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE WRITTEN PROCEDURES TOENSURE THAT REGULATORY EVENTS, INCLUDING WELLS NOTICES, WEREREPORTED ON FORMS U4 AND U5. ALL OF THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY ANDCOMPLIANCE PROCEDURES FAILED TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSREPORTING REGULATORY EVENTS, INCLUDING WELLS NOTICES. AS ARESULT OF THE FIRM'S INADEQUATE PROCEDURES, EMPLOYEES IN ITSVARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WERE UNCERTAIN OF THEIR INDIVIDUALRESPONSIBILITY FOR ENSURING THAT REGULATORY EVENTS WEREDISCLOSED ON FORMS U4 AND U5. FINRA FOUND THAT THE FIRMDISADVANTAGED CERTAIN RETIREMENT PLAN AND CHARITABLEORGANIZATION CUSTOMERS THAT WERE ELIGIBLE TO PURCHASE CLASSA SHARES IN CERTAIN MUTUAL FUNDS WITHOUT A FRONT-END SALESCHARGE (ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS). THESE ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS WEREINSTEAD SOLD CLASS A SHARES WITH A FRONT-END SALES CHARGE ORCLASS B OR C SHARES WITH BACK-END SALES CHARGES AND HIGHERONGOING FEES AND EXPENSES. DURING THE PERIOD, THE FIRM FAILEDTO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SUPERVISORY SYSTEM ANDPROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT THE ELIGIBLECUSTOMERS RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF APPLICABLE SALES CHARGEWAIVERS. THE FIRM FAILED TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE THEAPPLICATION OF SALES CHARGE WAIVERS TO ELIGIBLE MUTUAL FUNDSALES. THE FIRM RELIED ON ITS FINANCIAL ADVISORS TO DETERMINETHE APPLICABILITY OF SALES CHARGE WAIVERS, BUT FAILED TOMAINTAIN ADEQUATE WRITTEN POLICIES OR PROCEDURES TO ASSISTFINANCIAL ADVISORS IN MAKING THIS DETERMINATION. IN ADDITION, THEFIRM FAILED TO ADEQUATELY NOTIFY AND TRAIN ITS FINANCIALADVISORS REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF MUTUAL FUND SALESCHARGE WAIVERS FOR ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS. THE FIRM FAILED TOADOPT ADEQUATE CONTROLS TO DETECT INSTANCES IN WHICH IT DIDNOT PROVIDE SALES CHARGE WAIVERS TO ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS INCONNECTION WITH THEIR MUTUAL FUND PURCHASES. FINRA ALSOFOUND THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO PRODUCE CERTAIN RESPONSIVEDOCUMENTS TO SEVEN ARBITRATION CLAIMANTS WHO ALLEGED THATTHE FIRM FAILED TO SUPERVISE THE FORMER REGISTEREDREPRESENTATIVE.








Initiated By: FINRA





Principal Product Type: Mutual Fund(s)


WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT OVER THECOURSE OF SEVERAL YEARS, IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, ANDIMPLEMENT SUPERVISORY SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES REASONABLYDESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN SECURITIESREGULATIONS AND FINRA AND NASD RULES, AND TO REPORT VIOLATIONSOF THOSE RULES TO FINRA WHERE APPROPRIATE. THE FINDINGS STATEDTHAT THE FIRM FAILED TO REPORT REQUIRED INFORMATION TO FINRA,APPLY APPLICABLE SALES CHARGE WAIVERS TO ITS CUSTOMERS, ANDPRODUCE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO CUSTOMERS WHO HAD FILEDARBITRATIONS AGAINST IT FOR FAILING TO SUPERVISE A FORMERREGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT INPARTICULAR, THE FIRM FAILED TO TIMELY MAKE 365 REQUIRED FILINGSWITH FINRA PURSUANT TO FINRA RULE 4530 AND ITS PREDECESSORRULES, TO REPORT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, REGULATORY FINDINGS OFSECURITIES LAWS VIOLATIONS, DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THEFIRM AGAINST ITS EMPLOYEES, SETTLEMENTS OF SECURITIES-RELATEDARBITRATION AND LITIGATION CLAIMS, AND THE INSTITUTION OFSECURITIES-RELATED CIVIL LITIGATION AGAINST THE FIRM. THE FIRM DIDNOT MAINTAIN PROCEDURES THAT GAVE DIRECTION TO THE FIRM'SEMPLOYEES ON MAKING THE DISCLOSURES REQUIRED BY FINRA RULES4530(A), (B), AND (F). THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THAT THE FIRMFAILED TO TIMELY FILE REQUIRED FORM U4 AMENDMENTS DISCLOSINGTHAT TWO OF ITS EMPLOYEES HAD RECEIVED WELLS NOTICES FROMTHE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. ALTHOUGH THE FIRM HADIMPLEMENTED REVISED REPORTING PROCEDURES AS A RESULT OF AFINRA INVESTIGATION THAT SUBSEQUENTLY RESULTED IN A PREVIOUSLETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER, AND CONSENT, IT FAILED TOIMPLEMENT PROCEDURES THAT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED ITS SEPARATEREPORTING OBLIGATIONS PURSUANT TO FINRA RULES 4530 (A), (B), AND(F), AND ITS OBLIGATION TO REPORT REGULATORY EVENTS ON FORMSU4. THE FIRM FAILED TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE WRITTEN PROCEDURES TOENSURE THAT REGULATORY EVENTS, INCLUDING WELLS NOTICES, WEREREPORTED ON FORMS U4 AND U5. ALL OF THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY ANDCOMPLIANCE PROCEDURES FAILED TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSREPORTING REGULATORY EVENTS, INCLUDING WELLS NOTICES. AS ARESULT OF THE FIRM'S INADEQUATE PROCEDURES, EMPLOYEES IN ITSVARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WERE UNCERTAIN OF THEIR INDIVIDUALRESPONSIBILITY FOR ENSURING THAT REGULATORY EVENTS WEREDISCLOSED ON FORMS U4 AND U5. FINRA FOUND THAT THE FIRMDISADVANTAGED CERTAIN RETIREMENT PLAN AND CHARITABLEORGANIZATION CUSTOMERS THAT WERE ELIGIBLE TO PURCHASE CLASSA SHARES IN CERTAIN MUTUAL FUNDS WITHOUT A FRONT-END SALESCHARGE (ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS). THESE ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS WEREINSTEAD SOLD CLASS A SHARES WITH A FRONT-END SALES CHARGE ORCLASS B OR C SHARES WITH BACK-END SALES CHARGES AND HIGHERONGOING FEES AND EXPENSES. DURING THE PERIOD, THE FIRM FAILEDTO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SUPERVISORY SYSTEM ANDPROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT THE ELIGIBLECUSTOMERS RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF APPLICABLE SALES CHARGEWAIVERS. THE FIRM FAILED TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE THEAPPLICATION OF SALES CHARGE WAIVERS TO ELIGIBLE MUTUAL FUNDSALES. THE FIRM RELIED ON ITS FINANCIAL ADVISORS TO DETERMINETHE APPLICABILITY OF SALES CHARGE WAIVERS, BUT FAILED TOMAINTAIN ADEQUATE WRITTEN POLICIES OR PROCEDURES TO ASSISTFINANCIAL ADVISORS IN MAKING THIS DETERMINATION. IN ADDITION, THEFIRM FAILED TO ADEQUATELY NOTIFY AND TRAIN ITS FINANCIALADVISORS REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF MUTUAL FUND SALESCHARGE WAIVERS FOR ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS. THE FIRM FAILED TOADOPT ADEQUATE CONTROLS TO DETECT INSTANCES IN WHICH IT DIDNOT PROVIDE SALES CHARGE WAIVERS TO ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS INCONNECTION WITH THEIR MUTUAL FUND PURCHASES. FINRA ALSOFOUND THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO PRODUCE CERTAIN RESPONSIVEDOCUMENTS TO SEVEN ARBITRATION CLAIMANTS WHO ALLEGED THATTHE FIRM FAILED TO SUPERVISE THE FORMER REGISTEREDREPRESENTATIVE.


Resolution:


No

Sanctions Ordered: CensureMonetary/Fine $1,575,000.00








Other Sanctions Ordered: UNDERTAKING AND REMEDIATION PAYMENTS

Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED AND FINED $1,575,000.

REMEDIATION PAYMENTS TOTALING $703,122 TO BE PAID TO THE SEVENSETS OF ARBITRATION CLAIMANTS, AND ADDITIONAL REMEDIATIONTOTALING APPROXIMATELY $1,142,619 PAID TO THE ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERSWHO, FROM JANUARY 2009 TO AUGUST 2016, QUALIFIED FOR, BUT DIDNOT RECEIVE, THE APPLICABLE MUTUAL FUND SALES CHARGE WAIVERS.

THE FIRM IS REQUIRED TO CERTIFY TO FINRA ENFORCEMENT, WITHIN 90DAYS OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE AWC THAT IT HAS ADOPTED ANDIMPLEMENTED WRITTEN SUPERVISORY POLICIES AND PROCEDURESREASONABLY DESIGNED TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED INTHE AWC. FINES PAID IN FULL 21/13/16.

Regulator Statement THE FIRM SELF-REPORTED TO FINRA THAT ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS HADNOT RECEIVED AVAILABLE SALES CHARGE WAIVERS.AS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF THE FIRM TO APPLY AVAILABLE SALESCHARGE WAIVERS, THE FIRM ESTIMATES THAT ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERSWERE OVERCHARGED BY APPROXIMATELY $1,010,327 FOR MUTUAL FUNDPURCHASES MADE. AS PART OF THIS SETTLEMENT, THE FIRM HAS PAIDRESTITUTION TO ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS, WHICH IS ESTIMATED TO TOTAL$1,142,619 (I.E., THE AMOUNT ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS WEREOVERCHARGED, INCLUSIVE OF INTEREST). THE FIRM WILL ALSO ENSURETHAT RETIREMENT AND CHARITABLE WAIVERS ARE APPROPRIATELYAPPLIED TO ALL FUTURE TRANSACTIONS.SOLELY WITH RESPECT TO THE PORTION OF THIS MATTER THAT RELATESTO THE FIRM'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE SALES CHARGE WAIVERS, FINRAHAS RECOGNIZED THE COOPERATION OF THE FIRM FOR HAVING:INITIATED IN AUGUST 2015, PRIOR TO DETECTION OR INTERVENTION BY AREGULATOR, AN INVESTIGATION TO IDENTIFY WHETHER ELIGIBLECUSTOMERS RECEIVED SALES CHARGE WAIVERS DURING THE RELEVANTPERIOD; PROMPTLY ESTABLISHED A PLAN OF REMEDIATION FOR ELIGIBLECUSTOMERS WHO DID NOT RECEIVE APPROPRIATE SALES CHARGEWAIVERS; PROMPTLY SELF-REPORTED TO FINRA; PROMPTLY TAKENACTION AND REMEDIAL STEPS TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIVE CONDUCT;AND EMPLOYED SUBSEQUENT CORRECTIVE MEASURES, PRIOR TODETECTION OR INTERVENTION BY A REGULATOR, TO REVISE ITSPROCEDURES TO AVOID RECURRENCE OF THE MISCONDUCT.









Initiated By: FINRA







WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT OVER THECOURSE OF SEVERAL YEARS, IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, ANDIMPLEMENT SUPERVISORY SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES REASONABLYDESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN SECURITIESREGULATIONS AND FINRA AND NASD RULES, AND TO REPORT VIOLATIONSOF THOSE RULES TO FINRA WHERE APPROPRIATE. THE FINDINGS STATEDTHAT THE FIRM FAILED TO REPORT REQUIRED INFORMATION TO FINRA,APPLY APPLICABLE SALES CHARGE WAIVERS TO ITS CUSTOMERS, ANDPRODUCE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO CUSTOMERS WHO HAD FILEDARBITRATIONS AGAINST IT FOR FAILING TO SUPERVISE A FORMERREGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT INPARTICULAR, THE FIRM FAILED TO TIMELY MAKE 365 REQUIRED FILINGSWITH FINRA PURSUANT TO FINRA RULE 4530 AND ITS PREDECESSORRULES, TO REPORT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, REGULATORY FINDINGS OFSECURITIES LAWS VIOLATIONS, DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THEFIRM AGAINST ITS EMPLOYEES, SETTLEMENTS OF SECURITIES-RELATEDARBITRATION AND LITIGATION CLAIMS, AND THE INSTITUTION OFSECURITIES-RELATED CIVIL LITIGATION AGAINST THE FIRM. THE FIRM DIDNOT MAINTAIN PROCEDURES THAT GAVE DIRECTION TO THE FIRM'SEMPLOYEES ON MAKING THE DISCLOSURES REQUIRED BY FINRA RULES4530(A), (B), AND (F). THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THAT THE FIRMFAILED TO TIMELY FILE REQUIRED FORM U4 AMENDMENTS DISCLOSINGTHAT TWO OF ITS EMPLOYEES HAD RECEIVED WELLS NOTICES FROMTHE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. ALTHOUGH THE FIRM HADIMPLEMENTED REVISED REPORTING PROCEDURES AS A RESULT OF AFINRA INVESTIGATION THAT SUBSEQUENTLY RESULTED IN A PREVIOUSLETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER, AND CONSENT, IT FAILED TOIMPLEMENT PROCEDURES THAT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED ITS SEPARATEREPORTING OBLIGATIONS PURSUANT TO FINRA RULES 4530 (A), (B), AND(F), AND ITS OBLIGATION TO REPORT REGULATORY EVENTS ON FORMSU4. THE FIRM FAILED TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE WRITTEN PROCEDURES TOENSURE THAT REGULATORY EVENTS, INCLUDING WELLS NOTICES, WEREREPORTED ON FORMS U4 AND U5. ALL OF THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY ANDCOMPLIANCE PROCEDURES FAILED TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSREPORTING REGULATORY EVENTS, INCLUDING WELLS NOTICES. AS ARESULT OF THE FIRM'S INADEQUATE PROCEDURES, EMPLOYEES IN ITSVARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WERE UNCERTAIN OF THEIR INDIVIDUALRESPONSIBILITY FOR ENSURING THAT REGULATORY EVENTS WEREDISCLOSED ON FORMS U4 AND U5. FINRA FOUND THAT THE FIRMDISADVANTAGED CERTAIN RETIREMENT PLAN AND CHARITABLEORGANIZATION CUSTOMERS THAT WERE ELIGIBLE TO PURCHASE CLASSA SHARES IN CERTAIN MUTUAL FUNDS WITHOUT A FRONT-END SALESCHARGE (ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS). THESE ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS WEREINSTEAD SOLD CLASS A SHARES WITH A FRONT-END SALES CHARGE ORCLASS B OR C SHARES WITH BACK-END SALES CHARGES AND HIGHERONGOING FEES AND EXPENSES. DURING THE PERIOD, THE FIRM FAILEDTO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SUPERVISORY SYSTEM ANDPROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT THE ELIGIBLECUSTOMERS RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF APPLICABLE SALES CHARGEWAIVERS. THE FIRM FAILED TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE THEAPPLICATION OF SALES CHARGE WAIVERS TO ELIGIBLE MUTUAL FUNDSALES. THE FIRM RELIED ON ITS FINANCIAL ADVISORS TO DETERMINETHE APPLICABILITY OF SALES CHARGE WAIVERS, BUT FAILED TOMAINTAIN ADEQUATE WRITTEN POLICIES OR PROCEDURES TO ASSISTFINANCIAL ADVISORS IN MAKING THIS DETERMINATION. IN ADDITION, THEFIRM FAILED TO ADEQUATELY NOTIFY AND TRAIN ITS FINANCIALADVISORS REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF MUTUAL FUND SALESCHARGE WAIVERS FOR ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS. THE FIRM FAILED TOADOPT ADEQUATE CONTROLS TO DETECT INSTANCES IN WHICH IT DIDNOT PROVIDE SALES CHARGE WAIVERS TO ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS INCONNECTION WITH THEIR MUTUAL FUND PURCHASES. FINRA ALSOFOUND THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO PRODUCE CERTAIN RESPONSIVEDOCUMENTS TO SEVEN ARBITRATION CLAIMANTS WHO ALLEGED THATTHE FIRM FAILED TO SUPERVISE THE FORMER REGISTEREDREPRESENTATIVE.


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: UNDERTAKING AND REMEDIATION PAYMENTS

Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED AND FINED $1,575,000. REMEDIATIONPAYMENTS TOTALING $703,122 TO BE PAID TO THE SEVEN SETS OFARBITRATION CLAIMANTS, AND ADDITIONAL REMEDIATION TOTALINGAPPROXIMATELY $1,142,619 PAID TO THE ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS WHO,FROM JANUARY 2009 TO AUGUST 2016, QUALIFIED FOR, BUT DID NOTRECEIVE, THE APPLICABLE MUTUAL FUND SALES CHARGE WAIVERS. THEFIRM IS REQUIRED TO CERTIFY TO FINRA ENFORCEMENT, WITHIN 90 DAYSOF THE ISSUANCE OF THE AWC THAT IT HAS ADOPTED AND IMPLEMENTEDWRITTEN SUPERVISORY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REASONABLYDESIGNED TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED IN THE AWC.









THE FIRM WAS CENSURED AND FINED $1,575,000. REMEDIATIONPAYMENTS TOTALING $703,122 TO BE PAID TO THE SEVEN SETS OFARBITRATION CLAIMANTS, AND ADDITIONAL REMEDIATION TOTALINGAPPROXIMATELY $1,142,619 PAID TO THE ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS WHO,FROM JANUARY 2009 TO AUGUST 2016, QUALIFIED FOR, BUT DID NOTRECEIVE, THE APPLICABLE MUTUAL FUND SALES CHARGE WAIVERS. THEFIRM IS REQUIRED TO CERTIFY TO FINRA ENFORCEMENT, WITHIN 90 DAYSOF THE ISSUANCE OF THE AWC THAT IT HAS ADOPTED AND IMPLEMENTEDWRITTEN SUPERVISORY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REASONABLYDESIGNED TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED IN THE AWC.

Firm Statement THE FIRM SELF-REPORTED TO FINRA THAT ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS HADNOT RECEIVED AVAILABLE SALES CHARGE WAIVERS. AS A RESULT OF THEFAILURE OF THE FIRM TO APPLY AVAILABLE SALES CHARGE WAIVERS,THE FIRM ESTIMATES THAT ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS WERE OVERCHARGEDBY APPROXIMATELY $1,010,327 FOR MUTUAL FUND PURCHASES MADE. ASPART OF THIS SETTLEMENT, THE FIRM HAS PAID RESTITUTION TOELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS, WHICH IS ESTIMATED TO TOTAL $1,142,619 (I.E.,THE AMOUNT ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS WERE OVERCHARGED, INCLUSIVEOF INTEREST). THE FIRM WILL ALSO ENSURE THAT RETIREMENT ANDCHARITABLE WAIVERS ARE APPROPRIATELY APPLIED TO ALL FUTURETRANSACTIONS. SOLELY WITH RESPECT TO THE PORTION OF THISMATTER THAT RELATES TO THE FIRM'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE SALESCHARGE WAIVERS, FINRA HAS RECOGNIZED THE COOPERATION OF THEFIRM FOR HAVING: INITIATED IN AUGUST 2015, PRIOR TO DETECTION ORINTERVENTION BY A REGULATOR, AN INVESTIGATION TO IDENTIFYWHETHER ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS RECEIVED SALES CHARGE WAIVERSDURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD; PROMPTLY ESTABLISHED A PLAN OFREMEDIATION FOR ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS WHO DID NOT RECEIVEAPPROPRIATE SALES CHARGE WAIVERS; PROMPTLY SELF-REPORTED TOFINRA; PROMPTLY TAKEN ACTION AND REMEDIAL STEPS TO CORRECTTHE VIOLATIVE CONDUCT; AND EMPLOYED SUBSEQUENT CORRECTIVEMEASURES, PRIOR TO DETECTION OR INTERVENTION BY A REGULATOR,TO REVISE ITS PROCEDURES TO AVOID RECURRENCE OF THEMISCONDUCT.

Disclosure 7 of 92

i


Allegations: THE INVESTIGATION DETERMINED THAT RESPONDENT WAS RESPONSIBLEFOR SUBMITTING THE RELEVANT INVESTMENT ADVISERREPRESENTATIVE REGISTRATION APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR FORTY(40) MICHIGAN INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVES, BUT THAT IT FAILED TO DOSO FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SECURITIES ACT ON OCTOBER 1,2009 (AS EXTENDED BY VARIOUS TRANSITION ORDERS) THROUGH LATE2015/EARLY 2016.

RESPONDENT HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY EXEMPTION, EXCEPTION,PREEMPTION, OR EXCLUSION JUSTIFYING ITS FAILURE TO REGISTERTHESE 40 INVESTMENT ADVISER REPRESENTATIVES IN MICHIGAN FROMOCTOBER 1, 2009 (THE DATE THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT BECAMEEFFECTIVE) THROUGH THEIR ACTUAL REGISTRATION DATE IN LATE2015/EARLY 2016.







Initiated By: MICHIGAN







URL for Regulatory Action:



THE INVESTIGATION DETERMINED THAT RESPONDENT WAS RESPONSIBLEFOR SUBMITTING THE RELEVANT INVESTMENT ADVISERREPRESENTATIVE REGISTRATION APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR FORTY(40) MICHIGAN INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVES, BUT THAT IT FAILED TO DOSO FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SECURITIES ACT ON OCTOBER 1,2009 (AS EXTENDED BY VARIOUS TRANSITION ORDERS) THROUGH LATE2015/EARLY 2016.

RESPONDENT HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY EXEMPTION, EXCEPTION,PREEMPTION, OR EXCLUSION JUSTIFYING ITS FAILURE TO REGISTERTHESE 40 INVESTMENT ADVISER REPRESENTATIVES IN MICHIGAN FROMOCTOBER 1, 2009 (THE DATE THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT BECAMEEFFECTIVE) THROUGH THEIR ACTUAL REGISTRATION DATE IN LATE2015/EARLY 2016.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: CIVIL FINE- $900,000


No


Consent


Allegations: THE INVESTIGATION DETERMINED THAT RESPONDENT WAS RESPONSIBLEFOR SUBMITTING THE RELEVANT INVESTMENT ADVISERREPRESENTATIVE REGISTRATION APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR FORTY(40) MICHIGAN INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVES, BUT THAT IT FAILED TO DOSO FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SECURITIES ACT ON OCTOBER 1,2009 (AS EXTENDED BY VARIOUS TRANSITION ORDERS) THROUGH LATE2015/EARLY 2016. RESPONDENT HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY EXEMPTION,EXCEPTION, PREEMPTION, OR EXCLUSION JUSTIFYING ITS FAILURE TOREGISTER THESE 40 INVESTMENT ADVISER REPRESENTATIVES INMICHIGAN FROM OCTOBER 1, 2009 (THE DATE THE REGISTRATIONREQUIREMENT BECAME EFFECTIVE) THROUGH THEIR ACTUALREGISTRATION DATE IN LATE 2015/EARLY 2016.







Initiated By: MICHIGAN









THE INVESTIGATION DETERMINED THAT RESPONDENT WAS RESPONSIBLEFOR SUBMITTING THE RELEVANT INVESTMENT ADVISERREPRESENTATIVE REGISTRATION APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR FORTY(40) MICHIGAN INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVES, BUT THAT IT FAILED TO DOSO FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SECURITIES ACT ON OCTOBER 1,2009 (AS EXTENDED BY VARIOUS TRANSITION ORDERS) THROUGH LATE2015/EARLY 2016. RESPONDENT HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY EXEMPTION,EXCEPTION, PREEMPTION, OR EXCLUSION JUSTIFYING ITS FAILURE TOREGISTER THESE 40 INVESTMENT ADVISER REPRESENTATIVES INMICHIGAN FROM OCTOBER 1, 2009 (THE DATE THE REGISTRATIONREQUIREMENT BECAME EFFECTIVE) THROUGH THEIR ACTUALREGISTRATION DATE IN LATE 2015/EARLY 2016.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: CIVIL FINE- $900,000


Consent

Disclosure 8 of 92

i


Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TOREPORT SHORT INTEREST POSITIONS ON MULTIPLE SETTLEMENT DATES,AND INACCURATELY REPORTED SHORT POSITIONS. THE FINDINGSSTATED THAT THE FIRM ERRONEOUSLY REPORTED "FAIL TO RECEIVE"POSITIONS ON MULTIPLE SETTLEMENT DATES IN THE FIRM'S "BUY-INACCOUNT" AS SHORT INTEREST POSITIONS, WHEN SUCH POSITIONSSHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO FINRA. THE FINDINGS ALSOSTATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN ASUPERVISORY SYSTEM THAT WAS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVECOMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS ANDREGULATIONS AND NASD AND FINRA RULES CONCERNING SHORTINTEREST REPORTING TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH NASD RULE 3360AND FINRA RULE 4560. IN ADDITION, WHILE THE FIRM'S WRITTENSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES IDENTIFIED AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLEFOR CONDUCTING A REVIEW, THE FREQUENCY OF SUCH REVIEW, AND ADESCRIPTION OF HOW THE REVIEW SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED, THEFIRM'S SUPERVISORY STEPS DID NOT CONTAIN A PERIODIC REVIEW OFTHE FIRM'S SHORT INTEREST REPORTING LOGIC TO ASCERTAIN THAT ITWAS OPERATING PROPERLY AND THAT IT CAPTURED THE REQUIREDINFORMATION.







Initiated By: FINRA





Principal Product Type: Other

Other Product Type(s): UNSPECIFIED SECURITIES

WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TOREPORT SHORT INTEREST POSITIONS ON MULTIPLE SETTLEMENT DATES,AND INACCURATELY REPORTED SHORT POSITIONS. THE FINDINGSSTATED THAT THE FIRM ERRONEOUSLY REPORTED "FAIL TO RECEIVE"POSITIONS ON MULTIPLE SETTLEMENT DATES IN THE FIRM'S "BUY-INACCOUNT" AS SHORT INTEREST POSITIONS, WHEN SUCH POSITIONSSHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO FINRA. THE FINDINGS ALSOSTATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN ASUPERVISORY SYSTEM THAT WAS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVECOMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS ANDREGULATIONS AND NASD AND FINRA RULES CONCERNING SHORTINTEREST REPORTING TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH NASD RULE 3360AND FINRA RULE 4560. IN ADDITION, WHILE THE FIRM'S WRITTENSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES IDENTIFIED AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLEFOR CONDUCTING A REVIEW, THE FREQUENCY OF SUCH REVIEW, AND ADESCRIPTION OF HOW THE REVIEW SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED, THEFIRM'S SUPERVISORY STEPS DID NOT CONTAIN A PERIODIC REVIEW OFTHE FIRM'S SHORT INTEREST REPORTING LOGIC TO ASCERTAIN THAT ITWAS OPERATING PROPERLY AND THAT IT CAPTURED THE REQUIREDINFORMATION.


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: UNDERTAKING: REVISE THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORYPROCEDURES.

Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED, FINED $275,000 AND UNDERTAKES TO REVISEITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES. FINE PAID IN FULL ON JULY 13,2016.


No



iReporting Source:








Initiated By: FINRA







Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TOREPORT SHORT INTEREST POSITIONS ON MULTIPLE SETTLEMENT DATES,AND INACCURATELY REPORTED SHORT POSITIONS. THE FINDINGSSTATED THAT THE FIRM ERRONEOUSLY REPORTED "FAIL TO RECEIVE"POSITIONS ON MULTIPLE SETTLEMENT DATES IN THE FIRM'S "BUY-INACCOUNT" AS SHORT INTEREST POSITIONS, WHEN SUCH POSITIONSSHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO FINRA. THE FINDINGS ALSOSTATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN ASUPERVISORY SYSTEM THAT WAS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVECOMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS ANDREGULATIONS AND NASD AND FINRA RULES CONCERNING SHORTINTEREST REPORTING TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH NASD RULE 3360AND FINRA RULE 4560. IN ADDITION, WHILE THE FIRM'S WRITTENSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES IDENTIFIED AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLEFOR CONDUCTING A REVIEW, THE FREQUENCY OF SUCH REVIEW, AND ADESCRIPTION OF HOW THE REVIEW SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED, THEFIRM'S SUPERVISORY STEPS DID NOT CONTAIN A PERIODIC REVIEW OFTHE FIRM'S SHORT INTEREST REPORTING LOGIC TO ASCERTAIN THAT ITWAS OPERATING PROPERLY AND THAT IT CAPTURED THE REQUIREDINFORMATION.



Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: UNDERTAKING: REVISE THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORYPROCEDURES.









Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED, FINED $275,000 AND UNDERTAKES TO REVISEITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES.

Disclosure 9 of 92

i


Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT FOR OVERFOUR YEARS, IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND ENFORCE AREASONABLY-DESIGNED SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WSPS REGARDINGTHE SALES OF LEVERAGED, INVERSE, AND INVERSE-LEVERAGEDEXCHANGE-TRADED FUNDS (NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS). THE FINDINGSSTATED THAT IN RESPONSE TO FINRA'S REGULATORY NOTICE 09-31, THEFIRM INSTITUTED WSPS THAT PROHIBITED REPRESENTATIVES FROMSOLICITING RETAIL CUSTOMERS TO PURCHASE NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS.THE WSPS PERMITTED UNSOLICITED PURCHASES OF NON-TRADITIONALETFS BY RETAIL CUSTOMERS, BUT ONLY IF THE CUSTOMER WAS "PRE-QUALIFIED." TO MEET THIS PRE-QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENT, THEFIRM'S WSPS REQUIRED THAT REPRESENTATIVES OBTAIN A "LEVERAGEDETF REPRESENTATION LETTER" (THE "ETF QUALIFICATION LETTER") FROMEACH CUSTOMER SEEKING TO PURCHASE A NON-TRADITIONAL ETF. THEFINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO ENFORCE ITS WSPSPROHIBITING THE SOLICITATION OF NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASESFOR RETAIL CUSTOMERS IN SEVERAL RESPECTS. FIRST, THE FIRM DIDNOT ADEQUATELY TRAIN ITS SUPERVISORS AND REGISTEREDREPRESENTATIVES ON THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASES. SECOND, THE FIRM DID NOT PREVENTREPRESENTATIVES AND THE TRADING DESK FROM ENTERING SOLICITEDNON-TRADITIONAL ETF TRADES IN THE FIRM'S ORDER-ENTRY SYSTEM.THIRD, THE FIRM DID NOT USE AN EFFECTIVE SURVEILLANCE REPORT TOIDENTIFY SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF TRADES. AS A RESULT, THEFIRM'S REPRESENTATIVES CONTINUED TO SOLICIT NON-TRADITIONAL ETFPURCHASES FROM RETAIL CUSTOMERS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRM'SPOLICIES. THE FIRM ALSO FAILED TO ENFORCE ITS WSPS BY ALLOWINGRETAIL CUSTOMERS TO MAKE UNSOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETFPURCHASES EVEN THOUGH THE CUSTOMERS WERE NOT PRE-QUALIFIED,EITHER BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE AN ETF QUALIFICATION LETTER ONFILE OR BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO MEET THE PRE-QUALIFICATIONCRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE ETF QUALIFICATION LETTER. AS A RESULT,UNSOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASES CONTINUED TO BEEXECUTED FOR CUSTOMERS WHO WERE NOT PRE-QUALIFIED INVIOLATION OF THE FIRM'S POLICIES. THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THATTHE FIRM DID NOT ESTABLISH AN ADEQUATE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM,INCLUDING THE USE OF EXCEPTION REPORTS, TO EFFECTIVELYMONITOR HOLDING PERIODS FOR NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS. A PRIMARYRISK WITH NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS IS THAT THEIR PERFORMANCE OVERLONGER PERIODS OF TIME CAN DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THEPERFORMANCE OF THEIR UNDERLYING INDEX OR BENCHMARK,PARTICULARLY IN VOLATILE MARKETS. THE FIRM'S FAILURE TO HAVE ANADEQUATE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM TO MONITOR HOLDING PERIODS FORNON-TRADITIONAL ETFS CONTRIBUTED TO CUSTOMER LOSSES. FINRAFOUND THAT ALTHOUGH THE FIRM'S WSPS PROHIBITED SOLICITATION OFNON-TRADITIONAL ETFS, ITS REPRESENTATIVES NONETHELESSCONTINUED TO OFFER THESE SECURITIES TO RETAIL CUSTOMERS.BEFORE DOING SO, THE FIRM DID NOT PERFORM AN ADEQUATEREASONABLE BASIS SUITABILITY ANALYSIS OF NON-TRADITIONAL ETFSTO UNDERSTAND THE RISKS AND FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS. THE FIRM REPRESENTATIVES SOLICITED ANDEFFECTED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASES THAT WERE UNSUITABLEFOR SPECIFIC CUSTOMERS. CERTAIN OF THE FIRM'S REPRESENTATIVESRECOMMENDED THESE COMPLEX AND SPECULATIVE PRODUCTS TONUMEROUS CUSTOMERS WITH CONSERVATIVE INVESTMENTOBJECTIVES, CERTAIN OF WHOM WERE ELDERLY. MOREOVER, SOME OFTHESE CUSTOMERS HELD NON-TRADITIONAL ETF POSITIONS FOREXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME - OFTEN MONTHS AND SOMETIME YEARS.FOR EXAMPLES, AN 89-YEAR CONSERVATIVE CUSTOMER WITH ANNUALINCOME OF $50,000 HELD 96 SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETFPOSITIONS FOR AN AVERAGE OF 32 DAYS (AND FOR UP TO 470 DAYS) FORA NET LOSS OF $51,847. ALSO, A 91-YEAR CONSERVATIVE CUSTOMERWITH AN ANNUAL INCOME OF $30,000 HELD 56 SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF POSITIONS FOR AN AVERAGE OF 48 DAYS (AND FOR UPTO 706 DAYS) FOR A NET LOSS OF $11,161. (CONTINUE IN COMMENT)







Initiated By: FINRA






Other Product Type(s): NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS

WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT FOR OVERFOUR YEARS, IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND ENFORCE AREASONABLY-DESIGNED SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WSPS REGARDINGTHE SALES OF LEVERAGED, INVERSE, AND INVERSE-LEVERAGEDEXCHANGE-TRADED FUNDS (NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS). THE FINDINGSSTATED THAT IN RESPONSE TO FINRA'S REGULATORY NOTICE 09-31, THEFIRM INSTITUTED WSPS THAT PROHIBITED REPRESENTATIVES FROMSOLICITING RETAIL CUSTOMERS TO PURCHASE NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS.THE WSPS PERMITTED UNSOLICITED PURCHASES OF NON-TRADITIONALETFS BY RETAIL CUSTOMERS, BUT ONLY IF THE CUSTOMER WAS "PRE-QUALIFIED." TO MEET THIS PRE-QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENT, THEFIRM'S WSPS REQUIRED THAT REPRESENTATIVES OBTAIN A "LEVERAGEDETF REPRESENTATION LETTER" (THE "ETF QUALIFICATION LETTER") FROMEACH CUSTOMER SEEKING TO PURCHASE A NON-TRADITIONAL ETF. THEFINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO ENFORCE ITS WSPSPROHIBITING THE SOLICITATION OF NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASESFOR RETAIL CUSTOMERS IN SEVERAL RESPECTS. FIRST, THE FIRM DIDNOT ADEQUATELY TRAIN ITS SUPERVISORS AND REGISTEREDREPRESENTATIVES ON THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASES. SECOND, THE FIRM DID NOT PREVENTREPRESENTATIVES AND THE TRADING DESK FROM ENTERING SOLICITEDNON-TRADITIONAL ETF TRADES IN THE FIRM'S ORDER-ENTRY SYSTEM.THIRD, THE FIRM DID NOT USE AN EFFECTIVE SURVEILLANCE REPORT TOIDENTIFY SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF TRADES. AS A RESULT, THEFIRM'S REPRESENTATIVES CONTINUED TO SOLICIT NON-TRADITIONAL ETFPURCHASES FROM RETAIL CUSTOMERS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRM'SPOLICIES. THE FIRM ALSO FAILED TO ENFORCE ITS WSPS BY ALLOWINGRETAIL CUSTOMERS TO MAKE UNSOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETFPURCHASES EVEN THOUGH THE CUSTOMERS WERE NOT PRE-QUALIFIED,EITHER BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE AN ETF QUALIFICATION LETTER ONFILE OR BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO MEET THE PRE-QUALIFICATIONCRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE ETF QUALIFICATION LETTER. AS A RESULT,UNSOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASES CONTINUED TO BEEXECUTED FOR CUSTOMERS WHO WERE NOT PRE-QUALIFIED INVIOLATION OF THE FIRM'S POLICIES. THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THATTHE FIRM DID NOT ESTABLISH AN ADEQUATE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM,INCLUDING THE USE OF EXCEPTION REPORTS, TO EFFECTIVELYMONITOR HOLDING PERIODS FOR NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS. A PRIMARYRISK WITH NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS IS THAT THEIR PERFORMANCE OVERLONGER PERIODS OF TIME CAN DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THEPERFORMANCE OF THEIR UNDERLYING INDEX OR BENCHMARK,PARTICULARLY IN VOLATILE MARKETS. THE FIRM'S FAILURE TO HAVE ANADEQUATE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM TO MONITOR HOLDING PERIODS FORNON-TRADITIONAL ETFS CONTRIBUTED TO CUSTOMER LOSSES. FINRAFOUND THAT ALTHOUGH THE FIRM'S WSPS PROHIBITED SOLICITATION OFNON-TRADITIONAL ETFS, ITS REPRESENTATIVES NONETHELESSCONTINUED TO OFFER THESE SECURITIES TO RETAIL CUSTOMERS.BEFORE DOING SO, THE FIRM DID NOT PERFORM AN ADEQUATEREASONABLE BASIS SUITABILITY ANALYSIS OF NON-TRADITIONAL ETFSTO UNDERSTAND THE RISKS AND FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS. THE FIRM REPRESENTATIVES SOLICITED ANDEFFECTED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASES THAT WERE UNSUITABLEFOR SPECIFIC CUSTOMERS. CERTAIN OF THE FIRM'S REPRESENTATIVESRECOMMENDED THESE COMPLEX AND SPECULATIVE PRODUCTS TONUMEROUS CUSTOMERS WITH CONSERVATIVE INVESTMENTOBJECTIVES, CERTAIN OF WHOM WERE ELDERLY. MOREOVER, SOME OFTHESE CUSTOMERS HELD NON-TRADITIONAL ETF POSITIONS FOREXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME - OFTEN MONTHS AND SOMETIME YEARS.FOR EXAMPLES, AN 89-YEAR CONSERVATIVE CUSTOMER WITH ANNUALINCOME OF $50,000 HELD 96 SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETFPOSITIONS FOR AN AVERAGE OF 32 DAYS (AND FOR UP TO 470 DAYS) FORA NET LOSS OF $51,847. ALSO, A 91-YEAR CONSERVATIVE CUSTOMERWITH AN ANNUAL INCOME OF $30,000 HELD 56 SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF POSITIONS FOR AN AVERAGE OF 48 DAYS (AND FOR UPTO 706 DAYS) FOR A NET LOSS OF $11,161. (CONTINUE IN COMMENT)


Resolution:


No








Other Sanctions Ordered: PLUS INTEREST ON RESTITUTION

Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED, FINED $2,250,000, AND ORDERED TO PAY$716,831.80, PLUS INTEREST, IN RESTITUTION TO CUSTOMERS. FINE PAIDIN FULL ON JULY 13, 2016.

Regulator Statement (CONTINUE FROM ALLEGATIONS SECTION)- ADDITIONALLY, A 67-YEARCONSERVATIVE CUSTOMER WITH AN ANNUAL INCOME OF $40,000 HELDTWO SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF POSITIONS IN HER ACCOUNT FOR729 DAYS FOR A LOSS OF $2,746.


No

Sanctions Ordered: CensureMonetary/Fine $2,250,000.00Disgorgement/Restitution


Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT FOR OVERFOUR YEARS, IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND ENFORCE AREASONABLY-DESIGNED SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WSPS REGARDINGTHE SALES OF LEVERAGED, INVERSE, AND INVERSE-LEVERAGEDEXCHANGE-TRADED FUNDS (NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS). THE FINDINGSSTATED THAT IN RESPONSE TO FINRA'S REGULATORY NOTICE 09-31, THEFIRM INSTITUTED WSPS THAT PROHIBITED REPRESENTATIVES FROMSOLICITING RETAIL CUSTOMERS TO PURCHASE NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS.THE WSPS PERMITTED UNSOLICITED PURCHASES OF NON-TRADITIONALETFS BY RETAIL CUSTOMERS, BUT ONLY IF THE CUSTOMER WAS "PRE-QUALIFIED." TO MEET THIS PRE-QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENT, THEFIRM'S WSPS REQUIRED THAT REPRESENTATIVES OBTAIN A "LEVERAGEDETF REPRESENTATION LETTER" (THE "ETF QUALIFICATION LETTER") FROMEACH CUSTOMER SEEKING TO PURCHASE A NON-TRADITIONAL ETF. THEFINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO ENFORCE ITS WSPSPROHIBITING THE SOLICITATION OF NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASESFOR RETAIL CUSTOMERS IN SEVERAL RESPECTS. FIRST, THE FIRM DIDNOT ADEQUATELY TRAIN ITS SUPERVISORS AND REGISTEREDREPRESENTATIVES ON THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASES. SECOND, THE FIRM DID NOT PREVENTREPRESENTATIVES AND THE TRADING DESK FROM ENTERING SOLICITEDNON-TRADITIONAL ETF TRADES IN THE FIRM'S ORDER-ENTRY SYSTEM.THIRD, THE FIRM DID NOT USE AN EFFECTIVE SURVEILLANCE REPORT TOIDENTIFY SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF TRADES. AS A RESULT, THEFIRM'S REPRESENTATIVES CONTINUED TO SOLICIT NON-TRADITIONAL ETFPURCHASES FROM RETAIL CUSTOMERS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRM'SPOLICIES. THE FIRM ALSO FAILED TO ENFORCE ITS WSPS BY ALLOWINGRETAIL CUSTOMERS TO MAKE UNSOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETFPURCHASES EVEN THOUGH THE CUSTOMERS WERE NOT PRE-QUALIFIED,EITHER BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE AN ETF QUALIFICATION LETTER ONFILE OR BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO MEET THE PRE-QUALIFICATIONCRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE ETF QUALIFICATION LETTER. AS A RESULT,UNSOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASES CONTINUED TO BEEXECUTED FOR CUSTOMERS WHO WERE NOT PRE-QUALIFIED INVIOLATION OF THE FIRM'S POLICIES. THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THATTHE FIRM DID NOT ESTABLISH AN ADEQUATE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM,INCLUDING THE USE OF EXCEPTION REPORTS, TO EFFECTIVELYMONITOR HOLDING PERIODS FOR NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS. A PRIMARYRISK WITH NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS IS THAT THEIR PERFORMANCE OVERLONGER PERIODS OF TIME CAN DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THEPERFORMANCE OF THEIR UNDERLYING INDEX OR BENCHMARK,PARTICULARLY IN VOLATILE MARKETS. THE FIRM'S FAILURE TO HAVE ANADEQUATE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM TO MONITOR HOLDING PERIODS FORNON-TRADITIONAL ETFS CONTRIBUTED TO CUSTOMER LOSSES. FINRAFOUND THAT ALTHOUGH THE FIRM'S WSPS PROHIBITED SOLICITATION OFNON-TRADITIONAL ETFS, ITS REPRESENTATIVES NONETHELESSCONTINUED TO OFFER THESE SECURITIES TO RETAIL CUSTOMERS.BEFORE DOING SO, THE FIRM DID NOT PERFORM AN ADEQUATEREASONABLE BASIS SUITABILITY ANALYSIS OF NON-TRADITIONAL ETFSTO UNDERSTAND THE RISKS AND FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS. THE FIRM REPRESENTATIVES SOLICITED ANDEFFECTED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASES THAT WERE UNSUITABLEFOR SPECIFIC CUSTOMERS. CERTAIN OF THE FIRM'S REPRESENTATIVESRECOMMENDED THESE COMPLEX AND SPECULATIVE PRODUCTS TONUMEROUS CUSTOMERS WITH CONSERVATIVE INVESTMENTOBJECTIVES, CERTAIN OF WHOM WERE ELDERLY. MOREOVER, SOME OFTHESE CUSTOMERS HELD NON-TRADITIONAL ETF POSITIONS FOREXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME - OFTEN MONTHS AND SOMETIME YEARS.FOR EXAMPLES, AN 89-YEAR CONSERVATIVE CUSTOMER WITH ANNUALINCOME OF $50,000 HELD 96 SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETFPOSITIONS FOR AN AVERAGE OF 32 DAYS (AND FOR UP TO 470 DAYS) FORA NET LOSS OF $51,847. ALSO, A 91-YEAR CONSERVATIVE CUSTOMERWITH AN ANNUAL INCOME OF $30,000 HELD 56 SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF POSITIONS FOR AN AVERAGE OF 48 DAYS (AND FOR UPTO 706 DAYS) FOR A NET LOSS OF $11,161. (CONTINUE IN COMMENT)







Initiated By: FINRA

WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT FOR OVERFOUR YEARS, IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND ENFORCE AREASONABLY-DESIGNED SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WSPS REGARDINGTHE SALES OF LEVERAGED, INVERSE, AND INVERSE-LEVERAGEDEXCHANGE-TRADED FUNDS (NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS). THE FINDINGSSTATED THAT IN RESPONSE TO FINRA'S REGULATORY NOTICE 09-31, THEFIRM INSTITUTED WSPS THAT PROHIBITED REPRESENTATIVES FROMSOLICITING RETAIL CUSTOMERS TO PURCHASE NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS.THE WSPS PERMITTED UNSOLICITED PURCHASES OF NON-TRADITIONALETFS BY RETAIL CUSTOMERS, BUT ONLY IF THE CUSTOMER WAS "PRE-QUALIFIED." TO MEET THIS PRE-QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENT, THEFIRM'S WSPS REQUIRED THAT REPRESENTATIVES OBTAIN A "LEVERAGEDETF REPRESENTATION LETTER" (THE "ETF QUALIFICATION LETTER") FROMEACH CUSTOMER SEEKING TO PURCHASE A NON-TRADITIONAL ETF. THEFINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO ENFORCE ITS WSPSPROHIBITING THE SOLICITATION OF NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASESFOR RETAIL CUSTOMERS IN SEVERAL RESPECTS. FIRST, THE FIRM DIDNOT ADEQUATELY TRAIN ITS SUPERVISORS AND REGISTEREDREPRESENTATIVES ON THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASES. SECOND, THE FIRM DID NOT PREVENTREPRESENTATIVES AND THE TRADING DESK FROM ENTERING SOLICITEDNON-TRADITIONAL ETF TRADES IN THE FIRM'S ORDER-ENTRY SYSTEM.THIRD, THE FIRM DID NOT USE AN EFFECTIVE SURVEILLANCE REPORT TOIDENTIFY SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF TRADES. AS A RESULT, THEFIRM'S REPRESENTATIVES CONTINUED TO SOLICIT NON-TRADITIONAL ETFPURCHASES FROM RETAIL CUSTOMERS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRM'SPOLICIES. THE FIRM ALSO FAILED TO ENFORCE ITS WSPS BY ALLOWINGRETAIL CUSTOMERS TO MAKE UNSOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETFPURCHASES EVEN THOUGH THE CUSTOMERS WERE NOT PRE-QUALIFIED,EITHER BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE AN ETF QUALIFICATION LETTER ONFILE OR BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO MEET THE PRE-QUALIFICATIONCRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE ETF QUALIFICATION LETTER. AS A RESULT,UNSOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASES CONTINUED TO BEEXECUTED FOR CUSTOMERS WHO WERE NOT PRE-QUALIFIED INVIOLATION OF THE FIRM'S POLICIES. THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THATTHE FIRM DID NOT ESTABLISH AN ADEQUATE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM,INCLUDING THE USE OF EXCEPTION REPORTS, TO EFFECTIVELYMONITOR HOLDING PERIODS FOR NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS. A PRIMARYRISK WITH NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS IS THAT THEIR PERFORMANCE OVERLONGER PERIODS OF TIME CAN DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THEPERFORMANCE OF THEIR UNDERLYING INDEX OR BENCHMARK,PARTICULARLY IN VOLATILE MARKETS. THE FIRM'S FAILURE TO HAVE ANADEQUATE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM TO MONITOR HOLDING PERIODS FORNON-TRADITIONAL ETFS CONTRIBUTED TO CUSTOMER LOSSES. FINRAFOUND THAT ALTHOUGH THE FIRM'S WSPS PROHIBITED SOLICITATION OFNON-TRADITIONAL ETFS, ITS REPRESENTATIVES NONETHELESSCONTINUED TO OFFER THESE SECURITIES TO RETAIL CUSTOMERS.BEFORE DOING SO, THE FIRM DID NOT PERFORM AN ADEQUATEREASONABLE BASIS SUITABILITY ANALYSIS OF NON-TRADITIONAL ETFSTO UNDERSTAND THE RISKS AND FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS. THE FIRM REPRESENTATIVES SOLICITED ANDEFFECTED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF PURCHASES THAT WERE UNSUITABLEFOR SPECIFIC CUSTOMERS. CERTAIN OF THE FIRM'S REPRESENTATIVESRECOMMENDED THESE COMPLEX AND SPECULATIVE PRODUCTS TONUMEROUS CUSTOMERS WITH CONSERVATIVE INVESTMENTOBJECTIVES, CERTAIN OF WHOM WERE ELDERLY. MOREOVER, SOME OFTHESE CUSTOMERS HELD NON-TRADITIONAL ETF POSITIONS FOREXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME - OFTEN MONTHS AND SOMETIME YEARS.FOR EXAMPLES, AN 89-YEAR CONSERVATIVE CUSTOMER WITH ANNUALINCOME OF $50,000 HELD 96 SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETFPOSITIONS FOR AN AVERAGE OF 32 DAYS (AND FOR UP TO 470 DAYS) FORA NET LOSS OF $51,847. ALSO, A 91-YEAR CONSERVATIVE CUSTOMERWITH AN ANNUAL INCOME OF $30,000 HELD 56 SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF POSITIONS FOR AN AVERAGE OF 48 DAYS (AND FOR UPTO 706 DAYS) FOR A NET LOSS OF $11,161. (CONTINUE IN COMMENT)






Initiated By: FINRA






Other Product Type(s): NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: PLUS INTEREST ON RESTITUTION

Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED, FINED $2,250,000, AND ORDERED TO PAY$716,831.80, PLUS INTEREST, IN RESTITUTION TO CUSTOMERS.

Firm Statement CONTINUE FROM ALLEGATIONS SECTION)- ADDITIONALLY, A 67-YEARCONSERVATIVE CUSTOMER WITH AN ANNUAL INCOME OF $40,000 HELDTWO SOLICITED NON-TRADITIONAL ETF POSITIONS IN HER ACCOUNT FOR729 DAYS FOR A LOSS OF $2,746.



Disclosure 10 of 92

i


Initiated By: SOUTH CAROLINA SECURITIES DIVISION

Allegations: THE SECURITIES DIVISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALFOR SOUTH CAROLINA DETERMINED THAT OPPENHEIMER, WITHOUTADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, FAILED TO DETECT AND REPORTTHE ACTIVITIES OF MARK HOTTON (CRD# 2346843), A FORMERREGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE AND ONE OTHER, UNIDENTIFIEDREPRESENTATIVE. THIS RELATES TO A RESIDENT OF SOUTH CAROLINA,AND HOTTON'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CLIENT INVEST IN PRIVATEINVESTMENTS FROM NOVEMBER 2005 THROUGH OCTOBER 2008.OPPENHEIMER PAID A FINE OF $150,000 AND REIMBURSED COSTS OF$25,000.








Initiated By: SOUTH CAROLINA SECURITIES DIVISION




Docket/Case Number: 14115 AND 15062


Other Product Type(s): PRIVATE INVESTMENTS


Resolution:


Sanction Details: THE SECURITIES DIVISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALFOR SOUTH CAROLINA DETERMINED THAT OPPENHEIMER, WITHOUTADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, FAILED TO DETECT AND REPORTTHE ACTIVITIES OF MARK HOTTON (CRD# 2346843), A FORMERREGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE AND ONE OTHER, UNIDENTIFIEDREPRESENTATIVE. THIS RELATES TO A RESIDENT OF SOUTH CAROLINA,AND HOTTON'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CLIENT INVEST IN PRIVATEINVESTMENTS FROM NOVEMBER 2005 THROUGH OCTOBER 2008.OPPENHEIMER PAID A FINE OF $150,000 AND REIMBURSED COSTS OF$25,000.


Stipulation and Consent

Disclosure 11 of 92

i


Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT EFFECTEDCUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS IN A MUNICIPAL SECURITY IN AN AMOUNTLOWER THAN THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF THE ISSUE WHICH WERENOT SUBJECT TO AN EXCEPTION UNDER THE RULE. THE FINDINGSSTATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTSCONCERNING MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS AT OR PRIOR TOTHE TIME OF TRADE. SPECIFICALLY, THE FIRM FAILED TO INFORM ITSCUSTOMER THAT THE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTION WAS IN ANAMOUNT BELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF THE ISSUE.







Initiated By: FINRA







WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT EFFECTEDCUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS IN A MUNICIPAL SECURITY IN AN AMOUNTLOWER THAN THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF THE ISSUE WHICH WERENOT SUBJECT TO AN EXCEPTION UNDER THE RULE. THE FINDINGSSTATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTSCONCERNING MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS AT OR PRIOR TOTHE TIME OF TRADE. SPECIFICALLY, THE FIRM FAILED TO INFORM ITSCUSTOMER THAT THE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTION WAS IN ANAMOUNT BELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF THE ISSUE.


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: RESCISSION

Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED, FINED $200,000 AND MUST OFFER RESCISSIONTO THE CUSTOMERS WHO PURCHASED SECURITIES AT EITHER THEORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE OR THE CURRENT FAIR MARKET VALUE,WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. FINE PAID IN FULL JANUARY 8, 2016.


No




Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT EFFECTEDCUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS IN A MUNICIPAL SECURITY IN AN AMOUNTLOWER THAN THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF THE ISSUE WHICH WERENOT SUBJECT TO AN EXCEPTION UNDER THE RULE. THE FINDINGSSTATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTSCONCERNING MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS AT OR PRIOR TOTHE TIME OF TRADE. SPECIFICALLY, THE FIRM FAILED TO INFORM ITSCUSTOMER THAT THE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTION WAS IN ANAMOUNT BELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF THE ISSUE.








Initiated By: FINRA







WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT EFFECTEDCUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS IN A MUNICIPAL SECURITY IN AN AMOUNTLOWER THAN THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF THE ISSUE WHICH WERENOT SUBJECT TO AN EXCEPTION UNDER THE RULE. THE FINDINGSSTATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTSCONCERNING MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS AT OR PRIOR TOTHE TIME OF TRADE. SPECIFICALLY, THE FIRM FAILED TO INFORM ITSCUSTOMER THAT THE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTION WAS IN ANAMOUNT BELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF THE ISSUE.


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: RESCISSION

Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED, FINED $200,000 AND MUST OFFER RESCISSIONTO THE CUSTOMERS WHO PURCHASED SECURITIES AT EITHER THEORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE OR THE CURRENT FAIR MARKET VALUE,WHICHEVER IS HIGHER.



Disclosure 12 of 92

i


Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT FROMJANUARY 2009 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2014, THE FIRM FAILED TOREASONABLY SUPERVISE AND TO HAVE AN ADEQUATE SUPERVISORYSYSTEM, INCLUDING ADEQUATE WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES(WSPS), TO ADDRESS SHORT POSITIONS IN TAX-EXEMPT MUNICIPALBONDS THAT RESULTED PRIMARILY FROM TRADING ERRORS. THEFINDINGS STATED THAT AS A RESULT OF THESE SUPERVISORY FAILURES,THE FIRM INACCURATELY REPRESENTED TO ITS CUSTOMERS HOLDINGMUNICIPAL BONDS THAT AT LEAST $188,974.38 IN INTEREST THAT THEFIRM PAID TO THOSE CUSTOMERS WAS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. THEFIRM DID NOT HOLD THE BONDS ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMERS ANDTHE INTEREST THAT THE CUSTOMERS RECEIVED WAS PAID BY THE FIRMAND THUS TAXABLE AS ORDINARY INCOME. THE FIRM FAILED TOCONSIDER, AND ITS DIVIDEND DEPARTMENT THAT WAS RESPONSIBLEFOR DISTRIBUTING AND RECONCILING THE INTEREST OWED TOCUSTOMERS DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, WHETHER THE INTERESTPAID TO CUSTOMERS SHOULD BE CODED AS NON-TAXABLE WHEN THEINTEREST WAS PAID BY THE FIRM RATHER THAN THE MUNICIPAL ISSUER.THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATEGUIDANCE OR OVERSIGHT ON HOW AND WHEN MUNICIPAL SHORTPOSITIONS SHOULD BE COVERED. AS A RESULT OF THE FIRM'SPROCEDURES, OR LACK THEREOF, REGARDING MUNICIPAL SHORTPOSITIONS IN BRANCH ERROR ACCOUNTS AND FIRM TRADINGACCOUNTS, MANY OF THE SHORT POSITIONS WERE NOT COVERED IN ATIMELY FASHION. THIS DEFICIENCY MAY HAVE BEEN PROLONGED DUE TOTHE DIFFICULTY OF COVERING THESE POSITIONS IN LIGHT OF THECHARACTERISTICS OF MUNICIPAL SECURITIES AS WELL AS THE LIMITEDAMOUNT OUTSTANDING OF A PARTICULAR MUNICIPAL BOND. IN 2013, THEFIRM RECOGNIZED THAT SHORT POSITIONS WERE NOT BEING COVEREDIN A TIMELY FASHION AND SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED ITS PROCEDURES TOREDUCE THE NUMBER OF AGED SHORT POSITIONS. NEVERTHELESS,DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE FIRM OFTEN DID NOT COVERMUNICIPAL SHORT POSITIONS. THE FIRM HAS ALSO IMPLEMENTEDREVISED PROCEDURES TO MINIMIZE ITS SHORT MUNICIPAL BONDPOSITIONS AND TO PROPERLY REPORT FIRM-PAID INTEREST AS TAXABLE.THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO DISCLOSE TOCUSTOMERS THAT THEY WERE NOT RECEIVING TAX-EXEMPT INTERESTWHEN THE FIRM WAS SHORT MUNICIPAL BONDS. IN ADDITION, THE FIRMSENT INACCURATE FORMS 1099 TO CERTAIN CUSTOMERS WHORECEIVED FIRM-PAID INTEREST FOR 2009 THROUGH 2014 AND ALSO SENTINACCURATE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS TO CERTAIN CUSTOMERS THATINCORRECTLY CLASSIFIED FIRM-PAID INTEREST AS TAX-EXEMPT WHEN ITSHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS TAXABLE. IN 2013, FINRAEXAMINATION STAFF FOUND THAT THE FIRM HAD INACCURATELYREPORTED FIRM-PAID INTEREST FROM SHORT MUNICIPAL BONDPOSITIONS TO CUSTOMERS ON FORMS 1099 AND ACCOUNT STATEMENTS.THEREAFTER, THE FIRM IMPLEMENTED REVISED PROCEDURES TOMINIMIZE ITS SHORT MUNICIPAL POSITIONS AND PROPERLY REPORTFIRM-PAID INTEREST AS TAXABLE ON THE FORMS 1099 ISSUED TOCUSTOMERS. THE FIRM HAS ALSO AGREED IN PRINCIPAL WITH THE IRS TOMAKE A PAYMENT TO RELIEVE ITS CUSTOMERS OF THE BURDEN OFFILING AMENDED TAX RETURNS AND PAYING ADDITIONAL FEDERALINCOME TAX. FINRA FOUND THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THEFIRM DID NOT MAINTAIN RECORDS IDENTIFYING PARTICULAR CUSTOMERACCOUNTS THAT OFFSET ITS SHORT MUNICIPAL BOND POSITIONS. THEFIRM'S SHORT POSITIONS WERE HELD IN AGGREGATE AND NOTALLOCATED TO SPECIFIED CUSTOMERS. BECAUSE THE FIRM'S SHORTMUNICIPAL BOND POSITIONS WERE NOT OFFSET AGAINST SPECIFICCUSTOMER HOLDINGS, THE FIRM WAS UNABLE TO ACCURATELY REPORTTAXABLE INCOME TO ITS CUSTOMERS WHO WERE RECEIVING FIRM-PAIDINTEREST AS TAXABLE INCOME.








WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT FROMJANUARY 2009 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2014, THE FIRM FAILED TOREASONABLY SUPERVISE AND TO HAVE AN ADEQUATE SUPERVISORYSYSTEM, INCLUDING ADEQUATE WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES(WSPS), TO ADDRESS SHORT POSITIONS IN TAX-EXEMPT MUNICIPALBONDS THAT RESULTED PRIMARILY FROM TRADING ERRORS. THEFINDINGS STATED THAT AS A RESULT OF THESE SUPERVISORY FAILURES,THE FIRM INACCURATELY REPRESENTED TO ITS CUSTOMERS HOLDINGMUNICIPAL BONDS THAT AT LEAST $188,974.38 IN INTEREST THAT THEFIRM PAID TO THOSE CUSTOMERS WAS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. THEFIRM DID NOT HOLD THE BONDS ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMERS ANDTHE INTEREST THAT THE CUSTOMERS RECEIVED WAS PAID BY THE FIRMAND THUS TAXABLE AS ORDINARY INCOME. THE FIRM FAILED TOCONSIDER, AND ITS DIVIDEND DEPARTMENT THAT WAS RESPONSIBLEFOR DISTRIBUTING AND RECONCILING THE INTEREST OWED TOCUSTOMERS DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, WHETHER THE INTERESTPAID TO CUSTOMERS SHOULD BE CODED AS NON-TAXABLE WHEN THEINTEREST WAS PAID BY THE FIRM RATHER THAN THE MUNICIPAL ISSUER.THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATEGUIDANCE OR OVERSIGHT ON HOW AND WHEN MUNICIPAL SHORTPOSITIONS SHOULD BE COVERED. AS A RESULT OF THE FIRM'SPROCEDURES, OR LACK THEREOF, REGARDING MUNICIPAL SHORTPOSITIONS IN BRANCH ERROR ACCOUNTS AND FIRM TRADINGACCOUNTS, MANY OF THE SHORT POSITIONS WERE NOT COVERED IN ATIMELY FASHION. THIS DEFICIENCY MAY HAVE BEEN PROLONGED DUE TOTHE DIFFICULTY OF COVERING THESE POSITIONS IN LIGHT OF THECHARACTERISTICS OF MUNICIPAL SECURITIES AS WELL AS THE LIMITEDAMOUNT OUTSTANDING OF A PARTICULAR MUNICIPAL BOND. IN 2013, THEFIRM RECOGNIZED THAT SHORT POSITIONS WERE NOT BEING COVEREDIN A TIMELY FASHION AND SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED ITS PROCEDURES TOREDUCE THE NUMBER OF AGED SHORT POSITIONS. NEVERTHELESS,DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE FIRM OFTEN DID NOT COVERMUNICIPAL SHORT POSITIONS. THE FIRM HAS ALSO IMPLEMENTEDREVISED PROCEDURES TO MINIMIZE ITS SHORT MUNICIPAL BONDPOSITIONS AND TO PROPERLY REPORT FIRM-PAID INTEREST AS TAXABLE.THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO DISCLOSE TOCUSTOMERS THAT THEY WERE NOT RECEIVING TAX-EXEMPT INTERESTWHEN THE FIRM WAS SHORT MUNICIPAL BONDS. IN ADDITION, THE FIRMSENT INACCURATE FORMS 1099 TO CERTAIN CUSTOMERS WHORECEIVED FIRM-PAID INTEREST FOR 2009 THROUGH 2014 AND ALSO SENTINACCURATE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS TO CERTAIN CUSTOMERS THATINCORRECTLY CLASSIFIED FIRM-PAID INTEREST AS TAX-EXEMPT WHEN ITSHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS TAXABLE. IN 2013, FINRAEXAMINATION STAFF FOUND THAT THE FIRM HAD INACCURATELYREPORTED FIRM-PAID INTEREST FROM SHORT MUNICIPAL BONDPOSITIONS TO CUSTOMERS ON FORMS 1099 AND ACCOUNT STATEMENTS.THEREAFTER, THE FIRM IMPLEMENTED REVISED PROCEDURES TOMINIMIZE ITS SHORT MUNICIPAL POSITIONS AND PROPERLY REPORTFIRM-PAID INTEREST AS TAXABLE ON THE FORMS 1099 ISSUED TOCUSTOMERS. THE FIRM HAS ALSO AGREED IN PRINCIPAL WITH THE IRS TOMAKE A PAYMENT TO RELIEVE ITS CUSTOMERS OF THE BURDEN OFFILING AMENDED TAX RETURNS AND PAYING ADDITIONAL FEDERALINCOME TAX. FINRA FOUND THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THEFIRM DID NOT MAINTAIN RECORDS IDENTIFYING PARTICULAR CUSTOMERACCOUNTS THAT OFFSET ITS SHORT MUNICIPAL BOND POSITIONS. THEFIRM'S SHORT POSITIONS WERE HELD IN AGGREGATE AND NOTALLOCATED TO SPECIFIED CUSTOMERS. BECAUSE THE FIRM'S SHORTMUNICIPAL BOND POSITIONS WERE NOT OFFSET AGAINST SPECIFICCUSTOMER HOLDINGS, THE FIRM WAS UNABLE TO ACCURATELY REPORTTAXABLE INCOME TO ITS CUSTOMERS WHO WERE RECEIVING FIRM-PAIDINTEREST AS TAXABLE INCOME.






Initiated By: FINRA









Resolution:


Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED AND FINED $225,000. FINE PAID IN FULLJANUARY 11, 2016.


No




Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT FROMJANUARY 2009 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2014, THE FIRM FAILED TOREASONABLY SUPERVISE AND TO HAVE AN ADEQUATE SUPERVISORYSYSTEM, INCLUDING ADEQUATE WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES(WSPS), TO ADDRESS SHORT POSITIONS IN TAX-EXEMPT MUNICIPALBONDS THAT RESULTED PRIMARILY FROM TRADING ERRORS. THEFINDINGS STATED THAT AS A RESULT OF THESE SUPERVISORY FAILURES,THE FIRM INACCURATELY REPRESENTED TO ITS CUSTOMERS HOLDINGMUNICIPAL BONDS THAT AT LEAST $188,974.38 IN INTEREST THAT THEFIRM PAID TO THOSE CUSTOMERS WAS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. THEFIRM DID NOT HOLD THE BONDS ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMERS ANDTHE INTEREST THAT THE CUSTOMERS RECEIVED WAS PAID BY THE FIRMAND THUS TAXABLE AS ORDINARY INCOME. THE FIRM FAILED TOCONSIDER, AND ITS DIVIDEND DEPARTMENT THAT WAS RESPONSIBLEFOR DISTRIBUTING AND RECONCILING THE INTEREST OWED TOCUSTOMERS DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, WHETHER THE INTERESTPAID TO CUSTOMERS SHOULD BE CODED AS NON-TAXABLE WHEN THEINTEREST WAS PAID BY THE FIRM RATHER THAN THE MUNICIPAL ISSUER.THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATEGUIDANCE OR OVERSIGHT ON HOW AND WHEN MUNICIPAL SHORTPOSITIONS SHOULD BE COVERED. AS A RESULT OF THE FIRM'SPROCEDURES, OR LACK THEREOF, REGARDING MUNICIPAL SHORTPOSITIONS IN BRANCH ERROR ACCOUNTS AND FIRM TRADINGACCOUNTS, MANY OF THE SHORT POSITIONS WERE NOT COVERED IN ATIMELY FASHION. THIS DEFICIENCY MAY HAVE BEEN PROLONGED DUE TOTHE DIFFICULTY OF COVERING THESE POSITIONS IN LIGHT OF THECHARACTERISTICS OF MUNICIPAL SECURITIES AS WELL AS THE LIMITEDAMOUNT OUTSTANDING OF A PARTICULAR MUNICIPAL BOND. IN 2013, THEFIRM RECOGNIZED THAT SHORT POSITIONS WERE NOT BEING COVEREDIN A TIMELY FASHION AND SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED ITS PROCEDURES TOREDUCE THE NUMBER OF AGED SHORT POSITIONS. NEVERTHELESS,DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE FIRM OFTEN DID NOT COVERMUNICIPAL SHORT POSITIONS. THE FIRM HAS ALSO IMPLEMENTEDREVISED PROCEDURES TO MINIMIZE ITS SHORT MUNICIPAL BONDPOSITIONS AND TO PROPERLY REPORT FIRM-PAID INTEREST AS TAXABLE.THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO DISCLOSE TOCUSTOMERS THAT THEY WERE NOT RECEIVING TAX-EXEMPT INTERESTWHEN THE FIRM WAS SHORT MUNICIPAL BONDS. IN ADDITION, THE FIRMSENT INACCURATE FORMS 1099 TO CERTAIN CUSTOMERS WHORECEIVED FIRM-PAID INTEREST FOR 2009 THROUGH 2014 AND ALSO SENTINACCURATE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS TO CERTAIN CUSTOMERS THATINCORRECTLY CLASSIFIED FIRM-PAID INTEREST AS TAX-EXEMPT WHEN ITSHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS TAXABLE. IN 2013, FINRAEXAMINATION STAFF FOUND THAT THE FIRM HAD INACCURATELYREPORTED FIRM-PAID INTEREST FROM SHORT MUNICIPAL BONDPOSITIONS TO CUSTOMERS ON FORMS 1099 AND ACCOUNT STATEMENTS.THEREAFTER, THE FIRM IMPLEMENTED REVISED PROCEDURES TOMINIMIZE ITS SHORT MUNICIPAL POSITIONS AND PROPERLY REPORTFIRM-PAID INTEREST AS TAXABLE ON THE FORMS 1099 ISSUED TOCUSTOMERS. THE FIRM HAS ALSO AGREED IN PRINCIPAL WITH THE IRS TOMAKE A PAYMENT TO RELIEVE ITS CUSTOMERS OF THE BURDEN OFFILING AMENDED TAX RETURNS AND PAYING ADDITIONAL FEDERALINCOME TAX. FINRA FOUND THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THEFIRM DID NOT MAINTAIN RECORDS IDENTIFYING PARTICULAR CUSTOMERACCOUNTS THAT OFFSET ITS SHORT MUNICIPAL BOND POSITIONS. THEFIRM'S SHORT POSITIONS WERE HELD IN AGGREGATE AND NOTALLOCATED TO SPECIFIED CUSTOMERS. BECAUSE THE FIRM'S SHORTMUNICIPAL BOND POSITIONS WERE NOT OFFSET AGAINST SPECIFICCUSTOMER HOLDINGS, THE FIRM WAS UNABLE TO ACCURATELY REPORTTAXABLE INCOME TO ITS CUSTOMERS WHO WERE RECEIVING FIRM-PAIDINTEREST AS TAXABLE INCOME.








Initiated By: FINRA


Other


N/A







Resolution:


Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED AND FINED $225,000.00



Disclosure 13 of 92

i


Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TOPROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMER THECALL DATE AND DOLLAR PRICE OF THE CALL IN TRANSACTIONS INMUNICIPAL SECURITIES EXECUTED ON THE BASIS OF A YIELD TO CALL.THE FINDINGS STATED THAT THE FIRM ALSO FAILED TO PROVIDEWRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMER THE CORRECTNEXT POTENTIAL CALL DATE IN TRANSACTIONS IN CONTINUOUSLYCALLABLE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES EXECUTED ON THE BASIS OF A YIELDTO CALL. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM PROVIDEDWRITTEN NOTIFICATION IMPROPERLY DISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMER AYIELD TO CALL IN TRANSACTIONS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES WITH AVARIABLE INTEREST RATE. THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THAT THE FIRMFAILED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER THE CORRECT LOWEST EFFECTIVE YIELD IN A TRANSACTIONIN A MUNICIPAL SECURITY. FINRA FOUND THAT THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORYSYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FOR SUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNEDTO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TO APPLICABLE SECURITIESLAWS AND REGULATIONS, AND MSRB RULES, CONCERNING CUSTOMERCONFIRMATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS.








Initiated By: FINRA


Other


N/A




Other Product Type(s): MUNICIPAL SECURITIES

WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TOPROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMER THECALL DATE AND DOLLAR PRICE OF THE CALL IN TRANSACTIONS INMUNICIPAL SECURITIES EXECUTED ON THE BASIS OF A YIELD TO CALL.THE FINDINGS STATED THAT THE FIRM ALSO FAILED TO PROVIDEWRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMER THE CORRECTNEXT POTENTIAL CALL DATE IN TRANSACTIONS IN CONTINUOUSLYCALLABLE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES EXECUTED ON THE BASIS OF A YIELDTO CALL. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM PROVIDEDWRITTEN NOTIFICATION IMPROPERLY DISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMER AYIELD TO CALL IN TRANSACTIONS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES WITH AVARIABLE INTEREST RATE. THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THAT THE FIRMFAILED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER THE CORRECT LOWEST EFFECTIVE YIELD IN A TRANSACTIONIN A MUNICIPAL SECURITY. FINRA FOUND THAT THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORYSYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FOR SUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNEDTO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TO APPLICABLE SECURITIESLAWS AND REGULATIONS, AND MSRB RULES, CONCERNING CUSTOMERCONFIRMATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS.


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: UNDERTAKING

Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED, FINED $15,000, AND IS REQUIRED TO REVISEITS WSPS.

FINE PAID IN FULL ON FEBRUARY 26, 2016.


No










Initiated By: FINRA


Other


N/A





Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TOPROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMER THECALL DATE AND DOLLAR PRICE OF THE CALL IN TRANSACTIONS INMUNICIPAL SECURITIES EXECUTED ON THE BASIS OF A YIELD TO CALL.THE FINDINGS STATED THAT THE FIRM ALSO FAILED TO PROVIDEWRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMER THE CORRECTNEXT POTENTIAL CALL DATE IN TRANSACTIONS IN CONTINUOUSLYCALLABLE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES EXECUTED ON THE BASIS OF A YIELDTO CALL. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM PROVIDEDWRITTEN NOTIFICATION IMPROPERLY DISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMER AYIELD TO CALL IN TRANSACTIONS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES WITH AVARIABLE INTEREST RATE. THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THAT THE FIRMFAILED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER THE CORRECT LOWEST EFFECTIVE YIELD IN A TRANSACTIONIN A MUNICIPAL SECURITY. FINRA FOUND THAT THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORYSYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FOR SUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNEDTO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TO APPLICABLE SECURITIESLAWS AND REGULATIONS, AND MSRB RULES, CONCERNING CUSTOMERCONFIRMATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS.



Resolution:












Disclosure 14 of 92

i


Initiated By: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY FINANCIALCRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK





Docket/Case Number: 2015-01

Principal Product Type: Penny Stock(s)


Allegations: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURYFINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK ("FINCEN") ALLEGED THATOPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. ("OPPENHEIMER") WILLFULLY VIOLATED THEBANK SECRECY ACT BY (A) FAILING TO IMPLEMENT AND ADEQUATE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING PROGRAM, 31 U.S.C.S. 5318(H) AND 31 C.F.R.S.1023.210;(B) FAILED TO IMPLEMENT AN ADEQUATE DUE DILIGENCEPROGRAM FOR A FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT ACCOUNT, 31 U.S.C.S.5318(I)(1) AND 31C.F.R.S. 1023.610; AND (C) FAILED TO COMPLY WITHNOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER RULES IMPOSING SPECIALMEASURES UNDER SECTION 311 OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT AGAINSTTHREE FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS OF PRIMARY MONEYLAUNDERING CONCERN. 31 CFRS. 1010.653, 1010.654, 1010.655.



Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: PROVIDE FINCEN COPIES OF ANY REPORTS OR OTHERRECOMMENDATIONS PREPARED BY AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANTRETAINED TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CERTAINASPECTS OF ITS COMPLIANCE PROGRAM, INCLUDING ITS AML PROGRAM.

Sanction Details: OPPENHEIMER ADMITTED THAT IT VIOLATED THE BANK SECRECY ACT ANDCONSENTED TO THE ASSESSMENT OF A CIVIL MONEY PENALTY IN THEAMOUNT OF $20 MILLION, OF WHICH $10 MILLION WAS CONCURRENTWITH THE PENALTY, DISGORGEMENT AND PREJUDGMENT INTERESTIMPOSED BY THE SEC IN CONNECTION WITH IN THE MATTER OFOPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING FILE NO. 3-16361 (JAN. 27, 2015). OPPENHEIMER PAID $5 MILLION OF THE $10 MILLIONPENALTY TO FINCEN ON FEBRUARY 9, 2015 AND THE REMAINING $5MILLION PENALTY IS DUE TO BE PAID TO FINCEN BY JANUARY 27, 2017.

Sanctions Ordered: Monetary/Fine $20,000,000.00

Consent






Sanction Details: OPPENHEIMER ADMITTED THAT IT VIOLATED THE BANK SECRECY ACT ANDCONSENTED TO THE ASSESSMENT OF A CIVIL MONEY PENALTY IN THEAMOUNT OF $20 MILLION, OF WHICH $10 MILLION WAS CONCURRENTWITH THE PENALTY, DISGORGEMENT AND PREJUDGMENT INTERESTIMPOSED BY THE SEC IN CONNECTION WITH IN THE MATTER OFOPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING FILE NO. 3-16361 (JAN. 27, 2015). OPPENHEIMER PAID $5 MILLION OF THE $10 MILLIONPENALTY TO FINCEN ON FEBRUARY 9, 2015 AND THE REMAINING $5MILLION PENALTY IS DUE TO BE PAID TO FINCEN BY JANUARY 27, 2017.

Disclosure 15 of 92

i


Initiated By: FINRA







Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT, INTRANSACTIONS FOR OR WITH A CUSTOMER, THE FIRM FAILED TO USEREASONABLE DILIGENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE BEST INTER-DEALERMARKET AND FAILED TO BUY OR SELL IN SUCH MARKET SO THAT THERESULTANT PRICE TO ITS CUSTOMERS WAS AS FAVORABLE AS POSSIBLEUNDER PREVAILING MARKET CONDITIONS. THESE VIOLATIONS RESULTEDIN A TOTAL OF $109.15 IN RESTITUTION, WHICH THE FIRM HAS CONFIRMEDWAS PAID. THE FINDINGS STATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO ACCURATELYREPORT THE CORRECT EXECUTION PRICE TO THE OVER-THE-COUNTERREPORTING FACILITY (OTCRF) AND FAILED TO SHOW THE CORRECTORDER RECEIPT TIME AND TIME OF EXECUTION ON THE MEMORANDUMOF BROKERAGE ORDERS. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM'SSUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FOR SUPERVISIONREASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TOTHE APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS AND REGULATIONS, AND NASD ANDFINRA RULES PERTAINING TO THE FIRM'S BEST EXECUTION OBLIGATIONSIN OTC SECURITIES.









Resolution:



FINE PAID IN FULL ON NOVEMBER 4, 2015.


No




Initiated By: FINRA




Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT, INTRANSACTIONS FOR OR WITH A CUSTOMER, THE FIRM FAILED TO USEREASONABLE DILIGENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE BEST INTER-DEALERMARKET AND FAILED TO BUY OR SELL IN SUCH MARKET SO THAT THERESULTANT PRICE TO ITS CUSTOMERS WAS AS FAVORABLE AS POSSIBLEUNDER PREVAILING MARKET CONDITIONS. THESE VIOLATIONS RESULTEDIN A TOTAL OF $109.15 IN RESTITUTION, WHICH THE FIRM HAS CONFIRMEDWAS PAID. THE FINDINGS STATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO ACCURATELYREPORT THE CORRECT EXECUTION PRICE TO THE OVER-THE-COUNTERREPORTING FACILITY (OTCRF) AND FAILED TO SHOW THE CORRECTORDER RECEIPT TIME AND TIME OF EXECUTION ON THE MEMORANDUMOF BROKERAGE ORDERS. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM'SSUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FOR SUPERVISIONREASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TOTHE APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS AND REGULATIONS, AND NASD ANDFINRA RULES PERTAINING TO THE FIRM'S BEST EXECUTION OBLIGATIONSIN OTC SECURITIES.













Resolution:





Disclosure 16 of 92

i










Allegations: OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. ("OPPENHEIMER"), AN EXCHANGE TPHORGANIZATION, WAS CENSURED AND FINED $20,000 FOR: (I) FAILING TOREGISTER TWO (2) ASSOCIATED PERSONS AS A PROPRIETARY TRADERPRINCIPAL (TP) WITH THE EXCHANGE IN WEBCRD; (II) FAILING TOREGISTER FIVE (5) ASSOCIATED PERSONS AS A PROPRIETARY TRADER(PT) WITH THE EXCHANGE IN WEBCRD; AND (III) FAILING TO REGISTER ITSCHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER AS A PROPRIETARY TRADER COMPLIANCEOFFICER (CT) WITH THE EXCHANGE IN WEBCRD. (EXCHANGE RULE 3.6A -QUALIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF TRADING PERMIT HOLDERS ANDASSOCIATED PERSONS)








Resolution:


Sanction Details: A $20,000 FINE AND A CENSURE.












Allegations: IN JULY, 2015 , THE BUSINESS CONDUCT COMMITTEE OF THE CHICAGOBOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE ISSUED A STATEMENT OF CHARGES, IN THEMATTER OF OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. STAR NO. 20150462954, ALLEGINGTHAT OPPENHEIMER VIOLATE EXCHANGE RULE 3.6A BY FAILING TO TWOASSOCIATED PERSONS AS PROPRIETARY TRADER PRINCIPALS,5ASSOCIATED PERSONS AS PROPRIETARY TRADERS, AND THE CHIEFCOMPLIANCE OFFICER AS PROPRIETARY TRADER COMPLIANCE OFFICER.



Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: A $20,000 FINE AND A CENSURE.

Sanction Details: ON OCTOBER 20, 2015 THE BUSINESS CONDUCT COMMITTEE OF THECHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INCORPORATED UNDER FILE NO.15-0070, STAR NO. 20150462954 ISSUED ITS DECISION ACCEPTING THEOFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN THE MATTER OF OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.("THE DECISION"). THE DECISION DETERMINED THAT OPPENHEIMER WASAN EXCHANGE TRADING PERMIT HOLDER APPROVED TO TRANSACTBUSINESS WITH THE PUBLIC. AS A RESULT OF A ROUTINE EXAMINATION ITWAS DETERMINED THAT ON VARIOUS DATES FROM NOVEMBER 5, 2011THROUGH JUNE 9, 2014, OPPENHEIMER FAILED TO REGISTER TWO (2)ASSOCIATED PERSONS AS PROPRIETARY TRADING PRINCIPAL WITHCBOE. DURING THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME OPPENHEIMER FAILED TOREGISTER FICE (5) ASSOCIATED PERSONS AS PROPRIETARY TRADERS,AND FROM MAY 1, 2013 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 OPPENHEIMERFAILED TO REGISTER ITS CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER AS APROPRIETARY TRADING COMPLIANCE OFFICER. OPPENHEIMER WASSANCTIONED, AND ORDERED TO PAY $20,000.00 TO THE CBOE.








ON OCTOBER 20, 2015 THE BUSINESS CONDUCT COMMITTEE OF THECHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INCORPORATED UNDER FILE NO.15-0070, STAR NO. 20150462954 ISSUED ITS DECISION ACCEPTING THEOFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN THE MATTER OF OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.("THE DECISION"). THE DECISION DETERMINED THAT OPPENHEIMER WASAN EXCHANGE TRADING PERMIT HOLDER APPROVED TO TRANSACTBUSINESS WITH THE PUBLIC. AS A RESULT OF A ROUTINE EXAMINATION ITWAS DETERMINED THAT ON VARIOUS DATES FROM NOVEMBER 5, 2011THROUGH JUNE 9, 2014, OPPENHEIMER FAILED TO REGISTER TWO (2)ASSOCIATED PERSONS AS PROPRIETARY TRADING PRINCIPAL WITHCBOE. DURING THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME OPPENHEIMER FAILED TOREGISTER FICE (5) ASSOCIATED PERSONS AS PROPRIETARY TRADERS,AND FROM MAY 1, 2013 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 OPPENHEIMERFAILED TO REGISTER ITS CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER AS APROPRIETARY TRADING COMPLIANCE OFFICER. OPPENHEIMER WASSANCTIONED, AND ORDERED TO PAY $20,000.00 TO THE CBOE.

Disclosure 17 of 92

i


Initiated By: NEW MEXICO SECURITIES DIVISION




Docket/Case Number: 14-03-0028


Other Product Type(s): BANK BONDS

Allegations: IN NOVEMBER, 2014 THE NEW MEXICO SECURITIES DIVISION FILED ANOTICE OF CONTEMPLATED ACTION, IN THE MATTER OF OPPENHEIMERAND ROYCE SIMPSON, NN. 14-03-0028 ('THE NOTICE"). THE NOTICEALLEGED THAT CERTAIN FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATIONAND FEDERAL LOAN HOME BANK BONDS, PURCHASED BY BERNALILLOCOUNTY WERE UNSUITABLE, AND THAT CO- RESPONDENT SIMPSON'SACTIVITIES WEREN'T SUPERVISED. THE MATTER HAS NOT BEENSCHEDULED FOR A HEARING.



Resolution:










Sanction Details: ON OCTOBER 19, 2015 OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. ("OPPENHEIMER")ENTERED A STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THESECURITIES DIVISION OF THE NEW MEXICO REGULATION AND LICENSINGDEPARTMENT RESOLVING A NOTICE OF CONTEMPLATED ACTION, DATEDNOVEMBER 20, 2014, CAPTIONED IN THE MATTER OF OPPENHEIMER & CO.INC. AND ROYCE SIMPSON, CASE NO. 14-03-0028. THE STIPULATION ANDAGREEMENT DETERMINED THAT THE DIVISION, WHILE REVIEWING THETRADING ACTIVITY FOR BERNALILLO COUNTY FROM 2012 THROUGH 2013,DETERMINED THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN CERTAIN SUPERVISORYDEFICIENCIES AT OPPENHEIMER IN ADVISING THE TREASURER'S OFFICEOF BERNALILLO COUNTY DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME IN QUESTIONTHROUGH OPPENHEIMER'S AGENT, ROYCE SIMPSON. OPPENHEIMERDISPUTES THAT CLAIM AS SET FORTH IN THE NOTICE OF CONTEMPLATEDACTION; FURTHER, THE STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT WAS NOTINTENDED TO MODIFY ANY OF OPPENHEIMER'S OBLIGATIONS UNDEREXISTING LAW, AND IN FACT OPPENHEIMER MADE CERTAIN REVISIONS INITS INTERNAL POLICIES INVOLVING THE INVESTMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS.OPPENHEIMER ALSO AGREED TO REMIT TO THE DIVISION THE AMOUNTOF $215,000.00, TO BE ALLOCATED TO THE INVESTOR EDUCATION FUNDFOR THE BENEFIT OF LICENSEES AND CONSUMERS WITHIN OF NEWMEXICO. OPPENHEIMER MADE THAT PAYMENT ON NOVEMBER 7, 2015.OPPENHEIMER ALSO AGREED TO COMMIT TO A FULL IMPLEMENTATION OFIMPROVED SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES, WHICH IT ALREADY ADOPTED,FOR SERVICING POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS THROUGHOUT NEW MEXICO. ASA RESULT, THE DIVISION RELEASED AND DISCHARGED OPPENHEIMERFROM MANY AND ALL CLAIMS, AND DISMISSED THE NOTICE OFCONTEMPLATED ACTION WITH PREJUDICE AGAINST OPPENHEIMER.

Disclosure 18 of 92

i


Initiated By: INVESTOR PROTECTION DIRECTOR FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE


Docket/Case Number: IPU CASE NO. 11-2-4


Other Product Type(s): VARIOUS INVESTMENTS

Allegations: DELAWARE ALLEGES THAT THE FIRM VIOLATED 6DEL C 7316(A)(10) (2002)BY FAILING TO SUPERVISE AN FA AND FAILING TO COMPLY WITH CERTAINASPECTS OF ITS COMPLIANCE SYSTEM.










UNDERTAKING

Other Product Type(s): VARIOUS INVESTMENTS


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: UNDERTAKINGS

Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING ANY WRONGDOING ON THE PART OFOPPENHEIMER OR ANY OF ITS AGENTS OR FORMER AGENTS,OPPENHEIMER AGREED TO PAY $685,000. TO THE DELAWARE INVESTORPROTECTION FUND AND AGREED TO CERTAIN UNDERTAKINGS.OPPENHEIMER PAID THE PENALTY ON OR ABOUT JULY 2, 2015 AND WASORDERED TO REFRAIN FROM COMMITTING ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OFTHE ACT.

Firm Statement THE AFOREMENTIONED UNDERTAKINGS AGREED TO ARE AS FOLLOWS:OPPENHEIMER SHALL DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN POLICIES, PROCEDURESAND SYSTEMS THAT REASONABLY SUPERVISE THE ACTIVIITES OF ITSBROKER-DEALER AGENTS, INVESTMENT ADVISORS, AND BRANCH OFFICEMANAGERS, AND ENSURE FULL COMPLIANCE BY ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS,EMPLOYEES, AND REPRESENTATIVES WITH THEIR AND OPPENHEIMERSRESPONSIBILITIES TO THEIR CLIENTS.


Consent

Disclosure 19 of 92

i


Allegations: SEC ADMIN RELEASES 33-9836; 34-75230, JUNE 18, 2015: THE SECURITIESAND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THEPUBLIC INTEREST THAT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESISTPROCEEDINGS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, INSTITUTED AGAINSTOPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. ("RESPONDENT"). RESPONDENT WILLFULLYVIOLATED SECTION 17(A)(2) OF THE SECURITIES ACT. THIS MATTERINVOLVES VIOLATIONS OF AN ANTIFRAUD PROVISION OF THE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH RESPONDENT'S UNDERWRITINGOF CERTAIN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES OFFERINGS. RESPONDENT, AREGISTERED BROKER-DEALER, CONDUCTED INADEQUATE DUEDILIGENCE IN CERTAIN OFFERINGS AND AS A RESULT, FAILED TO FORM AREASONABLE BASIS FOR BELIEVING THE TRUTHFULNESS OF CERTAINMATERIAL REPRESENTATIONS IN OFFICIAL STATEMENTS ISSUED INCONNECTION WITH THOSE OFFERINGS. THIS RESULTED IN RESPONDENTOFFERING AND SELLING MUNICIPAL SECURITIES ON THE BASIS OFMATERIALLY MISLEADING DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS.THE VIOLATIONS WERE SELF-REPORTED BY RESPONDENT TO THECOMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT'S (THE "DIVISION") MUNICIPALITIES CONTINUING DISCLOSURE COOPERATION(MCDC) INITIATIVE.







Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Cease and Desist






SEC ADMIN RELEASES 33-9836; 34-75230, JUNE 18, 2015: THE SECURITIESAND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THEPUBLIC INTEREST THAT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESISTPROCEEDINGS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, INSTITUTED AGAINSTOPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. ("RESPONDENT"). RESPONDENT WILLFULLYVIOLATED SECTION 17(A)(2) OF THE SECURITIES ACT. THIS MATTERINVOLVES VIOLATIONS OF AN ANTIFRAUD PROVISION OF THE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH RESPONDENT'S UNDERWRITINGOF CERTAIN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES OFFERINGS. RESPONDENT, AREGISTERED BROKER-DEALER, CONDUCTED INADEQUATE DUEDILIGENCE IN CERTAIN OFFERINGS AND AS A RESULT, FAILED TO FORM AREASONABLE BASIS FOR BELIEVING THE TRUTHFULNESS OF CERTAINMATERIAL REPRESENTATIONS IN OFFICIAL STATEMENTS ISSUED INCONNECTION WITH THOSE OFFERINGS. THIS RESULTED IN RESPONDENTOFFERING AND SELLING MUNICIPAL SECURITIES ON THE BASIS OFMATERIALLY MISLEADING DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS.THE VIOLATIONS WERE SELF-REPORTED BY RESPONDENT TO THECOMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT'S (THE "DIVISION") MUNICIPALITIES CONTINUING DISCLOSURE COOPERATION(MCDC) INITIATIVE.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: THE RESPONDENT SHALL CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING ORCAUSING ANY VIOLATIONS AND ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECTION17(A)(2)OF THE SECURITIES ACT, PAY A CIVIL MONEY PENALTY IN THEAMOUNT OF $400,000 AND COMPLY WITH THE UNDERTAKINGSENUMERATED IN THE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT.

Regulator Statement IN ANTICIPATION OF THE INSTITUTION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS,RESPONDENT HAS SUBMITTED AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT (THE "OFFER")WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT. SOLELY FOR THEPURPOSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGSBROUGHT BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION, OR TO WHICH THECOMMISSION IS A PARTY, AND WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THEFINDINGS, EXCEPT AS TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER IT ANDTHE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE ADMITTED,RESPONDENT CONSENTS TO THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER INSTITUTINGADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TOSECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AND SECTION 15(B) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSINGREMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER. IN VIEW OF THEFOREGOING, THE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THEPUBLIC INTEREST TO IMPOSE THE SANCTIONS AGREED TO INRESPONDENT'S OFFER. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THATRESPONDENT SHALL, CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING ORCAUSING ANY VIOLATIONS AND ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF 17(A)(2)OFTHE SECURITIES ACT; WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THE ENTRY OF THISORDER, PAY A CIVIL MONEY PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,000 TO THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION; AND RETAIN AN INDEPENDENTCONSULTANT TO CONDUCT A REVIEW OF RESPONDENT'S POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES AS THEY RELATE TO MUNICIPAL SECURITIESUNDERWRITING DUE DILIGENCE


Yes

Sanctions Ordered: Monetary/Fine $400,000.00Cease and Desist/Injunction

Order





www.finra.org/brokercheck User GuidanceIN ANTICIPATION OF THE INSTITUTION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS,RESPONDENT HAS SUBMITTED AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT (THE "OFFER")WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT. SOLELY FOR THEPURPOSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGSBROUGHT BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION, OR TO WHICH THECOMMISSION IS A PARTY, AND WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THEFINDINGS, EXCEPT AS TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER IT ANDTHE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE ADMITTED,RESPONDENT CONSENTS TO THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER INSTITUTINGADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TOSECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AND SECTION 15(B) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSINGREMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER. IN VIEW OF THEFOREGOING, THE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THEPUBLIC INTEREST TO IMPOSE THE SANCTIONS AGREED TO INRESPONDENT'S OFFER. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THATRESPONDENT SHALL, CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING ORCAUSING ANY VIOLATIONS AND ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF 17(A)(2)OFTHE SECURITIES ACT; WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THE ENTRY OF THISORDER, PAY A CIVIL MONEY PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,000 TO THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION; AND RETAIN AN INDEPENDENTCONSULTANT TO CONDUCT A REVIEW OF RESPONDENT'S POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES AS THEY RELATE TO MUNICIPAL SECURITIESUNDERWRITING DUE DILIGENCE


Allegations: SEC ADMIN RELEASES 33-9836; 34-75230, JUNE 18, 2015: THE SECURITIESAND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THEPUBLIC INTEREST THAT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESISTPROCEEDINGS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, INSTITUTED AGAINSTOPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. ("RESPONDENT"). RESPONDENT WILLFULLYVIOLATED SECTION 17(A)(2) OF THE SECURITIES ACT. THIS MATTERINVOLVES VIOLATIONS OF AN ANTIFRAUD PROVISION OF THE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH RESPONDENT'S UNDERWRITINGOF CERTAIN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES OFFERINGS. RESPONDENT, AREGISTERED BROKER-DEALER, CONDUCTED INADEQUATE DUEDILIGENCE IN CERTAIN OFFERINGS AND AS A RESULT, FAILED TO FORM AREASONABLE BASIS FOR BELIEVING THE TRUTHFULNESS OF CERTAINMATERIAL REPRESENTATIONS IN OFFICIAL STATEMENTS ISSUED INCONNECTION WITH THOSE OFFERINGS. THIS RESULTED IN RESPONDENTOFFERING AND SELLING MUNICIPAL SECURITIES ON THE BASIS OFMATERIALLY MISLEADING DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS. THE VIOLATIONSWERE SELF-REPORTED BY RESPONDENT TO THE COMMISSIONPURSUANT TO THE DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT'S (THE "DIVISION")MUNICIPALITIES CONTINUING DISCLOSURE COOPERATION (MCDC)INITIATIVE. OPPENHEIMER UNDERSTANDS THAT ON THE SAME DATE, THESEC ANNOUNCED PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE AND DESISTPRECEEDINGS SIMILIAR TO THE ONE DISCLOSED HEREIN AGAINSTTHIRTY FIVE (35) OTHER UNDERWRITER BROKER/DEALERS.









Cease and Desist






SEC ADMIN RELEASES 33-9836; 34-75230, JUNE 18, 2015: THE SECURITIESAND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THEPUBLIC INTEREST THAT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESISTPROCEEDINGS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, INSTITUTED AGAINSTOPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. ("RESPONDENT"). RESPONDENT WILLFULLYVIOLATED SECTION 17(A)(2) OF THE SECURITIES ACT. THIS MATTERINVOLVES VIOLATIONS OF AN ANTIFRAUD PROVISION OF THE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH RESPONDENT'S UNDERWRITINGOF CERTAIN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES OFFERINGS. RESPONDENT, AREGISTERED BROKER-DEALER, CONDUCTED INADEQUATE DUEDILIGENCE IN CERTAIN OFFERINGS AND AS A RESULT, FAILED TO FORM AREASONABLE BASIS FOR BELIEVING THE TRUTHFULNESS OF CERTAINMATERIAL REPRESENTATIONS IN OFFICIAL STATEMENTS ISSUED INCONNECTION WITH THOSE OFFERINGS. THIS RESULTED IN RESPONDENTOFFERING AND SELLING MUNICIPAL SECURITIES ON THE BASIS OFMATERIALLY MISLEADING DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS. THE VIOLATIONSWERE SELF-REPORTED BY RESPONDENT TO THE COMMISSIONPURSUANT TO THE DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT'S (THE "DIVISION")MUNICIPALITIES CONTINUING DISCLOSURE COOPERATION (MCDC)INITIATIVE. OPPENHEIMER UNDERSTANDS THAT ON THE SAME DATE, THESEC ANNOUNCED PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE AND DESISTPRECEEDINGS SIMILIAR TO THE ONE DISCLOSED HEREIN AGAINSTTHIRTY FIVE (35) OTHER UNDERWRITER BROKER/DEALERS.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: THE RESPONDENT SHALL CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING ORCAUSING ANY VIOLATIONS AND ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECTION17(A)(2)OF THE SECURITIES ACT, PAY A CIVIL MONEY PENALTY IN THEAMOUNT OF $400,000 AND COMPLY WITH THE UNDERTAKINGSENUMERATED IN THE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT.

Firm Statement IN ANTICIPATION OF THE INSTITUTION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS,RESPONDENT HAS SUBMITTED AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT (THE "OFFER")WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT. SOLELY FOR THEPURPOSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGSBROUGHT BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION, OR TO WHICH THECOMMISSION IS A PARTY, AND WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THEFINDINGS, EXCEPT AS TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER IT ANDTHE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE ADMITTED,RESPONDENT CONSENTS TO THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER INSTITUTINGADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TOSECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AND SECTION 15(B) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSINGREMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER. IN VIEW OF THEFOREGOING, THE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THEPUBLIC INTEREST TO IMPOSE THE SANCTIONS AGREED TO INRESPONDENT'S OFFER. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THATRESPONDENT SHALL, CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING ORCAUSING ANY VIOLATIONS AND ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF 17(A)(2)OFTHE SECURITIES ACT; WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THE ENTRY OF THISORDER, PAY A CIVIL MONEY PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,000 TO THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION; AND RETAIN AN INDEPENDENTCONSULTANT TO CONDUCT A REVIEW OF RESPONDENT'S POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES AS THEY RELATE TO MUNICIPAL SECURITIESUNDERWRITING DUE DILIGENCE


Order






IN ANTICIPATION OF THE INSTITUTION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS,RESPONDENT HAS SUBMITTED AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT (THE "OFFER")WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT. SOLELY FOR THEPURPOSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGSBROUGHT BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION, OR TO WHICH THECOMMISSION IS A PARTY, AND WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THEFINDINGS, EXCEPT AS TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER IT ANDTHE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE ADMITTED,RESPONDENT CONSENTS TO THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER INSTITUTINGADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TOSECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AND SECTION 15(B) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSINGREMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER. IN VIEW OF THEFOREGOING, THE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THEPUBLIC INTEREST TO IMPOSE THE SANCTIONS AGREED TO INRESPONDENT'S OFFER. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THATRESPONDENT SHALL, CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING ORCAUSING ANY VIOLATIONS AND ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF 17(A)(2)OFTHE SECURITIES ACT; WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THE ENTRY OF THISORDER, PAY A CIVIL MONEY PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,000 TO THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION; AND RETAIN AN INDEPENDENTCONSULTANT TO CONDUCT A REVIEW OF RESPONDENT'S POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES AS THEY RELATE TO MUNICIPAL SECURITIESUNDERWRITING DUE DILIGENCE

Disclosure 20 of 92

i


Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TOSUPERVISE ITS REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE WHO MISAPPROPRIATEDFUNDS FROM HIS CUSTOMERS AND EXCESSIVELY TRADED THEIRACCOUNT. FINRA BARRED THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR, AMONG OTHERTHINGS, STEALING APPROXIMATELY $6 MILLION FROM HIS CUSTOMERSAND EXCESSIVELY TRADING AND CHURNING HIS CUSTOMERS'ACCOUNTS, IN WILLFUL VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(B) OF THE SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 10B-5 THEREUNDER. THE FINDINGS STATEDTHAT THE FIRM FAILED TO CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE PRE-HIREINVESTIGATION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE AND FAILED TO PLACE HIM ONHEIGHTENED SUPERVISION. THE FIRM FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THECIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TWELVE DISCLOSURES THAT APPEARED IN HISCRD RECORD OR SUBJECT HIM TO HEIGHTENED SUPERVISION. WHENTHE REPRESENTATIVE JOINED THE FIRM, HIS CRD RECORD REPORTABLEEVENTS INCLUDED CRIMINAL CHARGES INVOLVING LARCENY ORPOSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY, A TERMINATION FOR CAUSE, A NEWYORK STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTIGATION, A PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY,AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS THAT WITH ALLEGED UNAUTHORIZEDTRADING. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TOSUPERVISE THE REPRESENTATIVE. THE FIRM WAS MADE AWARE THAT HEWAS ENGAGED IN UNDISCLOSED OUTSIDE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, ANDFAILED TO MONITOR OR IDENTIFY NUMEROUS RED FLAGSDEMONSTRATING THAT HE AND/OR ITS CUSTOMERS WERE WIRINGCUSTOMER FUNDS TO ACCOUNTS HE CONTROLLED. THE FIRM FAILED TOPLACE HIM ON HEIGHTENED SUPERVISION AFTER IT BECAME AWARE OFSERIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD AND DECEIT THAT HE SETTLED FOR $3MILLION. THE FIRM FAILED TO TAKE ACTION TO RESTRICT HIS TRADING INCUSTOMER ACCOUNTS AFTER ITS INTERNAL ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT HEWAS TRADING MULTIPLE CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS AT LEVELS CONSIDEREDPRESUMPTIVELY EXCESSIVE. THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THAT THEFIRM FAILED TO MAINTAIN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES CAPABLE OFDETECTING AND PREVENTING CERTAIN POTENTIALLY FRAUDULENTTHIRD PARTY WIRES, INCLUDING WIRES BETWEEN ITS CUSTOMERS'ACCOUNTS AND ITS REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES OR THEIR OUTSIDEBUSINESS ACTIVITIES. FINRA FOUND THAT FOR OVER THREE YEARS THEFIRM'S PROCEDURES RELATED TO EXCESSIVE TRADING WEREUNREASONABLE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT PROVIDE FOR SPECIFIC ACTIONTO BE TAKEN WHEN TRADING ACTIVITY WAS UNSUITABLE FOR ANYCUSTOMER OR WHEN CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS REPEATEDLY TRIGGEREDTHE FIRM'S EXCEPTION REPORTS. THE FIRM'S INADEQUATEPROCEDURES RELATED TO EXCESSIVE TRADING CONTRIBUTED TO ITSFAILURE TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE ITS REPRESENTATIVE. FINRA ALSOFOUND THAT THE FIRM, THROUGH ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT, FAILED TOTIMELY MAKE 320 REQUIRED UPDATES RELATED TO ARBITRATIONS ANDOTHER LEGAL MATTERS ON FORMS U4 AND U5 FILINGS. AS A RESULT,REGULATORS, THE INVESTING PUBLIC, AND OTHER MEMBER FIRMS WEREUNAWARE OF SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST THE FIRM'SCURRENT AND FORMER REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES, INCLUDINGTHIS PARTICULAR REPRESENTATIVE. MOREOVER, PERSONNEL IN THEFIRM'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT WERE AWARE THAT THE DEPARTMENT WASNOT MAKING TIMELY FILINGS. THE FIRM'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT ALSOCONTINUED TO FAIL TO MAKE CERTAIN REQUIRED FILINGS EVEN AFTER ITWAS PUT ON NOTICE OF THE NECESSITY OF MAKING SPECIFIC FILINGSBY FINRA. THE FIRM FAILED TO MAINTAIN OR IMPLEMENT SUPERVISORYPROCEDURES RELATED TO FILING U4 AND U5 AMENDMENTS. IN ADDITION,FINRA DETERMINED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO TIMELY RESPOND TOFINRA'S REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION RELATED TOTHE REPRESENTATIVE AND THE FIRM'S SUPERVISION OF THEREPRESENTATIVE. MOREOVER, FINRA FOUND THAT THE FIRM FAILED TOMAINTAIN IN A READILY ACCESSIBLE FORMAT ITS RECORDS OF ITSSUPERVISORS' REVIEWS OF THE REPRESENTATIVE'S EMAILEDCORRESPONDENCE. AS A RESULT, THE FIRM FAILED TO PRODUCERECORDS REFLECTING THE SUPERVISORY REVIEW OF ITSREPRESENTATIVE'S EMAILS UNTIL MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THEYWERE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED BY FINRA, AND AFTER ORIGINALLYREPRESENTING TO FINRA THAT IT DID NOT MAINTAIN THE RECORDS.







Initiated By: FINRA


Other




Other Product Type(s): UNSPECIFIED SECURITY

WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TOSUPERVISE ITS REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE WHO MISAPPROPRIATEDFUNDS FROM HIS CUSTOMERS AND EXCESSIVELY TRADED THEIRACCOUNT. FINRA BARRED THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR, AMONG OTHERTHINGS, STEALING APPROXIMATELY $6 MILLION FROM HIS CUSTOMERSAND EXCESSIVELY TRADING AND CHURNING HIS CUSTOMERS'ACCOUNTS, IN WILLFUL VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(B) OF THE SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 10B-5 THEREUNDER. THE FINDINGS STATEDTHAT THE FIRM FAILED TO CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE PRE-HIREINVESTIGATION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE AND FAILED TO PLACE HIM ONHEIGHTENED SUPERVISION. THE FIRM FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THECIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TWELVE DISCLOSURES THAT APPEARED IN HISCRD RECORD OR SUBJECT HIM TO HEIGHTENED SUPERVISION. WHENTHE REPRESENTATIVE JOINED THE FIRM, HIS CRD RECORD REPORTABLEEVENTS INCLUDED CRIMINAL CHARGES INVOLVING LARCENY ORPOSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY, A TERMINATION FOR CAUSE, A NEWYORK STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTIGATION, A PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY,AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS THAT WITH ALLEGED UNAUTHORIZEDTRADING. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TOSUPERVISE THE REPRESENTATIVE. THE FIRM WAS MADE AWARE THAT HEWAS ENGAGED IN UNDISCLOSED OUTSIDE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, ANDFAILED TO MONITOR OR IDENTIFY NUMEROUS RED FLAGSDEMONSTRATING THAT HE AND/OR ITS CUSTOMERS WERE WIRINGCUSTOMER FUNDS TO ACCOUNTS HE CONTROLLED. THE FIRM FAILED TOPLACE HIM ON HEIGHTENED SUPERVISION AFTER IT BECAME AWARE OFSERIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD AND DECEIT THAT HE SETTLED FOR $3MILLION. THE FIRM FAILED TO TAKE ACTION TO RESTRICT HIS TRADING INCUSTOMER ACCOUNTS AFTER ITS INTERNAL ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT HEWAS TRADING MULTIPLE CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS AT LEVELS CONSIDEREDPRESUMPTIVELY EXCESSIVE. THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THAT THEFIRM FAILED TO MAINTAIN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES CAPABLE OFDETECTING AND PREVENTING CERTAIN POTENTIALLY FRAUDULENTTHIRD PARTY WIRES, INCLUDING WIRES BETWEEN ITS CUSTOMERS'ACCOUNTS AND ITS REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES OR THEIR OUTSIDEBUSINESS ACTIVITIES. FINRA FOUND THAT FOR OVER THREE YEARS THEFIRM'S PROCEDURES RELATED TO EXCESSIVE TRADING WEREUNREASONABLE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT PROVIDE FOR SPECIFIC ACTIONTO BE TAKEN WHEN TRADING ACTIVITY WAS UNSUITABLE FOR ANYCUSTOMER OR WHEN CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS REPEATEDLY TRIGGEREDTHE FIRM'S EXCEPTION REPORTS. THE FIRM'S INADEQUATEPROCEDURES RELATED TO EXCESSIVE TRADING CONTRIBUTED TO ITSFAILURE TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE ITS REPRESENTATIVE. FINRA ALSOFOUND THAT THE FIRM, THROUGH ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT, FAILED TOTIMELY MAKE 320 REQUIRED UPDATES RELATED TO ARBITRATIONS ANDOTHER LEGAL MATTERS ON FORMS U4 AND U5 FILINGS. AS A RESULT,REGULATORS, THE INVESTING PUBLIC, AND OTHER MEMBER FIRMS WEREUNAWARE OF SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST THE FIRM'SCURRENT AND FORMER REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES, INCLUDINGTHIS PARTICULAR REPRESENTATIVE. MOREOVER, PERSONNEL IN THEFIRM'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT WERE AWARE THAT THE DEPARTMENT WASNOT MAKING TIMELY FILINGS. THE FIRM'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT ALSOCONTINUED TO FAIL TO MAKE CERTAIN REQUIRED FILINGS EVEN AFTER ITWAS PUT ON NOTICE OF THE NECESSITY OF MAKING SPECIFIC FILINGSBY FINRA. THE FIRM FAILED TO MAINTAIN OR IMPLEMENT SUPERVISORYPROCEDURES RELATED TO FILING U4 AND U5 AMENDMENTS. IN ADDITION,FINRA DETERMINED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO TIMELY RESPOND TOFINRA'S REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION RELATED TOTHE REPRESENTATIVE AND THE FIRM'S SUPERVISION OF THEREPRESENTATIVE. MOREOVER, FINRA FOUND THAT THE FIRM FAILED TOMAINTAIN IN A READILY ACCESSIBLE FORMAT ITS RECORDS OF ITSSUPERVISORS' REVIEWS OF THE REPRESENTATIVE'S EMAILEDCORRESPONDENCE. AS A RESULT, THE FIRM FAILED TO PRODUCERECORDS REFLECTING THE SUPERVISORY REVIEW OF ITSREPRESENTATIVE'S EMAILS UNTIL MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THEYWERE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED BY FINRA, AND AFTER ORIGINALLYREPRESENTING TO FINRA THAT IT DID NOT MAINTAIN THE RECORDS.








Other


N/A


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: UNDERTAKINGS;

THE FIRM UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS SETTLEMENT INCLUDES A FINDINGTHAT IT FAILED TO SUPERVISE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO VIOLATED SECTION10(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND THAT UNDERARTICLE III, SECTION 4 OF FINRA'S BY-LAWS, THIS MAKES THE FIRMSUBJECT TO A STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION WITH RESPECT TOMEMBERSHIP.

Sanction Details: THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $2,500,000, ORDERED TO PAY $1,251,076.10IN RESTITUTION TO CUSTOMERS AND REQUIRED TO RETAIN ANINDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWOF THE ADEQUACY OF THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY POLICIES, SYSTEMSAND PROCEDURES (WRITTEN AND OTHERWISE) AND TRAINING RELATINGTO WIRE TRANSFERS, FORM U4/U5 REPORTING, AND EXCESSIVETRADING. 04/22/2015 FINE PAID IN FULL.


No




Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TOSUPERVISE ITS REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE WHO MISAPPROPRIATEDFUNDS FROM HIS CUSTOMERS AND EXCESSIVELY TRADED THEIRACCOUNT. FINRA BARRED THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR, AMONG OTHERTHINGS, STEALING APPROXIMATELY $6 MILLION FROM HIS CUSTOMERSAND EXCESSIVELY TRADING AND CHURNING HIS CUSTOMERS'ACCOUNTS, IN WILLFUL VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(B) OF THE SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 10B-5 THEREUNDER. THE FINDINGS STATEDTHAT THE FIRM FAILED TO CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE PRE-HIREINVESTIGATION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE AND FAILED TO PLACE HIM ONHEIGHTENED SUPERVISION. THE FIRM FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THECIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TWELVE DISCLOSURES THAT APPEARED IN HISCRD RECORD OR SUBJECT HIM TO HEIGHTENED SUPERVISION. WHENTHE REPRESENTATIVE JOINED THE FIRM, HIS CRD RECORD REPORTABLEEVENTS INCLUDED CRIMINAL CHARGES INVOLVING LARCENY ORPOSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY, A TERMINATION FOR CAUSE, A NEWYORK STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTIGATION, A PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY,AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS THAT WITH ALLEGED UNAUTHORIZEDTRADING. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TOSUPERVISE THE REPRESENTATIVE. THE FIRM WAS MADE AWARE THAT HEWAS ENGAGED IN UNDISCLOSED OUTSIDE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, ANDFAILED TO MONITOR OR IDENTIFY NUMEROUS RED FLAGSDEMONSTRATING THAT HE AND/OR ITS CUSTOMERS WERE WIRINGCUSTOMER FUNDS TO ACCOUNTS HE CONTROLLED. THE FIRM FAILED TOPLACE HIM ON HEIGHTENED SUPERVISION AFTER IT BECAME AWARE OFSERIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD AND DECEIT THAT HE SETTLED FOR $3MILLION. THE FIRM FAILED TO TAKE ACTION TO RESTRICT HIS TRADING INCUSTOMER ACCOUNTS AFTER ITS INTERNAL ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT HEWAS TRADING MULTIPLE CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS AT LEVELS CONSIDEREDPRESUMPTIVELY EXCESSIVE. THE FINDINGS ALSO INCLUDED THAT THEFIRM FAILED TO MAINTAIN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES CAPABLE OFDETECTING AND PREVENTING CERTAIN POTENTIALLY FRAUDULENTTHIRD PARTY WIRES, INCLUDING WIRES BETWEEN ITS CUSTOMERS'ACCOUNTS AND ITS REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES OR THEIR OUTSIDEBUSINESS ACTIVITIES. FINRA FOUND THAT FOR OVER THREE YEARS THEFIRM'S PROCEDURES RELATED TO EXCESSIVE TRADING WEREUNREASONABLE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT PROVIDE FOR SPECIFIC ACTIONTO BE TAKEN WHEN TRADING ACTIVITY WAS UNSUITABLE FOR ANYCUSTOMER OR WHEN CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS REPEATEDLY TRIGGEREDTHE FIRM'S EXCEPTION REPORTS. THE FIRM'S INADEQUATEPROCEDURES RELATED TO EXCESSIVE TRADING CONTRIBUTED TO ITSFAILURE TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE ITS REPRESENTATIVE. FINRA ALSOFOUND THAT THE FIRM, THROUGH ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT, FAILED TOTIMELY MAKE 320 REQUIRED UPDATES RELATED TO ARBITRATIONS ANDOTHER LEGAL MATTERS ON FORMS U4 AND U5 FILINGS. AS A RESULT,REGULATORS, THE INVESTING PUBLIC, AND OTHER MEMBER FIRMS WEREUNAWARE OF SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST THE FIRM'SCURRENT AND FORMER REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES, INCLUDINGTHIS PARTICULAR REPRESENTATIVE. MOREOVER, PERSONNEL IN THEFIRM'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT WERE AWARE THAT THE DEPARTMENT WASNOT MAKING TIMELY FILINGS. THE FIRM'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT ALSOCONTINUED TO FAIL TO MAKE CERTAIN REQUIRED FILINGS EVEN AFTER ITWAS PUT ON NOTICE OF THE NECESSITY OF MAKING SPECIFIC FILINGSBY FINRA. THE FIRM FAILED TO MAINTAIN OR IMPLEMENT SUPERVISORYPROCEDURES RELATED TO FILING U4 AND U5 AMENDMENTS. IN ADDITION,FINRA DETERMINED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO TIMELY RESPOND TOFINRA'S REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION RELATED TOTHE REPRESENTATIVE AND THE FIRM'S SUPERVISION OF THEREPRESENTATIVE. MOREOVER, FINRA FOUND THAT THE FIRM FAILED TOMAINTAIN IN A READILY ACCESSIBLE FORMAT ITS RECORDS OF ITSSUPERVISORS' REVIEWS OF THE REPRESENTATIVE'S EMAILEDCORRESPONDENCE. AS A RESULT, THE FIRM FAILED TO PRODUCERECORDS REFLECTING THE SUPERVISORY REVIEW OF ITSREPRESENTATIVE'S EMAILS UNTIL MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THEYWERE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED BY FINRA, AND AFTER ORIGINALLYREPRESENTING TO FINRA THAT IT DID NOT MAINTAIN THE RECORDS.







Initiated By: FINRA


Other


N/A







Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: UNDERTAKINGS; THE FIRM UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS SETTLEMENTINCLUDES A FINDING THAT IT FAILED TO SUPERVISE AN INDIVIDUAL WHOVIOLATED SECTION 10(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934AND THAT UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 4 OF FINRA'S BY-LAWS, THISMAKES THE FIRM SUBJECT TO A STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION WITHRESPECT TO MEMBERSHIP.

Sanction Details: THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $2,500,000, ORDERED TO PAY $1,251,076.10IN RESTITUTION TO CUSTOMERS AND REQUIRED TO RETAIN ANINDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWOF THE ADEQUACY OF THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY POLICIES, SYSTEMSAND PROCEDURES (WRITTEN AND OTHERWISE) AND TRAINING RELATINGTO WIRE TRANSFERS, FORM U4/U5 REPORTING, AND EXCESSIVETRADING









THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $2,500,000, ORDERED TO PAY $1,251,076.10IN RESTITUTION TO CUSTOMERS AND REQUIRED TO RETAIN ANINDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWOF THE ADEQUACY OF THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY POLICIES, SYSTEMSAND PROCEDURES (WRITTEN AND OTHERWISE) AND TRAINING RELATINGTO WIRE TRANSFERS, FORM U4/U5 REPORTING, AND EXCESSIVETRADING

Disclosure 21 of 92

i


Initiated By: NASDAQ STOCK MARKET





Principal Product Type: Equity Listed (Common & Preferred Stock)


Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TODISPLAY IMMEDIATELY 31 CUSTOMER LIMIT ORDERS IN NASDAQSECURITIES IN ITS PUBLIC QUOTATION, WHEN EACH SUCH ORDER WAS ATA PRICE THAT WOULD HAVE IMPROVED THE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER INEACH SUCH SECURITY; OR WHEN THE ORDER WAS PRICED EQUAL TOTHE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER AND THE NATIONAL BEST BID OR OFFER FOREACH SUCH SECURITY, AND THE SIZE OF THE ORDER REPRESENTEDMORE THAN A DE MINIMIS CHANGE IN RELATION TO THE SIZE ASSOCIATEDWITH THE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER IN EACH SUCH SECURITY. THE CONDUCTVIOLATED SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 RULE 604 OF REGULATIONNMS.



Resolution:


No












Initiated By: NASDAQ STOCK MARKET


Censure






Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TODISPLAY IMMEDIATELY 31 CUSTOMER LIMIT ORDERS IN NASDAQSECURITIES IN ITS PUBLIC QUOTATION, WHEN EACH SUCH ORDER WAS ATA PRICE THAT WOULD HAVE IMPROVED THE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER INEACH SUCH SECURITY; OR WHEN THE ORDER WAS PRICED EQUAL TOTHE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER AND THE NATIONAL BEST BID OR OFFER FOREACH SUCH SECURITY, AND THE SIZE OF THE ORDER REPRESENTEDMORE THAN A DE MINIMIS CHANGE IN RELATION TO THE SIZE ASSOCIATEDWITH THE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER IN EACH SUCH SECURITY. THE CONDUCTVIOLATED SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 RULE 604 OF REGULATIONNMS.



Resolution:










Disclosure 22 of 92

i


Allegations: SEC ADMIN RELEASES 33-9711 AND 34-74141, AND ACCOUNTING ANDAUDITING ENFORCEMENT RELEASE 3621 / JANUARY 27, 2015: THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE ANDIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, INSTITUTED AGAINSTOPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. IN ANTICIPATION OF THE INSTITUTION OFTHESE PROCEEDINGS, OPPENHEIMER HAS SUBMITTED AN OFFER OFSETTLEMENT WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT.OPPENHEIMER ADMITS THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER IT ANDOVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, ADMITS THEFACTS, ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ITS CONDUCT VIOLATED THE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS, AND CONSENTS TO THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDERINSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGSPURSUANT TO SECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 ANDSECTIONS 15(B) AND 21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER. ON THE BASIS OF THIS ORDER AND RESPONDENT'SOFFER, THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT: OPPENHEIMER ENGAGED IN TWOSEPARATE COURSES OF CONDUCT, EACH OF WHICH VIOLATED THEFEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. OPPENHEIMER I: BETWEEN JULY 2008 ANDMAY 2009, OPPENHEIMER EXECUTED SALES OF BILLIONS OF SHARES OFPENNY STOCKS FOR AN ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF ITS CUSTOMER, ABROKER-DEALER LICENSED IN THE BAHAMAS. ALTHOUGH THECUSTOMER PURPORTEDLY MAINTAINED A PROPRIETARY ACCOUNT,OPPENHEIMER KNEW THAT THE CUSTOMER WAS ACTUALLY EXECUTINGTRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING BROKERAGE SERVICES FOR ITSCUSTOMERS, MANY OF WHOM WERE U.S. PERSONS. THROUGH THISCONDUCT, THE CUSTOMER ACTED AS A BROKER IN THE UNITED STATESEVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT REGISTERED WITH THE COMMISSION ASREQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. THE CUSTOMERPROVIDED OPPENHEIMER WITH AN IRS FORM W-8BEN, WHICHPURPORTEDLY EXEMPTED IT FROM U.S. TAX WITHHOLDING BASED ON AFALSE CERTIFICATION THAT IT WAS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL OF THEINCOME GENERATED IN ITS OPPENHEIMER ACCOUNT. OPPENHEIMER,HOWEVER, KNEW THAT THE CUSTOMER'S CUSTOMERS (AND NOT IT)WERE THE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE SECURITIES DEPOSITED, SOLDAND OR TRANSFERRED. AS A RESULT OPPENHEIMER KNEW OR SHOULDHAVE KNOWN THAT THE CUSTOMER'S IRS WITHHOLDING FORM WASFALSE AND COULD NOT BE RELIED ON. THUS, OPPENHEIMER FAILED TOPROPERLY WITHHOLD AND REMIT TAXES TO THE IRS, AND THEREFOREBECAME LIABLE FOR TAXES IT WAS OBLIGATED TO WITHHOLD.OPPENHEIMER, HOWEVER, FAILED TO RECORD THIS LIABILITY ANDRESULTING EXPENSES, WHICH CAUSED ITS BOOKS AND RECORDS TOBECOME INACCURATE. OPPENHEIMER'S RECORDS WERE ALSOINACCURATE BECAUSE THEY REFLECTED THE ACCOUNT IN WHICH THECUSTOMER'S CUSTOMERS' SHARES WERE DEPOSITED, SOLD ANDTRANSFERRED AS A PROPRIETARY ACCOUNT OF THE CUSTOMER,RATHER THAN AN ACCOUNT FOR THE CUSTOMER'S CUSTOMERS. ININSTANCES WHEN SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY OCCURRED IN THE CUSTOMER'SACCOUNT, OPPENHEIMER FAILED TO FILE THE REQUISITE SUSPICIOUSACTIVITY REPORTS. BY THESE CONDUCTS OPPENHEIMER WILLFULLYAIDED AND ABETTED AND WAS A CAUSE OF THE CUSTOMER'S VIOLATIONOF SECTION 15(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT; VIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OFTHE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULES 17A-3(A)(2), 17A-3(A)(9); AND WILLFULLYVIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 17A-8. (CONT.IN COMMENT SECTION)









Cease and Desist





Other Product Type(s): UNREGISTERED DISTRIBUTION OF THE SECURITIES

SEC ADMIN RELEASES 33-9711 AND 34-74141, AND ACCOUNTING ANDAUDITING ENFORCEMENT RELEASE 3621 / JANUARY 27, 2015: THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE ANDIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, INSTITUTED AGAINSTOPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. IN ANTICIPATION OF THE INSTITUTION OFTHESE PROCEEDINGS, OPPENHEIMER HAS SUBMITTED AN OFFER OFSETTLEMENT WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT.OPPENHEIMER ADMITS THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER IT ANDOVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, ADMITS THEFACTS, ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ITS CONDUCT VIOLATED THE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS, AND CONSENTS TO THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDERINSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGSPURSUANT TO SECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 ANDSECTIONS 15(B) AND 21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER. ON THE BASIS OF THIS ORDER AND RESPONDENT'SOFFER, THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT: OPPENHEIMER ENGAGED IN TWOSEPARATE COURSES OF CONDUCT, EACH OF WHICH VIOLATED THEFEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. OPPENHEIMER I: BETWEEN JULY 2008 ANDMAY 2009, OPPENHEIMER EXECUTED SALES OF BILLIONS OF SHARES OFPENNY STOCKS FOR AN ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF ITS CUSTOMER, ABROKER-DEALER LICENSED IN THE BAHAMAS. ALTHOUGH THECUSTOMER PURPORTEDLY MAINTAINED A PROPRIETARY ACCOUNT,OPPENHEIMER KNEW THAT THE CUSTOMER WAS ACTUALLY EXECUTINGTRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING BROKERAGE SERVICES FOR ITSCUSTOMERS, MANY OF WHOM WERE U.S. PERSONS. THROUGH THISCONDUCT, THE CUSTOMER ACTED AS A BROKER IN THE UNITED STATESEVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT REGISTERED WITH THE COMMISSION ASREQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. THE CUSTOMERPROVIDED OPPENHEIMER WITH AN IRS FORM W-8BEN, WHICHPURPORTEDLY EXEMPTED IT FROM U.S. TAX WITHHOLDING BASED ON AFALSE CERTIFICATION THAT IT WAS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL OF THEINCOME GENERATED IN ITS OPPENHEIMER ACCOUNT. OPPENHEIMER,HOWEVER, KNEW THAT THE CUSTOMER'S CUSTOMERS (AND NOT IT)WERE THE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE SECURITIES DEPOSITED, SOLDAND OR TRANSFERRED. AS A RESULT OPPENHEIMER KNEW OR SHOULDHAVE KNOWN THAT THE CUSTOMER'S IRS WITHHOLDING FORM WASFALSE AND COULD NOT BE RELIED ON. THUS, OPPENHEIMER FAILED TOPROPERLY WITHHOLD AND REMIT TAXES TO THE IRS, AND THEREFOREBECAME LIABLE FOR TAXES IT WAS OBLIGATED TO WITHHOLD.OPPENHEIMER, HOWEVER, FAILED TO RECORD THIS LIABILITY ANDRESULTING EXPENSES, WHICH CAUSED ITS BOOKS AND RECORDS TOBECOME INACCURATE. OPPENHEIMER'S RECORDS WERE ALSOINACCURATE BECAUSE THEY REFLECTED THE ACCOUNT IN WHICH THECUSTOMER'S CUSTOMERS' SHARES WERE DEPOSITED, SOLD ANDTRANSFERRED AS A PROPRIETARY ACCOUNT OF THE CUSTOMER,RATHER THAN AN ACCOUNT FOR THE CUSTOMER'S CUSTOMERS. ININSTANCES WHEN SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY OCCURRED IN THE CUSTOMER'SACCOUNT, OPPENHEIMER FAILED TO FILE THE REQUISITE SUSPICIOUSACTIVITY REPORTS. BY THESE CONDUCTS OPPENHEIMER WILLFULLYAIDED AND ABETTED AND WAS A CAUSE OF THE CUSTOMER'S VIOLATIONOF SECTION 15(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT; VIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OFTHE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULES 17A-3(A)(2), 17A-3(A)(9); AND WILLFULLYVIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 17A-8. (CONT.IN COMMENT SECTION)


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND UNDERTAKINGS


Yes

Sanctions Ordered: CensureMonetary/Fine $5,078,129.00Disgorgement/RestitutionCease and Desist/Injunction

Order






Sanction Details: THE FIRM SHALL CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING OR CAUSINGANY VIOLATIONS AND ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 15(A) AND17(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULES 17A-3 AND 17A-8 THEREUNDERAND OF SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT; IS CENSURED; SHALL PAY TOTHE COMMISSION $4,168,400 IN DISGORGEMENT; $753,471 INPREJUDGMENT INTEREST; AND $5,078,129 IN CIVIL PENALTIES. THE FIRMSHALL COMPLY WITH THE UNDERTAKINGS ENUMERATED IN THE OFFER.

Regulator Statement (CONT. FROM ALLEGATIONS SECTION) OPPENHEIMER II: FROM OCTOBER6, 2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 10, 2010, OPPENHEIMER, THROUGH AREGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE THEN ASSOCIATED WITH OPPENHEIMERAND HIS IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR, WILLFULLY VIOLATED SECTIONS 5(A)AND (C) OF THE SECURITIES ACT WHEN IT ENGAGED IN THEUNREGISTERED DISTRIBUTION OF THE SECURITIES ON BEHALF OF ACUSTOMER. THE OVER 2.5 BILLION CUMULATIVE SHARES SOLD THROUGHTHE CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNT GENERATED APPROXIMATELY $12,000,000 INPROCEEDS OF WHICH OPPENHEIMER WAS PAID $588,400 INCOMMISSIONS. NO REGISTRATION STATEMENT WAS ON FILE OR INEFFECT AS TO THE CUSTOMER'S OFFERS AND SALES OF SECURITIES ASREQUIRED BY SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT. THE CUSTOMER'SOFFERS AND RE-SALES DID NOT COMPLY WITH RULE 144 OR QUALIFYFOR SECTION 4(A)(1) OR ANY OTHER EXEMPTION UNDER THE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS. AS A CONSEQUENCE, OPPENHEIMER WILLFULLYVIOLATED SECTIONS 5(A) AND (C) OF THE SECURITIES ACT. IN FAILING TOESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REASONABLYDESIGNED TO PREVENT AND DETECT OPPENHEIMER PERSONNEL'SVIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5, OPPENHEIMER ALSO FAILED REASONABLY TOSUPERVISE. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE COMMISSION DEEMS ITAPPROPRIATE TO IMPOSE THE SANCTIONS AGREED TO INOPPENHEIMER'S OFFER. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THATOPPENHEIMER: CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING OR CAUSING ANYVIOLATIONS AND ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 15(A) AND 17(A)OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULES 17A-3 AND 17A-8 THEREUNDER ANDOF SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT; IS CENSURED; SHALL PAY TO THECOMMISSION $10 MILLION COMPRISED OF $4,168,400 IN DISGORGEMENT;$753,471 IN PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; AND $5,078,129 IN CIVIL PENALTIES.THE FIRM SHALL COMPLY WITH THE UNDERTAKINGS ENUMERATED IN THEOFFER.

A PENALTY AMOUNT THAT INCLUDES AN ADDITIONAL $10 MILLION ISAPPROPRIATE FOR THE CONDUCT AT ISSUE HEREIN, HOWEVER, IN LIGHTOF THE CIVIL MONEY PENALTY PAID BY OPPENHEIMER TO THE U.S.TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK(FINCEN) IN IN THE MATTER OF OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., NUMBER 2015-01, NO ADDITIONAL PENALTY IS BEING ORDERED AT THIS TIME.OPPENHEIMER'S TOTAL OBLIGATION TO PAY IN THIS PROCEEDING WOULDBE $20 MILLION IN THE EVENT IT FAILS TO PAY ITS $10 MILLION OF A CIVILMONEY PENALTY TO FINCEN. PAYMENT OF DISGORGEMENT,PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, AND $78,129 IN CIVIL PENALTIES WILL BE DUETEN (10) DAYS AFTER INSTITUTION OF THIS ORDER, WITH THE REMAINING$5,000,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES, AND INTEREST ACCRUED PURSUANT TO 31U.S.C. 3717, DUE NO LATER THAN THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THEINSTITUTION OF THIS ORDER. THE COMMISSION ACKNOWLEDGES THATOPPENHEIMER HAS PLACED CERTAIN ASSETS IN ESCROW WHICHOPPENHEIMER BELIEVES WILL SATISFY THE PAYMENT REQUIRED TO BEMADE BY THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THE INSTITUTION OF THISORDER; HOWEVER, OPPENHEIMER RETAINS ITS PAYMENT OBLIGATIONIRRESPECTIVE OF ANY AMOUNTS REALIZED BY PAYMENT FROM, SALE OF,OR REDEMPTION OF, ANY ESCROWED ASSETS.






(CONT. FROM ALLEGATIONS SECTION) OPPENHEIMER II: FROM OCTOBER6, 2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 10, 2010, OPPENHEIMER, THROUGH AREGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE THEN ASSOCIATED WITH OPPENHEIMERAND HIS IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR, WILLFULLY VIOLATED SECTIONS 5(A)AND (C) OF THE SECURITIES ACT WHEN IT ENGAGED IN THEUNREGISTERED DISTRIBUTION OF THE SECURITIES ON BEHALF OF ACUSTOMER. THE OVER 2.5 BILLION CUMULATIVE SHARES SOLD THROUGHTHE CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNT GENERATED APPROXIMATELY $12,000,000 INPROCEEDS OF WHICH OPPENHEIMER WAS PAID $588,400 INCOMMISSIONS. NO REGISTRATION STATEMENT WAS ON FILE OR INEFFECT AS TO THE CUSTOMER'S OFFERS AND SALES OF SECURITIES ASREQUIRED BY SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT. THE CUSTOMER'SOFFERS AND RE-SALES DID NOT COMPLY WITH RULE 144 OR QUALIFYFOR SECTION 4(A)(1) OR ANY OTHER EXEMPTION UNDER THE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS. AS A CONSEQUENCE, OPPENHEIMER WILLFULLYVIOLATED SECTIONS 5(A) AND (C) OF THE SECURITIES ACT. IN FAILING TOESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REASONABLYDESIGNED TO PREVENT AND DETECT OPPENHEIMER PERSONNEL'SVIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5, OPPENHEIMER ALSO FAILED REASONABLY TOSUPERVISE. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE COMMISSION DEEMS ITAPPROPRIATE TO IMPOSE THE SANCTIONS AGREED TO INOPPENHEIMER'S OFFER. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THATOPPENHEIMER: CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING OR CAUSING ANYVIOLATIONS AND ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 15(A) AND 17(A)OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULES 17A-3 AND 17A-8 THEREUNDER ANDOF SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT; IS CENSURED; SHALL PAY TO THECOMMISSION $10 MILLION COMPRISED OF $4,168,400 IN DISGORGEMENT;$753,471 IN PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; AND $5,078,129 IN CIVIL PENALTIES.THE FIRM SHALL COMPLY WITH THE UNDERTAKINGS ENUMERATED IN THEOFFER.

A PENALTY AMOUNT THAT INCLUDES AN ADDITIONAL $10 MILLION ISAPPROPRIATE FOR THE CONDUCT AT ISSUE HEREIN, HOWEVER, IN LIGHTOF THE CIVIL MONEY PENALTY PAID BY OPPENHEIMER TO THE U.S.TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK(FINCEN) IN IN THE MATTER OF OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., NUMBER 2015-01, NO ADDITIONAL PENALTY IS BEING ORDERED AT THIS TIME.OPPENHEIMER'S TOTAL OBLIGATION TO PAY IN THIS PROCEEDING WOULDBE $20 MILLION IN THE EVENT IT FAILS TO PAY ITS $10 MILLION OF A CIVILMONEY PENALTY TO FINCEN. PAYMENT OF DISGORGEMENT,PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, AND $78,129 IN CIVIL PENALTIES WILL BE DUETEN (10) DAYS AFTER INSTITUTION OF THIS ORDER, WITH THE REMAINING$5,000,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES, AND INTEREST ACCRUED PURSUANT TO 31U.S.C. 3717, DUE NO LATER THAN THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THEINSTITUTION OF THIS ORDER. THE COMMISSION ACKNOWLEDGES THATOPPENHEIMER HAS PLACED CERTAIN ASSETS IN ESCROW WHICHOPPENHEIMER BELIEVES WILL SATISFY THE PAYMENT REQUIRED TO BEMADE BY THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THE INSTITUTION OF THISORDER; HOWEVER, OPPENHEIMER RETAINS ITS PAYMENT OBLIGATIONIRRESPECTIVE OF ANY AMOUNTS REALIZED BY PAYMENT FROM, SALE OF,OR REDEMPTION OF, ANY ESCROWED ASSETS.


Allegations: SEC ADMIN RELEASES 33-9711 AND 34-74141, AND ACCOUNTING ANDAUDITING ENFORCEMENT RELEASE 3621 / JANUARY 27, 2015: THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE ANDIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, INSTITUTED AGAINSTOPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. IN ANTICIPATION OF THE INSTITUTION OFTHESE PROCEEDINGS, OPPENHEIMER HAS SUBMITTED AN OFFER OFSETTLEMENT WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT.OPPENHEIMER ADMITS THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER IT ANDOVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, ADMITS THEFACTS, ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ITS CONDUCT VIOLATED THE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS, AND CONSENTS TO THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDERINSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGSPURSUANT TO SECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 ANDSECTIONS 15(B) AND 21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER. ON THE BASIS OF THIS ORDER AND RESPONDENT'SOFFER, THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT: OPPENHEIMER ENGAGED IN TWOSEPARATE COURSES OF CONDUCT, EACH OF WHICH VIOLATED THEFEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. OPPENHEIMER I: BETWEEN JULY 2008 ANDMAY 2009, OPPENHEIMER EXECUTED SALES OF BILLIONS OF SHARES OFPENNY STOCKS FOR AN ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF ITS CUSTOMER, ABROKER-DEALER LICENSED IN THE BAHAMAS. ALTHOUGH THECUSTOMER PURPORTEDLY MAINTAINED A PROPRIETARY ACCOUNT,OPPENHEIMER KNEW THAT THE CUSTOMER WAS ACTUALLY EXECUTINGTRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING BROKERAGE SERVICES FOR ITSCUSTOMERS, MANY OF WHOM WERE U.S. PERSONS. THROUGH THISCONDUCT, THE CUSTOMER ACTED AS A BROKER IN THE UNITED STATESEVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT REGISTERED WITH THE COMMISSION ASREQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. THE CUSTOMERPROVIDED OPPENHEIMER WITH AN IRS FORM W-8BEN, WHICHPURPORTEDLY EXEMPTED IT FROM U.S. TAX WITHHOLDING BASED ON AFALSE CERTIFICATION THAT IT WAS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL OF THEINCOME GENERATED IN ITS OPPENHEIMER ACCOUNT. OPPENHEIMER,HOWEVER, KNEW THAT THE CUSTOMER'S CUSTOMERS (AND NOT IT)WERE THE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE SECURITIES DEPOSITED, SOLDAND OR TRANSFERRED. AS A RESULT OPPENHEIMER KNEW OR SHOULDHAVE KNOWN THAT THE CUSTOMER'S IRS WITHHOLDING FORM WASFALSE AND COULD NOT BE RELIED ON. THUS, OPPENHEIMER FAILED TOPROPERLY WITHHOLD AND REMIT TAXES TO THE IRS, AND THEREFOREBECAME LIABLE FOR TAXES IT WAS OBLIGATED TO WITHHOLD.OPPENHEIMER, HOWEVER, FAILED TO RECORD THIS LIABILITY ANDRESULTING EXPENSES, WHICH CAUSED ITS BOOKS AND RECORDS TOBECOME INACCURATE. OPPENHEIMER'S RECORDS WERE ALSOINACCURATE BECAUSE THEY REFLECTED THE ACCOUNT IN WHICH THECUSTOMER'S CUSTOMERS' SHARES WERE DEPOSITED, SOLD ANDTRANSFERRED AS A PROPRIETARY ACCOUNT OF THE CUSTOMER,RATHER THAN AN ACCOUNT FOR THE CUSTOMER'S CUSTOMERS. ININSTANCES WHEN SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY OCCURRED IN THE CUSTOMER'SACCOUNT, OPPENHEIMER FAILED TO FILE THE REQUISITE SUSPICIOUSACTIVITY REPORTS. BY THESE CONDUCTS OPPENHEIMER WILLFULLYAIDED AND ABETTED AND WAS A CAUSE OF THE CUSTOMER'S VIOLATIONOF SECTION 15(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT; VIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OFTHE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULES 17A-3(A)(2), 17A-3(A)(9); AND WILLFULLYVIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 17A-8. (CONT.IN COMMENT SECTION)

8.







Initiated By: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Cease and Desist





Other Product Type(s): UNREGISTERED DISTRIBUTION OF THE SECURITIES

SEC ADMIN RELEASES 33-9711 AND 34-74141, AND ACCOUNTING ANDAUDITING ENFORCEMENT RELEASE 3621 / JANUARY 27, 2015: THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE ANDIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, INSTITUTED AGAINSTOPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. IN ANTICIPATION OF THE INSTITUTION OFTHESE PROCEEDINGS, OPPENHEIMER HAS SUBMITTED AN OFFER OFSETTLEMENT WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT.OPPENHEIMER ADMITS THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER IT ANDOVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, ADMITS THEFACTS, ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ITS CONDUCT VIOLATED THE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS, AND CONSENTS TO THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDERINSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGSPURSUANT TO SECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 ANDSECTIONS 15(B) AND 21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER. ON THE BASIS OF THIS ORDER AND RESPONDENT'SOFFER, THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT: OPPENHEIMER ENGAGED IN TWOSEPARATE COURSES OF CONDUCT, EACH OF WHICH VIOLATED THEFEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. OPPENHEIMER I: BETWEEN JULY 2008 ANDMAY 2009, OPPENHEIMER EXECUTED SALES OF BILLIONS OF SHARES OFPENNY STOCKS FOR AN ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF ITS CUSTOMER, ABROKER-DEALER LICENSED IN THE BAHAMAS. ALTHOUGH THECUSTOMER PURPORTEDLY MAINTAINED A PROPRIETARY ACCOUNT,OPPENHEIMER KNEW THAT THE CUSTOMER WAS ACTUALLY EXECUTINGTRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING BROKERAGE SERVICES FOR ITSCUSTOMERS, MANY OF WHOM WERE U.S. PERSONS. THROUGH THISCONDUCT, THE CUSTOMER ACTED AS A BROKER IN THE UNITED STATESEVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT REGISTERED WITH THE COMMISSION ASREQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. THE CUSTOMERPROVIDED OPPENHEIMER WITH AN IRS FORM W-8BEN, WHICHPURPORTEDLY EXEMPTED IT FROM U.S. TAX WITHHOLDING BASED ON AFALSE CERTIFICATION THAT IT WAS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL OF THEINCOME GENERATED IN ITS OPPENHEIMER ACCOUNT. OPPENHEIMER,HOWEVER, KNEW THAT THE CUSTOMER'S CUSTOMERS (AND NOT IT)WERE THE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE SECURITIES DEPOSITED, SOLDAND OR TRANSFERRED. AS A RESULT OPPENHEIMER KNEW OR SHOULDHAVE KNOWN THAT THE CUSTOMER'S IRS WITHHOLDING FORM WASFALSE AND COULD NOT BE RELIED ON. THUS, OPPENHEIMER FAILED TOPROPERLY WITHHOLD AND REMIT TAXES TO THE IRS, AND THEREFOREBECAME LIABLE FOR TAXES IT WAS OBLIGATED TO WITHHOLD.OPPENHEIMER, HOWEVER, FAILED TO RECORD THIS LIABILITY ANDRESULTING EXPENSES, WHICH CAUSED ITS BOOKS AND RECORDS TOBECOME INACCURATE. OPPENHEIMER'S RECORDS WERE ALSOINACCURATE BECAUSE THEY REFLECTED THE ACCOUNT IN WHICH THECUSTOMER'S CUSTOMERS' SHARES WERE DEPOSITED, SOLD ANDTRANSFERRED AS A PROPRIETARY ACCOUNT OF THE CUSTOMER,RATHER THAN AN ACCOUNT FOR THE CUSTOMER'S CUSTOMERS. ININSTANCES WHEN SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY OCCURRED IN THE CUSTOMER'SACCOUNT, OPPENHEIMER FAILED TO FILE THE REQUISITE SUSPICIOUSACTIVITY REPORTS. BY THESE CONDUCTS OPPENHEIMER WILLFULLYAIDED AND ABETTED AND WAS A CAUSE OF THE CUSTOMER'S VIOLATIONOF SECTION 15(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT; VIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OFTHE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULES 17A-3(A)(2), 17A-3(A)(9); AND WILLFULLYVIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 17A-8. (CONT.IN COMMENT SECTION)

8.

Resolution: Order







Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND UNDERTAKINGS

Sanction Details: THE FIRM SHALL CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING OR CAUSINGANY VIOLATIONS AND ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 15(A) AND17(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULES 17A-3 AND 17A-8 THEREUNDERAND OF SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT; IS CENSURED; SHALL PAY TOTHE COMMISSION $4,168,400 IN DISGORGEMENT; $753,471 INPREJUDGMENT INTEREST; AND $5,078,129 IN CIVIL PENALTIES. THE FIRMSHALL COMPLY WITH THE UNDERTAKINGS ENUMERATED IN THE OFFER.

Firm Statement (CONT. FROM ALLEGATIONS SECTION) OPPENHEIMER II: FROM OCTOBER6, 2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 10, 2010, OPPENHEIMER, THROUGH AREGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE THEN ASSOCIATED WITH OPPENHEIMERAND HIS IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR, WILLFULLY VIOLATED SECTIONS 5(A)AND (C) OF THE SECURITIES ACT WHEN IT ENGAGED IN THEUNREGISTERED DISTRIBUTION OF THE SECURITIES ON BEHALF OF ACUSTOMER. THE OVER 2.5 BILLION CUMULATIVE SHARES SOLD THROUGHTHE CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNT GENERATED APPROXIMATELY $12,000,000 INPROCEEDS OF WHICH OPPENHEIMER WAS PAID $588,400 INCOMMISSIONS. NO REGISTRATION STATEMENT WAS ON FILE OR INEFFECT AS TO THE CUSTOMER'S OFFERS AND SALES OF SECURITIES ASREQUIRED BY SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT. THE CUSTOMER'SOFFERS AND RE-SALES DID NOT COMPLY WITH RULE 144 OR QUALIFYFOR SECTION 4(A)(1) OR ANY OTHER EXEMPTION UNDER THE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS. AS A CONSEQUENCE, OPPENHEIMER WILLFULLYVIOLATED SECTIONS 5(A) AND (C) OF THE SECURITIES ACT. IN FAILING TOESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REASONABLYDESIGNED TO PREVENT AND DETECT OPPENHEIMER PERSONNEL'SVIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5, OPPENHEIMER ALSO FAILED REASONABLY TOSUPERVISE. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE COMMISSION DEEMS ITAPPROPRIATE TO IMPOSE THE SANCTIONS AGREED TO INOPPENHEIMER'S OFFER. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THATOPPENHEIMER: CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING OR CAUSING ANYVIOLATIONS AND ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 15(A) AND 17(A)OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULES 17A-3 AND 17A-8 THEREUNDER ANDOF SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT; IS CENSURED; SHALL PAY TO THECOMMISSION $10 MILLION COMPRISED OF $4,168,400 IN DISGORGEMENT;$753,471 IN PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; AND $5,078,129 IN CIVIL PENALTIES.THE FIRM SHALL COMPLY WITH THE UNDERTAKINGS ENUMERATED IN THEOFFER. A PENALTY AMOUNT THAT INCLUDES AN ADDITIONAL $10 MILLIONIS APPROPRIATE FOR THE CONDUCT AT ISSUE HEREIN, HOWEVER, INLIGHT OF THE CIVIL MONEY PENALTY PAID BY OPPENHEIMER TO THE U.S.TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK(FINCEN) IN IN THE MATTER OF OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., NUMBER 2015-01, NO ADDITIONAL PENALTY IS BEING ORDERED AT THIS TIME.OPPENHEIMER'S TOTAL OBLIGATION TO PAY IN THIS PROCEEDING WOULDBE $20 MILLION IN THE EVENT IT FAILS TO PAY ITS $10 MILLION OF A CIVILMONEY PENALTY TO FINCEN. PAYMENT OF DISGORGEMENT,PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, AND $78,129 IN CIVIL PENALTIES WILL BE DUETEN (10) DAYS AFTER INSTITUTION OF THIS ORDER, WITH THE REMAINING$5,000,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES, AND INTEREST ACCRUED PURSUANT TO 31U.S.C. 3717, DUE NO LATER THAN THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THEINSTITUTION OF THIS ORDER. THE COMMISSION ACKNOWLEDGES THATOPPENHEIMER HAS PLACED CERTAIN ASSETS IN ESCROW WHICHOPPENHEIMER BELIEVES WILL SATISFY THE PAYMENT REQUIRED TO BEMADE BY THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THE INSTITUTION OF THISORDER; HOWEVER, OPPENHEIMER RETAINS ITS PAYMENT OBLIGATIONIRRESPECTIVE OF ANY AMOUNTS REALIZED BY PAYMENT FROM, SALE OF,OR REDEMPTION OF, ANY ESCROWED ASSETS.


Order






(CONT. FROM ALLEGATIONS SECTION) OPPENHEIMER II: FROM OCTOBER6, 2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 10, 2010, OPPENHEIMER, THROUGH AREGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE THEN ASSOCIATED WITH OPPENHEIMERAND HIS IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR, WILLFULLY VIOLATED SECTIONS 5(A)AND (C) OF THE SECURITIES ACT WHEN IT ENGAGED IN THEUNREGISTERED DISTRIBUTION OF THE SECURITIES ON BEHALF OF ACUSTOMER. THE OVER 2.5 BILLION CUMULATIVE SHARES SOLD THROUGHTHE CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNT GENERATED APPROXIMATELY $12,000,000 INPROCEEDS OF WHICH OPPENHEIMER WAS PAID $588,400 INCOMMISSIONS. NO REGISTRATION STATEMENT WAS ON FILE OR INEFFECT AS TO THE CUSTOMER'S OFFERS AND SALES OF SECURITIES ASREQUIRED BY SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT. THE CUSTOMER'SOFFERS AND RE-SALES DID NOT COMPLY WITH RULE 144 OR QUALIFYFOR SECTION 4(A)(1) OR ANY OTHER EXEMPTION UNDER THE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS. AS A CONSEQUENCE, OPPENHEIMER WILLFULLYVIOLATED SECTIONS 5(A) AND (C) OF THE SECURITIES ACT. IN FAILING TOESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REASONABLYDESIGNED TO PREVENT AND DETECT OPPENHEIMER PERSONNEL'SVIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5, OPPENHEIMER ALSO FAILED REASONABLY TOSUPERVISE. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE COMMISSION DEEMS ITAPPROPRIATE TO IMPOSE THE SANCTIONS AGREED TO INOPPENHEIMER'S OFFER. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THATOPPENHEIMER: CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING OR CAUSING ANYVIOLATIONS AND ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 15(A) AND 17(A)OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULES 17A-3 AND 17A-8 THEREUNDER ANDOF SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT; IS CENSURED; SHALL PAY TO THECOMMISSION $10 MILLION COMPRISED OF $4,168,400 IN DISGORGEMENT;$753,471 IN PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; AND $5,078,129 IN CIVIL PENALTIES.THE FIRM SHALL COMPLY WITH THE UNDERTAKINGS ENUMERATED IN THEOFFER. A PENALTY AMOUNT THAT INCLUDES AN ADDITIONAL $10 MILLIONIS APPROPRIATE FOR THE CONDUCT AT ISSUE HEREIN, HOWEVER, INLIGHT OF THE CIVIL MONEY PENALTY PAID BY OPPENHEIMER TO THE U.S.TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK(FINCEN) IN IN THE MATTER OF OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., NUMBER 2015-01, NO ADDITIONAL PENALTY IS BEING ORDERED AT THIS TIME.OPPENHEIMER'S TOTAL OBLIGATION TO PAY IN THIS PROCEEDING WOULDBE $20 MILLION IN THE EVENT IT FAILS TO PAY ITS $10 MILLION OF A CIVILMONEY PENALTY TO FINCEN. PAYMENT OF DISGORGEMENT,PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, AND $78,129 IN CIVIL PENALTIES WILL BE DUETEN (10) DAYS AFTER INSTITUTION OF THIS ORDER, WITH THE REMAINING$5,000,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES, AND INTEREST ACCRUED PURSUANT TO 31U.S.C. 3717, DUE NO LATER THAN THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THEINSTITUTION OF THIS ORDER. THE COMMISSION ACKNOWLEDGES THATOPPENHEIMER HAS PLACED CERTAIN ASSETS IN ESCROW WHICHOPPENHEIMER BELIEVES WILL SATISFY THE PAYMENT REQUIRED TO BEMADE BY THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THE INSTITUTION OF THISORDER; HOWEVER, OPPENHEIMER RETAINS ITS PAYMENT OBLIGATIONIRRESPECTIVE OF ANY AMOUNTS REALIZED BY PAYMENT FROM, SALE OF,OR REDEMPTION OF, ANY ESCROWED ASSETS.

Disclosure 23 of 92

i


Initiated By: FINRA



Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TOESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM TO MONITOR,SUPERVISE, AND CONTROL ITS EXTENSION OF MARGIN LOANS FORFOREIGN SOVEREIGN DEBT. THE FINDINGS STATED THAT THE FIRM'SWRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES (WSPS) DID NOT ADDRESS HOWTO ASSESS THE RISKS OF EXTENDING MARGIN CREDIT FOR FOREIGNSOVEREIGN BONDS. THE FIRM FAILED TO DEDICATE SUFFICIENTSUPERVISORY RESOURCES TO MONITORING THE RISK OF HOLDINGBELOW-INVESTMENT-GRADE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN BONDS AND FAILEDTO TAKE SUFFICIENT STEPS TO ASSESS WHETHER A READY MARKETEXISTED FOR BELOW-INVESTMENT-GRADE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN BONDS.THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO REASONABLYSUPERVISE THE TRANSFER OF ASSETS SECURING A MARGIN LOAN FROMONE PARTY TO ANOTHER.









Other


N/A




Resolution:


Sanction Details: THE FIRM IS CENSURED AND FINED $250,000.

FINE PAID IN FULL ON JANUARY 23, 2015.


No




Initiated By: FINRA

Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TOESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM TO MONITOR,SUPERVISE, AND CONTROL ITS EXTENSION OF MARGIN LOANS FORFOREIGN SOVEREIGN DEBT. THE FINDINGS STATED THAT THE FIRM'SWRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES (WSPS) DID NOT ADDRESS HOWTO ASSESS THE RISKS OF EXTENDING MARGIN CREDIT FOR FOREIGNSOVEREIGN BONDS. THE FIRM FAILED TO DEDICATE SUFFICIENTSUPERVISORY RESOURCES TO MONITORING THE RISK OF HOLDINGBELOW-INVESTMENT-GRADE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN BONDS AND FAILEDTO TAKE SUFFICIENT STEPS TO ASSESS WHETHER A READY MARKETEXISTED FOR BELOW-INVESTMENT-GRADE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN BONDS.THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO REASONABLYSUPERVISE THE TRANSFER OF ASSETS SECURING A MARGIN LOAN FROMONE PARTY TO ANOTHER.







Initiated By: FINRA


Other


N/A






Resolution:





Disclosure 24 of 92

i


Allegations: SEC ADMIN RELEASE 34-73509, NOVEMBER 3, 2014: THE SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THE PUBLICINTEREST THAT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESISTPROCEEDINGS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, INSTITUTED PURSUANT TOSECTIONS 15(B), 15B(C)(2) AND 21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACTOF 1934 AGAINST OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. ("OPPENHEIMER" OR "RESPONDENT"). IN ANTICIPATION OF THE INSTITUTION OF THESEPROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT HAS SUBMITTED AN OFFER OFSETTLEMENT WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT.SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND ANY OTHERPROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION, OR TOWHICH THE COMMISSION IS A PARTY, AND WITHOUT ADMITTING ORDENYING THE FINDINGS HEREIN, EXCEPT AS TO THE COMMISSION'SJURISDICTION OVER IT AND THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESEPROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE ADMITTED, RESPONDENT CONSENTS TO THEENTRY OF THIS ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15(B), 15B(C)(2) AND 21COF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING FINDINGS, ANDIMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER. ONTHE BASIS OF THIS ORDER AND RESPONDENT'S OFFER, THECOMMISSION FINDS THAT: THESE PROCEEDINGS INVOLVE THE SALE OFNON-INVESTMENT GRADE OR "JUNK" BONDS ISSUED BY THECOMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO ("PUERTO RICO") BY OPPENHEIMER, AREGISTERED BROKER-DEALER AND MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER, TOCUSTOMERS IN AMOUNTS BELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF THEISSUE. RULE G-15(F) PROMULGATED BY THE MUNICIPAL SECURITIESRULEMAKING BOARD ("MSRB") PROHIBITS DEALERS FROM EFFECTINGCUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES IN AMOUNTSBELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATIONS OF THE ISSUES. MINIMUMDENOMINATIONS ARE GENERALLY INTENDED TO LIMIT SALES OFMUNICIPAL SECURITIES TO RETAIL CUSTOMERS FOR WHOM SUCH BONDSMAY NOT BE SUITABLE, BUT THE PROSCRIPTIONS OF RULE G-15(F) APPLYTO ALL TRANSACTIONS WITH CUSTOMERS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHERTHE SECURITIES ARE SUITABLE FOR THE CUSTOMER. IN MARCH 2014,OPPENHEIMER VIOLATED MSRB RULE G-15(F) BY EXECUTING THREEUNSOLICITED SALES TRANSACTIONS IN THE PUERTO RICO BONDS WITHCUSTOMERS IN AMOUNTS BELOW THE $100,000 MINIMUM DENOMINATIONOF THE ISSUE ESTABLISHED BY THE ISSUER, PUERTO RICO, ANDSPECIFIED IN THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT. THE LIMITED EXCEPTIONSPROVIDED UNDER MSRB RULE G-15(F) FOR CUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS INMUNICIPAL SECURITIES BELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF ANISSUE DID NOT APPLY TO THESE TRANSACTIONS. RESPONDENT DID NOTHAVE ANY POLICIES OR PROCEDURES CONCERNING MSRB RULE G-15(F).AS A RESULT OF THE CONDUCT, RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATEDMSRB RULE G-15(F). AS A RESULT OF RESPONDENT'S WILLFULVIOLATIONS OF MSRB RULE G-15(F), RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATEDSECTION 15B(C)(1) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT.










Cease and Desist





Other Product Type(s): NON-INVESTMENT GRADE OR "JUNK" BONDS

SEC ADMIN RELEASE 34-73509, NOVEMBER 3, 2014: THE SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THE PUBLICINTEREST THAT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESISTPROCEEDINGS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, INSTITUTED PURSUANT TOSECTIONS 15(B), 15B(C)(2) AND 21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACTOF 1934 AGAINST OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. ("OPPENHEIMER" OR "RESPONDENT"). IN ANTICIPATION OF THE INSTITUTION OF THESEPROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT HAS SUBMITTED AN OFFER OFSETTLEMENT WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT.SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND ANY OTHERPROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION, OR TOWHICH THE COMMISSION IS A PARTY, AND WITHOUT ADMITTING ORDENYING THE FINDINGS HEREIN, EXCEPT AS TO THE COMMISSION'SJURISDICTION OVER IT AND THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESEPROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE ADMITTED, RESPONDENT CONSENTS TO THEENTRY OF THIS ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15(B), 15B(C)(2) AND 21COF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING FINDINGS, ANDIMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER. ONTHE BASIS OF THIS ORDER AND RESPONDENT'S OFFER, THECOMMISSION FINDS THAT: THESE PROCEEDINGS INVOLVE THE SALE OFNON-INVESTMENT GRADE OR "JUNK" BONDS ISSUED BY THECOMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO ("PUERTO RICO") BY OPPENHEIMER, AREGISTERED BROKER-DEALER AND MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER, TOCUSTOMERS IN AMOUNTS BELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF THEISSUE. RULE G-15(F) PROMULGATED BY THE MUNICIPAL SECURITIESRULEMAKING BOARD ("MSRB") PROHIBITS DEALERS FROM EFFECTINGCUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES IN AMOUNTSBELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATIONS OF THE ISSUES. MINIMUMDENOMINATIONS ARE GENERALLY INTENDED TO LIMIT SALES OFMUNICIPAL SECURITIES TO RETAIL CUSTOMERS FOR WHOM SUCH BONDSMAY NOT BE SUITABLE, BUT THE PROSCRIPTIONS OF RULE G-15(F) APPLYTO ALL TRANSACTIONS WITH CUSTOMERS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHERTHE SECURITIES ARE SUITABLE FOR THE CUSTOMER. IN MARCH 2014,OPPENHEIMER VIOLATED MSRB RULE G-15(F) BY EXECUTING THREEUNSOLICITED SALES TRANSACTIONS IN THE PUERTO RICO BONDS WITHCUSTOMERS IN AMOUNTS BELOW THE $100,000 MINIMUM DENOMINATIONOF THE ISSUE ESTABLISHED BY THE ISSUER, PUERTO RICO, ANDSPECIFIED IN THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT. THE LIMITED EXCEPTIONSPROVIDED UNDER MSRB RULE G-15(F) FOR CUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS INMUNICIPAL SECURITIES BELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF ANISSUE DID NOT APPLY TO THESE TRANSACTIONS. RESPONDENT DID NOTHAVE ANY POLICIES OR PROCEDURES CONCERNING MSRB RULE G-15(F).AS A RESULT OF THE CONDUCT, RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATEDMSRB RULE G-15(F). AS A RESULT OF RESPONDENT'S WILLFULVIOLATIONS OF MSRB RULE G-15(F), RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATEDSECTION 15B(C)(1) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT.


Resolution: Order








Sanction Details: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: RESPONDENT CEASE-AND-DESIST FROM COMMITTING OR CAUSING ANY VIOLATIONS AND ANYFUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 15B(C)(1) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT ANDMSRB RULE G-15(F) . RESPONDENT IS CENSURED. RESPONDENT SHALL,WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER, PAY A CIVILMONEY PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $61,200. RESPONDENT WILLFULLYVIOLATED MSRB RULE G-15(F). AS A RESULT OF RESPONDENT'S WILLFULVIOLATIONS OF MSRB RULE G-15(F), RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATEDSECTION 15B(C)(1) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT.

Regulator Statement IN DETERMINING TO ACCEPT THE OFFER, THE COMMISSION CONSIDEREDREMEDIAL ACTS PROMPTLY UNDERTAKEN BY RESPONDENT. AFTER ITWAS MADE AWARE THAT IT HAD EFFECTED CUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS INTHE 2014 BONDS BELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF THE ISSUE,RESPONDENT CANCELLED THE TRANSACTIONS. RESPONDENT WILLUNDERTAKE TO REVIEW THE ADEQUACY OF ITS EXISTING POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES RELATING TO COMPLIANCE WITH MSRB RULE G-15(F).AFTER THAT REVIEW, RESPONDENT WILL MAKE SUCH CHANGES AS ARENECESSARY TO EFFECT COMPLIANCE WITH MSRB RULE G-15(F),INCLUDING ADOPTING NEW POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ORSUPPLEMENTING EXISTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. RESPONDENTWILL IMPLEMENT THESE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, AND CONDUCTTRAINING AS TO THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND COMPLIANCEWITH MSRB RULE G-15(F). RESPONDENT WILL INFORM COMMISSIONSTAFF NO LATER THAN SIX (6) MONTHS AFTER THE ENTRY OF THISORDER THAT IT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE ABOVE UNDERTAKINGS.


No

Sanctions Ordered: CensureMonetary/Fine $61,200.00Cease and Desist/Injunction











Cease and Desist





Other Product Type(s): NON-INVESTMENT GRADE OR "JUNK" BONDS

SEC ADMIN RELEASE 34-73509, NOVEMBER 3, 2014: THE SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THE PUBLICINTEREST THAT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESISTPROCEEDINGS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, INSTITUTED PURSUANT TOSECTIONS 15(B), 15B(C)(2) AND 21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACTOF 1934 AGAINST OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. ("OPPENHEIMER" OR "RESPONDENT"). IN ANTICIPATION OF THE INSTITUTION OF THESEPROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT HAS SUBMITTED AN OFFER OFSETTLEMENT WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT.SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND ANY OTHERPROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION, OR TOWHICH THE COMMISSION IS A PARTY, AND WITHOUT ADMITTING ORDENYING THE FINDINGS HEREIN, EXCEPT AS TO THE COMMISSION'SJURISDICTION OVER IT AND THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESEPROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE ADMITTED, RESPONDENT CONSENTS TO THEENTRY OF THIS ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15(B), 15B(C)(2) AND 21COF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING FINDINGS, ANDIMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER. ONTHE BASIS OF THIS ORDER AND RESPONDENT'S OFFER, THECOMMISSION FINDS THAT: THESE PROCEEDINGS INVOLVE THE SALE OFNON-INVESTMENT GRADE OR "JUNK" BONDS ISSUED BY THECOMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO ("PUERTO RICO") BY OPPENHEIMER, AREGISTERED BROKER-DEALER AND MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER, TOCUSTOMERS IN AMOUNTS BELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF THEISSUE. RULE G-15(F) PROMULGATED BY THE MUNICIPAL SECURITIESRULEMAKING BOARD ("MSRB") PROHIBITS DEALERS FROM EFFECTINGCUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES IN AMOUNTSBELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATIONS OF THE ISSUES. MINIMUMDENOMINATIONS ARE GENERALLY INTENDED TO LIMIT SALES OFMUNICIPAL SECURITIES TO RETAIL CUSTOMERS FOR WHOM SUCH BONDSMAY NOT BE SUITABLE, BUT THE PROSCRIPTIONS OF RULE G-15(F) APPLYTO ALL TRANSACTIONS WITH CUSTOMERS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHERTHE SECURITIES ARE SUITABLE FOR THE CUSTOMER. IN MARCH 2014,OPPENHEIMER VIOLATED MSRB RULE G-15(F) BY EXECUTING THREEUNSOLICITED SALES TRANSACTIONS IN THE PUERTO RICO BONDS WITHCUSTOMERS IN AMOUNTS BELOW THE $100,000 MINIMUM DENOMINATIONOF THE ISSUE ESTABLISHED BY THE ISSUER, PUERTO RICO, ANDSPECIFIED IN THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT. THE LIMITED EXCEPTIONSPROVIDED UNDER MSRB RULE G-15(F) FOR CUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS INMUNICIPAL SECURITIES BELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF ANISSUE DID NOT APPLY TO THESE TRANSACTIONS. RESPONDENT DID NOTHAVE ANY POLICIES OR PROCEDURES CONCERNING MSRB RULE G-15(F).AS A RESULT OF THE CONDUCT, RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATEDMSRB RULE G-15(F). AS A RESULT OF RESPONDENT'S WILLFULVIOLATIONS OF MSRB RULE G-15(F), RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATEDSECTION 15B(C)(1) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: RESPONDENT CEASE-AND-DESIST FROM COMMITTING OR CAUSING ANY VIOLATIONS AND ANYFUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 15B(C)(1) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT ANDMSRB RULE G-15(F) . RESPONDENT IS CENSURED. RESPONDENT SHALL,WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER, PAY A CIVILMONEY PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $61,200. RESPONDENT WILLFULLYVIOLATED MSRB RULE G-15(F). AS A RESULT OF RESPONDENT'S WILLFULVIOLATIONS OF MSRB RULE G-15(F), RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATEDSECTION 15B(C)(1) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT.

Firm Statement IN DETERMINING TO ACCEPT THE OFFER, THE COMMISSION CONSIDEREDREMEDIAL ACTS PROMPTLY UNDERTAKEN BY RESPONDENT. AFTER ITWAS MADE AWARE THAT IT HAD EFFECTED CUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS INTHE 2014 BONDS BELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF THE ISSUE,RESPONDENT CANCELLED THE TRANSACTIONS. RESPONDENT WILLUNDERTAKE TO REVIEW THE ADEQUACY OF ITS EXISTING POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES RELATING TO COMPLIANCE WITH MSRB RULE G-15(F).AFTER THAT REVIEW, RESPONDENT WILL MAKE SUCH CHANGES AS ARENECESSARY TO EFFECT COMPLIANCE WITH MSRB RULE G-15(F),INCLUDING ADOPTING NEW POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ORSUPPLEMENTING EXISTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. RESPONDENTWILL IMPLEMENT THESE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, AND CONDUCTTRAINING AS TO THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND COMPLIANCEWITH MSRB RULE G-15(F). RESPONDENT WILL INFORM COMMISSIONSTAFF NO LATER THAN SIX (6) MONTHS AFTER THE ENTRY OF THISORDER THAT IT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE ABOVE UNDERTAKINGS.


Order






IN DETERMINING TO ACCEPT THE OFFER, THE COMMISSION CONSIDEREDREMEDIAL ACTS PROMPTLY UNDERTAKEN BY RESPONDENT. AFTER ITWAS MADE AWARE THAT IT HAD EFFECTED CUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS INTHE 2014 BONDS BELOW THE MINIMUM DENOMINATION OF THE ISSUE,RESPONDENT CANCELLED THE TRANSACTIONS. RESPONDENT WILLUNDERTAKE TO REVIEW THE ADEQUACY OF ITS EXISTING POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES RELATING TO COMPLIANCE WITH MSRB RULE G-15(F).AFTER THAT REVIEW, RESPONDENT WILL MAKE SUCH CHANGES AS ARENECESSARY TO EFFECT COMPLIANCE WITH MSRB RULE G-15(F),INCLUDING ADOPTING NEW POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ORSUPPLEMENTING EXISTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. RESPONDENTWILL IMPLEMENT THESE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, AND CONDUCTTRAINING AS TO THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND COMPLIANCEWITH MSRB RULE G-15(F). RESPONDENT WILL INFORM COMMISSIONSTAFF NO LATER THAN SIX (6) MONTHS AFTER THE ENTRY OF THISORDER THAT IT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE ABOVE UNDERTAKINGS.

Disclosure 25 of 92

i


Initiated By: FINRA






Other Product Type(s): SECURITIZED PRODUCTS

Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TOREPORT THE CORRECT TIME OF TRADE EXECUTIONS FORTRANSACTIONS IN TRADE REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE ENGINE(TRACE)-ELIGIBLE SECURITIZED PRODUCTS AND FAILED TO SHOW THECORRECT TIME OF EXECUTION ON THE MEMORANDA OF BROKERAGEORDERS.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED AND FINED $10,000.FINE PAID IN FULL ON NOVEMBER 12, 2014.


No










Initiated By: FINRA






Other Product Type(s): SECURITIZED PRODUCTS

Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TOREPORT THE CORRECT TIME OF TRADE EXECUTIONS FORTRANSACTIONS IN TRADE REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE ENGINE(TRACE)-ELIGIBLE SECURITIZED PRODUCTS AND FAILED TO SHOW THECORRECT TIME OF EXECUTION ON THE MEMORANDA OF BROKERAGEORDERS.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED AND FINED $10,000



Disclosure 26 of 92

i


Allegations: SEC RULES 10B-10, 17A-3, 605 FINRA RULES 2010, 6182, 6380A, 7450, NASDRULES 3010, 3110: THE FIRM SUBMITTED TO THE FINRA/NASDAQ TRADEREPORTING FACILITY (TRF) TRANSACTIONS WITH INACCURATE MARKETCENTER CODES. THE FIRM SUBMITTED TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH ITFAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE USAGE OF THE QUALIFIED CONTINGENT TRADEMODIFIER. THE FIRM REPORTED INACCURATE INFORMATION ONCUSTOMER CONFIRMATIONS CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING:DISCLOSED AN INACCURATE CAPACITY; DISCLOSED AN INACCURATEEXECUTION PRICE; FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT THESE WERE AVERAGEPRICE TRANSACTIONS; INACCURATELY DISCLOSED THE COMPENSATIONTYPE AS "COMMISSION EQUIVALENT" FOR AGENCY TRADES; FAILED TODISCLOSE THE FIRM WAS A MARKET MAKER IN A SECURITY;INACCURATELY DISCLOSED THE COMPENSATION TYPE AS "COMMISSION"FOR PRINCIPAL TRADES; AND DISCLOSED AN INACCURATE EXECUTIONPRICE. THE FIRM TRANSMITTED TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAIL SYSTEM(OATS) REPORTS THAT CONTAINED INACCURATE, INCORRECT,INCOMPLETE OR IMPROPERLY FORMATTED DATA. SPECIFICALLY, THEFIRM SUBMITTED ORDERS WITH AN INACCURATE CUSTOMERDESIGNATION, AND FAILED TO SUBMIT INFORMATION FOR ROUTESASSOCIATED WITH AN ORDER. THE FIRM MARKED ITS INTERNAL LEDGERWITH AN INACCURATE SHORT DESIGNATION FOR A LONG POSITION ANDINCORRECTLY REPORTED A LONG SALE TO THE FINRA/NASDAQ TRF WITHA SHORT SALE MODIFIER. THE FIRM FAILED TO PROPERLY CLASSIFYCUSTOMER ORDERS FOR PURPOSES OF SEC RULE 605 ORDEREXECUTION DISCLOSURE AND FOR A MONTH MADE AVAILABLE A REPORTON THE COVERED ORDERS IN NATIONAL MARKET SYSTEM SECURITIESTHAT IT RECEIVED, WHICH FAILED TO CONTAIN ACCURATE STATISTICSFOR MARKETABLE LIMIT ORDERS IT RECEIVED BETWEEN 500 AND 1,999SHARES IN ONE SECURITY. THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOTPROVIDE FOR SUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVECOMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN APPLICABLE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS AND REGULATIONS, AND/OR THE RULES OFNASD/FINRA AND FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS FORADEQUATE WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES REGARDING TRADEREPORTING (TIMELY AND ACCURATE REPORTING TO THE TRF) AND OATS(ACCURACY OF OATS DATA).








Initiated By: FINRA







SEC RULES 10B-10, 17A-3, 605 FINRA RULES 2010, 6182, 6380A, 7450, NASDRULES 3010, 3110: THE FIRM SUBMITTED TO THE FINRA/NASDAQ TRADEREPORTING FACILITY (TRF) TRANSACTIONS WITH INACCURATE MARKETCENTER CODES. THE FIRM SUBMITTED TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH ITFAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE USAGE OF THE QUALIFIED CONTINGENT TRADEMODIFIER. THE FIRM REPORTED INACCURATE INFORMATION ONCUSTOMER CONFIRMATIONS CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING:DISCLOSED AN INACCURATE CAPACITY; DISCLOSED AN INACCURATEEXECUTION PRICE; FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT THESE WERE AVERAGEPRICE TRANSACTIONS; INACCURATELY DISCLOSED THE COMPENSATIONTYPE AS "COMMISSION EQUIVALENT" FOR AGENCY TRADES; FAILED TODISCLOSE THE FIRM WAS A MARKET MAKER IN A SECURITY;INACCURATELY DISCLOSED THE COMPENSATION TYPE AS "COMMISSION"FOR PRINCIPAL TRADES; AND DISCLOSED AN INACCURATE EXECUTIONPRICE. THE FIRM TRANSMITTED TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAIL SYSTEM(OATS) REPORTS THAT CONTAINED INACCURATE, INCORRECT,INCOMPLETE OR IMPROPERLY FORMATTED DATA. SPECIFICALLY, THEFIRM SUBMITTED ORDERS WITH AN INACCURATE CUSTOMERDESIGNATION, AND FAILED TO SUBMIT INFORMATION FOR ROUTESASSOCIATED WITH AN ORDER. THE FIRM MARKED ITS INTERNAL LEDGERWITH AN INACCURATE SHORT DESIGNATION FOR A LONG POSITION ANDINCORRECTLY REPORTED A LONG SALE TO THE FINRA/NASDAQ TRF WITHA SHORT SALE MODIFIER. THE FIRM FAILED TO PROPERLY CLASSIFYCUSTOMER ORDERS FOR PURPOSES OF SEC RULE 605 ORDEREXECUTION DISCLOSURE AND FOR A MONTH MADE AVAILABLE A REPORTON THE COVERED ORDERS IN NATIONAL MARKET SYSTEM SECURITIESTHAT IT RECEIVED, WHICH FAILED TO CONTAIN ACCURATE STATISTICSFOR MARKETABLE LIMIT ORDERS IT RECEIVED BETWEEN 500 AND 1,999SHARES IN ONE SECURITY. THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOTPROVIDE FOR SUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVECOMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN APPLICABLE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS AND REGULATIONS, AND/OR THE RULES OFNASD/FINRA AND FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS FORADEQUATE WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES REGARDING TRADEREPORTING (TIMELY AND ACCURATE REPORTING TO THE TRF) AND OATS(ACCURACY OF OATS DATA).

Resolution: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)








Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE IT IS CENSURED AND FINED $45,000. FINE PAID IN FULL ON03/20/14.


No




Allegations: SEC RULES 10B-10, 17A-3, 605 FINRA RULES 2010, 6182, 6380A, 7450, NASDRULES 3010, 3110: THE FIRM SUBMITTED TO THE FINRA/NASDAQ TRADEREPORTING FACILITY (TRF) TRANSACTIONS WITH INACCURATE MARKETCENTER CODES. THE FIRM SUBMITTED TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH ITFAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE USAGE OF THE QUALIFIED CONTINGENT TRADEMODIFIER. THE FIRM REPORTED INACCURATE INFORMATION ONCUSTOMER CONFIRMATIONS CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING:DISCLOSED AN INACCURATE CAPACITY; DISCLOSED AN INACCURATEEXECUTION PRICE; FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT THESE WERE AVERAGEPRICE TRANSACTIONS; INACCURATELY DISCLOSED THE COMPENSATIONTYPE AS "COMMISSION EQUIVALENT" FOR AGENCY TRADES; FAILED TODISCLOSE THE FIRM WAS A MARKET MAKER IN A SECURITY;INACCURATELY DISCLOSED THE COMPENSATION TYPE AS "COMMISSION"FOR PRINCIPAL TRADES; AND DISCLOSED AN INACCURATE EXECUTIONPRICE. THE FIRM TRANSMITTED TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAIL SYSTEM(OATS) REPORTS THAT CONTAINED INACCURATE, INCORRECT,INCOMPLETE OR IMPROPERLY FORMATTED DATA. SPECIFICALLY, THEFIRM SUBMITTED ORDERS WITH AN INACCURATE CUSTOMERDESIGNATION, AND FAILED TO SUBMIT INFORMATION FOR ROUTESASSOCIATED WITH AN ORDER. THE FIRM MARKED ITS INTERNAL LEDGERWITH AN INACCURATE SHORT DESIGNATION FOR A LONG POSITION ANDINCORRECTLY REPORTED A LONG SALE TO THE FINRA/NASDAQ TRF WITHA SHORT SALE MODIFIER. THE FIRM FAILED TO PROPERLY CLASSIFYCUSTOMER ORDERS FOR PURPOSES OF SEC RULE 605 ORDEREXECUTION DISCLOSURE AND FOR A MONTH MADE AVAILABLE A REPORTON THE COVERED ORDERS IN NATIONAL MARKET SYSTEM SECURITIESTHAT IT RECEIVED, WHICH FAILED TO CONTAIN ACCURATE STATISTICSFOR MARKETABLE LIMIT ORDERS IT RECEIVED BETWEEN 500 AND 1,999SHARES IN ONE SECURITY. THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOTPROVIDE FOR SUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVECOMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN APPLICABLE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS AND REGULATIONS, AND/OR THE RULES OFNASD/FINRA AND FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS FORADEQUATE WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES REGARDING TRADEREPORTING (TIMELY AND ACCURATE REPORTING TO THE TRF) AND OATS(ACCURACY OF OATS DATA).







Initiated By: FINRA







SEC RULES 10B-10, 17A-3, 605 FINRA RULES 2010, 6182, 6380A, 7450, NASDRULES 3010, 3110: THE FIRM SUBMITTED TO THE FINRA/NASDAQ TRADEREPORTING FACILITY (TRF) TRANSACTIONS WITH INACCURATE MARKETCENTER CODES. THE FIRM SUBMITTED TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH ITFAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE USAGE OF THE QUALIFIED CONTINGENT TRADEMODIFIER. THE FIRM REPORTED INACCURATE INFORMATION ONCUSTOMER CONFIRMATIONS CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING:DISCLOSED AN INACCURATE CAPACITY; DISCLOSED AN INACCURATEEXECUTION PRICE; FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT THESE WERE AVERAGEPRICE TRANSACTIONS; INACCURATELY DISCLOSED THE COMPENSATIONTYPE AS "COMMISSION EQUIVALENT" FOR AGENCY TRADES; FAILED TODISCLOSE THE FIRM WAS A MARKET MAKER IN A SECURITY;INACCURATELY DISCLOSED THE COMPENSATION TYPE AS "COMMISSION"FOR PRINCIPAL TRADES; AND DISCLOSED AN INACCURATE EXECUTIONPRICE. THE FIRM TRANSMITTED TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAIL SYSTEM(OATS) REPORTS THAT CONTAINED INACCURATE, INCORRECT,INCOMPLETE OR IMPROPERLY FORMATTED DATA. SPECIFICALLY, THEFIRM SUBMITTED ORDERS WITH AN INACCURATE CUSTOMERDESIGNATION, AND FAILED TO SUBMIT INFORMATION FOR ROUTESASSOCIATED WITH AN ORDER. THE FIRM MARKED ITS INTERNAL LEDGERWITH AN INACCURATE SHORT DESIGNATION FOR A LONG POSITION ANDINCORRECTLY REPORTED A LONG SALE TO THE FINRA/NASDAQ TRF WITHA SHORT SALE MODIFIER. THE FIRM FAILED TO PROPERLY CLASSIFYCUSTOMER ORDERS FOR PURPOSES OF SEC RULE 605 ORDEREXECUTION DISCLOSURE AND FOR A MONTH MADE AVAILABLE A REPORTON THE COVERED ORDERS IN NATIONAL MARKET SYSTEM SECURITIESTHAT IT RECEIVED, WHICH FAILED TO CONTAIN ACCURATE STATISTICSFOR MARKETABLE LIMIT ORDERS IT RECEIVED BETWEEN 500 AND 1,999SHARES IN ONE SECURITY. THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOTPROVIDE FOR SUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVECOMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN APPLICABLE FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS AND REGULATIONS, AND/OR THE RULES OFNASD/FINRA AND FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS FORADEQUATE WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES REGARDING TRADEREPORTING (TIMELY AND ACCURATE REPORTING TO THE TRF) AND OATS(ACCURACY OF OATS DATA).


Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE IT IS CENSURED AND FINED $45,000.



Disclosure 27 of 92

i


Allegations: MSRB RULES G-17, G-27, G-30(A) - OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. CHARGED ANUNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE PRICE IN MUNICIPALSECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS CUSTOMERS AND LACKED ANADEQUATE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM. ONE TRADER PURCHASED MUNICIPALSECURITIES FROM A BROKER-DEALER ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM, HELDTHE BONDS IN INVENTORY FOR AT LEAST OVERNIGHT, AND THEN MADETHE BONDS AVAILABLE FOR RESALE AT AN EXCESSIVE MARKUP TO FIRMCUSTOMERS. THE TRADER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THEPRICES PAID BY CUSTOMERS AND THE MARKUPS RANGED FROM 5.01%TO 15.57%. IN SOME OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE MARKUPS EXCEEDED9.4%. THE MARKUPS WERE NEVER DISCLOSED TO FIRM CUSTOMERS. THEFIRM FAILED TO DETECT THE EXCESSIVE MARKUPS CHARGED BECAUSEITS SUPERVISORY SYSTEM WAS DEFICIENT. THE FIRM GENERATEDEXCEPTION REPORTS THAT IDENTIFIED MARKUPS IN CONNECTION WITHMUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS ABOVE 3% (THE "3% MARKUPSREPORT"). THE 3% MARKUPS REPORT ONLY CAPTURED PAIRED INTRA-DAY TRADES,WHICH ARE THOSE INSTANCES WHEN THE FIRM BUYS A BOND IN THEINTER-DEALER MARKET AND SELLS THE BOND TO A FIRM CUSTOMERTHAT SAME DAY. TRADES THAT OCCURRED INTER-DAY, WHEN THEFIRM BUYS A BOND AND SELLS THE BOND TO A CUSTOMER THE NEXT DAYOR THEREAFTER, WERE NOT IDENTIFIED BY THE 3% MARKUPS REPORTOR ANY OTHER SURVEILLANCE REPORT AND THEREFORE NOTREVIEWED BY THE FIRM'S COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT. BY HOLDING THEBONDS OVERNIGHT BEFORE MAKING THEM AVAILABLE FOR RESALE, THEFIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM, WHICH ONLY REVIEWEDINTRA-DAY TRANSACTIONS FOR THE FAIRNESS OFMARKUPS/MARKDOWNS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS, DIDNOT CAPTURE THESE TRANSACTIONS. THE FIRM SOLD MUNICIPALSECURITIES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT TO A CUSTOMER AT AN AGGREGATEPRICE (INCLUDING ANY MARKUP OR MARKDOWN) THAT WAS NOT FAIRAND REASONABLE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL RELEVANTFACTORS, INCLUDING THE BEST JUDGMENT OF THE BROKER, DEALER ORMUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER AS TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THESECURITIES AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION AND OF ANYSECURITIES EXCHANGED OR TRADED IN CONNECTION WITH THETRANSACTION, THE EXPENSE INVOLVED IN EFFECTING THETRANSACTION, THE FACT THAT THE BROKER, DEALER, OR MUNICIPALSECURITIES DEALER IS ENTITLED TO A PROFIT, AND THE TOTAL DOLLARAMOUNT OF THE TRANSACTION. THE MUNICIPAL SECURITIESTRANSACTIONS WERE PRICED FROM 5.01% TO 15.57% ABOVE THEFIRM'S CONTEMPORANEOUS COST. THE TRADER WAS ABLE TO CHARGETHESE EXCESSIVE MARKUPS BECAUSE OF A SIGNIFICANTDEFICIENCY IN THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM. THE FIRM'SSUPERVISORY PERSONNEL RELIED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE 3% MARKUPSREPORT WHICH ONLY CAPTURED INTRA-DAY TRANSACTIONS TO REVIEWTHE FAIRNESS OF MARKUPS/MARKDOWNS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIESTRANSACTIONS. FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS, IF A FIRM TRADERPURCHASED SECURITIES AND HELD THOSE SECURITIES IN INVENTORYFOR A DAY OR LONGER, THE SUBSEQUENT SALES TO CUSTOMERSWOULD NOT POPULATE THE 3% MARKUPS REPORT OR BE SUBJECTED TOA FAIR PRICING REVIEW.








MSRB RULES G-17, G-27, G-30(A) - OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. CHARGED ANUNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE PRICE IN MUNICIPALSECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS CUSTOMERS AND LACKED ANADEQUATE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM. ONE TRADER PURCHASED MUNICIPALSECURITIES FROM A BROKER-DEALER ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM, HELDTHE BONDS IN INVENTORY FOR AT LEAST OVERNIGHT, AND THEN MADETHE BONDS AVAILABLE FOR RESALE AT AN EXCESSIVE MARKUP TO FIRMCUSTOMERS. THE TRADER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THEPRICES PAID BY CUSTOMERS AND THE MARKUPS RANGED FROM 5.01%TO 15.57%. IN SOME OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE MARKUPS EXCEEDED9.4%. THE MARKUPS WERE NEVER DISCLOSED TO FIRM CUSTOMERS. THEFIRM FAILED TO DETECT THE EXCESSIVE MARKUPS CHARGED BECAUSEITS SUPERVISORY SYSTEM WAS DEFICIENT. THE FIRM GENERATEDEXCEPTION REPORTS THAT IDENTIFIED MARKUPS IN CONNECTION WITHMUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS ABOVE 3% (THE "3% MARKUPSREPORT"). THE 3% MARKUPS REPORT ONLY CAPTURED PAIRED INTRA-DAY TRADES,WHICH ARE THOSE INSTANCES WHEN THE FIRM BUYS A BOND IN THEINTER-DEALER MARKET AND SELLS THE BOND TO A FIRM CUSTOMERTHAT SAME DAY. TRADES THAT OCCURRED INTER-DAY, WHEN THEFIRM BUYS A BOND AND SELLS THE BOND TO A CUSTOMER THE NEXT DAYOR THEREAFTER, WERE NOT IDENTIFIED BY THE 3% MARKUPS REPORTOR ANY OTHER SURVEILLANCE REPORT AND THEREFORE NOTREVIEWED BY THE FIRM'S COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT. BY HOLDING THEBONDS OVERNIGHT BEFORE MAKING THEM AVAILABLE FOR RESALE, THEFIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM, WHICH ONLY REVIEWEDINTRA-DAY TRANSACTIONS FOR THE FAIRNESS OFMARKUPS/MARKDOWNS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS, DIDNOT CAPTURE THESE TRANSACTIONS. THE FIRM SOLD MUNICIPALSECURITIES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT TO A CUSTOMER AT AN AGGREGATEPRICE (INCLUDING ANY MARKUP OR MARKDOWN) THAT WAS NOT FAIRAND REASONABLE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL RELEVANTFACTORS, INCLUDING THE BEST JUDGMENT OF THE BROKER, DEALER ORMUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER AS TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THESECURITIES AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION AND OF ANYSECURITIES EXCHANGED OR TRADED IN CONNECTION WITH THETRANSACTION, THE EXPENSE INVOLVED IN EFFECTING THETRANSACTION, THE FACT THAT THE BROKER, DEALER, OR MUNICIPALSECURITIES DEALER IS ENTITLED TO A PROFIT, AND THE TOTAL DOLLARAMOUNT OF THE TRANSACTION. THE MUNICIPAL SECURITIESTRANSACTIONS WERE PRICED FROM 5.01% TO 15.57% ABOVE THEFIRM'S CONTEMPORANEOUS COST. THE TRADER WAS ABLE TO CHARGETHESE EXCESSIVE MARKUPS BECAUSE OF A SIGNIFICANTDEFICIENCY IN THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM. THE FIRM'SSUPERVISORY PERSONNEL RELIED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE 3% MARKUPSREPORT WHICH ONLY CAPTURED INTRA-DAY TRANSACTIONS TO REVIEWTHE FAIRNESS OF MARKUPS/MARKDOWNS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIESTRANSACTIONS. FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS, IF A FIRM TRADERPURCHASED SECURITIES AND HELD THOSE SECURITIES IN INVENTORYFOR A DAY OR LONGER, THE SUBSEQUENT SALES TO CUSTOMERSWOULD NOT POPULATE THE 3% MARKUPS REPORT OR BE SUBJECTED TOA FAIR PRICING REVIEW.






Initiated By: FINRA







MSRB RULES G-17, G-27, G-30(A) - OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. CHARGED ANUNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE PRICE IN MUNICIPALSECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS CUSTOMERS AND LACKED ANADEQUATE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM. ONE TRADER PURCHASED MUNICIPALSECURITIES FROM A BROKER-DEALER ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM, HELDTHE BONDS IN INVENTORY FOR AT LEAST OVERNIGHT, AND THEN MADETHE BONDS AVAILABLE FOR RESALE AT AN EXCESSIVE MARKUP TO FIRMCUSTOMERS. THE TRADER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THEPRICES PAID BY CUSTOMERS AND THE MARKUPS RANGED FROM 5.01%TO 15.57%. IN SOME OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE MARKUPS EXCEEDED9.4%. THE MARKUPS WERE NEVER DISCLOSED TO FIRM CUSTOMERS. THEFIRM FAILED TO DETECT THE EXCESSIVE MARKUPS CHARGED BECAUSEITS SUPERVISORY SYSTEM WAS DEFICIENT. THE FIRM GENERATEDEXCEPTION REPORTS THAT IDENTIFIED MARKUPS IN CONNECTION WITHMUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS ABOVE 3% (THE "3% MARKUPSREPORT"). THE 3% MARKUPS REPORT ONLY CAPTURED PAIRED INTRA-DAY TRADES,WHICH ARE THOSE INSTANCES WHEN THE FIRM BUYS A BOND IN THEINTER-DEALER MARKET AND SELLS THE BOND TO A FIRM CUSTOMERTHAT SAME DAY. TRADES THAT OCCURRED INTER-DAY, WHEN THEFIRM BUYS A BOND AND SELLS THE BOND TO A CUSTOMER THE NEXT DAYOR THEREAFTER, WERE NOT IDENTIFIED BY THE 3% MARKUPS REPORTOR ANY OTHER SURVEILLANCE REPORT AND THEREFORE NOTREVIEWED BY THE FIRM'S COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT. BY HOLDING THEBONDS OVERNIGHT BEFORE MAKING THEM AVAILABLE FOR RESALE, THEFIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM, WHICH ONLY REVIEWEDINTRA-DAY TRANSACTIONS FOR THE FAIRNESS OFMARKUPS/MARKDOWNS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS, DIDNOT CAPTURE THESE TRANSACTIONS. THE FIRM SOLD MUNICIPALSECURITIES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT TO A CUSTOMER AT AN AGGREGATEPRICE (INCLUDING ANY MARKUP OR MARKDOWN) THAT WAS NOT FAIRAND REASONABLE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL RELEVANTFACTORS, INCLUDING THE BEST JUDGMENT OF THE BROKER, DEALER ORMUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER AS TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THESECURITIES AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION AND OF ANYSECURITIES EXCHANGED OR TRADED IN CONNECTION WITH THETRANSACTION, THE EXPENSE INVOLVED IN EFFECTING THETRANSACTION, THE FACT THAT THE BROKER, DEALER, OR MUNICIPALSECURITIES DEALER IS ENTITLED TO A PROFIT, AND THE TOTAL DOLLARAMOUNT OF THE TRANSACTION. THE MUNICIPAL SECURITIESTRANSACTIONS WERE PRICED FROM 5.01% TO 15.57% ABOVE THEFIRM'S CONTEMPORANEOUS COST. THE TRADER WAS ABLE TO CHARGETHESE EXCESSIVE MARKUPS BECAUSE OF A SIGNIFICANTDEFICIENCY IN THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM. THE FIRM'SSUPERVISORY PERSONNEL RELIED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE 3% MARKUPSREPORT WHICH ONLY CAPTURED INTRA-DAY TRANSACTIONS TO REVIEWTHE FAIRNESS OF MARKUPS/MARKDOWNS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIESTRANSACTIONS. FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS, IF A FIRM TRADERPURCHASED SECURITIES AND HELD THOSE SECURITIES IN INVENTORYFOR A DAY OR LONGER, THE SUBSEQUENT SALES TO CUSTOMERSWOULD NOT POPULATE THE 3% MARKUPS REPORT OR BE SUBJECTED TOA FAIR PRICING REVIEW.


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: UNDERTAKING: THE FIRM SHALL PROVIDE THREE REPORTS, WRITTENAND ORAL, TO FINRA ON DATES THAT ARE NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS,12 MONTHS, AND 18 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF THENOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AWC, REGARDING THE EFFECTIVENESSOF THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TOTHE PRICING OF MUNICIPAL SECURITIESTRANSACTIONS WITH CUSTOMERS. THE WRITTEN REPORTS SHALL BECERTIFIED BY A FIRM OFFICER AND SHALL ADDRESS, AT A MINIMUM, THEEFFICACY OF THE FIRM'S WRITTENSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES, THE STEPS TAKEN BY SUPERVISORYPERSONNEL TO REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIRM'S FAIRPRICING OBLIGATIONS PURSUANT TO MSRB RULES G-17 AND G-30 INCONNECTION WITH MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WITH ACUSTOMER,AND THE RESULTS OF SUCH SUPERVISORY REVIEWS.


No









Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $675,000 FOR MSRB RULEVIOLATIONS, AND ORDERED TO PAY $246,974, PLUS INTEREST, INRESTITUTION. A REGISTERED FIRM PRINCIPAL SHALL SUBMITSATISFACTORY PROOF OF PAYMENT OF RESTITUTION, OR OFREASONABLE AND DOCUMENTED EFFORTS UNDERTAKEN TO EFFECTRESTITUTION TO FINRA NO LATER THAN 120 DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCEOF THIS AWC. ANY UNDISTRIBUTED RESTITUTION AND INTEREST SHALLBE FORWARDED TO THE APPROPRIATE ESCHEAT, UNCLAIMED PROPERTYOR ABANDONED PROPERTY FUND FOR THE STATE IN WHICH THECUSTOMER LAST RESIDED. FINE PAID IN FULL ON JANUARY 2, 2014.


Allegations: MSRB RULES G-17, G-27, G-30(A) - OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. CHARGED ANUNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE PRICE IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIESTRANSACTIONS WITH ITS CUSTOMERS AND LACKED AN ADEQUATESUPERVISORY SYSTEM. ONE TRADER PURCHASED MUNICIPALSECURITIES FROM A BROKER-DEALER ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM, HELDTHE BONDS IN INVENTORY FOR AT LEAST OVERNIGHT, AND THEN MADETHE BONDS AVAILABLE FOR RESALE AT AN EXCESSIVE MARKUP TO FIRMCUSTOMERS. THE TRADER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THEPRICES PAID BY CUSTOMERS AND THE MARKUPS RANGED FROM 5.01%TO 15.57%. IN SOME OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE MARKUPS EXCEEDED9.4%. THE MARKUPS WERE NEVER DISCLOSED TO FIRM CUSTOMERS. THEFIRM FAILED TO DETECT THE EXCESSIVE MARKUPS CHARGED BECAUSEITS SUPERVISORY SYSTEM WAS DEFICIENT. THE FIRM GENERATEDEXCEPTION REPORTS THAT IDENTIFIED MARKUPS IN CONNECTION WITHMUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS ABOVE 3% (THE "3% MARKUPSREPORT"). THE 3% MARKUPS REPORT ONLY CAPTURED PAIRED INTRA-DAY TRADES, WHICH ARE THOSE INSTANCES WHEN THE FIRM BUYS ABOND IN THE INTER-DEALER MARKET AND SELLS THE BOND TO A FIRMCUSTOMER THAT SAME DAY. TRADES THAT OCCURRED INTER-DAY, WHENTHE FIRM BUYS A BOND AND SELLS THE BOND TO A CUSTOMER THE NEXTDAY OR THEREAFTER, WERE NOT IDENTIFIED BY THE 3% MARKUPSREPORT OR ANY OTHER SURVEILLANCE REPORT AND THEREFORE NOTREVIEWED BY THE FIRM'S COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT. BY HOLDING THEBONDS OVERNIGHT BEFORE MAKING THEM AVAILABLE FOR RESALE, THEFIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM, WHICH ONLY REVIEWED INTRA-DAYTRANSACTIONS FOR THE FAIRNESS OF MARKUPS/MARKDOWNS INMUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS, DID NOT CAPTURE THESETRANSACTIONS. THE FIRM SOLD MUNICIPAL SECURITIES FOR ITS OWNACCOUNT TO A CUSTOMER AT AN AGGREGATE PRICE (INCLUDING ANYMARKUP OR MARKDOWN) THAT WAS NOT FAIR AND REASONABLE, TAKINGINTO CONSIDERATION ALL RELEVANT FACTORS, INCLUDING THE BESTJUDGMENT OF THE BROKER, DEALER OR MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALERAS TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SECURITIES AT THE TIME OF THETRANSACTION AND OF ANY SECURITIES EXCHANGED OR TRADED INCONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION, THE EXPENSE INVOLVED INEFFECTING THE TRANSACTION, THE FACT THAT THE BROKER, DEALER,OR MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER IS ENTITLED TO A PROFIT, AND THETOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THE TRANSACTION. THE MUNICIPALSECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WERE PRICED FROM 5.01% TO 15.57%ABOVE THE FIRM'S CONTEMPORANEOUS COST. THE TRADER WAS ABLETO CHARGE THESE EXCESSIVE MARKUPS BECAUSE OF A SIGNIFICANTDEFICIENCY IN THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM. THE FIRM'SSUPERVISORY PERSONNEL RELIED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE 3% MARKUPSREPORT WHICH ONLY CAPTURED INTRA-DAY TRANSACTIONS TO REVIEWTHE FAIRNESS OF MARKUPS/MARKDOWNS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIESTRANSACTIONS. FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS, IF A FIRM TRADERPURCHASED SECURITIES AND HELD THOSE SECURITIES IN INVENTORYFOR A DAY OR LONGER, THE SUBSEQUENT SALES TO CUSTOMERSWOULD NOT POPULATE THE 3% MARKUPS REPORT OR BE SUBJECTED TOA FAIR PRICING REVIEW.







Initiated By: FINRA







MSRB RULES G-17, G-27, G-30(A) - OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. CHARGED ANUNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE PRICE IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIESTRANSACTIONS WITH ITS CUSTOMERS AND LACKED AN ADEQUATESUPERVISORY SYSTEM. ONE TRADER PURCHASED MUNICIPALSECURITIES FROM A BROKER-DEALER ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM, HELDTHE BONDS IN INVENTORY FOR AT LEAST OVERNIGHT, AND THEN MADETHE BONDS AVAILABLE FOR RESALE AT AN EXCESSIVE MARKUP TO FIRMCUSTOMERS. THE TRADER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THEPRICES PAID BY CUSTOMERS AND THE MARKUPS RANGED FROM 5.01%TO 15.57%. IN SOME OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE MARKUPS EXCEEDED9.4%. THE MARKUPS WERE NEVER DISCLOSED TO FIRM CUSTOMERS. THEFIRM FAILED TO DETECT THE EXCESSIVE MARKUPS CHARGED BECAUSEITS SUPERVISORY SYSTEM WAS DEFICIENT. THE FIRM GENERATEDEXCEPTION REPORTS THAT IDENTIFIED MARKUPS IN CONNECTION WITHMUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS ABOVE 3% (THE "3% MARKUPSREPORT"). THE 3% MARKUPS REPORT ONLY CAPTURED PAIRED INTRA-DAY TRADES, WHICH ARE THOSE INSTANCES WHEN THE FIRM BUYS ABOND IN THE INTER-DEALER MARKET AND SELLS THE BOND TO A FIRMCUSTOMER THAT SAME DAY. TRADES THAT OCCURRED INTER-DAY, WHENTHE FIRM BUYS A BOND AND SELLS THE BOND TO A CUSTOMER THE NEXTDAY OR THEREAFTER, WERE NOT IDENTIFIED BY THE 3% MARKUPSREPORT OR ANY OTHER SURVEILLANCE REPORT AND THEREFORE NOTREVIEWED BY THE FIRM'S COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT. BY HOLDING THEBONDS OVERNIGHT BEFORE MAKING THEM AVAILABLE FOR RESALE, THEFIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM, WHICH ONLY REVIEWED INTRA-DAYTRANSACTIONS FOR THE FAIRNESS OF MARKUPS/MARKDOWNS INMUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS, DID NOT CAPTURE THESETRANSACTIONS. THE FIRM SOLD MUNICIPAL SECURITIES FOR ITS OWNACCOUNT TO A CUSTOMER AT AN AGGREGATE PRICE (INCLUDING ANYMARKUP OR MARKDOWN) THAT WAS NOT FAIR AND REASONABLE, TAKINGINTO CONSIDERATION ALL RELEVANT FACTORS, INCLUDING THE BESTJUDGMENT OF THE BROKER, DEALER OR MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALERAS TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SECURITIES AT THE TIME OF THETRANSACTION AND OF ANY SECURITIES EXCHANGED OR TRADED INCONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION, THE EXPENSE INVOLVED INEFFECTING THE TRANSACTION, THE FACT THAT THE BROKER, DEALER,OR MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER IS ENTITLED TO A PROFIT, AND THETOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THE TRANSACTION. THE MUNICIPALSECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WERE PRICED FROM 5.01% TO 15.57%ABOVE THE FIRM'S CONTEMPORANEOUS COST. THE TRADER WAS ABLETO CHARGE THESE EXCESSIVE MARKUPS BECAUSE OF A SIGNIFICANTDEFICIENCY IN THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM. THE FIRM'SSUPERVISORY PERSONNEL RELIED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE 3% MARKUPSREPORT WHICH ONLY CAPTURED INTRA-DAY TRANSACTIONS TO REVIEWTHE FAIRNESS OF MARKUPS/MARKDOWNS IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIESTRANSACTIONS. FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS, IF A FIRM TRADERPURCHASED SECURITIES AND HELD THOSE SECURITIES IN INVENTORYFOR A DAY OR LONGER, THE SUBSEQUENT SALES TO CUSTOMERSWOULD NOT POPULATE THE 3% MARKUPS REPORT OR BE SUBJECTED TOA FAIR PRICING REVIEW.


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: UNDERTAKING: THE FIRM SHALL PROVIDE THREE REPORTS, WRITTENAND ORAL, TO FINRA ON DATES THAT ARE NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS,12 MONTHS, AND 18 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF THE NOTICE OFACCEPTANCE OF THIS AWC, REGARDING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEFIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO THEPRICING OF MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WITH CUSTOMERS.THE WRITTEN REPORTS SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY A FIRM OFFICER ANDSHALL ADDRESS, AT A MINIMUM, THE EFFICACY OF THE FIRM'S WRITTENSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES, THE STEPS TAKEN BY SUPERVISORYPERSONNEL TO REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIRM'S FAIRPRICING OBLIGATIONS PURSUANT TO MSRB RULES G-17 AND G-30 INCONNECTION WITH MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WITH ACUSTOMER,AND THE RESULTS OF SUCH SUPERVISORY REVIEWS.









UNDERTAKING: THE FIRM SHALL PROVIDE THREE REPORTS, WRITTENAND ORAL, TO FINRA ON DATES THAT ARE NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS,12 MONTHS, AND 18 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF THE NOTICE OFACCEPTANCE OF THIS AWC, REGARDING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEFIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO THEPRICING OF MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WITH CUSTOMERS.THE WRITTEN REPORTS SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY A FIRM OFFICER ANDSHALL ADDRESS, AT A MINIMUM, THE EFFICACY OF THE FIRM'S WRITTENSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES, THE STEPS TAKEN BY SUPERVISORYPERSONNEL TO REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIRM'S FAIRPRICING OBLIGATIONS PURSUANT TO MSRB RULES G-17 AND G-30 INCONNECTION WITH MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WITH ACUSTOMER,AND THE RESULTS OF SUCH SUPERVISORY REVIEWS.

Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $675,000 FOR MSRB RULEVIOLATIONS, AND ORDERED TO PAY $246,974, PLUS INTEREST, INRESTITUTION. A REGISTERED FIRM PRINCIPAL SHALL SUBMITSATISFACTORY PROOF OF PAYMENT OF RESTITUTION, OR OFREASONABLE AND DOCUMENTED EFFORTS UNDERTAKEN TO EFFECTRESTITUTION TO FINRA NO LATER THAN 120 DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCEOF THIS AWC. ANY UNDISTRIBUTED RESTITUTION AND INTEREST SHALLBE FORWARDED TO THE APPROPRIATE ESCHEAT, UNCLAIMED PROPERTYOR ABANDONED PROPERTY FUND FOR THE STATE IN WHICH THECUSTOMER LAST RESIDED.

Disclosure 28 of 92

i


Initiated By: FINRA






Allegations: SEC RULES 200(G) AND 204T(A)(1) OF REGULATION SHO - OPPENHEIMER &CO. INC. EXECUTED ORDERS FOR SALES PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 144AND FAILED TO MARK EACH AS A SHORT SALE. THE FIRM HAD A FEW FAIL-TO-DELIVER POSITIONS AT A REGISTERED CLEARING AGENCY IN ANEQUITY SECURITY THAT RESULTED FROM LONG SALE TRANSACTIONS,AND FAILED TO TIMELY CLOSE OUT THE FAIL-TO-DELIVER POSITIONS BYPURCHASING SECURITIES OF LIKE KIND.











Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED AND FINED $17,500. FINE PAID ONAUGUST 15, 2013.


No




Initiated By: FINRA






Allegations: SEC RULES 200(G) AND 204T(A)(1) OF REGULATION SHO - OPPENHEIMER &CO. INC. EXECUTED ORDERS FOR SALES PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 144AND FAILED TO MARK EACH AS A SHORT SALE. THE FIRM HAD A FEW FAIL-TO-DELIVER POSITIONS AT A REGISTERED CLEARING AGENCY IN ANEQUITY SECURITY THAT RESULTED FROM LONG SALE TRANSACTIONS,AND FAILED TO TIMELY CLOSE OUT THE FAIL-TO-DELIVER POSITIONS BYPURCHASING SECURITIES OF LIKE KIND.










Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED AND FINED $17,500.



Disclosure 29 of 92

i










Allegations: OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. ("OPPENHEIMER"), AN EXCHANGE TPHORGANIZATION, WAS CENSURED AND FINED $5,000 FOR THE FOLLOWINGCONDUCT: OPPENHEIMER FAILED TO REGISTER THE MINIMUM NUMBEROF INDIVIDUALS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A PROPRIETARY TRADERPRINCIPAL ("TP") IN WEBCRD BY NOVEMBER 5, 2011. ADDITIONALLY, IT ISNOTED THAT OPPENHEIMER UPDATED ITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORYPROCEDURES RELATED TO REGISTRATION AND QUALIFICATION OFASSOCIATED PERSONS ON FEBRUARY 15, 2013. (EXCHANGE RULE 3.6A -QUALIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF TRADING PERMIT HOLDERS ANDASSOCIATED PERSONS)



Resolution: Decision & Order of Offer of Settlement








Sanction Details: A $5,000 FINE AND A CENSURE.



Initiated By: CBOE




CENSURE


Docket/Case Number: FILE NO. 12 -0121



Allegations: OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. FAILED TO REGISTER THE MINIMUM NUMBEROF INDIVIDUALS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A PROPRIETARY TRADERPRINCIPAL (TP)ON WEB CRD BY NOVEMBER 5, 2011, IN ACCORDANCEWITH CBOE EXCHANGE RULE 3.6A.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. SETTLED THIS MATTER AND SUBMITTED THEREGISTRATIONS OF ITS PROPRIETARY TRADING PRINCIPALS ON WEBCRD.



Disclosure 30 of 92

i







Initiated By: FINRA


Allegations: SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, FINRA RULES 2010, 3310(A),3310(B), NASD RULES 2110, 3010, 3011(A), 3011(B): THE FIRM SOLDUNREGISTERED SECURITIES IN THAT NO REGISTRATION STATEMENT WASIN EFFECT FOR THE SALES OF PENNY STOCKS. THROUGH THE USE OFMAILS, TELEPHONE AND OTHER INTERSTATE COMMUNICATIONS, THEFIRM USED THE MEANS OR INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION ORCOMMUNICATIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO EFFECT THE SALES OFSECURITIES.THE FIRM FAILED TO IMPLEMENT A SUPERVISORY SYSTEM REASONABLYDESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 5 IN THE SALE OFPENNY STOCKS. THE FIRM HAD NO SYSTEM OR PROCEDURE TODETERMINE WHETHER STOCKS WERE RESTRICTED OR FREELYTRADABLE AND FAILED TO CONDUCT AN APPROPRIATE REVIEW FORCOMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 5. THE FIRM'S SURVEILLANCE STAFF ANDBRANCH ADMINISTRATION STAFF KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUTRED FLAGS, YET FAILED TO FOLLOW UP TO DETERMINE WHETHER THESTOCKS WERE IN FACT FREE TO TRADE.THE FIRM FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES THAT CAN BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO DETECT ANDCAUSE THE REPORTING OF TRANSACTIONS REQUIRED UNDER 31 U.S.C.5318(G), AND FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES,PROCEDURES, AND INTERNAL CONTROLS REASONABLY DESIGNED TOACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE BANK SECRECY ACT AND THEIMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS THEREUNDER. THE FIRM'S ANTI-MONEYLAUNDERING PROCEDURES FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THEDETECTION, MONITORING, ANALYZING, INVESTIGATING, AND REPORTINGOF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY IN THE CONTEXT OF PATTERNS OF SUSPICIOUSACTIVITY IN PENNY STOCK TRADES, OR RED FLAGS RELATING TO PENNYSTOCK TRANSACTIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE FIRM'S SURVEILLANCE ORCOMPLIANCE PERSONNEL. AS A RESULT, THE FIRM FAILED TOINVESTIGATE THE SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY. THE FIRM'S POLICIES REQUIREDENHANCED DUE DILIGENCE FOR CORRESPONDENT ACCOUNTS ANDRESTRICTED A NEW FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ACCOUNT TOPROPRIETARY BUSINESS FOR THE ENTITY THAT OPENED IT.NOTWITHSTANDING THE FIRM'S PROCEDURES, THE FIRM FAILED TOINVESTIGATE OR RESPOND TO THE PATTERN OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY INA CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNT AND IGNORED RED FLAGS THAT CUSTOMERWAS TRADING FOR ITS OWN UNDERLYING CLIENTS. THE FIRM'SPROCEDURES AND INTERNAL CONTROLS FOR MONITORING SUSPICIOUSACTIVITY WERE INADEQUATE AND NOT REASONABLY DESIGNED TOMONITOR AND ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEBANK SECRECY ACT RELATING TO FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.








Other


N/A






Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, THE FIRMCONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS; THEREFORE IT IS CENSURED, FINED $1,425,000 ANDUNDERTAKES TO: RETAIN, WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE ORDERACCEPTING OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT, TOCONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE FIRM'SPOLICIES, SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES (WRITTEN AND OTHERWISE) ANDTRAINING RELATING TO: THE RECEIPT OR PURCHASE AND SUBSEQUENTJOURNAL OR SALE OF PENNY STOCK; THE SUPERVISION OF FOREIGNFINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING THE FIRM'S "KNOW YOURCUSTOMER" OBLIGATIONS; AND THE FIRM'S ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERINGPROCEDURES, INCLUDING FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ANDHANDLING THE MOVEMENT OF SECURITIES. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THEREVIEW, WHICH SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 120 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OFTHE ORDER ACCEPTING OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, REQUIRE THEINDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO SUBMIT TO THE FIRM AND FINRA STAFF AWRITTEN REPORT. WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER DELIVERY OF THE WRITTENREPORT, THE FIRM SHALL ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT THERECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT OR, IF ITDETERMINES THAT A RECOMMENDATION IS UNDULY BURDENSOME ORIMPRACTICAL, PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE TO THEINDEPENDENT CONSULTANT DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THE SAMEOBJECTIVE. THE FIRM WILL ABIDE BY THE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT'SULTIMATE DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO ANY PROPOSEDALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE AND MUST ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT ALLRECOMMENDATIONS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE INDEPENDENTCONSULTANT. WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE LATER OFTHE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT'S WRITTEN REPORT OR WRITTENDETERMINATION REGARDING ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES (IF ANY), THEFIRM SHALL PROVIDE FINRA STAFF WITH A WRITTEN IMPLEMENTATIONREPORT, CERTIFIED BY AN OFFICER OF THE FIRM, ATTESTING TO,CONTAINING DOCUMENTATION OF, AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS OFTHE FIRM'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT'SRECOMMENDATIONS. FINE PAID IN FULL ON NOVEMBER 1, 2013.


No









WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, THE FIRMCONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS; THEREFORE IT IS CENSURED, FINED $1,425,000 ANDUNDERTAKES TO: RETAIN, WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE ORDERACCEPTING OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT, TOCONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE FIRM'SPOLICIES, SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES (WRITTEN AND OTHERWISE) ANDTRAINING RELATING TO: THE RECEIPT OR PURCHASE AND SUBSEQUENTJOURNAL OR SALE OF PENNY STOCK; THE SUPERVISION OF FOREIGNFINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING THE FIRM'S "KNOW YOURCUSTOMER" OBLIGATIONS; AND THE FIRM'S ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERINGPROCEDURES, INCLUDING FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ANDHANDLING THE MOVEMENT OF SECURITIES. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THEREVIEW, WHICH SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 120 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OFTHE ORDER ACCEPTING OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, REQUIRE THEINDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO SUBMIT TO THE FIRM AND FINRA STAFF AWRITTEN REPORT. WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER DELIVERY OF THE WRITTENREPORT, THE FIRM SHALL ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT THERECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT OR, IF ITDETERMINES THAT A RECOMMENDATION IS UNDULY BURDENSOME ORIMPRACTICAL, PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE TO THEINDEPENDENT CONSULTANT DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THE SAMEOBJECTIVE. THE FIRM WILL ABIDE BY THE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT'SULTIMATE DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO ANY PROPOSEDALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE AND MUST ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT ALLRECOMMENDATIONS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE INDEPENDENTCONSULTANT. WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE LATER OFTHE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT'S WRITTEN REPORT OR WRITTENDETERMINATION REGARDING ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES (IF ANY), THEFIRM SHALL PROVIDE FINRA STAFF WITH A WRITTEN IMPLEMENTATIONREPORT, CERTIFIED BY AN OFFICER OF THE FIRM, ATTESTING TO,CONTAINING DOCUMENTATION OF, AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS OFTHE FIRM'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT'SRECOMMENDATIONS. FINE PAID IN FULL ON NOVEMBER 1, 2013.


Allegations: SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, FINRA RULES 2010, 3310(A)AND (B), NASD RULES 2110, 3110, 3110(A) AND (B): THE FIRM SOLDUNREGISTERED SECURITIES IN THAT NO REGISTRATION STATEMENT WASIN EFFECT FOR THE SALES OF PENNY STOCKS. THROUGH THE USE OFMAILS, TELEPHONE AND OTHER INTERSTATE COMMUNICATIONS, THEFIRM USED THE MEANS OR INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION ORCOMMUNICATIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO EFFECT THE SALES OFSECURITIES. THE FIRM FAILED TO IMPLEMENT A SUPERVISORY SYSTEMREASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 5 INTHE SALE OF PENNY STOCKS. THE FIRM HAD NO SYSTEM ORPROCEDURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER STOCKS WERE RESTRICTED ORFREELY TRADABLE AND FAILED TO CONDUCT AN APPROPRIATE REVIEWFOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 5. THE FIRM'S SURVEILLANCE STAFFAND BRANCH ADMINISTRATION STAFF KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWNABOUT RED FLAGS, YET FAILED TO FOLLOW UP TO DETERMINE WHETHERTHE STOCKS WERE IN FACT FREE TO TRADE. THE FIRM FAILED TOESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT CAN BEREASONABLY EXPECTED TO DETECT AND CAUSE THE REPORTING OFTRANSACTIONS REQUIRED UNDER 31 U.S.C. 5318(G), AND FAILED TOESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND INTERNALCONTROLS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THEBANK SECRECY ACT AND THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONSTHEREUNDER. THE FIRM'S ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING PROCEDURESFAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE DETECTION, MONITORING,ANALYZING, INVESTIGATING, AND REPORTING OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITYIN THE CONTEXT OF PATTERNS OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY IN PENNYSTOCK TRADES, OR RED FLAGS RELATING TO PENNY STOCKTRANSACTIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE FIRM'S SURVEILLANCE ORCOMPLIANCE PERSONNEL. AS A RESULT, THE FIRM FAILED TOINVESTIGATE THE SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY. THE FIRM'S POLICIES REQUIREDENHANCED DUE DILIGENCE FOR CORRESPONDENT ACCOUNTS ANDRESTRICTED A NEW FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ACCOUNT TOPROPRIETARY BUSINESS FOR THE ENTITY THAT OPENED IT.NOTWITHSTANDING THE FIRM'S PROCEDURES, THE FIRM FAILED TOINVESTIGATE OR RESPOND TO THE PATTERN OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY INA CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNT AND IGNORED RED FLAGS THAT CUSTOMERWAS TRADING FOR ITS OWN UNDERLYING CLIENTS. THE FIRM'SPROCEDURES AND INTERNAL CONTROLS FOR MONITORING SUSPICIOUSACTIVITY WERE INADEQUATE AND NOT REASONABLY DESIGNED TOMONITOR AND ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEBANK SECRECY ACT RELATING TO FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.







Initiated By: FINRA


Other


N/A





SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, FINRA RULES 2010, 3310(A)AND (B), NASD RULES 2110, 3110, 3110(A) AND (B): THE FIRM SOLDUNREGISTERED SECURITIES IN THAT NO REGISTRATION STATEMENT WASIN EFFECT FOR THE SALES OF PENNY STOCKS. THROUGH THE USE OFMAILS, TELEPHONE AND OTHER INTERSTATE COMMUNICATIONS, THEFIRM USED THE MEANS OR INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION ORCOMMUNICATIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO EFFECT THE SALES OFSECURITIES. THE FIRM FAILED TO IMPLEMENT A SUPERVISORY SYSTEMREASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 5 INTHE SALE OF PENNY STOCKS. THE FIRM HAD NO SYSTEM ORPROCEDURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER STOCKS WERE RESTRICTED ORFREELY TRADABLE AND FAILED TO CONDUCT AN APPROPRIATE REVIEWFOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 5. THE FIRM'S SURVEILLANCE STAFFAND BRANCH ADMINISTRATION STAFF KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWNABOUT RED FLAGS, YET FAILED TO FOLLOW UP TO DETERMINE WHETHERTHE STOCKS WERE IN FACT FREE TO TRADE. THE FIRM FAILED TOESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT CAN BEREASONABLY EXPECTED TO DETECT AND CAUSE THE REPORTING OFTRANSACTIONS REQUIRED UNDER 31 U.S.C. 5318(G), AND FAILED TOESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND INTERNALCONTROLS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THEBANK SECRECY ACT AND THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONSTHEREUNDER. THE FIRM'S ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING PROCEDURESFAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE DETECTION, MONITORING,ANALYZING, INVESTIGATING, AND REPORTING OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITYIN THE CONTEXT OF PATTERNS OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY IN PENNYSTOCK TRADES, OR RED FLAGS RELATING TO PENNY STOCKTRANSACTIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE FIRM'S SURVEILLANCE ORCOMPLIANCE PERSONNEL. AS A RESULT, THE FIRM FAILED TOINVESTIGATE THE SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY. THE FIRM'S POLICIES REQUIREDENHANCED DUE DILIGENCE FOR CORRESPONDENT ACCOUNTS ANDRESTRICTED A NEW FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ACCOUNT TOPROPRIETARY BUSINESS FOR THE ENTITY THAT OPENED IT.NOTWITHSTANDING THE FIRM'S PROCEDURES, THE FIRM FAILED TOINVESTIGATE OR RESPOND TO THE PATTERN OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY INA CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNT AND IGNORED RED FLAGS THAT CUSTOMERWAS TRADING FOR ITS OWN UNDERLYING CLIENTS. THE FIRM'SPROCEDURES AND INTERNAL CONTROLS FOR MONITORING SUSPICIOUSACTIVITY WERE INADEQUATE AND NOT REASONABLY DESIGNED TOMONITOR AND ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEBANK SECRECY ACT RELATING TO FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, THE FIRMCONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS; THEREFORE IT IS CENSURED, FINED $1,425,000 ANDUNDERTAKES TO: RETAIN, WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE ORDERACCEPTING OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT, TOCONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE FIRM'SPOLICIES, SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES (WRITTEN AND OTHERWISE) ANDTRAINING RELATING TO: THE RECEIPT OR PURCHASE AND SUBSEQUENTJOURNAL OR SALE OF PENNY STOCK; THE SUPERVISION OF FOREIGNFINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING THE FIRM'S "KNOW YOURCUSTOMER" OBLIGATIONS; AND THE FIRM'S ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERINGPROCEDURES, INCLUDING FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ANDHANDLING THE MOVEMENT OF SECURITIES. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THEREVIEW, WHICH SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 120 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OFTHE ORDER ACCEPTING OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, REQUIRE THEINDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO SUBMIT TO THE FIRM AND FINRA STAFF AWRITTEN REPORT. WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER DELIVERY OF THE WRITTENREPORT, THE FIRM SHALL ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT THERECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT OR, IF ITDETERMINES THAT A RECOMMENDATION IS UNDULY BURDENSOME ORIMPRACTICAL, PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE TO THEINDEPENDENT CONSULTANT DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THE SAMEOBJECTIVE. THE FIRM WILL ABIDE BY THE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT'SULTIMATE DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO ANY PROPOSEDALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE AND MUST ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT ALLRECOMMENDATIONS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE INDEPENDENTCONSULTANT. WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE LATER OFTHE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT'S WRITTEN REPORT OR WRITTENDETERMINATION REGARDING ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES (IF ANY), THEFIRM SHALL PROVIDE FINRA STAFF WITH A WRITTEN IMPLEMENTATIONREPORT, CERTIFIED BY AN OFFICER OF THE FIRM, ATTESTING TO,CONTAINING DOCUMENTATION OF, AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS OFTHE FIRM'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT'SRECOMMENDATIONS.









WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, THE FIRMCONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS; THEREFORE IT IS CENSURED, FINED $1,425,000 ANDUNDERTAKES TO: RETAIN, WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE ORDERACCEPTING OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT, TOCONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE FIRM'SPOLICIES, SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES (WRITTEN AND OTHERWISE) ANDTRAINING RELATING TO: THE RECEIPT OR PURCHASE AND SUBSEQUENTJOURNAL OR SALE OF PENNY STOCK; THE SUPERVISION OF FOREIGNFINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING THE FIRM'S "KNOW YOURCUSTOMER" OBLIGATIONS; AND THE FIRM'S ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERINGPROCEDURES, INCLUDING FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ANDHANDLING THE MOVEMENT OF SECURITIES. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THEREVIEW, WHICH SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 120 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OFTHE ORDER ACCEPTING OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, REQUIRE THEINDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO SUBMIT TO THE FIRM AND FINRA STAFF AWRITTEN REPORT. WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER DELIVERY OF THE WRITTENREPORT, THE FIRM SHALL ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT THERECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT OR, IF ITDETERMINES THAT A RECOMMENDATION IS UNDULY BURDENSOME ORIMPRACTICAL, PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE TO THEINDEPENDENT CONSULTANT DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THE SAMEOBJECTIVE. THE FIRM WILL ABIDE BY THE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT'SULTIMATE DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO ANY PROPOSEDALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE AND MUST ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT ALLRECOMMENDATIONS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE INDEPENDENTCONSULTANT. WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE LATER OFTHE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT'S WRITTEN REPORT OR WRITTENDETERMINATION REGARDING ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES (IF ANY), THEFIRM SHALL PROVIDE FINRA STAFF WITH A WRITTEN IMPLEMENTATIONREPORT, CERTIFIED BY AN OFFICER OF THE FIRM, ATTESTING TO,CONTAINING DOCUMENTATION OF, AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS OFTHE FIRM'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT'SRECOMMENDATIONS.

Disclosure 31 of 92

i


Allegations: SEC RULES 17A-3, 17A-4, NASD RULES 2110, 2320, 3110, 4632(C)(5) -OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. IN TRANSACTIONS FOR OR WITH CUSTOMERS,FAILED TO USE REASONABLE DILIGENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE BEST INTER-DEALER MARKET AND FAILED TO BUY OR SELL IN SUCH MARKET SO THATTHE RESULTANT PRICE TO ITS CUSTOMERS WAS AS FAVORABLE ASPOSSIBLE UNDER PREVAILING MARKET CONDITIONS. THE FIRM FAILED TOSHOW ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING ON BROKERAGE ORDERMEMORANDA: THE CORRECT EXECUTION TIME; THE TIME OF ENTRY; THECORRECT ENTRY TIME; THE ORDER SIZE; THE ORDER TYPE; AND/OR THETERMS AND CONDITIONS. THE FIRM FAILED TO PRESERVE FOR A PERIODOF NOT LESS THAN THREE YEARS, THE FIRST TWO IN AN ACCESSIBLEPLACE, THE MEMORANDA OF THREE BROKERAGE ORDERS. THE FIRMFAILED TO REPORT THE CORRECT EXECUTION TIME TO THEFINRA/NASDAQ TRADE REPORTING FACILITY IN SOME LAST SALEREPORTS OF TRANSACTIONS IN DESIGNATED SECURITIES.







Initiated By: FINRA






Other Product Type(s): DESIGNATED SECURITIES

SEC RULES 17A-3, 17A-4, NASD RULES 2110, 2320, 3110, 4632(C)(5) -OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. IN TRANSACTIONS FOR OR WITH CUSTOMERS,FAILED TO USE REASONABLE DILIGENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE BEST INTER-DEALER MARKET AND FAILED TO BUY OR SELL IN SUCH MARKET SO THATTHE RESULTANT PRICE TO ITS CUSTOMERS WAS AS FAVORABLE ASPOSSIBLE UNDER PREVAILING MARKET CONDITIONS. THE FIRM FAILED TOSHOW ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING ON BROKERAGE ORDERMEMORANDA: THE CORRECT EXECUTION TIME; THE TIME OF ENTRY; THECORRECT ENTRY TIME; THE ORDER SIZE; THE ORDER TYPE; AND/OR THETERMS AND CONDITIONS. THE FIRM FAILED TO PRESERVE FOR A PERIODOF NOT LESS THAN THREE YEARS, THE FIRST TWO IN AN ACCESSIBLEPLACE, THE MEMORANDA OF THREE BROKERAGE ORDERS. THE FIRMFAILED TO REPORT THE CORRECT EXECUTION TIME TO THEFINRA/NASDAQ TRADE REPORTING FACILITY IN SOME LAST SALEREPORTS OF TRANSACTIONS IN DESIGNATED SECURITIES.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $22,500 AND ORDERED TOPAY $1,290.58, PLUS INTEREST, IN RESTITUTION TO CUSTOMERS. AREGISTERED FIRM PRINCIPAL SHALL SUBMIT SATISFACTORY PROOF OFPAYMENT OF RESTITUTION, OR OF REASONABLE AND DOCUMENTEDEFFORTS UNDERTAKEN TO EFFECT RESTITUTION TO FINRA NO LATERTHAN 120 DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AWC. ANY UNDISTRIBUTEDRESTITUTION AND INTEREST SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THEAPPROPRIATE ESCHEAT, UNCLAIMED PROPERTY OR ABANDONEDPROPERTY FUND FOR THE STATE IN WHICH THE CUSTOMER LASTRESIDED. FINE PAID IN FULL ON APRIL 29, 2013


No










Initiated By: FINRA


Censure


MONETARY FINE, DISGORGEMENT/RESTITUTION





Allegations: SEC RULES 17A-3, 17A-4, NASD RULES 2110, 2320, 3110, 4632(C)(5) -OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. IN TRANSACTIONS FOR OR WITH CUSTOMERS,FAILED TO USE REASONABLE DILIGENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE BEST INTER-DEALER MARKET AND FAILED TO BUY OR SELL IN SUCH MARKET SO THATTHE RESULTANT PRICE TO ITS CUSTOMERS WAS AS FAVORABLE ASPOSSIBLE UNDER PREVAILING MARKET CONDITIONS. THE FIRM FAILED TOSHOW ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING ON BROKERAGE ORDERMEMORANDA: THE CORRECT EXECUTION TIME; THE TIME OF ENTRY; THECORRECT ENTRY TIME; THE ORDER SIZE; THE ORDER TYPE; AND/OR THETERMS AND CONDITIONS. THE FIRM FAILED TO PRESERVE FOR A PERIODOF NOT LESS THAN THREE YEARS, THE FIRST TWO IN AN ACCESSIBLEPLACE, THE MEMORANDA OF THREE BROKERAGE ORDERS. THE FIRMFAILED TO REPORT THE CORRECT EXECUTION TIME TO THEFINRA/NASDAQ TRADE REPORTING FACILITY IN SOME LAST SALEREPORTS OF TRANSACTIONS IN DESIGNATED SECURITIES.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $22,500 AND ORDERED TOPAY $1,290.58, PLUS INTEREST, IN RESTITUTION TO CUSTOMERS. AREGISTERED FIRM PRINCIPAL SHALL SUBMIT SATISFACTORY PROOF OFPAYMENT OF RESTITUTION, OR OF REASONABLE AND DOCUMENTEDEFFORTS UNDERTAKEN TO EFFECT RESTITUTION TO FINRA NO LATERTHAN 120 DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AWC. ANY UNDISTRIBUTEDRESTITUTION AND INTEREST SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THEAPPROPRIATE ESCHEAT, UNCLAIMED PROPERTY OR ABANDONEDPROPERTY FUND FOR THE STATE IN WHICH THE CUSTOMER LASTRESIDED.









WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $22,500 AND ORDERED TOPAY $1,290.58, PLUS INTEREST, IN RESTITUTION TO CUSTOMERS. AREGISTERED FIRM PRINCIPAL SHALL SUBMIT SATISFACTORY PROOF OFPAYMENT OF RESTITUTION, OR OF REASONABLE AND DOCUMENTEDEFFORTS UNDERTAKEN TO EFFECT RESTITUTION TO FINRA NO LATERTHAN 120 DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AWC. ANY UNDISTRIBUTEDRESTITUTION AND INTEREST SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THEAPPROPRIATE ESCHEAT, UNCLAIMED PROPERTY OR ABANDONEDPROPERTY FUND FOR THE STATE IN WHICH THE CUSTOMER LASTRESIDED.

Disclosure 32 of 92

i


Initiated By: INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE




CENSURE


Docket/Case Number: 2010-087 & 2010-140



Allegations: DURING THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2010, THE FIRM SUBMITTED 192 ENTRIESTO THEIR LARGE OPTIONS POSITION REPORT ("LOPR") IN WHICH SOCIALSECURITY NUMBERS OR TAX IDENTIFICATIONS HAD NOT BEENCORRECTLY ASSIGNED.

DURING THE THIRD QUARTER OF 2010, THE FIRM SUBMITTED 356ENTRIES TO THEIR LOPR IN WHICH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS OR TAXIDENTIFICATIONS HAD NOT BEEN CORRECTLY ASSIGNED.THE CONDUCT DESCRIBED ABOVE, CONSTITUTES SEPERATE VIOLATIONSOF ISE RULE 415 (A)



Resolution:


No









Sanction Details: FIRM FINED $60000



Initiated By: INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE




CENSURE


Docket/Case Number: 2010-087 & 2010-140



Allegations: ON DECEMBER 21, 2012, THE INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE LLCISSUED A LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER AND CONSENT TOOPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. (CRD #249) FILE NO. 2010-087-140),IN WHICHOPPENHEIMER ACCEPTED AND CONSENTED TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS,WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, AS FOLLOWS:DURING THE FIRST QUARTER IN 2010, OPPENHEIMER SUBMITTED 192ENTRIES TO THE LARGE OPTIONS POSITION REPORT ("LOPR")IN WHICHACCOUNTS WITH THE SAME SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR TAXIDENTIFICATION NUMBER HAD NOT BEEN ASSIGNED AN IN-CONCERTNUMBER, AND IN CONCERT FIRM IDENTIFICATION. FURTHER, DURING THETHIRD QUARTER IN 2010, OPPENHEIMER SUBMITTED 256 ENTRIES TO THELOPR IN WHICH ACCOUNTS WITH THE SAME SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBEROR TAX IDENTIFICATION NUMBER HAD NOT BEEN ASSIGNED AN IN-CONCERT NUMBER, AND IN-CONCERT FIRM IDENTIFICATION. THISCONDUCT VIOLATED ISE RULE 415 (A). OPPENHEIMER CONSENTED TO ACENSURE AND AGREED TO PAY $60,000 FINE.



Resolution:










Sanction Details: FIRM CENSURED AND FINED $60,000

Disclosure 33 of 92

i


Initiated By: FINRA







Allegations: SEC RULE 10B-10, FINRA RULES 6380A, 7450 - OPPENHEIMER & CO INC.'SCUSTOMER CONFIRMATIONS WERE INACCURATE OR INCOMPLETE INTHAT THE FIRM FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE CORRECT TYPE OFREMUNERATION AND FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT THE PRICE RECEIVED BYTHE CUSTOMER WAS AN AVERAGE PRICE; FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT THEPRICE RECEIVED BY THE CUSTOMER WAS AN AVERAGE PRICE; FAILED TODISCLOSE THE CORRECT TYPE OF REMUNERATION ON CUSTOMERCONFIRMATIONS; AND FAILED ON ONE OCCASION, TO DISCLOSE THECORRECT TYPE OF REMUNERATION AND FAILED TO DISCLOSE THECORRECT CAPACITY IN WHICH IT ACTED. THE FIRM TRANSMITTEDREPORTS TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAIL SYSTEM (OATS) THAT CONTAINEDINCORRECT CUSTOMER INSTRUCTION FLAGS OR INCORRECT ROUTEREPORTS. THE FIRM TRANSMITTED REPORTS TO THE FINRA/NASDAQTRADE REPORTING FACILITY THAT CONTAINED INACCURATE DATA.



Resolution:


No









Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED AND FINED $20,000. FINE PAID INFULL ON 1/22/2013.



Initiated By: FINRA







Allegations: SEC RULE 10B-10, FINRA RULES 6380A, 7450 -THAT CERTAIN OFOPPENHEIMER & CO INC.'S CUSTOMER CONFIRMATIONS WEREINACCURATE OR INCOMPLETE IN THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO DISCLOSETHE CORRECT TYPE OF REMUNERATION AND FAILED TO DISCLOSE THATTHE PRICE RECEIVED BY THE CUSTOMER WAS AN AVERAGE PRICE;FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT THE PRICE RECEIVED BY THE CUSTOMER WASAN AVERAGE PRICE; AND FAILED ON ONE OCCASION, TO DISCLOSE THECORRECT TYPE OF REMUNERATION AND FAILED TO DISCLOSE THECORRECT CAPACITY IN WHICH IT ACTED. THE FIRM ON OCCASIONTRANSMITTED REPORTS TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAIL SYSTEM (OATS)THAT CONTAINED INCORRECT CUSTOMER INSTRUCTION FLAGS ORINCORRECT ROUTE REPORTS. THE FIRM ON OCCASION TRANSMITTEDREPORTS TO THE FINRA/NASDAQ TRADE REPORTING FACILITY THATCONTAINED INACCURATE DATA



Resolution:











Firm Statement WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED AND FINED $20,000.


Disclosure 34 of 92

i


Initiated By: FINRA





Principal Product Type: Equity - OTC


Allegations: FINRA RULES 2010, 6622(A), 6622(C)(5), 6622(E) - OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.FAILED, WITHIN 90 SECONDS AFTER EXECUTION, TO TRANSMIT TO THEOTC REPORTING FACILITY LAST SALE REPORTS OF TRANSMISSIONS INOTC EQUITY SECURITIES AND FAILED TO DESIGNATE SOME OF THE LASTSALE REPORTS AS LATE. THIS CONDUCT CONSTITUTES SEPARATE ANDDISTINCT VIOLATIONS OF FINRA RULE 6622(A) AND A PATTERN ORPRACTICE OF LATE REPORTING WITHOUT EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES IN VIOLATION OF FINRA RULE 2010. THE FIRMREPORTED SOME LAST SALE REPORTS OF TRANSACTIONS IN OTCEQUITY SECURITIES IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REPORT AND FAILED TOREPORT THE CORRECT EXECUTION TIME TO THE OTC REPORTINGFACILITY IN SOME LAST SALE REPORTS OF TRANSACTIONS INDESIGNATED SECURITIES.



Resolution:


No









Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED AND FINED $18,000.FINE PAID IN FULL APRIL 18, 2012.


No



Initiated By: FINRA







Allegations: FINRA RULES 2010, 6622(A), 6622(C)(5), 6622(E) - OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.FAILED, WITHIN 90 SECONDS AFTER EXECUTION, TO TRANSMIT TO THEOTC REPORTING FACILITY LAST SALE REPORTS OF TRANSMISSIONS INOTC EQUITY SECURITIES AND FAILED TO DESIGNATE SOME OF THE LASTSALE REPORTS AS LATE. THIS CONDUCT CONSTITUTES SEPARATE ANDDISTINCT VIOLATIONS OF FINRA RULE 6622(A) AND A PATTERN ORPRACTICE OF LATE REPORTING WITHOUT EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES IN VIOLATION OF FINRA RULE 2010. THE FIRMREPORTED SOME LAST SALE REPORTS OF TRANSACTIONS IN OTCEQUITY SECURITIES IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REPORT AND FAILED TOREPORT THE CORRECT EXECUTION TIME TO THE OTC REPORTINGFACILITY IN SOME LAST SALE REPORTS OF TRANSACTIONS INDESIGNATED SECURITIES.









Resolution:



Firm Statement OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THEFINDINGS IN THE SUBJECT MATTERS, CONSENTED TO A CENSURE ANDPAYMENT OF A FINE OF $18,000 IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN LAST SALEREPORTS IN 2009 AND CERTAIN REPORTED EXECUTION TIMES IN 2010 INOTC SECURITIES.



Disclosure 35 of 92

i


Initiated By: NEW HAMPSHIRE




RESCISSION


Docket/Case Number: I-2010-0000017




Allegations: UNREGISTERED SECURITIES, MISMARKING ORDER ENTRY TICKETS,FAILURE TO SUPERVISE AND UNSUITABILITY.



Resolution:


No

Consent






Other Sanctions Ordered: RESCISSION. RECOVERY OF COSTS: $30,000.00. COMPLIANCE REVIEWCONDUCTED BY AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY.

Sanction Details: FINE: $125,000.00. COST RECOVERY: $30,000.00. ALL FINES AND COSTSLEVIED AGAINST OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.


No



Initiated By: STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BUREAU OF SECURITIES REGULATION




UNDERTAKING





Allegations: NEW HAMPSHIRE ALLEGED THAT BROKERS IN THE PORTSMOUTH, NEWHAMPSHIRE BRANCH PURCHASED THE SAME STOCK FOR SEVERALCUSTOMERS. THE STOCK WAS NOT REGISTERED OR EXEMPT FROMREGISTRATION AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE. SOME TRADE TICKETS FORTHE PURCHASE OF THIS STOCK WERE MISMARKED AS UNSOLICITEDWHEN IN FACT THEY WERE SOLICITED TRADES.



Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: $30,000 COSTS, UNDERTAKING.

Sanction Details: OPPENHEIMER WAS ORDERED TO PAY A FINE OF $125,000. AND $30,000 INCOSTS (PAID 2/8/12.)


Consent






OPPENHEIMER WAS ORDERED TO PAY A FINE OF $125,000. AND $30,000 INCOSTS (PAID 2/8/12.)

Firm Statement OPPENHEIMER WAS ORDERED TO PAY A FINE OF $125,000. AND $30,000 INCOSTS (PAID 2/8/12.) OPPENHEIMER FURTHER AGREED TO ANUNDERTAKING, IN WHICH AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT WOULD BE RETAINEDTO REVIEW AND REPORT ON ACTIVITIES IN THE PORTSMOUTH BRANCHOFFICE FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD OF TIME. OPPENHEIMER FURTHERAGREED TO OFFER RESCISSION TO THE PURCHASES OF THREEADDITIONAL PENNY STOCKS (RESCISSION OFFER LETTERS WERE MAILED2/3/12.)

Disclosure 36 of 92

i


Initiated By: FLORIDA OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION ("OFFICE")


Cease and Desist



Docket/Case Number: 0442A-S-07/09




Allegations: ON 8/20/2009, THE OFFICE EXECUTED A STIPULATION AND CONSENTAGREEMENT IN THE MATTER OF OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. WHO NEITHERADMITTED NOR DENIED THE FINDINGS BUT CONSENTED TO THE ENTRYOF FINDINGS BY THE OFFICE THAT THEY FAILED TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATEWRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES BY NOT HAVING ANYSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES ADDRESSING THE BORROWING OF MONEYFROM CLIENTS.



Resolution:


No

Order







Sanction Details: ON 8/21/2009, THE OFFICE ENTERED A FINAL ORDER ADOPTING THESTIPULATION AND CONSENT AGREEMENT WHEREBY OPPENHEIMERNEITHER ADMITTED NOR DENIED THE OFFICE'S FINDINGS BUT AGREEDTO CEASE AND DESIST FROM FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 517, F.S.OPPENHEIMER PAID THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINE OF $5,000.00 AT THE TIMEOF THE EXECUTION OF THE STIPULATION AND CONSENT AGREEMENT ON8/20/2009.

Regulator Statement PER THE OFFICE'S STIUPLATIOPN AND CONSENT AGREEMENT DATED8/20/2009, THE OFFICE RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT OPPENHEIMER HADTERMINATED AN EMPLOYEE FROM ITS BRANCH OFFICE LOCATED AT 100N.E. 3RD AVENUE, FT. LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA FOR BORROWING MONEYFROM A CLIENT. THE OFFICE SUBSEQUENTLY CONDUCTED ANEXAMINATION INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES.



Initiated By: FLORIDA OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION


Cease and Desist



Docket/Case Number: 0442A-S-07/09



Allegations: ON 8/20/2009, THE OFFICE EXECUTED A STIPULATION AND CONSENTAGREEMENT IN THE MATTER OF OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. WHO NEITHERADMITTED NOR DENIED THE FINDINGS BUT CONSENTED TO THE ENTRYOF FINDINGS BY THE OFFICE THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO MAINTAINADEQUATE WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES BY NOT HAVING ANYSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES ADDRESSING THE BORROWING OF MONEYFROM CLIENTS.



Resolution: Order








Sanction Details: ON 8/21/2009, THE OFFICE ENTERED A FINAL ORDER ADOPTING THESTIPULATION AND CONSENT AGREEMENT WHEREBY OPPENHEIMERNEITHER ADMITTED NOR DENIED THE OFFICE'S FINDINGS BUT AGREEDTO CEASE AND DESIST FROM FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 517, F.S.OPPENHEIMER PAID THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINE OF $5,000.00 AT THE TIMEOF THE EXECUTION OF THE STIPULATION AND CONSENT AGREEMENT ON8/20/2009.

Firm Statement PER THE OFFICE'S STIPULATION AND CONSENT AGREEMENT DATED8/20/2009, THE OFFICE RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT OPPENHEIMER HADTERMINATED AN EMPLOYEE FROM ITS BRANCH OFFICE LOCATED AT 100N.E. 3RD AVENUE, FT. LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA FOR BORROWING MONEYFROM A CLIENT. THE OFFICE SUBSEQUENTLY CONDUCTED ANEXAMINATION INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES.


Disclosure 37 of 92

i


Allegations: MSRB RULES G-8, G-17, G-27, G-32: THE FIRM FAILED TO DELIVER OFFICIALSTATEMENTS BY SETTLEMENT DATE TO NUMEROUS CUSTOMERS WHOPURCHASED NEW ISSUE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DURING THE PRIMARYOFFERING DISCLOSURE PERIOD. IN ALL OF THESE TRANSACTIONS, THEFIRM WAS NEITHER AN UNDERWRITER NOR PART OF THE UNDERWRITINGSYNDICATE. HOWEVER, THE FIRM WAS REQUIRED TO DELIVER ANOFFICIAL STATEMENT TO EACH CUSTOMER BY SETTLEMENT DATE, ASREQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-32. THE FIRM FAILED TO KEEP A RECORD OFDELIVERIES OF OFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO PURCHASERS OF NEW ISSUEMUNICIPAL SECURITIES, AS REQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-8(A)(XIII), WHICHREQUIRES BROKER-DEALERS TO KEEP A RECORD OF ALL DELIVERIES OFOFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO PURCHASERS OF NEW ISSUE MUNICIPALSECURITIES REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED UNDER MSRB RULE G-32. THEFIRM FAILED TO ENFORCE ITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURESPERTAINING TO: (1) THE FIRM'S OFFICIAL STATEMENT DELIVERYREQUIREMENTS TO CUSTOMERS WHO PURCHASED NEW ISSUEMUNICIPAL SECURITIES FOR SECONDARY MARKET TRANSACTIONS THATOCCURRED DURING THE PRIMARY OFFERING DISCLOSURE PERIOD,INCLUDING THOSE TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH THE FIRM WAS NOT ANUNDERWRITER NOR PART OF THE UNDERWRITING SYNDICATE, ASREQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-32; AND (2) THE FIRM'S REQUIREMENTS TOMAINTAIN VARIOUS RECORDS PERTAINING TO ITS OBLIGATIONS TODELIVER OFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO CUSTOMERS WHO PURCHASED NEWISSUE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES, INCLUDING THOSE TRANSACTIONS INWHICH THE FIRM WAS NOT AN UNDERWRITER NOR PART OF THEUNDERWRITING SYNDICATE, AS REQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-8.







Initiated By: FINRA


Other


N/A





MSRB RULES G-8, G-17, G-27, G-32: THE FIRM FAILED TO DELIVER OFFICIALSTATEMENTS BY SETTLEMENT DATE TO NUMEROUS CUSTOMERS WHOPURCHASED NEW ISSUE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DURING THE PRIMARYOFFERING DISCLOSURE PERIOD. IN ALL OF THESE TRANSACTIONS, THEFIRM WAS NEITHER AN UNDERWRITER NOR PART OF THE UNDERWRITINGSYNDICATE. HOWEVER, THE FIRM WAS REQUIRED TO DELIVER ANOFFICIAL STATEMENT TO EACH CUSTOMER BY SETTLEMENT DATE, ASREQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-32. THE FIRM FAILED TO KEEP A RECORD OFDELIVERIES OF OFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO PURCHASERS OF NEW ISSUEMUNICIPAL SECURITIES, AS REQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-8(A)(XIII), WHICHREQUIRES BROKER-DEALERS TO KEEP A RECORD OF ALL DELIVERIES OFOFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO PURCHASERS OF NEW ISSUE MUNICIPALSECURITIES REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED UNDER MSRB RULE G-32. THEFIRM FAILED TO ENFORCE ITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURESPERTAINING TO: (1) THE FIRM'S OFFICIAL STATEMENT DELIVERYREQUIREMENTS TO CUSTOMERS WHO PURCHASED NEW ISSUEMUNICIPAL SECURITIES FOR SECONDARY MARKET TRANSACTIONS THATOCCURRED DURING THE PRIMARY OFFERING DISCLOSURE PERIOD,INCLUDING THOSE TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH THE FIRM WAS NOT ANUNDERWRITER NOR PART OF THE UNDERWRITING SYNDICATE, ASREQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-32; AND (2) THE FIRM'S REQUIREMENTS TOMAINTAIN VARIOUS RECORDS PERTAINING TO ITS OBLIGATIONS TODELIVER OFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO CUSTOMERS WHO PURCHASED NEWISSUE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES, INCLUDING THOSE TRANSACTIONS INWHICH THE FIRM WAS NOT AN UNDERWRITER NOR PART OF THEUNDERWRITING SYNDICATE, AS REQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-8.


Resolution:




No




Allegations: MSRB RULES G-8, G-17, G-27, G-32: THE FIRM FAILED TO DELIVER OFFICIALSTATEMENTS BY SETTLEMENT DATE TO NUMEROUS CUSTOMERS WHOPURCHASED NEW ISSUE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DURING THE PRIMARYOFFERING DISCLOSURE PERIOD. IN ALL OF THESE TRANSACTIONS, THEFIRM WAS NEITHER AN UNDERWRITER NOR PART OF THE UNDERWRITINGSYNDICATE. HOWEVER, THE FIRM WAS REQUIRED TO DELIVER ANOFFICIAL STATEMENT TO EACH CUSTOMER BY SETTLEMENT DATE, ASREQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-32. THE FIRM FAILED TO KEEP A RECORD OFDELIVERIES OF OFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO PURCHASERS OF NEW ISSUEMUNICIPAL SECURITIES, AS REQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-8(A)(XIII), WHICHREQUIRES BROKER-DEALERS TO KEEP A RECORD OF ALL DELIVERIES OFOFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO PURCHASERS OF NEW ISSUE MUNICIPALSECURITIES REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED UNDER MSRB RULE G-32. THEFIRM FAILED TO ENFORCE ITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURESPERTAINING TO: (1) THE FIRM'S OFFICIAL STATEMENT DELIVERYREQUIREMENTS TO CUSTOMERS WHO PURCHASED NEW ISSUEMUNICIPAL SECURITIES FOR SECONDARY MARKET TRANSACTIONS THATOCCURRED DURING THE PRIMARY OFFERING DISCLOSURE PERIOD,INCLUDING THOSE TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH THE FIRM WAS NOT ANUNDERWRITER NOR PART OF THE UNDERWRITING SYNDICATE, ASREQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-32; AND (2) THE FIRM'S REQUIREMENTS TOMAINTAIN VARIOUS RECORDS PERTAINING TO ITS OBLIGATIONS TODELIVER OFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO CUSTOMERS WHO PURCHASED NEWISSUE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES, INCLUDING THOSE TRANSACTIONS INWHICH THE FIRM WAS NOT AN UNDERWRITER NOR PART OF THEUNDERWRITING SYNDICATE, AS REQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-8.








Initiated By: FINRA


Other






MSRB RULES G-8, G-17, G-27, G-32: THE FIRM FAILED TO DELIVER OFFICIALSTATEMENTS BY SETTLEMENT DATE TO NUMEROUS CUSTOMERS WHOPURCHASED NEW ISSUE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DURING THE PRIMARYOFFERING DISCLOSURE PERIOD. IN ALL OF THESE TRANSACTIONS, THEFIRM WAS NEITHER AN UNDERWRITER NOR PART OF THE UNDERWRITINGSYNDICATE. HOWEVER, THE FIRM WAS REQUIRED TO DELIVER ANOFFICIAL STATEMENT TO EACH CUSTOMER BY SETTLEMENT DATE, ASREQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-32. THE FIRM FAILED TO KEEP A RECORD OFDELIVERIES OF OFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO PURCHASERS OF NEW ISSUEMUNICIPAL SECURITIES, AS REQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-8(A)(XIII), WHICHREQUIRES BROKER-DEALERS TO KEEP A RECORD OF ALL DELIVERIES OFOFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO PURCHASERS OF NEW ISSUE MUNICIPALSECURITIES REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED UNDER MSRB RULE G-32. THEFIRM FAILED TO ENFORCE ITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURESPERTAINING TO: (1) THE FIRM'S OFFICIAL STATEMENT DELIVERYREQUIREMENTS TO CUSTOMERS WHO PURCHASED NEW ISSUEMUNICIPAL SECURITIES FOR SECONDARY MARKET TRANSACTIONS THATOCCURRED DURING THE PRIMARY OFFERING DISCLOSURE PERIOD,INCLUDING THOSE TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH THE FIRM WAS NOT ANUNDERWRITER NOR PART OF THE UNDERWRITING SYNDICATE, ASREQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-32; AND (2) THE FIRM'S REQUIREMENTS TOMAINTAIN VARIOUS RECORDS PERTAINING TO ITS OBLIGATIONS TODELIVER OFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO CUSTOMERS WHO PURCHASED NEWISSUE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES, INCLUDING THOSE TRANSACTIONS INWHICH THE FIRM WAS NOT AN UNDERWRITER NOR PART OF THEUNDERWRITING SYNDICATE, AS REQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-8.


Resolution:











WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE IT IS CENSURED AND FINED $100,000.

Disclosure 38 of 92

i


Allegations: SEC RULE 10B-10, FINRA RULES 2010, 7450, NASD RULE 3010, MSRBRULES G-17, G-30(A): IN SEVEN TRANSACTIONS, THE FIRM PURCHASEDMUNICIPAL SECURITIES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT FROM A CUSTOMERAND/OR SOLD MUNICIPAL SECURITIES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT TO ACUSTOMER AT AN AGGREGATE PRICE (INCLUDING ANY MARK-DOWN ORMARK-UP) THAT WAS NOT FAIR AND REASONABLE, TAKING INTOCONSIDERATION ALL RELEVANT FACTORS, INCLUDING THE BESTJUDGMENT OF THE BROKER, DEALER OR MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALERAS TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SECURITIES AT THE TIME OF THETRANSACTIONS AND OF ANY SECURITIES EXCHANGED OR TRADED INCONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION, THE EXPENSE INVOLVED INEFFECTING THE TRANSACTION, THE FACT THAT THE BROKER, DEALER ORMUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER IS ENTITLED TO A PROFIT, AND THETOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE FIRM FAILED ON SIXOCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THE TRANSACTION; FAILED ON 12OCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THE TRANSACTION, AND THAT THECOMMISSION WAS A MARKUP/MARKDOWN OR COMMISSION EQUIVALENT;FAILED ON TWO OCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATIONDISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THETRANSACTION AND THAT WHEN ACTING AS A PRINCIPAL FOR ITS OWNACCOUNT THAT IT WAS A MARKET MAKER IN EACH SECURITY; AND FAILEDON THREE OCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSINGTO ITS CUSTOMER THAT WHEN ACTING AS A PRINCIPAL FOR ITS OWNACCOUNT THAT IT WAS A MARKET MAKER IN EACH SECURITY. THE FIRMTRANSMITTED TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAIL SYSTEM (OATS) TEN REPORTSTHAT CONTAINED INACCURATE, INCOMPLETE, OR IMPROPERLYFORMATTED DATA. SPECIFICALLY, THE REPORTS CONTAINEDINACCURATE ORDER ROUTE REPORTS, MISSING ROUTE REPORTS, ORINCORRECT SHARE QUANTITIES. THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DIDNOT PROVIDE FOR SUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVECOMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWSAND REGULATIONS, AND/OR THE RULES OF FINRA. AT A MINIMUM,ADEQUATE WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES ADDRESSING QUALITYOF MARKETS TOPICS SHOULD DESCRIBE THE FOLLOWING: SPECIFICIDENTIFICATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPERVISION;THE SUPERVISORY STEPS AND REVIEWS TO BE TAKEN BY THEAPPROPRIATE SUPERVISOR; THE FREQUENCY OF SUCH REVIEWS; ANDHOW SUCH REVIEWS SHALL BE DOCUMENTED. THE FIRM'S WRITTENSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR ONE OR MORE OFTHE FOUR ABOVE-CITED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ADEQUATEWRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES, IN THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTAREAS: BEST EXECUTION: RISKLESS PRINCIPAL ORDERS; TRADEREPORTING: GENERAL TRADE REPORTING; RISKLESS PRINCIPALTRANSACTIONS; SALES TRANSACTIONS: SEC RULE 204; SEC RULE 10B-21;AND SHORT SALE INDICATOR REPORTING.







Initiated By: FINRA


Other


N/A





SEC RULE 10B-10, FINRA RULES 2010, 7450, NASD RULE 3010, MSRBRULES G-17, G-30(A): IN SEVEN TRANSACTIONS, THE FIRM PURCHASEDMUNICIPAL SECURITIES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT FROM A CUSTOMERAND/OR SOLD MUNICIPAL SECURITIES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT TO ACUSTOMER AT AN AGGREGATE PRICE (INCLUDING ANY MARK-DOWN ORMARK-UP) THAT WAS NOT FAIR AND REASONABLE, TAKING INTOCONSIDERATION ALL RELEVANT FACTORS, INCLUDING THE BESTJUDGMENT OF THE BROKER, DEALER OR MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALERAS TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SECURITIES AT THE TIME OF THETRANSACTIONS AND OF ANY SECURITIES EXCHANGED OR TRADED INCONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION, THE EXPENSE INVOLVED INEFFECTING THE TRANSACTION, THE FACT THAT THE BROKER, DEALER ORMUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER IS ENTITLED TO A PROFIT, AND THETOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE FIRM FAILED ON SIXOCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THE TRANSACTION; FAILED ON 12OCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THE TRANSACTION, AND THAT THECOMMISSION WAS A MARKUP/MARKDOWN OR COMMISSION EQUIVALENT;FAILED ON TWO OCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATIONDISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THETRANSACTION AND THAT WHEN ACTING AS A PRINCIPAL FOR ITS OWNACCOUNT THAT IT WAS A MARKET MAKER IN EACH SECURITY; AND FAILEDON THREE OCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSINGTO ITS CUSTOMER THAT WHEN ACTING AS A PRINCIPAL FOR ITS OWNACCOUNT THAT IT WAS A MARKET MAKER IN EACH SECURITY. THE FIRMTRANSMITTED TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAIL SYSTEM (OATS) TEN REPORTSTHAT CONTAINED INACCURATE, INCOMPLETE, OR IMPROPERLYFORMATTED DATA. SPECIFICALLY, THE REPORTS CONTAINEDINACCURATE ORDER ROUTE REPORTS, MISSING ROUTE REPORTS, ORINCORRECT SHARE QUANTITIES. THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DIDNOT PROVIDE FOR SUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVECOMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWSAND REGULATIONS, AND/OR THE RULES OF FINRA. AT A MINIMUM,ADEQUATE WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES ADDRESSING QUALITYOF MARKETS TOPICS SHOULD DESCRIBE THE FOLLOWING: SPECIFICIDENTIFICATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPERVISION;THE SUPERVISORY STEPS AND REVIEWS TO BE TAKEN BY THEAPPROPRIATE SUPERVISOR; THE FREQUENCY OF SUCH REVIEWS; ANDHOW SUCH REVIEWS SHALL BE DOCUMENTED. THE FIRM'S WRITTENSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR ONE OR MORE OFTHE FOUR ABOVE-CITED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ADEQUATEWRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES, IN THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTAREAS: BEST EXECUTION: RISKLESS PRINCIPAL ORDERS; TRADEREPORTING: GENERAL TRADE REPORTING; RISKLESS PRINCIPALTRANSACTIONS; SALES TRANSACTIONS: SEC RULE 204; SEC RULE 10B-21;AND SHORT SALE INDICATOR REPORTING.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, OPPENHEIMER & CO,INC. CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS; THEREFORE IT IS CENSURED, FINED $57,500, UNDERTAKES TOREVISE THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES WITHRESPECT TO BEST EXECUTION: RISKLESS PRINCIPAL ORDERS; TRADEREPORTING: GENERAL TRADE REPORTING, RISKLESS PRINCIPALTRANSACTIONS; SALES TRANSACTIONS: SEC RULE 204, SEC RULE 10B-21,AND SHORT SALE INDICATOR REPORTING; AND IS REQUIRED TO PAYRESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,879.51, PLUS INTEREST. WITHIN 30BUSINESS DAYS OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE AWC BY THE NAC, AREGISTERED PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRM SHALL SUBMIT TO FINRA A SIGNED,DATED LETTER, OR AN E-MAIL FROM A WORK-RELATED ACCOUNT OF THEREGISTERED PRINCIPAL, PROVIDING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: AREFERENCE TO THIS MATTER, A REPRESENTATION THAT THE FIRM HASREVISED ITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS THEDEFICIENCIES DESCRIBED ABOVE, AND THE DATE THE REVISEDPROCEDURES WERE IMPLEMENTED. NO LATER THAN 120 DAYS AFTERACCEPTANCE OF THE AWC, A REGISTERED PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRM SHALLSUBMIT SATISFACTORY PROOF OF PAYMENT OF THE RESTITUTION, OR OFTHE REASONABLE AND DOCUMENTED EFFORTS UNDERTAKEN TO EFFECTRESTITUTION, TO FINRA. IF FOR ANY REASON, RESPONDENT CANNOTLOCATE ANY CUSTOMER AFTER REASONABLE AND DOCUMENTEDEFFORTS WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, OR SUCH ADDITIONAL PERIOD AGREEDTO BY FINRA, RESPONDENT SHALL FORWARD ANY UNDISTRIBUTEDRESTITUTION AND INTEREST TO THE APPROPRIATE ESCHEAT,UNCLAIMED-PROPERTY OR ABANDONED-PROPERTY FUND FOR THESTATE IN WHICH THE CUSTOMER IS KNOWN TO HAVE LAST RESIDED.


No









WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, OPPENHEIMER & CO,INC. CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS; THEREFORE IT IS CENSURED, FINED $57,500, UNDERTAKES TOREVISE THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES WITHRESPECT TO BEST EXECUTION: RISKLESS PRINCIPAL ORDERS; TRADEREPORTING: GENERAL TRADE REPORTING, RISKLESS PRINCIPALTRANSACTIONS; SALES TRANSACTIONS: SEC RULE 204, SEC RULE 10B-21,AND SHORT SALE INDICATOR REPORTING; AND IS REQUIRED TO PAYRESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,879.51, PLUS INTEREST. WITHIN 30BUSINESS DAYS OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE AWC BY THE NAC, AREGISTERED PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRM SHALL SUBMIT TO FINRA A SIGNED,DATED LETTER, OR AN E-MAIL FROM A WORK-RELATED ACCOUNT OF THEREGISTERED PRINCIPAL, PROVIDING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: AREFERENCE TO THIS MATTER, A REPRESENTATION THAT THE FIRM HASREVISED ITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS THEDEFICIENCIES DESCRIBED ABOVE, AND THE DATE THE REVISEDPROCEDURES WERE IMPLEMENTED. NO LATER THAN 120 DAYS AFTERACCEPTANCE OF THE AWC, A REGISTERED PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRM SHALLSUBMIT SATISFACTORY PROOF OF PAYMENT OF THE RESTITUTION, OR OFTHE REASONABLE AND DOCUMENTED EFFORTS UNDERTAKEN TO EFFECTRESTITUTION, TO FINRA. IF FOR ANY REASON, RESPONDENT CANNOTLOCATE ANY CUSTOMER AFTER REASONABLE AND DOCUMENTEDEFFORTS WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, OR SUCH ADDITIONAL PERIOD AGREEDTO BY FINRA, RESPONDENT SHALL FORWARD ANY UNDISTRIBUTEDRESTITUTION AND INTEREST TO THE APPROPRIATE ESCHEAT,UNCLAIMED-PROPERTY OR ABANDONED-PROPERTY FUND FOR THESTATE IN WHICH THE CUSTOMER IS KNOWN TO HAVE LAST RESIDED.


Allegations: SEC RULE 10B-10, FINRA RULES 2010, 7450, NASD RULE 3010, MSRBRULES G-17, G-30(A): IN SEVEN TRANSACTIONS, THE FIRM PURCHASEDMUNICIPAL SECURITIES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT FROM A CUSTOMERAND/OR SOLD MUNICIPAL SECURITIES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT TO ACUSTOMER AT AN AGGREGATE PRICE (INCLUDING ANY MARK-DOWN ORMARK-UP) THAT WAS NOT FAIR AND REASONABLE, TAKING INTOCONSIDERATION ALL RELEVANT FACTORS, INCLUDING THE BESTJUDGMENT OF THE BROKER, DEALER OR MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALERAS TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SECURITIES AT THE TIME OF THETRANSACTIONS AND OF ANY SECURITIES EXCHANGED OR TRADED INCONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION, THE EXPENSE INVOLVED INEFFECTING THE TRANSACTION, THE FACT THAT THE BROKER, DEALER ORMUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER IS ENTITLED TO A PROFIT, AND THETOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE FIRM FAILED ON SIXOCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THE TRANSACTION; FAILED ON 12OCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THE TRANSACTION, AND THAT THECOMMISSION WAS A MARKUP/MARKDOWN OR COMMISSION EQUIVALENT;FAILED ON TWO OCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATIONDISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THETRANSACTION AND THAT WHEN ACTING AS A PRINCIPAL FOR ITS OWNACCOUNT THAT IT WAS A MARKET MAKER IN EACH SECURITY; AND FAILEDON THREE OCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSINGTO ITS CUSTOMER THAT WHEN ACTING AS A PRINCIPAL FOR ITS OWNACCOUNT THAT IT WAS A MARKET MAKER IN EACH SECURITY. THE FIRMTRANSMITTED TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAIL SYSTEM (OATS) TEN REPORTSTHAT CONTAINED INACCURATE, INCOMPLETE, OR IMPROPERLYFORMATTED DATA. SPECIFICALLY, THE REPORTS CONTAINEDINACCURATE ORDER ROUTE REPORTS, MISSING ROUTE REPORTS, ORINCORRECT SHARE QUANTITIES. THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DIDNOT PROVIDE FOR SUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVECOMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWSAND REGULATIONS, AND/OR THE RULES OF FINRA. AT A MINIMUM,ADEQUATE WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES ADDRESSING QUALITYOF MARKETS TOPICS SHOULD DESCRIBE THE FOLLOWING: SPECIFICIDENTIFICATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPERVISION;THE SUPERVISORY STEPS AND REVIEWS TO BE TAKEN BY THEAPPROPRIATE SUPERVISOR; THE FREQUENCY OF SUCH REVIEWS; ANDHOW SUCH REVIEWS SHALL BE DOCUMENTED. THE FIRM'S WRITTENSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR ONE OR MORE OFTHE FOUR ABOVE-CITED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ADEQUATEWRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES, IN THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTAREAS: BEST EXECUTION: RISKLESS PRINCIPAL ORDERS; TRADEREPORTING: GENERAL TRADE REPORTING; RISKLESS PRINCIPALTRANSACTIONS; SALES TRANSACTIONS: SEC RULE 204; SEC RULE 10B-21;AND SHORT SALE INDICATOR REPORTING.







Initiated By: FINRA



DEBT-MUNICIPAL





SEC RULE 10B-10, FINRA RULES 2010, 7450, NASD RULE 3010, MSRBRULES G-17, G-30(A): IN SEVEN TRANSACTIONS, THE FIRM PURCHASEDMUNICIPAL SECURITIES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT FROM A CUSTOMERAND/OR SOLD MUNICIPAL SECURITIES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT TO ACUSTOMER AT AN AGGREGATE PRICE (INCLUDING ANY MARK-DOWN ORMARK-UP) THAT WAS NOT FAIR AND REASONABLE, TAKING INTOCONSIDERATION ALL RELEVANT FACTORS, INCLUDING THE BESTJUDGMENT OF THE BROKER, DEALER OR MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALERAS TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SECURITIES AT THE TIME OF THETRANSACTIONS AND OF ANY SECURITIES EXCHANGED OR TRADED INCONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION, THE EXPENSE INVOLVED INEFFECTING THE TRANSACTION, THE FACT THAT THE BROKER, DEALER ORMUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER IS ENTITLED TO A PROFIT, AND THETOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE FIRM FAILED ON SIXOCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THE TRANSACTION; FAILED ON 12OCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THE TRANSACTION, AND THAT THECOMMISSION WAS A MARKUP/MARKDOWN OR COMMISSION EQUIVALENT;FAILED ON TWO OCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATIONDISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THETRANSACTION AND THAT WHEN ACTING AS A PRINCIPAL FOR ITS OWNACCOUNT THAT IT WAS A MARKET MAKER IN EACH SECURITY; AND FAILEDON THREE OCCASIONS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSINGTO ITS CUSTOMER THAT WHEN ACTING AS A PRINCIPAL FOR ITS OWNACCOUNT THAT IT WAS A MARKET MAKER IN EACH SECURITY. THE FIRMTRANSMITTED TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAIL SYSTEM (OATS) TEN REPORTSTHAT CONTAINED INACCURATE, INCOMPLETE, OR IMPROPERLYFORMATTED DATA. SPECIFICALLY, THE REPORTS CONTAINEDINACCURATE ORDER ROUTE REPORTS, MISSING ROUTE REPORTS, ORINCORRECT SHARE QUANTITIES. THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DIDNOT PROVIDE FOR SUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVECOMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWSAND REGULATIONS, AND/OR THE RULES OF FINRA. AT A MINIMUM,ADEQUATE WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES ADDRESSING QUALITYOF MARKETS TOPICS SHOULD DESCRIBE THE FOLLOWING: SPECIFICIDENTIFICATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPERVISION;THE SUPERVISORY STEPS AND REVIEWS TO BE TAKEN BY THEAPPROPRIATE SUPERVISOR; THE FREQUENCY OF SUCH REVIEWS; ANDHOW SUCH REVIEWS SHALL BE DOCUMENTED. THE FIRM'S WRITTENSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR ONE OR MORE OFTHE FOUR ABOVE-CITED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ADEQUATEWRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES, IN THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTAREAS: BEST EXECUTION: RISKLESS PRINCIPAL ORDERS; TRADEREPORTING: GENERAL TRADE REPORTING; RISKLESS PRINCIPALTRANSACTIONS; SALES TRANSACTIONS: SEC RULE 204; SEC RULE 10B-21;AND SHORT SALE INDICATOR REPORTING.


Resolution:










Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, OPPENHEIMER & CO,INC. CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS; THEREFORE IT IS CENSURED, FINED $57,500, UNDERTAKES TOREVISE THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES WITHRESPECT TO BEST EXECUTION: RISKLESS PRINCIPAL ORDERS; TRADEREPORTING: GENERAL TRADE REPORTING, RISKLESS PRINCIPALTRANSACTIONS; SALES TRANSACTIONS: SEC RULE 204, SEC RULE 10B-21,AND SHORT SALE INDICATOR REPORTING; AND IS REQUIRED TO PAYRESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,879.51, PLUS INTEREST. WITHIN 30BUSINESS DAYS OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE AWC BY THE NAC, AREGISTERED PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRM SHALL SUBMIT TO FINRA A SIGNED,DATED LETTER, OR AN E-MAIL FROM A WORK-RELATED ACCOUNT OF THEREGISTERED PRINCIPAL, PROVIDING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: AREFERENCE TO THIS MATTER, A REPRESENTATION THAT THE FIRM HASREVISED ITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS THEDEFICIENCIES DESCRIBED ABOVE, AND THE DATE THE REVISEDPROCEDURES WERE IMPLEMENTED. NO LATER THAN 120 DAYS AFTERACCEPTANCE OF THE AWC, A REGISTERED PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRM SHALLSUBMIT SATISFACTORY PROOF OF PAYMENT OF THE RESTITUTION, OR OFTHE REASONABLE AND DOCUMENTED EFFORTS UNDERTAKEN TO EFFECTRESTITUTION, TO FINRA. IF FOR ANY REASON, RESPONDENT CANNOTLOCATE ANY CUSTOMER AFTER REASONABLE AND DOCUMENTEDEFFORTS WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, OR SUCH ADDITIONAL PERIOD AGREEDTO BY FINRA, RESPONDENT SHALL FORWARD ANY UNDISTRIBUTEDRESTITUTION AND INTEREST TO THE APPROPRIATE ESCHEAT,UNCLAIMED-PROPERTY OR ABANDONED-PROPERTY FUND FOR THESTATE IN WHICH THE CUSTOMER IS KNOWN TO HAVE LAST RESIDED.

CensureMonetary/Fine $57,500.00Disgorgement/Restitution

Disclosure 39 of 92

i


Initiated By: MASSACHUSETTS SECURITIES DIVISION


Allegations: OPPENHEIMER IMPROPERLY CONDUCTED ITS AUCTION RATE SECURITIES("ARS"). OPPENHEIMER SIGNIFICANTLY MISREPRESENTED THE NATUREOF ARS AND THE OVERALL STABILITY AND HEALTH OF THE ARS MARKETWHEN MARKETING THE PRODUCT TO CLIENTS. OPPENHEIMEREXECUTIVES AND ARS DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL SOLD THEIR OWN ARSAS THEY LEARNED THAT THE MARKET WAS IN DANGER OF IMPLODINGAND FAILED TO DISCLOSE THIS INFORMATION TO INVESTORS.










AN ORDER REQUIRING OPPENHEIMER TO PERMANENTLY CEASE ANDDESIST FROM FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT AND REGULATIONS, TOOFFER RESCISSION OF SALES OF ARS AT PAR, TO MAKE FULLRESTITUTION TO INVESTORS, CENSURING OPPENHEIMER, REVOKINGALBERT LOWENTHAL'S MASSACHUSETTS REGISTRATION AS A BROKER-DEALER AGENT, REQUIRING OPPENHEIMER, ALBERT LOWENTHAL,ROBERT LOWENTHAL AND GREG WHITE TO PAY AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINEAND TO TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION THAT A HEARING OFFICER MAY DEEMAPPROPRIATE.

Docket/Case Number: E-2008-0080



Other Product Type(s): AUCTION RATE SECURITIES


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: OPPENHEIMER SHALL BUY BACK ILLIQUID AUCTION RATE SECURITIESFROM INVESTORS ACCORDING TO A THREE STEP REDEMPTION PROCESSOVER THE COURSE OF A 12 MONTH PERIOD, AS OUTLINED IN THECONSENT ORDER. OPPENHEIMER SHALL ALSO PAY THE DIVISION'SINVESTIGATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING COSTS IN AN AMOUNTTOTALING $250,000.00 TO THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OFMASSACHUSETTS.

Sanction Details: OPPENHEIMER SHALL PROVIDE RELIEF FOR AUCTION RATE SECURITIESINVESTORS VIA A THREE STEP REDEMPTION PROCESS OVER THECOURSE OF A 12 MONTH PERIOD, CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF THECONSENT ORDER.


Yes

Sanctions Ordered: Disgorgement/RestitutionCease and Desist/Injunction

Order







Initiated By: SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, MASSACHUSETTS SECURITIESDIVISION (MSD)






Other Product Type(s): AUCTION RATE SECURITIES

Allegations: MSD ALLEGES THAT OPPENHEIMER AND ALBERT LOWENTHAL VIOLATED,INTER ALIA, SECS.101 AND 204(A)(2)(B),AND 204(A)(2)(G) OF THE UNIFORMSECURITIES ACT. THE VIOLATIONS ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE ARISEN FROMOPPENHEIMER'S MARKETING AND SALES OF CERTAIN AUCTION RATESECURITIES. THE MSD CHARACTERIZES THE ALLEGED CONDUCTASSOCIATED WITH THESE ACTIONS AS DISHONEST, FRAUDULENT ANDUNETHICAL.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: OPPENHEIMER SHALL BUY BACK ILLIQUID AUCTION RATE SECURITIESFROM INVESTORS ACCORDING TO A THREE STEP REDEMPTION PROCESSOVER THE COURSE OF A 12 MONTH PERIOD, AS OUTLINED IN THECONSENT ORDER. OPPENHEIMER SHALL ALSO PAY THE DIVISION'SINVESTIGATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING COSTS IN AN AMOUNTTOTALING $250,000.00 TO THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OFMASSACHUSETTS.

Firm Statement OPPENHEIMER SHALL PROVIDE RELIEF FOR AUCTION RATE SECURITIESINVESTORS VIA A THREE STEP REDEMPTION PROCESS OVER THECOURSE OF A 12 MONTH PERIOD, CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF THECONSENT ORDER. ALBERT G. LOWENTHAL WAS DISMISSED FROM THISACTION.

Sanctions Ordered: Disgorgement/RestitutionCease and Desist/Injunction

Order

Disclosure 40 of 92

i






Disclosure 40 of 92


Initiated By: FINRA






Other Product Type(s): CONSOLIDATED QUOTATION SERVICE SECURITIES

Allegations: NASD RULES 2110, 4632(A) - OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. FAILED, WITHIN 90SECONDS AFTER EXECUTION, TO TRANSMIT TO THE FINRA/NASDAQTRADE REPORTING FACILITY LAST SALE REPORTS OF TRANSACTIONS INCONSOLIDATED QUOTATION SERVICE (CQS)SECURITIES THAT THE FIRMWAS REQUIRED TO REPORT. THIS CONDUCT CONSTITUTES A PATTERN ORPRACTICE OF LATE REPORTING WITHOUT EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES IN VIOLATION OF NASD RULES 2110 AND 4632(A).



Resolution:




No









Initiated By: FINRA






Other Product Type(s): CONSOLIDATED QUOTATION SERVICE SECURITIES

Allegations: NASD RULES 2110, 4632(A) - OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. FAILED, WITHIN 90SECONDS AFTER EXECUTION, TO TRANSMIT TO THE FINRA/NASDAQTRADE REPORTING FACILITY LAST SALE REPORTS OF TRANSACTIONS INCONSOLIDATED QUOTATION SERVICE (CQS)SECURITIES THAT THE FIRMWAS REQUIRED TO REPORT. THIS CONDUCT CONSTITUTES A PATTERN ORPRACTICE OF LATE REPORTING WITHOUT EXCEPTIONALCIRCUMSTANCES IN VIOLATION OF NASD RULES 2110 AND 4632(A).



Resolution:





Disclosure 41 of 92

i


Allegations: SEC ADMINISTRATIVE RELEASE 34-59438, FEBRUARY 24, 2009: THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ("COMMISSION") DEEMS ITAPPROPRIATE AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT PUBLICADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, INSTITUTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 15(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934 AGAINST OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. ("OPCO") BASED ON ITS FAILURETO SUPERVISE AN EMPLOYEE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 15(B)(4)OF THE EXCHANGE ACT, WITH A VIEW TO PREVENTING AND DETECTINGTHE EMPLOYEE'S VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. THECOMMISSION ALLEGES THAT OPCO'S EMPLOYEE PROVIDED A TRADER ATANOTHER BROKER-DEALER WITH SECRET GRATUITIES ANDENTERTAINMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR AN INCREASE IN ORDER FLOW FROMTHE OTHER BROKER-DEALER TO OPCO FOR EXECUTION AT PRICES THATWERE FAVORABLE TO OPCO AND DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER BROKER-DEALER'S CUSTOMERS. THE TWO INDIVIDUALS EXCHANGED SEVERALEMAILS, WHICH PRESENTED RED FLAGS, BUT BECAUSE OF A DEFICIENCYIN OPCO'S EMAIL REVIEW PROCEDURES, NONE OF ITS EMPLOYEE'SEMAILS WERE REVIEWED BY OPCO STAFF AS REQUIRED BY OPCO'SELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS POLICY. HAD OPCO MONITORED THEEMPLOYEE'S EMAILS, OPCO SUPERVISORS LIKELY WOULD HAVE SEENTHE MESSAGES AND COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE EMPLOYEE'SMISCONDUCT OR DETECTED IT AT AN EARLIER TIME.













Other Product Type(s): UNSPECIFIED TYPE OF SECURITIES

SEC ADMINISTRATIVE RELEASE 34-59438, FEBRUARY 24, 2009: THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ("COMMISSION") DEEMS ITAPPROPRIATE AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT PUBLICADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, INSTITUTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 15(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934 AGAINST OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. ("OPCO") BASED ON ITS FAILURETO SUPERVISE AN EMPLOYEE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 15(B)(4)OF THE EXCHANGE ACT, WITH A VIEW TO PREVENTING AND DETECTINGTHE EMPLOYEE'S VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. THECOMMISSION ALLEGES THAT OPCO'S EMPLOYEE PROVIDED A TRADER ATANOTHER BROKER-DEALER WITH SECRET GRATUITIES ANDENTERTAINMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR AN INCREASE IN ORDER FLOW FROMTHE OTHER BROKER-DEALER TO OPCO FOR EXECUTION AT PRICES THATWERE FAVORABLE TO OPCO AND DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER BROKER-DEALER'S CUSTOMERS. THE TWO INDIVIDUALS EXCHANGED SEVERALEMAILS, WHICH PRESENTED RED FLAGS, BUT BECAUSE OF A DEFICIENCYIN OPCO'S EMAIL REVIEW PROCEDURES, NONE OF ITS EMPLOYEE'SEMAILS WERE REVIEWED BY OPCO STAFF AS REQUIRED BY OPCO'SELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS POLICY. HAD OPCO MONITORED THEEMPLOYEE'S EMAILS, OPCO SUPERVISORS LIKELY WOULD HAVE SEENTHE MESSAGES AND COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE EMPLOYEE'SMISCONDUCT OR DETECTED IT AT AN EARLIER TIME.


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: UNDERTAKING: OPCO HAS UNDERTAKEN TO REVIEW ITS POLICIES,PROCEDURES AND SYSTEMS REGARDING THE CAPTURE AND REVIEWINGOF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS BY ITS EMPLOYEES. WITHIN 90 DAYSOF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS ORDER, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXTENDED BYTHE STAFF OF THE COMMISSION FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, OPCO SHALLSUBMIT A REPORT TO THE COMMISSION DESCRIBING THE REVIEWPERFORMED AND THE CONCLUSIONS AND CHANGES MADE AS A RESULTOF THE REVIEW. FURTHER, AT THE TIME OPCO SUBMITS THE REPORTS,OPCO SHALL CERTIFY TO THE COMMISSION IN WRITING THAT IT HASESTABLISHED PROCEDURES, AND A SYSTEM FOR APPLYING SUCHPROCEDURES, WHICH ARE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO PREVENT ANDDETECT, INSOFAR AS PRACTICABLE, THE VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THISORDER.


No


Order





www.finra.org/brokercheck User GuidanceUNDERTAKING: OPCO HAS UNDERTAKEN TO REVIEW ITS POLICIES,PROCEDURES AND SYSTEMS REGARDING THE CAPTURE AND REVIEWINGOF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS BY ITS EMPLOYEES. WITHIN 90 DAYSOF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS ORDER, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXTENDED BYTHE STAFF OF THE COMMISSION FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, OPCO SHALLSUBMIT A REPORT TO THE COMMISSION DESCRIBING THE REVIEWPERFORMED AND THE CONCLUSIONS AND CHANGES MADE AS A RESULTOF THE REVIEW. FURTHER, AT THE TIME OPCO SUBMITS THE REPORTS,OPCO SHALL CERTIFY TO THE COMMISSION IN WRITING THAT IT HASESTABLISHED PROCEDURES, AND A SYSTEM FOR APPLYING SUCHPROCEDURES, WHICH ARE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO PREVENT ANDDETECT, INSOFAR AS PRACTICABLE, THE VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED IN THISORDER.

Sanction Details: RESPONDENT OPCO HAS SUBMITTED AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT (THE "OFFER") WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT.SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND ANY OTHERPROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION, OR TOWHICH THE COMMISSION IS A PARTY, AND WITHOUT ADMITTING ORDENYING THE FINDINGS, EXCEPT AS TO THE COMMISSION'SJURISDICTION OVER OPCO AND THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESEPROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE ADMITTED, OPCO CONSENTS TO THE ENTRYOF THIS ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, MAKINGFINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION15(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 ("ORDER").ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(B) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT,OPCO IS CENSURED AND FINED $850,000. OPCO HAS UNDERTAKEN TOREVIEW ITS POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND SYSTEMS REGARDING THECAPTURE AND REVIEWING OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS BY ITSEMPLOYEES.


Allegations: ON FEBRUARY 24, 2009: THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION("COMMISSION") INSTITUTED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BE,AGAINST OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. ("OPCO") BASED ON ITS FAILURE TOSUPERVISE AN EMPLOYEE, WITH A VIEW TO PREVENTING AND DETECTINGTHE EMPLOYEE'S VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. THECOMMISSION ALLEGED THAT OPCO'S EMPLOYEE PROVIDED A TRADER ATANOTHER BROKER-DEALER WITH SECRET GRATUITIES ANDENTERTAINMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR AN INCREASE IN ORDER FLOW FROMTHE OTHER BROKER-DEALER TO OPCO FOR EXECUTION AT PRICES THATWERE FAVORABLE TO OPCO AND DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER BROKER-DEALER'S CUSTOMERS. THE TWO INDIVIDUALS EXCHANGED SEVERALEMAILS, BUT BECAUSE OF A DEFICIENCY IN OPCO'S EMAIL REVIEWPROCEDURES, NONE OF ITS EMPLOYEE'S EMAILS WERE REVIEWED BYOPCO STAFF AS REQUIRED BY OPCO'S ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONSPOLICY.









Censure


FINE





ON FEBRUARY 24, 2009: THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION("COMMISSION") INSTITUTED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BE,AGAINST OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. ("OPCO") BASED ON ITS FAILURE TOSUPERVISE AN EMPLOYEE, WITH A VIEW TO PREVENTING AND DETECTINGTHE EMPLOYEE'S VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. THECOMMISSION ALLEGED THAT OPCO'S EMPLOYEE PROVIDED A TRADER ATANOTHER BROKER-DEALER WITH SECRET GRATUITIES ANDENTERTAINMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR AN INCREASE IN ORDER FLOW FROMTHE OTHER BROKER-DEALER TO OPCO FOR EXECUTION AT PRICES THATWERE FAVORABLE TO OPCO AND DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER BROKER-DEALER'S CUSTOMERS. THE TWO INDIVIDUALS EXCHANGED SEVERALEMAILS, BUT BECAUSE OF A DEFICIENCY IN OPCO'S EMAIL REVIEWPROCEDURES, NONE OF ITS EMPLOYEE'S EMAILS WERE REVIEWED BYOPCO STAFF AS REQUIRED BY OPCO'S ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONSPOLICY.


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: UNDERTAKING: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THESE ALLEGATIONSOPCO HAS UNDERTAKEN TO REVIEW ITS POLICIES, PROCEDURES ANDSYSTEMS REGARDING THE CAPTURE AND REVIEWING OF ELECTRONICCOMMUNICATIONS BY ITS EMPLOYEES AND SHALL SUBMIT A REPORT TOTHE COMMISSION.

Sanction Details: OPCO CONSENTED TO THE ENTRY OF AN ORDER INSTITUTINGADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSINGREMEDIAL SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(B) OF THE SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 ("ORDER"). OPCO WAS CENSURED AND FINED$850,000. OPCO HAS UNDERTAKEN TO REVIEW ITS POLICIES,PROCEDURES AND SYSTEMS REGARDING THE CAPTURE AND REVIEWINGOF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS BY ITS EMPLOYEES.


Settled

Disclosure 42 of 92

i


Allegations: SEC RULES 10B-10, 605 OF REGULATION NMS, NASD RULE 6955(A) -OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. FAILED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATIONDISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMERS ITS CORRECT CAPACITY INTRANSACTIONS. THE FIRM TRANSMITTED TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAILSYSTEM (OATS) REPORTS THAT CONTAINED INACCURATE, INCOMPLETEOR IMPROPERLY FORMATTED DATA - THE FIRM REPORTED RISKLESSPRINCIPAL ORDERS TO OATS WITHOUT USING THE CORRECT REPORTINGEXCEPTION CODE. THE FIRM MADE AVAILABLE A REPORT ON THECOVERED ORDERS IN NATIONAL MARKET SYSTEM SECURITIES THAT ITRECEIVED FOR EXECUTION FROM ANY PERSON THAT INCLUDEDINCORRECT ORDER INFORMATION FOR ORDERS ENTERED.







Initiated By: FINRA






Other Product Type(s): UNKNOWN TYPES OF SECURITIES

SEC RULES 10B-10, 605 OF REGULATION NMS, NASD RULE 6955(A) -OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. FAILED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATIONDISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMERS ITS CORRECT CAPACITY INTRANSACTIONS. THE FIRM TRANSMITTED TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAILSYSTEM (OATS) REPORTS THAT CONTAINED INACCURATE, INCOMPLETEOR IMPROPERLY FORMATTED DATA - THE FIRM REPORTED RISKLESSPRINCIPAL ORDERS TO OATS WITHOUT USING THE CORRECT REPORTINGEXCEPTION CODE. THE FIRM MADE AVAILABLE A REPORT ON THECOVERED ORDERS IN NATIONAL MARKET SYSTEM SECURITIES THAT ITRECEIVED FOR EXECUTION FROM ANY PERSON THAT INCLUDEDINCORRECT ORDER INFORMATION FOR ORDERS ENTERED.


Resolution:




No




Allegations: SEC RULES 10B-10, 605 OF REGULATION NMS, NASD RULE 6955(A) -OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. FAILED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATIONDISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMERS ITS CORRECT CAPACITY INTRANSACTIONS. THE FIRM TRANSMITTED TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAILSYSTEM (OATS) REPORTS THAT CONTAINED INACCURATE, INCOMPLETEOR IMPROPERLY FORMATTED DATA - THE FIRM REPORTED RISKLESSPRINCIPAL ORDERS TO OATS WITHOUT USING THE CORRECT REPORTINGEXCEPTION CODE. THE FIRM MADE AVAILABLE A REPORT ON THECOVERED ORDERS IN NATIONAL MARKET SYSTEM SECURITIES THAT ITRECEIVED FOR EXECUTION FROM ANY PERSON THAT INCLUDEDINCORRECT ORDER INFORMATION FOR ORDERS ENTERED.








Initiated By: FINRA


Censure






SEC RULES 10B-10, 605 OF REGULATION NMS, NASD RULE 6955(A) -OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. FAILED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATIONDISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMERS ITS CORRECT CAPACITY INTRANSACTIONS. THE FIRM TRANSMITTED TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAILSYSTEM (OATS) REPORTS THAT CONTAINED INACCURATE, INCOMPLETEOR IMPROPERLY FORMATTED DATA - THE FIRM REPORTED RISKLESSPRINCIPAL ORDERS TO OATS WITHOUT USING THE CORRECT REPORTINGEXCEPTION CODE. THE FIRM MADE AVAILABLE A REPORT ON THECOVERED ORDERS IN NATIONAL MARKET SYSTEM SECURITIES THAT ITRECEIVED FOR EXECUTION FROM ANY PERSON THAT INCLUDEDINCORRECT ORDER INFORMATION FOR ORDERS ENTERED.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED AND FINED $12,500.00

Firm Statement FIRM WAS CENSURED AND PAID FINE OF $12,500.00.



Disclosure 43 of 92

i


Allegations: NASD RULES 2110, 3010(A) AND 3010(B): OPPENHEIMER FAILED TOESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, AND ENFORCE A SUPERVISORY SYSTEM,INCLUDING WRITTEN PROCEDURES FOR ITS SECURITIES LENDINGBUSINESS, REASONABLY DESIGNED TO MONITOR THE TRADINGACTIVITIES OF ITS STOCK LOAN REPRESENTATIVES IN ORDER TOPREVENT AND DETECT FRAUDULENT STOCK LOAN TRANSACTIONS.OPPENHEIMER DELEGATED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DIRECTSUPERVISION OF THE SECURITIES LENDING DEPARTMENT TO ANINDIVIDUAL, AND DID NOT ESTABLISH OR MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF FOLLOWUP AND REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT HE WAS EFFECTIVELY PERFORMINGHIS DELEGATED SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES OR PROPERLYEXERCISING HIS SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY. IN ADDITION TOSUPERVISING OPPENHEIMER'S STOCK LOAN DEPARTMENT,RESPONDENT FIRM PERMITTED AN INDIVIDUAL AND ANOTHER STOCKLOAN MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE STOCK LOAN TRANSACTIONS ON BEHALFOF THE FIRM WITH NO REVIEW OR FOLLOW UP, CONTRARY TO ITSSUPERVISORY SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT PERMIT PERSONS TO SUPERVISETHEMSELVES.RESPONDENT'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES DID NOT FULLYSATISFY FINRA'S MINIMUM PROCEDURAL STANDARDS BECAUSE THEPROCEDURES DID NOT INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT MANAGERSWERE TO LOOK FOR IN REVIEWING LOANET AND OTHER SUPERVISORYREPORTS, THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN IF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY WASDISCOVERED, AND HOW TO DOCUMENT THE SUPERVISOR'S OVERSIGHTACTIVITIES. RESPONDENT'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DID NOTADEQUATELY PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK BY WHICH SENIOR MANAGEMENTCOULD EVALUATE WHETHER PERSONNEL WERE COMPLYING WITH THESUPERVISORY SYSTEM. AS THE RESULT OF THESE SUPERVISORYDEFICIENCIES, THE FIRM FAILED TO DETECT AND PREVENT INDIVIDUALFROM ENGAGING IN A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO PARTICIPATE IN STOCKLOAN TRANSACTIONS WITH CERTAIN COUNTERPARTIES AT RATES THATWERE INFERIOR TO RATES OTHERWISE AVAILABLE TO A LENDER IN THEMARKETPLACE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIMSELF, FAVOREDCOUNTERPARTIES, AND A FINDER WHO HAD NOT PERFORMED ANYSERVICES IN TE TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH THEY WERE PAID.








Initiated By: FINRA







NASD RULES 2110, 3010(A) AND 3010(B): OPPENHEIMER FAILED TOESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, AND ENFORCE A SUPERVISORY SYSTEM,INCLUDING WRITTEN PROCEDURES FOR ITS SECURITIES LENDINGBUSINESS, REASONABLY DESIGNED TO MONITOR THE TRADINGACTIVITIES OF ITS STOCK LOAN REPRESENTATIVES IN ORDER TOPREVENT AND DETECT FRAUDULENT STOCK LOAN TRANSACTIONS.OPPENHEIMER DELEGATED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DIRECTSUPERVISION OF THE SECURITIES LENDING DEPARTMENT TO ANINDIVIDUAL, AND DID NOT ESTABLISH OR MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF FOLLOWUP AND REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT HE WAS EFFECTIVELY PERFORMINGHIS DELEGATED SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES OR PROPERLYEXERCISING HIS SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY. IN ADDITION TOSUPERVISING OPPENHEIMER'S STOCK LOAN DEPARTMENT,RESPONDENT FIRM PERMITTED AN INDIVIDUAL AND ANOTHER STOCKLOAN MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE STOCK LOAN TRANSACTIONS ON BEHALFOF THE FIRM WITH NO REVIEW OR FOLLOW UP, CONTRARY TO ITSSUPERVISORY SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT PERMIT PERSONS TO SUPERVISETHEMSELVES.RESPONDENT'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES DID NOT FULLYSATISFY FINRA'S MINIMUM PROCEDURAL STANDARDS BECAUSE THEPROCEDURES DID NOT INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT MANAGERSWERE TO LOOK FOR IN REVIEWING LOANET AND OTHER SUPERVISORYREPORTS, THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN IF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY WASDISCOVERED, AND HOW TO DOCUMENT THE SUPERVISOR'S OVERSIGHTACTIVITIES. RESPONDENT'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DID NOTADEQUATELY PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK BY WHICH SENIOR MANAGEMENTCOULD EVALUATE WHETHER PERSONNEL WERE COMPLYING WITH THESUPERVISORY SYSTEM. AS THE RESULT OF THESE SUPERVISORYDEFICIENCIES, THE FIRM FAILED TO DETECT AND PREVENT INDIVIDUALFROM ENGAGING IN A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO PARTICIPATE IN STOCKLOAN TRANSACTIONS WITH CERTAIN COUNTERPARTIES AT RATES THATWERE INFERIOR TO RATES OTHERWISE AVAILABLE TO A LENDER IN THEMARKETPLACE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIMSELF, FAVOREDCOUNTERPARTIES, AND A FINDER WHO HAD NOT PERFORMED ANYSERVICES IN TE TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH THEY WERE PAID.


Resolution:


No









Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, RESPONDENT MEMBERFIRM CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS; THEREFORE, FIRM IS CENSURED AND FINED $100,000.


No



Initiated By: FINRA




CENSURE




Other Product Type(s): EQUITY LISTED (COMMON & PREFERRED STOCK)

Allegations: OPPENHEIMER FAILED TO ESTABLISH AN ADEQUATE SUPERVISORSYSTEM, TO MONITOR STOCK LENDING ACTIVITY, AND DETECT ANDPREVENT STOCK LOAN PERSONNEL FROM ENGAGING IN BUSINESSDEALINGS WITH FINDERS IN VIOLATION OF OPPENHEIMER POLICY.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: CENSURE AND $100,000.00 FINE.

Firm Statement WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING ANY ALLEGATIONS, OPPENHEIMERENTERED INTO A LETTER OF ATTEPTANCE WAIVER AND CONSENT ANDAGREED TO A CENSURE AND $100,000.00 FINE.









Firm Statement WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING ANY ALLEGATIONS, OPPENHEIMERENTERED INTO A LETTER OF ATTEPTANCE WAIVER AND CONSENT ANDAGREED TO A CENSURE AND $100,000.00 FINE.

Disclosure 44 of 92

i


Initiated By: FINRA






Other Product Type(s): THRESHOLD SSECURITIES, EQUITY SECURITIES

Allegations: SEC RULES 203(B)(1) OF REGULATION SHO, SEC RULE 203(B)(3), NASDRULE 6130 - OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. EXECUTED SHORT SALETRANSACTIONS AND FAILED TO REPORT THEM TO THE TRADEREPORTING FACILITY, FORMERLY THE NASDAQ MARKET CENTER, WITH ASHORT SALE MODIFIER. THE FIRM ACCEPTED SHORT SALE ORDERS INEQUITY SECURITIES FROM ANOTHER PERSON, OR EFFECTED A SHORTSALE IN EQUITY SECURITIES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT WITHOUTBORROWING THE SECURITY OR ENTERING INTO A BONA FIDEARRANGEMENT TO BORROW THE SECURITY; OR REASONABLE GROUNDSTO BELIEVE THAT THE SECURITY COULD BE BORROWED SO THAT ITCOULD BE DELIVERED ON THE DATE DELIVERY IS DUE; ANDDOCUMENTING COMPLIANCE WITH SEC RULE 203(B)(1) OF REGULATIONSHO. THE FIRM HAD FAIL TO DELIVER POSITIONS IN THRESHOLDSECURITIES AT A REGISTERED CLEARING AGENCY FOR 13 CONSECUTIVESETTLEMENT DAYS AND FAILED TO IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER CLOSEOUT THE FAIL TO DELIVER POSITIONS BY PURCHASING SECURITIES OFLIKE KIND AND QUANTITY. THE FIRM CONTINUED TO HAVE FAIL TODELIVER POSITIONS, WHICH IT FAILED TO CLOSE OUT AS REQUIRED, INTHE SECURITIES AT THE REGISTERED CLEARING AGENCY FORCONSECUTIVE SETTLEMENT DAYS UNTIL A LATER DATE.














No



Initiated By: FINRA




Allegations: SEC RULES 203(B)(1) OF REGULATION SHO, SEC RULE 203(B)(3), NASDRULE 6130 - OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. EXECUTED SHORT SALETRANSACTIONS AND FAILED TO REPORT THEM TO THE TRADEREPORTING FACILITY, FORMERLY THE NASDAQ MARKET CENTER, WITH ASHORT SALE MODIFIER. THE FIRM ACCEPTED SHORT SALE ORDERS INEQUITY SECURITIES FROM ANOTHER PERSON, OR EFFECTED A SHORTSALE IN EQUITY SECURITIES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT WITHOUTBORROWING THE SECURITY OR ENTERING INTO A BONA FIDEARRANGEMENT TO BORROW THE SECURITY; OR REASONABLE GROUNDSTO BELIEVE THAT THE SECURITY COULD BE BORROWED SO THAT ITCOULD BE DELIVERED ON THE DATE DELIVERY IS DUE; ANDDOCUMENTING COMPLIANCE WITH SEC RULE 203(B)(1) OF REGULATIONSHO. THE FIRM HAD FAIL TO DELIVER POSITIONS IN THRESHOLDSECURITIES AT A REGISTERED CLEARING AGENCY FOR 13 CONSECUTIVESETTLEMENT DAYS AND FAILED TO IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER CLOSEOUT THE FAIL TO DELIVER POSITIONS BY PURCHASING SECURITIES OFLIKE KIND AND QUANTITY. THE FIRM CONTINUED TO HAVE FAIL TODELIVER POSITIONS, WHICH IT FAILED TO CLOSE OUT AS REQUIRED, INTHE SECURITIES AT THE REGISTERED CLEARING AGENCY FORCONSECUTIVE SETTLEMENT DAYS UNTIL A LATER DATE.








Censure



Other Product Type(s): THRESHOLD SECURITIES,EQUITY SECURITIES


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: N/A

Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED AND FINED $25,000.00


Consent

Disclosure 45 of 92

i


Initiated By: FINRA






Other Product Type(s): NASDAQ SECURITIES

Allegations: SEC RULE 604 OF REGULATION NMS - OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. FAILEDTO DISPLAY IMMEDIATELY CUSTOMER LIMIT ORDERS IN NASDAQSECURITIES IN ITS PUBLIC QUOTATION WHEN EACH SUCH ORDER WAS ATA PRICE THAT WOULD HAVE IMPROVED THE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER INEACH SUCH SECURITY; OR WHEN THE ORDER WAS PRICED EQUAL TOTHE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER AND THE NATIONAL BEST BID OR OFFER FOREACH SUCH SECURITY, AND THE SIZE OF THE ORDER REPRESENTEDMORE THAN A DE MINIMIS CHANGE IN RELATON TO THE SIZE ASSOCIATEDWITH THE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER IN EACH SUCH SECURITY.









Resolution:




No




Initiated By: FINRA




CENSURE, FINE OF $7,500.00





Allegations: FINRA ALLEGED THAT OPPENHEIMER FAILED TO IMMEDIATELY DISPLAY 97CUSTOMER LIMIT ORDERS WHEN SUCH AN ORDER WOULD IMPROVEOPPENHEIMER'S BID OR OFFER; OR WHEN THE ORDER WAS PRICEDEQUAL TO OPPENHIEMER'S BID OR OFFER AND NATIONAL BEST BID, INALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC RULE 604 AND REG. NMS.











Sanction Details: THE FIRM IS CENSURED AND FINED $7500.00.

Firm Statement WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED AND FINED $7500.00.


Disclosure 46 of 92

i


Initiated By: FINRA







Allegations: SECTION 17(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULES 17A-3 AND 17A-4THEREUNDER; NASD RULES 2110, 3010(A) AND (B) AND 3110: FROMJANUARY 2, 2003 THROUGH EARLY SEPTEMBER 2003, CERTAINREGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES (THE "GROUP") AT THE FIRM ENGAGEDIN IMPROPER MARKET TIMING TRANSACTIONS ON BEHALF OF THEIRHEDGE FUND CLIENTS. THE TRADING INVOLVED 77 MUTUAL FUNDS ANDRESULTED IN APPROXIMATELY $9 MILLION IN GROSS REVENUE TO THEFIRM. THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FORSUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITHRESPECT TO IMPROPER MARKET TIMING TRANSACTIONS. IN ADDITION,THE FIRMFAILED TO CREATE OR MAINTAIN RECORDS OF THE GROUP'S TRADINGTHROUGH THE CERTAIN PLATFORMS.












Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, THE FIRMCONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS; THEREFORE THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $250,000 AND THEFIRM MUST PAY $4,250,000, WITHIN 30 DAYS, TO COMPENSATE AFFECTEDMUTUAL FUNDS FOR LOSES BECAUSE OF THE AFOREMENTIONEDMARKET TIMING ACTIVITY. IN ADDITION, AN OFFICER OF THE FIRM MUSTCERTIFY TO FINRA THAT PAYMENTS TO THE AFFECTED MUTUAL FUNDSWITH COPIES OF THE CHECKS SENT TO THE MUTUAL FUNDS.


No



Initiated By: FINRA







Allegations: SECTION 17(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULES 17A-3 AND 17A-4THEREUNDER; NASD RULES 2110,3010(A)AND(B)AND 3110: FROM JANUARY2, 2003 THROUGH EARLY SEPTEMBER 2003, CERTAIN REGISTEREDREPRESENTATIVES (THE "GROUP") AT THE FIRM ENGAGED IN IMPROPERMARKET TIMING TRANSACTIONS ON BEHALF OF THEIR HEDGE FUNDCLIENTS. THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FORSUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITHRESPECT TO IMPROPER MARKET TIMING TRANSACTIONS. IN ADDITION,THE FIRM FAILED TO CREATE OR MAINTAIN RECORDS OF THE GROUP'STRADING THROUGH THE CERTAIN PLATFORMS.











CENSURE, DISGORGEMENTAN OFFICER OF THE FIRM MUST CERTIFY TO FINRA THAT PAYMENTS TOAFFECTED MUTUAL FUNDS HAS BEEN MADE.


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: AN OFFICER OF THE FIRM MUST CERTIFY TO FINRA THAT PAYMENTS TOAFFECTED MUTUAL FUNDS HAS BEEN MADE.

Sanction Details: CENSURE, DISGORGEMENT AND $250,000.00 FINE PAID.

Firm Statement WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS THE FIRMCONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS.



Disclosure 47 of 92

i


Initiated By: FINRA







Allegations: NASD RULES 2110 AND 2320: DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 1, 2005THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005, IN SEVEN CUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS,THE FIRM FAILED TO USE REASONABLE DILIGENCE TO ASCERTAIN THEBEST INTER-DEALER MARKET AND FAILED TO BUY OR SELL IN SUCHMARKET SO THAT THE RESULTANT PRICE TO ITS CUSTOMER WAS ASFAVORABLE AS POSSIBLE UNDER PREVAILING MARKET CONDITIONS.


Resolution: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)144©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.







Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $15,000 AND REQUIRED TOPAY $6,852.51 IN RESTITUTION TO CUSTOMERS. IN ADDITION, AREGISTERED PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRM MUST SUBMIT SATISFACTORYPROOF OF PAYMENT OF RESTITUTION, OR OF REASONABLE ANDDOCUMENTED EFFORTS UNDERTAKEN TO EFFECT RESTITUTION TOFINRA NO LATER THAN 120 DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AWC. IFFOR ANY REASON THE FIRM CANNOT LOCATE ANY RECIPIENT AFTERREASONABLE AND DOCUMENTED EFFORTS WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, ORSUCH ADDITIONAL PERIOD AGREED TO BY FINRA, THE FIRM SHALLFORWARD ANY UNDISTRIBUTED RESTITUTION AND INTEREST TO THEAPPROPRIATE ESCHEAT, UNCLAIMED PROPERTY, OR ABANDONED-PROPERTY FUND FOR THE STATE IN WHICH THE CUSTOMER LASTRESIDED.


No




Initiated By: FINRA



Allegations: NASD RULES 2110 AND 2320: DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 1, 2005THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005, IN SEVEN CUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS,THE FIRM FAILED TO USE REASONABLE DILIGENCE TO ASCERTAIN THEBEST INTER-DEALER MARKET AND FAILED TO BUY OR SELL IN SUCHMARKET SO THAT THE RESULTANT PRICE TO ITS CUSTOMER WAS ASFAVORABLE AS POSSIBLE UNDER PREVAILING MARKET CONDITIONS.









Censure


DISGORGEMENT/RESTITUTIONFINE


Other Product Type(s): UNSPECIFIED


Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $15,000 AND REQUIRED TOPAY $6,852.51 IN RESTITUTION TO CUSTOMERS.



Disclosure 48 of 92

i


Initiated By: FLORIDA





Docket/Case Number: 0335-S-4/07




Allegations: OPPENHEIMER & CO. FAILED TO REGISTER THREE (3) BRANCH OFFICELOCATIONS AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 517, F.S., PRIOR TO ALLOWINGTHE LOCATIONS TO EFFECT SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS.


Resolution: Stipulation and Consent146©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.






Resolution:


Sanction Details: FINE WAS PAID AT TIME OF SETTLEMENT


Yes




Initiated By: FLORIDA





Docket/Case Number: 0335-S-4/07



Allegations: FIRM FAILED TO REGISTER THREE (3) BRANCH OFFICE LOCATIONS ASREQUIRED BY CHAPTER 517, F.S., PRIOR TO ALLOWING THE LOCATIONSTO EFFECT SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: FINE WAS PAID AT TIME OF SETTLEMENT

Firm Statement THE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION, STATE OF FLORIDA ANDOPPENHEIMER ENTERED INTO A STIPULATION AND CONSENTAGREEMENT (ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING NO. 0335-S-4/07) EXECUTEDBY OPPENHEIMER ON AUGUST 14, 2007 AND ACCEPTED BY THE OFFICEOF FINANCIAL REGULATION ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 27, 2007, IN WHICHOPPENHEIMER CONSENTED TO THE ENTRY OF A FINDING THATOPPENHEIMER CONDUCTED SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS IN CERTAINLOCATIONS WITHOUT BEING PROPERLY REGISTERED IN VIOLATION OFSECTION 517.12(5), FLORIDA STATUTES, AND RULE 69W 200.001(9)(A)3,FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. OPPENHEIMER PAID A $15,000.00 FINE,AND AGREED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH FUTURE VIOLATIONS.








Firm Statement THE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION, STATE OF FLORIDA ANDOPPENHEIMER ENTERED INTO A STIPULATION AND CONSENTAGREEMENT (ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING NO. 0335-S-4/07) EXECUTEDBY OPPENHEIMER ON AUGUST 14, 2007 AND ACCEPTED BY THE OFFICEOF FINANCIAL REGULATION ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 27, 2007, IN WHICHOPPENHEIMER CONSENTED TO THE ENTRY OF A FINDING THATOPPENHEIMER CONDUCTED SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS IN CERTAINLOCATIONS WITHOUT BEING PROPERLY REGISTERED IN VIOLATION OFSECTION 517.12(5), FLORIDA STATUTES, AND RULE 69W 200.001(9)(A)3,FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. OPPENHEIMER PAID A $15,000.00 FINE,AND AGREED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH FUTURE VIOLATIONS.

Disclosure 49 of 92

i


Allegations: SEC RULES 10B-10, 15C2-11, 17A-3, 17A-4, 200(G), NASD RULES 2110, 3010,6740, - OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. EXECUTED LONG SALE ORDERS ANDMARKED THE ORDERS AS SHORT SALES; FAILED TO DISCLOSE AVERAGEPRICE AND THE CORRECT REPORTED PRICE ON CUSTOMERCONFIRMATIONS; INCORRECTLY DISCLOSED AVERAGE PRICE ONCUSTOMER CONFIRMATIONS; FAILED TO ENTER, OR ENTEREDINCORRECT, INFORMATION ON BROKERAGE ORDER MEMORANDA; FAILEDTO PRESERVE FOR A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN THREE YEARS, THEFIRST TWO IN AN ACCESSIBLE PLACE, THE MEMORANDA OF BROKERAGEORDERS; THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FORSUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITHRESPECT TO APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS, REGULATIONS AND NASDRULES RELATING TO TRADE REPORTING, COMPLIANCE WITH SEC RULE15C2-11 AND NASD RULE 6740, AND OATS. THE FIRM PUBLISHEDQUOTATIONS IN OTC EQUITY SECURITIES, OR DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,SUBMITTED SUCH QUOTATIONS FOR PUBLICATION, IN A QUOTATIONMEDIUM, THE PINK SHEETS, AND DID NOT HAVE IN ITS RECORDS THEDOCUMENTATION REQUIRED BY SEC RULE 15C2-11(A) ("PARAGRAPH (A)INFORMATION"), DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE BASIS UNDER THECIRCUMSTANCES FOR BELIEVING THAT THE PARAGRAPH (A)INFORMATION WAS ACCURATE IN ALL RESPECTS OR DID NOT HAVE AREASONABLE BASIS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR BELIEVING THATTHE SOURCES OF THE PARAGRAPH (A) WERE RELIABLE; THEQUOTATIONS DID NOT REPRESENT A CUSTOMER'S INDICATION OFUNSOLICITED INTEREST. FOR EACH QUOTATION, THE FIRM FAILED TO FILEA FORM 211 WITH NASD AT LEAST THREE BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE THEFIRM'S QUOTATIONS WERE PUBLISHED OR DISPLAYED IN A QUOTATIONMEDIUM.







Initiated By: NASD








Resolution:




No




Allegations: SEC RULES 10B-10, 15C2-11, 17A-3, 17A-4, 200(G), NASD RULES 2110, 3010,6740, - OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. EXECUTED LONG SALE ORDERS ANDMARKED THE ORDERS AS SHORT SALES; FAILED TO DISCLOSE AVERAGEPRICE AND THE CORRECT REPORTED PRICE ON CUSTOMERCONFIRMATIONS; INCORRECTLY DISCLOSED AVERAGE PRICE ONCUSTOMER CONFIRMATIONS; FAILED TO ENTER, OR ENTEREDINCORRECT, INFORMATION ON BROKERAGE ORDER MEMORANDA; FAILEDTO PRESERVE FOR A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN THREE YEARS, THEFIRST TWO IN AN ACCESSIBLE PLACE, THE MEMORANDA OF BROKERAGEORDERS; THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FORSUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITHRESPECT TO APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS, REGULATIONS AND NASDRULES RELATING TO TRADE REPORTING, COMPLIANCE WITH SEC RULE15C2-11 AND NASD RULE 6740, AND OATS. THE FIRM PUBLISHEDQUOTATIONS IN OTC EQUITY SECURITIES, OR DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,SUBMITTED SUCH QUOTATIONS FOR PUBLICATION, IN A QUOTATIONMEDIUM, THE PINK SHEETS, AND DID NOT HAVE IN ITS RECORDS THEDOCUMENTATION REQUIRED BY SEC RULE 15C2-11(A) ("PARAGRAPH (A)INFORMATION"), DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE BASIS UNDER THECIRCUMSTANCES FOR BELIEVING THAT THE PARAGRAPH (A)INFORMATION WAS ACCURATE IN ALL RESPECTS OR DID NOT HAVE AREASONABLE BASIS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR BELIEVING THATTHE SOURCES OF THE PARAGRAPH (A) WERE RELIABLE; THEQUOTATIONS DID NOT REPRESENT A CUSTOMER'S INDICATION OFUNSOLICITED INTEREST. FOR EACH QUOTATION, THE FIRM FAILED TO FILEA FORM 211 WITH NASD AT LEAST THREE BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE THEFIRM'S QUOTATIONS WERE PUBLISHED OR DISPLAYED IN A QUOTATIONMEDIUM.








Initiated By: NASD


Censure






SEC RULES 10B-10, 15C2-11, 17A-3, 17A-4, 200(G), NASD RULES 2110, 3010,6740, - OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. EXECUTED LONG SALE ORDERS ANDMARKED THE ORDERS AS SHORT SALES; FAILED TO DISCLOSE AVERAGEPRICE AND THE CORRECT REPORTED PRICE ON CUSTOMERCONFIRMATIONS; INCORRECTLY DISCLOSED AVERAGE PRICE ONCUSTOMER CONFIRMATIONS; FAILED TO ENTER, OR ENTEREDINCORRECT, INFORMATION ON BROKERAGE ORDER MEMORANDA; FAILEDTO PRESERVE FOR A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN THREE YEARS, THEFIRST TWO IN AN ACCESSIBLE PLACE, THE MEMORANDA OF BROKERAGEORDERS; THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FORSUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITHRESPECT TO APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS, REGULATIONS AND NASDRULES RELATING TO TRADE REPORTING, COMPLIANCE WITH SEC RULE15C2-11 AND NASD RULE 6740, AND OATS. THE FIRM PUBLISHEDQUOTATIONS IN OTC EQUITY SECURITIES, OR DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,SUBMITTED SUCH QUOTATIONS FOR PUBLICATION, IN A QUOTATIONMEDIUM, THE PINK SHEETS, AND DID NOT HAVE IN ITS RECORDS THEDOCUMENTATION REQUIRED BY SEC RULE 15C2-11(A) ("PARAGRAPH (A)INFORMATION"), DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE BASIS UNDER THECIRCUMSTANCES FOR BELIEVING THAT THE PARAGRAPH (A)INFORMATION WAS ACCURATE IN ALL RESPECTS OR DID NOT HAVE AREASONABLE BASIS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR BELIEVING THATTHE SOURCES OF THE PARAGRAPH (A) WERE RELIABLE; THEQUOTATIONS DID NOT REPRESENT A CUSTOMER'S INDICATION OFUNSOLICITED INTEREST. FOR EACH QUOTATION, THE FIRM FAILED TO FILEA FORM 211 WITH NASD AT LEAST THREE BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE THEFIRM'S QUOTATIONS WERE PUBLISHED OR DISPLAYED IN A QUOTATIONMEDIUM.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, OPPENHEIMER &CO. AGREED TO PAY A FINE OF $27500.00, PAYABLE ON A DATEDETERMINED BY THE NASD.



Disclosure 50 of 92

i







Initiated By: MASSACHUSETTS




DISGORGEMENT; REVOCATION OF STEPHEN J. TOUSSAINT'SREGISTRATION; CEASE & DESIST; CENSURE; COMPENSATION TOINVESTORS FOR LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO ALLEGED WRONGDOING;TAKE FURTHER ACTIONS AS MAY BE DEEMED JUST & APPROPRIATE






Allegations: OPPENHEIMER ENGAGED IN DISHONEST AND UNETHICAL CONDUCT ANDFAILED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE SUPERVISION OF REP. STEPHEN J.TOUSSAINT TO PREVENT/DETECT/PROHIBIT TOUSSAINT'S UNLAWFULACTIVITIES (THEFT, CHURNING, UNAUTHORIZED TRADING RELATIVE TO ANELDERLY COUPLE'S ACCOUNT



Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: FINE OF $1 MILLION; CENSURE; C&D; RETENTION OF/COOPERATION WITHINDEPENDENT CONSULTANT AND ADOPTION OF CONSULTANT'SRECOMMENDATIONS; $135,407 PAYMENT OF LOSSES, INTEREST ANDEXPENSES FROM CONDUCT TO INVESTOR

Sanction Details: INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT MUST REVIEW BRANCH OFFICE POLICIES RE:CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS, MONITORING OF CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS FORCHURNING/UNAUTHORIZED TRADING/MISAPPROPRIATION/ SUITABILITYOF COMMISSION VS. FEE-BASED ACCOUNTS/HANDLING OF ORDERTICKETS MARKED "UNSOLICITED"; OPPENHEIMER SHALL NOT SEEKREIMBURSEMENT OR TAX DEDUCTION FOR ANY AMOUNT PAID PURSUANTTO THE ORDER


No


Consent






INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT MUST REVIEW BRANCH OFFICE POLICIES RE:CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS, MONITORING OF CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS FORCHURNING/UNAUTHORIZED TRADING/MISAPPROPRIATION/ SUITABILITYOF COMMISSION VS. FEE-BASED ACCOUNTS/HANDLING OF ORDERTICKETS MARKED "UNSOLICITED"; OPPENHEIMER SHALL NOT SEEKREIMBURSEMENT OR TAX DEDUCTION FOR ANY AMOUNT PAID PURSUANTTO THE ORDER


Initiated By: MASSACHUSETTS SECURITIES DIVISION ("MSD")


Censure


DISGORGEMENT, CEASE AND DESISTUNDERTAKING


Docket/Case Number: E-2005-0195 & E-2006-0071



Allegations: THE MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF SECURITIES ALLEGED THATOPPENHEIMER ENGAGED IN DISHONEST AND UNETHICAL CONDUCT, ANDFAILED TO SUPERVISE A FORMER REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE OF THEFIRM.



Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: UNDERTAKING, RETENTION OF INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT ANDADOPTION WITH CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDATION.

Sanction Details: CENSURE AND FINE OF $1,000,000; PAYMENT TO INVESTOR OF $135,407FOR LOSSES,INTEREST AND EXPENSES.

Firm Statement ON JULY 9, 2007 THE MASSACHUSETTS SECURITIES DIVISION ("MSD")ENTERED A CONSENT ORDER AND ACCEPTED OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.'S("OPPENHEIMER'S") OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN "THE MATTER OFOPPENHEIMER AND STEVEN J. TOUSSAINT," DOCKET NUMBERS "E-2005-0195 AND E-2006-0071," RESULTING FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTPREVIOUSLY FILED AGAINST OPPENHEIMER, AND RELATED INQUIRYCONCERNING OPPENHEIMER'S E-MAIL SYSTEM. THE ("MSD") ALLEGEDTHAT CO-RESPONDENT AND FORMER OPPENHEIMER REGISTEREDREPRESENTATIVE STEVEN TOUSSAINT CHURNED CERTAIN RELATEDACCOUNTS AND CONVERTED FUNDS FROM A CLIENT. FUTHER, THE("MSD") ALLEGED THAT OPPENHEIMER FAILED TO ADEQUATELYSUPERVISE CO-RESPONDENT TOUSSAINT; FAILED TO CONDUCT ANADEQUATE INVESTIGATION REGARDING TOUSSAINT'S CONVERSION OFFUNDS; CAUSED TO BE MADE STATEMENTS THAT AT THE TIME UNDER THECIRCUMSTANCES WERE FALSE AND MISLEADING REGARDINGOPPENHEIMER'S PRODUCTION OF E-MAILS AND RELATED E-MAILRETENTION ISSUES; AND THAT OPPENHEIMER FAILED TO HAVE AREASONABLE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM WITH RESPECT TO PRODUCTIONOF E-MAILS IN RESPONSE TO REGULATORY REQUESTS FORINFORMATION. OPPENHEIMER AGREED TO PAY AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINEOF $1 MILLION AND TO REIMBURSE THE CLIENT AN ADDITIONAL $135,407,AND TO RETAIN AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO REVIEWOPPENHEIMER'S MASSACHUSETTS BRANCH OFFICE POLICES ANDPROCEDURES.


Consent





www.finra.org/brokercheck User GuidanceON JULY 9, 2007 THE MASSACHUSETTS SECURITIES DIVISION ("MSD")ENTERED A CONSENT ORDER AND ACCEPTED OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.'S("OPPENHEIMER'S") OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN "THE MATTER OFOPPENHEIMER AND STEVEN J. TOUSSAINT," DOCKET NUMBERS "E-2005-0195 AND E-2006-0071," RESULTING FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTPREVIOUSLY FILED AGAINST OPPENHEIMER, AND RELATED INQUIRYCONCERNING OPPENHEIMER'S E-MAIL SYSTEM. THE ("MSD") ALLEGEDTHAT CO-RESPONDENT AND FORMER OPPENHEIMER REGISTEREDREPRESENTATIVE STEVEN TOUSSAINT CHURNED CERTAIN RELATEDACCOUNTS AND CONVERTED FUNDS FROM A CLIENT. FUTHER, THE("MSD") ALLEGED THAT OPPENHEIMER FAILED TO ADEQUATELYSUPERVISE CO-RESPONDENT TOUSSAINT; FAILED TO CONDUCT ANADEQUATE INVESTIGATION REGARDING TOUSSAINT'S CONVERSION OFFUNDS; CAUSED TO BE MADE STATEMENTS THAT AT THE TIME UNDER THECIRCUMSTANCES WERE FALSE AND MISLEADING REGARDINGOPPENHEIMER'S PRODUCTION OF E-MAILS AND RELATED E-MAILRETENTION ISSUES; AND THAT OPPENHEIMER FAILED TO HAVE AREASONABLE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM WITH RESPECT TO PRODUCTIONOF E-MAILS IN RESPONSE TO REGULATORY REQUESTS FORINFORMATION. OPPENHEIMER AGREED TO PAY AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINEOF $1 MILLION AND TO REIMBURSE THE CLIENT AN ADDITIONAL $135,407,AND TO RETAIN AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO REVIEWOPPENHEIMER'S MASSACHUSETTS BRANCH OFFICE POLICES ANDPROCEDURES.

Disclosure 51 of 92

i


Initiated By: NASD





Other Product Type(s): STOCKS

Allegations: NASD RULES 2110, 3010, 5220(E) - OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC., AS ANINTERMARKET TRADING SYSTEM/COMPUTER ASSISTED EXECUTIONSYSTEM (ITS/CAES) MARKET MAKER, FAILED TO MAINTAIN CONTINUOUSTWO-SIDED QUOTOATIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE GRANT OF ANEXCUSED WITHDRAWAL OR A FUNCTIONAL EXCUSED WITHDRAWAL BYNASD; AND THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FORSUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITHRESPECT TO APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS, REGULATIONS AND NASDRULES CONCERNING MAINTAINING TWO-SIDED QUOTATIONS AS ANITS/CAES MARKET MAKER.










Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $17,500, AND REQUIRED TOREVISE ITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TOMAINTAINING TWO-SIDED QUOTATIONS AS AN ITS/CAES MARKET MAKERWITHIN 30 BUSINESS DAYS OF ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AWC BY THE NAC.


No




Initiated By: NASD





Allegations: NASD RULES 2110,3010,5220(E) - OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. AS ANINTERMARKET TRADING SYSTEM/COMPUTER ASSISTED EXECUTIONSYSTEM (ITS/CAES) MARKET MAKER, FAILED TO MAINTAIN CONTINUOUSTWO-SIDED QUOTATIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE GRANT OF ANEXCUSED WITHDRAWAL OR A FUNCTIONAL EXCUSED WITHDRAWAL BYNASD; AND THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FORSUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITHRESPECT TO APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS, REGULATIONS AND NASDRULES CONCERNING MAINTAINING TWO-SIDED QUOTATIONS AS ANITS/CAES MARKET MAKER.








Censure




Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTEDTO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS;THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $17,500 AND REQUIRED TOREVISE ITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TOMAINTAINING TWO-SIDED QUOTATIONS AS AN ITS/CAES MARKET MAKERWITHIN 30 BUSINESS DAYS OF ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AWC BY THE NAC.



Disclosure 52 of 92

i


Initiated By: NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE


Other


PENDING INVESTIGATION


Docket/Case Number: N/A

Principal Product Type: Annuity(ies) - Variable

Other Product Type(s): MUTUAL FUNDS

Allegations: NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE HAS INVITED FIRM TO MAKE A "WELLS"SUBMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGES'SINVESTIGATION INTO FIRM'S ALLEGED FAILURES RELATING TO MARKETTIMING ACTIVITIES OF MICHAEL SASSANO AND INDIVIDUALS ASSISTINGHIM IN THOSE ACTIVITIES.


Resolution: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)155©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.






Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, THE FIRMCONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS; THEREFORE THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $250,000 AND THEFIRM MUST PAY $4,250,000, WITHIN 30 DAYS, TO COMPENSATE AFFECTEDMUTUAL FUNDS FOR LOSES BECAUSE OF THE AFOREMENTIONEDMARKET TIMING ACTIVITY. IN ADDITION, AN OFFICER OF THE FIRM MUSTCERTIFY TO FINRA THAT PAYMENTS TO THE AFFECTED MUTUAL FUNDSWITH COPIES OF THE CHECKS SENT TO THE MUTUAL FUNDS.

Firm Statement ON JUNE 5, 2006, NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE INVITED FIRM TO MAKE "WELLS" SUBMISSION. NO FORMAL CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINSTTHE FIRM AT THIS TIME.



Disclosure 53 of 92

i


Initiated By: NASD



Docket/Case Number: E102003017701



Allegations: MSRB RULES G-36 (B)(I), G-37(E)(I)(B), G-38(B)(IV) AND (D) THE FIRMFAILED TO FILE IN A TIMELY MANNER, A MSRB FORM G-36 AND AN OFFICIALSTATEMENT FOR THREE UNDERWRITINGS. THE FIRM ALSO FILED AN INACCURATE MSRB FORM G-37 AND FAILED TO SUBMIT IN WRITING TOISSUERS WITH WHICH IT WAS SEEKING MUNICIPAL SECURITIESBUSINESS, INFORMATION ON CONSULTING ARRANGEMENTS WITH EACHISSUER, AND IN APPARENT VIOLATION OF MASB RULES G-38(D), FAILED TODISCLOSE REQUIRED INFORMATION REGARDING CONSULTANTS TOISSUERS.






https://www.finra.org/industry/disciplinary-actions/finra-disciplinary-actions-online?search=e102003017701




Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, THE FIRMCONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS; THEREFORE IT IS CENSURED AND FINED $20,000.


No




Initiated By: NASD




Docket/Case Number: E102003017701



Allegations: THE FIRM WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE A) FAILED TO FILE MSRB FORM G-36AND AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT FOR THREE (3) UNDERWRITINGS IN ATIMELY MANNER AND B) ALLEGED TO HAVE FILED AN INACCURATE MSRBFORM G-37. THE FIRM WAS ALSO ALLEGED TO HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDEINFORMATION ON CONSULTING AGREEMENTS WITH ISSUERS WITH WHICHIT WAS SEEKING MUNICIPAL SECURITIES BUSINESS AND OF FAILING TODISCLOSE INFORMATION REGARDING CONSULTANTS TO ISSUERS. THEFIRM NEITHER ADMITS OR DENIES THE ACCUSATIONS AND CONSENTEDTO A CENSURE AND A $20,000.00 FINE.






https://www.finra.org/industry/disciplinary-actions/finra-disciplinary-actions-online?search=e102003017701




Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: CENSURE AND FINE OF $20,000.00 PAID.

Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, THE FIRMCONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS; THEREFORE IT IS CENSURED AND FINED $20,000.00



Disclosure 54 of 92

i


Allegations: **12/29/05**DECISION 05-190 ISSUED BY NYSE HEARING PANELVIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 342, IN THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO SUPERVISEAND CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES OFSUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER VARIOUS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, ANDFAILED TO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE SYSTEM OF FOLLOW-UP AND REVIEWTO DETERMINE THAT ANY AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY DELEGATEDPURSUANT TO THE RULE WAS BEING PROPERLY EXERCISED; VIOLATEDEXCHANGE RULE 401, IN THAT THE FIRM DID NOT ADHERE AT ALL TIMESTO THE PRINCIPLES OF GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE, INCLUDING, BUT NOTLIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING: BY FAILING ON ONE OR MORE OCCASIONSTO NOTIFY THE EXCHANGE IMMEDIATELY UPON DISCOVERY OF ANYEXISTING OR IMPENDING CONDITION WHICH IT REASONABLY SHOULDHAVE BELIEVED COULD LEAD TO (I) CAPITAL PROBLEMS;II) OPERATIONALPROBLEMS; (III) IMPAIRMENT OF RECORDKEEPING; AND/OR (IV)IMPAIRMENT OF CONTROL FUNCTIONS;BY ISSUING INACCURATEMONTHLY ACCOUNT STATEMENTS TO CUSTOMERS; BY FAILING TOCONDUCT A NECESSARY DAILY RECONCILIATION OF A BANKCONCENTRATION ACCOUNT AND BY FAILING TO TIMELY RECONCILEOTHER BANK ACCOUNTS; BY FAILING TO HAVE ADEQUATE PROCEDURESIN PLACE TO MONITOR ACTIVITY IN SUSPENSE ACCOUNTS ANDACCOUNTS EFFECTIVELY FUNCTIONING AS SUCH; BY FAILING TO AGEITEMS IN SUCH ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINE THEY WERE BEINGRECONCILED; AND BY TRANSFERRING GENERAL LEDGER MONEYSUSPENSE ACCOUNT OUT-OF-BALANCE AMOUNTS INTO AN UNRELATEDSTOCK RECORD POSITION SUSPENSE ACCOUNT; BY NOT MAINTAININGADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS AND CONTROLS OVER MANUAL SECURITYPRICE CHANGES; VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 416 AND EXCHANGE RULE476 (A) (10), IN THAT THE FIRM FILED KEY INDICATOR OPERATIONALREPORTS WITH THE EXCHANGE THAT MISSTATED AND/OR OMITTEDINFORMATION; VIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGEACT OF 1934 AND RULE 17A-11 (D)AND (G) THEREUNDER, AND EXCHANGERULE 351(A), **CONTINUED AT #13C**







Initiated By: NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT




Docket/Case Number: HPD#: 05-190



**12/29/05**DECISION 05-190 ISSUED BY NYSE HEARING PANELVIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 342, IN THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO SUPERVISEAND CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES OFSUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER VARIOUS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, ANDFAILED TO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE SYSTEM OF FOLLOW-UP AND REVIEWTO DETERMINE THAT ANY AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY DELEGATEDPURSUANT TO THE RULE WAS BEING PROPERLY EXERCISED; VIOLATEDEXCHANGE RULE 401, IN THAT THE FIRM DID NOT ADHERE AT ALL TIMESTO THE PRINCIPLES OF GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE, INCLUDING, BUT NOTLIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING: BY FAILING ON ONE OR MORE OCCASIONSTO NOTIFY THE EXCHANGE IMMEDIATELY UPON DISCOVERY OF ANYEXISTING OR IMPENDING CONDITION WHICH IT REASONABLY SHOULDHAVE BELIEVED COULD LEAD TO (I) CAPITAL PROBLEMS;II) OPERATIONALPROBLEMS; (III) IMPAIRMENT OF RECORDKEEPING; AND/OR (IV)IMPAIRMENT OF CONTROL FUNCTIONS;BY ISSUING INACCURATEMONTHLY ACCOUNT STATEMENTS TO CUSTOMERS; BY FAILING TOCONDUCT A NECESSARY DAILY RECONCILIATION OF A BANKCONCENTRATION ACCOUNT AND BY FAILING TO TIMELY RECONCILEOTHER BANK ACCOUNTS; BY FAILING TO HAVE ADEQUATE PROCEDURESIN PLACE TO MONITOR ACTIVITY IN SUSPENSE ACCOUNTS ANDACCOUNTS EFFECTIVELY FUNCTIONING AS SUCH; BY FAILING TO AGEITEMS IN SUCH ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINE THEY WERE BEINGRECONCILED; AND BY TRANSFERRING GENERAL LEDGER MONEYSUSPENSE ACCOUNT OUT-OF-BALANCE AMOUNTS INTO AN UNRELATEDSTOCK RECORD POSITION SUSPENSE ACCOUNT; BY NOT MAINTAININGADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS AND CONTROLS OVER MANUAL SECURITYPRICE CHANGES; VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 416 AND EXCHANGE RULE476 (A) (10), IN THAT THE FIRM FILED KEY INDICATOR OPERATIONALREPORTS WITH THE EXCHANGE THAT MISSTATED AND/OR OMITTEDINFORMATION; VIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGEACT OF 1934 AND RULE 17A-11 (D)AND (G) THEREUNDER, AND EXCHANGERULE 351(A), **CONTINUED AT #13C**


Resolution:


Sanction Details: **CONTINUED FROM #7**IN THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO TIMELY GIVEREQUIRED NOTICE TO THE SEC AND TO THE EXCHANGE THAT IT DID NOTMAKE OR KEEP CURRENT CERTAIN REQUIRED BOOKS AND RECORDS;VIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934AND RULE 17A-3 THEREUNDER, EXCHANGE RULE 440 AND EXCHANGERULE 409, IN THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO MAKE AND/OR KEEP CURRENTCERTAIN BOOKS AND RECORDS, INCLUDING RECORDS PERTAINING TOCUSTOMER ACCOUNT STATEMENTS, SUSPENSE ACCOUNTS, AND BANKRECONCILIATIONS; VIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND RULE 17A-13(B)(5) THEREUNDER, ANDEXCHANGE RULE 440.10(3), IN THAT THE FIRM DID NOT TIMELY RECORDINTO A SECURITY DIFFERENCE ACCOUNT ALL UNRESOLVED SECURITYCOUNT DIFFERENCES; VIOLATED SECTION 15(C) OF THE SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND RULE 15C3-1 THEREUNDER, RULE 15C3-3(E)THEREUNDER, AND EXCHANGE RULE 326, IN THAT THE FIRM AT CERTAINTIMES: DID NOT PREPARE ACCURATE COMPUTATIONS OF NET CAPITALAND DID NOT PREPARE ACCURATE RESERVE FORMULA COMPUTATIONS;VIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934AND RULE 17A-5 THEREUNDER, AND EXCHANGE RULE 476(A)(10), IN THATTHE FIRM FILED ONE OR MORE INACCURATE FOCUS REPORTS WITH THEEXCHANGE; VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 476(A)(6) BY ENGAGING INCONDUCT INCONSISTENT WITH JUST AND EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES OFTRADE: AND SECTION 15(C) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934AND RULE 15C2-8(B) THEREUNDER, **CONTINUED AT #14**


Decision






**CONTINUED FROM #7**IN THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO TIMELY GIVEREQUIRED NOTICE TO THE SEC AND TO THE EXCHANGE THAT IT DID NOTMAKE OR KEEP CURRENT CERTAIN REQUIRED BOOKS AND RECORDS;VIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934AND RULE 17A-3 THEREUNDER, EXCHANGE RULE 440 AND EXCHANGERULE 409, IN THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO MAKE AND/OR KEEP CURRENTCERTAIN BOOKS AND RECORDS, INCLUDING RECORDS PERTAINING TOCUSTOMER ACCOUNT STATEMENTS, SUSPENSE ACCOUNTS, AND BANKRECONCILIATIONS; VIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND RULE 17A-13(B)(5) THEREUNDER, ANDEXCHANGE RULE 440.10(3), IN THAT THE FIRM DID NOT TIMELY RECORDINTO A SECURITY DIFFERENCE ACCOUNT ALL UNRESOLVED SECURITYCOUNT DIFFERENCES; VIOLATED SECTION 15(C) OF THE SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND RULE 15C3-1 THEREUNDER, RULE 15C3-3(E)THEREUNDER, AND EXCHANGE RULE 326, IN THAT THE FIRM AT CERTAINTIMES: DID NOT PREPARE ACCURATE COMPUTATIONS OF NET CAPITALAND DID NOT PREPARE ACCURATE RESERVE FORMULA COMPUTATIONS;VIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934AND RULE 17A-5 THEREUNDER, AND EXCHANGE RULE 476(A)(10), IN THATTHE FIRM FILED ONE OR MORE INACCURATE FOCUS REPORTS WITH THEEXCHANGE; VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 476(A)(6) BY ENGAGING INCONDUCT INCONSISTENT WITH JUST AND EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES OFTRADE: AND SECTION 15(C) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934AND RULE 15C2-8(B) THEREUNDER, **CONTINUED AT #14**

Regulator Statement **CONTINUED FROM 13C** BY FAILING TO ENSURE THE DELIVERY OF ALLPRELIMINARY PROSPECTUSES IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN SALES OFREGISTERED SECURITIES; BY FAILING TO ENSURE IN CONNECTION WITHA PRIVATE PLACEMENT OFFERING THAT THERE WAS NO GENERALSOLICITATION OF THE INVESTMENT BEING OFFERED, IN VIOLATION OFSECTION 4(2) AND SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933; IN THATTHE FIRM CHARGED CERTAIN CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS FEES THAT WEREHIGHER THAN THE COMMISSIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN IN LIGHT OF THELIMITED OR ZERO TRADING ACTIVITY IN THE ACCOUNTS; IN THAT THEFIRM FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO CUSTOMERS THAT IT HAD ENTERED INTOREVENUE SHARING ARRANGEMENTS WITH CERTAIN MUTUAL FUNDCOMPANIES WHOSE MUTUAL FUNDS WERE MADE AVAILABLE FORPURCHASE THROUGH THE FIRM; VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 412, IN THATIN CONNECTION WITH CUSTOMER ACCOUNT TRANSFERS, THE FIRM DIDNOT TIMELY TRANSFER TO THE RECEIVING BROKER-DEALER RESIDUALCREDIT BALANCES THAT HAD ACCRUED TO THE TRANSFERREDCUSTOMER ACCOUNTS CONSENT TO CENSURE AND A FINE OF $1.35MILLION.**2/3/06**THE DECISION IS NOW FINAL AND EFFECTIVEIMMEDIATELY.CONTACT:PEGGY GERMINO 212-656-8450


Allegations: NYSE ALLEGED VARIOUS SALES PRACTICE AND OPERATIONALDEFICIENCIES ARISING OUT OF EXAMINATIONS BY THE NYSE CONDUCTEDDURING 2002,2003,2004 AND 2005. ALLEGATIONS INCLUDE, BUT WERE NOTLIMITED TO, FAILURE TO MONITOR FLOOR ACTIVITIES, INADEQUACIESRELATING TO MANUAL PRICE CHANGES OF SECURITIES AND ELECTRONICAND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS, FAILURE TO TIMELY TRANSFERCUSTOMER ASSETS TO OTHER BROKER-DEALERS, DEFICIENCIESREGARDING SOLICITATION OF A PRIVATE PLACEMENT OF SECURITIES,LACK OF DISCLOSURE OF REVENUE SHARING PAYOUTS, INADEQUATERECONCILIATION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS, INACCURATECAPITAL COMPUTATIONS, FAILURE TO MONITOR CLIENT ACTIVITY LEVELSIN NON-MANAGED FEE BASED ACCOUNTS, LACK OF EVIDENCE OFDELIVERY OF PRELIMINARY PROSPECTUSES, VARIOUS OTHERDEFICIENCIES AND FAILURE TO MAKE TIMELY NOTIFICATION TO THEEXCHANGE ABOUT CERTAIN SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS THAT AROSE AFTERA CONVERSION IN MAY 2003. FIRM NEITHER ADMITTED OR DENIEDALLEGATIONS.











CENSURE


Docket/Case Number: HPD# 05-190



NYSE ALLEGED VARIOUS SALES PRACTICE AND OPERATIONALDEFICIENCIES ARISING OUT OF EXAMINATIONS BY THE NYSE CONDUCTEDDURING 2002,2003,2004 AND 2005. ALLEGATIONS INCLUDE, BUT WERE NOTLIMITED TO, FAILURE TO MONITOR FLOOR ACTIVITIES, INADEQUACIESRELATING TO MANUAL PRICE CHANGES OF SECURITIES AND ELECTRONICAND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS, FAILURE TO TIMELY TRANSFERCUSTOMER ASSETS TO OTHER BROKER-DEALERS, DEFICIENCIESREGARDING SOLICITATION OF A PRIVATE PLACEMENT OF SECURITIES,LACK OF DISCLOSURE OF REVENUE SHARING PAYOUTS, INADEQUATERECONCILIATION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS, INACCURATECAPITAL COMPUTATIONS, FAILURE TO MONITOR CLIENT ACTIVITY LEVELSIN NON-MANAGED FEE BASED ACCOUNTS, LACK OF EVIDENCE OFDELIVERY OF PRELIMINARY PROSPECTUSES, VARIOUS OTHERDEFICIENCIES AND FAILURE TO MAKE TIMELY NOTIFICATION TO THEEXCHANGE ABOUT CERTAIN SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS THAT AROSE AFTERA CONVERSION IN MAY 2003. FIRM NEITHER ADMITTED OR DENIEDALLEGATIONS.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: FIRM CONSENTED AND PAID $1.35 MILLION FINE.

Firm Statement ALLEGATIONS COVER SALES PRACTICE AND OPERATIONAL REVIEWS IN2002, 2003, 2004 AND 2005. WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING GUILT, FIRMCONSENTED AND PAID $1.35 MILLION FINE.



Disclosure 55 of 92

i


Initiated By: NASD


Docket/Case Number: EAF0400720002

Allegations: NASD CONDUCT RULES 2110 AND 3010; RESPONDENT FAILED TO FILEAMENDMENTS TO FORMS U4 AND U5, AND INITIAL FORMS U5 IN A TIMELYMATTER; IT'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND PROCEDURES WERE NOTREASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE VREPORTING OBLIGATIONS.






https://www.finra.org/industry/disciplinary-actions/finra-disciplinary-actions-online?search=eaf0400720002







Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: UNDERTAKINGS: REQUIRED AUDITS AND OFFICER CERTIFICATONSRELATING TO ARTICLE V REPORTING OBLIGATIONS, REQUIRED OFFICERCERTIFICATION RELATING TO SYSTEM AND PROCEDURES

Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, RESPONDENTMEMBER FIRM CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THEENTRY OF FINDINGS; THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED AND FINED$250,000.


No




Initiated By: NASD


Censure


Docket/Case Number: EAF0400720002



Allegations: RESPONDENT FAILED TO FILE AMENDMENTS TO FORMS U4 AND U5, ANDINITIAL FORM U5S, IN A TIMELY MANNER.






https://www.finra.org/industry/disciplinary-actions/finra-disciplinary-actions-online?search=eaf0400720002



Censure


UNDERTAKING


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: REQUIRED AUDITS AND OFFICER CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO ARTICLEV REPORTING OBLIGATIONS; REQUIRED OFFICER CERTIFICATIONRELATING TO SYSTEM AND PROCEDURES

Sanction Details: CENSURED, FINE $250.00 PAID



Disclosure 56 of 92

i


Initiated By: NASD (N/K/A FINRA)





Allegations: NASD RULES 2110, 3010(A) AND 8210: ON JUNE 11, 2003, AND ONNOVEMBER 20, 2003, OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. ("OPPENHEIMER" OR "FIRM") SUBMITTED INACCURATE AND INCOMPLETE DATA IN RESPONSETO NASD'S REQUEST THAT THE FIRM PERFORM A SELF-ASSESSMENT OFITS MUTUAL FUND BREAKPOINT DISCOUNT PRACTICES. OPPENHEIMERKNOWINGLY, OR AT A MINIMUM, RECKLESSLY, SUBMITTED FLAWED DATATO NASD, FAILED TO NOTIFY NASD THAT THE DATA WAS FLAWED, FAILEDTO FOLLOW UP TO CORRECT THE FIRM'S DATA, AND FAILED TO TIMELYSUBMIT THE DATA TO NASD. OPPENHEIMER'S CONDUCT VIOLATED NASDPROCEDURAL RULE 8210 AND CONDUCT RULE 2110. IN ADDITION,OPPENHEIMER FAILED TO ADEQUATELY SUPERVISE THE SUBMISSION OFDATA TO NASD AND FAILED TO APPROPRIATELY DELEGATE TO AQUALIFIED PERSON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ENSURING THAT THE DATAWAS COLLECTED AND SUBMITTED TO NASD IN A COMPLETE, ACCURATEAND TIMELY MANNER IN VIOLATION OF NASD CONDUCT RULES 3010(A)AND 2110.












Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, OPPENHEIMERCONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS; THEREFORE THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $1,000,000 ANDMUST COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING UNDERTAKINGS: THE FIRM'SINTERNAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT WILL CONDUCT AUDITS, CONSISTENTWITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED AUDITING STANDARDS, ON A QUARTERLYBASIS FOR SIX QUARTERS TO REVIEW THE INTAKE, ASSIGNMENT ANDRESPONSES TO REGULATORY INQUIRES. NO MORE THAN 60 DAYS AFTERTHE END OF EACH QUARTER, THE FIRM MUST SUBMIT TO FINRA THEINTERNAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT'S QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE COVEREDQUARTER. OPPENHEIMER MUST RETAIN, WITHIN 60 DAYS, ANINDEPENDENT CONSULTANT, NOT UNACCEPTABLE TO FINRA, TOCONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE FIRM'SPOLICIES, SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES (WRITTEN OR OTHERWISE) ANDTRAINING RELATING TO THE DELEGATION OF RESPONSIBILITY FORRESPONDING TO REGULATORY REQUESTS ACCURATELY ANDCOMPLETELY. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE REVIEW, WHICH SHOULD BENO MORE THAN 120 DAYS, THE FIRM MUST REQUIRE THE INDEPENDENTCONSULTANT TO SUBMIT TO THE FIRM AND TO FINRA A WRITTEN REPORT.WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DELIVERY OF THE WRITTEN REPORT, THE FIRMSHALL ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THEINDEPENDENT CONSULTANT OR, IF IT DETERMINES THAT ARECOMMENDATION IS UNDULY BURDENSOME OR IMPRACTICAL,PROPOSE AND ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE TO THE INDEPENDENTCONSULTANT DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THE SAME OBJECTIVE.


No









Initiated By: NASD




CENSURE, UNDERTAKING





Allegations: THE NASD HAS FILED A COMPLAINT ON 1/9/06 CONTAINING TWO CAUSESOF ACTION - FIRST, RESPONDENT FAILED TO RESPOND COMPLETELY,ACCURATELY, AND TIMELY TO AN NASD SURVEY, VIOLATIONS OFPROCEDURAL RULE 8210 AND CONDUCT RULE 2110; SECOND,RESPONDENT FAILED TO ADEQUATELY SUPERVISE THE PREPARATIONAND SUBMISSION OF A REGULATORY RESPONSE, VIOLATIONS OFCONDUCT RULES 3010(A) AND 2110.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: OPPENHEIMER PAID A $1 MILLION FINE AND WAS CENSURED. THE FIRMWILL HIRE AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO REVIEW FIRM'SPROCEDURES FOR RESPONDING TO REGULATORY INQUIRIES. ALSO, THEFIRM'S INTERNAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT WILL FOR SIX QUARTERS, REVIEWTHE FIRM'S INTAKE, ASSIGNMENT AND RESPONSE PROCEDURES TOREGULATORY INQUIRIES. CO RESPONDENT ALBERT G. LOWENTHAL HASBEEN DISMISSED.



Disclosure 57 of 92

i









Initiated By: NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT






Allegations: **11/18/05**STIPULATION AND CONSENT TO PENALTY FILED BY NYSEDIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT AND PENDING.CONSENTED TOFINDINGS:WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING GUILT, OPPENHEIMERCONSENTED TO FINDINGS THAT IT:1.VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 445 BYFAILING TO ESTABLISH AN ADEQUATE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERINGCOMPLIANCE PROGRAM BY FAILING TO:A.ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENTPOLICIES AND PROCEDURES REASONABLY EXPECTED TO DETECT ANDCAUSE THE REPORTING OF TRANSACTIONS REQUIRED UNDER 31 U.S.C.5318(G) AND THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS THEREUNDER;B.ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND INTERNALCONTROLS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THEBANK SECRECY ACT AND THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONSHEREUNDER;C.PROVIDE FOR INDEPENDENT TESTING FOR COMPLIANCE TO BECONDUCTED BY MEMBER OR MEMBER ORGANIZATION PERSONNEL OR BYA QUALIFIED OUTSIDE PARTY;D.DESIGNATE ADEQUATE STAFF TO ENSURECOMPLIANCE WITH THE BANK SECRECY ACT; AND E.PROVIDE ONGOINGTRAINING FOR APPROPRIATE PERSONS.2.ENGAGED IN CONDUCTINCONSISTENT WITH JUST AND EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES OF TRADE INTHAT THE FIRM WAS ENABLING AND FACILITATING FOREIGN CUSTOMERSOF A FOREIGN BRANCH OFFICE TO ENGAGE IN SEVERAL MILLIONDOLLARS OF NON-SECURITY/INVESTMENT TRANSACTIONS THROUGHWIRE TRANSFERS AND INTRA-FIRM JOURNAL TRANSFERS.3.VIOLATEDEXCHANGE ACT RULES 17A-3 AND 17A-4 AND EXCHANGE RULE 440 BYFAILING TO KEEP BOOKS AND RECORDS REFLECTING CERTAIN JOURNALTRANSFERS;4.VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 401 BY FAILING TO ADHERE TOTHE PRINCIPLES OF GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE IN THE CONDUCT OF ITSBUSINESS AFFAIRS BY PERMITTING CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEES IN AFOREIGN BRANCH OFFICE TO ENGAGE IN WIRE TRANSFERS ANDJOURNAL TRANSFERS WHILE EXECUTING FEW SECURITIES AND/ORINVESTMENT TRANSACTIONS IN THEIR CUSTOMERACCOUNTS;5.VIOLATED RULE 17A-8 OF THE EXCHANGE ACT BY FAILINGTO HAVE PROCEDURES TO MONITOR OR REVIEW TRANSACTIONS MADEIN A FOREIGN BRANCH OFFICE FOR SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY, AND FAILED TOFILE SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS REGARDING THAT ACTIVITY.**CONTINUE #7*









Resolution:


Sanction Details: **12/14/05**DECISION HPD 05-181 ISSUED BY NYSE HEARING PANELPENDING.DECISION:1.VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 445 BY FAILING TOESTABLISH AN ADEQUATE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COMPLIANCEPROGRAM BY FAILING TO:A.ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES REASONABLY EXPECTED TO DETECT AND CAUSE THEREPORTING OF TRANSACTIONS REQUIRED UNDER 31 U.S.C. 5318(G) ANDTHE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS THEREUNDER;B.ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND INTERNALCONTROLS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THEBANK SECRECY ACT & THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS THEREUNDER;C.PROVIDE FOR INDEPENDENT TESTING FOR COMPLIANCE TO BECONDUCTED BY MEMBER OR MEMBER ORGANIZATION PERSONNEL OR BYA QUALIFIED OUTSIDE PARTY;D.DESIGNATE ADEQUATE STAFF TO ENSURECOMPLIANCE WITH THE BANK SECRECY ACT; AND E.PROVIDE ONGOINGTRAINING FOR APPROPRIATE PERSONS.2.ENGAGED IN CONDUCTINCONSISTENT WITH JUST AND EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES OF TRADE INTHAT THE FIRM WAS ENABLING AND FACILITATING FOREIGN CUSTOMERSOF A FOREIGN BRANCH OFFICE TO ENGAGE IN SEVERAL MILLIONDOLLARS OF NON-SECURITY/INVESTMENT TRANSACTIONS THROUGHWIRE TRANSFERS AND INTRA-FIRM JOURNAL TRANSFERS.3.VIOLATEDEXCHANGE ACT RULES 17A-3 AND 17A-4 AND EXCHANGE RULE 440 BYFAILING TO KEEP BOOKS AND RECORDS REFLECTING CERTAIN JOURNALTRANSFERS;4.VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 401 BY FAILING TO ADHERE TOTHE PRINCIPLES OF GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE IN THE CONDUCT OF ITSBUSINESS AFFAIRS BY PERMITTING CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEES IN AFOREIGN BRANCH OFFICE TO ENGAGE IN WIRE TRANSFERS ANDJOURNAL TRANSFERS WHILE EXECUTING FEW SECURITIES &/ORINVESTMENT TRANSACTIONS IN THEIR CUSTOMERACCOUNTS;5.VIOLATED RULE 17A-8 OF THE EXCHANGE ACT BY FAILINGTO HAVE PROCEDURES TO MONITOR OR REVIEW TRANSACTIONS MADEIN A FOREIGN BRANCH OFFICE FOR SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY, AND FAILED TOFILE SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS REGARDING THATACTIVITY.**CONTINUED AT #14**

Regulator Statement **CONTINUED FROM 13C**6.VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 342 BY FAILING TOESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES FORSUPERVISION AND CONTROL REVIEW, WITH RESPECT TO:(A) FAILING TOMAINTAIN APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES FOR INTRA-ACCOUNT JOURNALS;(B) FAILING TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE THE FIRM'S ANTI-MONEYLAUNDERING UNIT;(C) FAILING TO ADHERE TO PRINCIPLES OF GOODBUSINESS PRACTICE;(D) FAILING TO CONDUCT AND DOCUMENT ON-SITEBRANCH OFFICE INSPECTIONS;(EFAILING TO EVIDENCE SUPERVISORYREVIEWS OF LETTERS OF AUTHORIZATION; (F) FAILING TO ENSURE THATITS OPERATIONAL AND REGULATORY ACTIVITIES WERE APPROPRIATELYSUPERVISED AND THAT IT HAD APPROPRIATE SYSTEMS, PROCEDURESAND STAFF TO FOLLOW-UP AND REVIEW ALL AREAS OF ITS BUSINESSACTIVITIES INCLUDING ITS ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING PROGRAM,SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTING AND BRANCH OFFICES TO ASSURECOMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES REGULATIONS ANDEXCHANGE RULES AND TO DETECT AND PREVENT THE VIOLATIONSINDICATED ABOVE.PENALTY: THE IMPOSITION BY THE EXCHANGE OF ACENSURE, A $2.8 MILLION FINE, TO BE DIVIDED EQUALLY BETWEEN THEEXCHANGE AND THE FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK, ANDAN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING UNDERTAKING:1.WITHIN120 DAYS FROM THE DATE THAT THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL, SUBMITA SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THEREVIEW,RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED INTHE ERNST & YOUNG REPORT (THE "REPORT") OF THE REVIEW ALREADYCONDUCTED OF THE FIRM'S ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES, AND THE FOREIGN BRANCH OFFICE ACTIVITIESDESCRIBED HEREIN.2.ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT ANY AND ALL POLICIES,PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES RECOMMENDED IN THE ERNST & YOUNGREPORT CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRM'S BUSINESS.**THE DECISION IS NOW FINAL AND EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.CONTACT:PEGGY GERMINO 212-656-8450


Decision






Regulator Statement **CONTINUED FROM 13C**6.VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 342 BY FAILING TOESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES FORSUPERVISION AND CONTROL REVIEW, WITH RESPECT TO:(A) FAILING TOMAINTAIN APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES FOR INTRA-ACCOUNT JOURNALS;(B) FAILING TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE THE FIRM'S ANTI-MONEYLAUNDERING UNIT;(C) FAILING TO ADHERE TO PRINCIPLES OF GOODBUSINESS PRACTICE;(D) FAILING TO CONDUCT AND DOCUMENT ON-SITEBRANCH OFFICE INSPECTIONS;(EFAILING TO EVIDENCE SUPERVISORYREVIEWS OF LETTERS OF AUTHORIZATION; (F) FAILING TO ENSURE THATITS OPERATIONAL AND REGULATORY ACTIVITIES WERE APPROPRIATELYSUPERVISED AND THAT IT HAD APPROPRIATE SYSTEMS, PROCEDURESAND STAFF TO FOLLOW-UP AND REVIEW ALL AREAS OF ITS BUSINESSACTIVITIES INCLUDING ITS ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING PROGRAM,SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTING AND BRANCH OFFICES TO ASSURECOMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES REGULATIONS ANDEXCHANGE RULES AND TO DETECT AND PREVENT THE VIOLATIONSINDICATED ABOVE.PENALTY: THE IMPOSITION BY THE EXCHANGE OF ACENSURE, A $2.8 MILLION FINE, TO BE DIVIDED EQUALLY BETWEEN THEEXCHANGE AND THE FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK, ANDAN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING UNDERTAKING:1.WITHIN120 DAYS FROM THE DATE THAT THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL, SUBMITA SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THEREVIEW,RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED INTHE ERNST & YOUNG REPORT (THE "REPORT") OF THE REVIEW ALREADYCONDUCTED OF THE FIRM'S ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES, AND THE FOREIGN BRANCH OFFICE ACTIVITIESDESCRIBED HEREIN.2.ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT ANY AND ALL POLICIES,PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES RECOMMENDED IN THE ERNST & YOUNGREPORT CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRM'S BUSINESS.**THE DECISION IS NOW FINAL AND EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.CONTACT:PEGGY GERMINO 212-656-8450


Initiated By: NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION


Allegations: INADEQUATE REVIEW OF WIRE TRANSFERS IN FOREIGN BRANCH OFFICE.INADEQUATE AML POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF FOREIGNBRANCH OFFICE TRANSACTIONS. PROCESS FOR HANDLING FILING OF "SARS" WAS NOT ADEQUATE UNDER BSA PROVISIONS. FAILURE TOMAINTAIN ADEQUATE BOOKS AND RECORDS RELATING TO JOURNALTRANSFERS OCCURRING IN A FOREIGN BRANCH OFFICE.








Other


FINE





Resolution:


Sanction Details: FINE PAID & CONSENT EXECUTED BY FIRM.

Firm Statement WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING ALLEGATIONS ABOVE, FIRM PAID FINE& EXECUTED CONSENT.


Consent

Disclosure 58 of 92

i


Initiated By: MISSOURI


Other



Docket/Case Number: AP-05-03




Allegations: THE MISSOURI SECURITIES DIVISION ALLEGES THAT OPPENHEIMEREMPLOYED AN UNREGISTERED INVESTMENT ADVISER REPRESENTATIVEAND AN UNREGISTERED AGENT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 409.201, RSMO2000 AND FAILED TO SUPERVISE AN AGENT IN MISSOURI AND THESECONSTITUTE GROUNDS TO REVOKE, BAR OR CENSURE OPPENHEIMER'SREGISTRATION IN MISSOURI PURSUANT TO SECTION 409.204, RSMO 2000.









Resolution:


Sanction Details: OPPENHEIMER IS PROHIBITED FROM EMPLOYING UNREGISTEREDAGENTS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 409.4-401 RSMO CUMULATIVE SUPP.2004, AND IS PROHIBITED FROM FAILING TO SUPERVISE ITS EMPLOYEESIN VIOLATION OF SECTION 409.4-412, RSMO CUMULATIVE SUPP. 2004.


Yes

Sanctions Ordered: Monetary/Fine $122,050.00Disgorgement/Restitution

Consent


Initiated By: MISSOURI


Other


DISGORGEMENT, RESTITUTION


Docket/Case Number: AP-05-03



Allegations: 1.) REGISTERED REP FILLED OUT RENEWAL FORM INCORRECTLY ANDMISSOURI REGISTRATION WAS INADVERTANTLY TERMINATED. 2.) FAILEDTO FILE REGISTRATION EXEMPTION PAPERWORK FOR 1 REGISTEREDREP. 3.) REGISTERED REP RECEIVED UNAUTHORIZED LOAN FROM CLIENT(FRIEND) VIA WIRE FROM CLIENT'S MARGIN ACCOUNT TO RR'SUNDISCLOSED OUTSIDE BUSINESS INTEREST.


Resolution: Settled170©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.






Resolution:


Sanction Details: RESTITUTION OF $50,000 + MISSOURI'S COST OF INVESTIGATION OF$9050.00. RESTITUTION OF 63,000.00. TOTALING $122,050.00.


Settled

Disclosure 59 of 92

i


Initiated By: NASD




Docket/Case Number: CE420050002



Allegations: SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, RULE 17A-4THEREUNDER, MSRB RULES G-14, G-27, NASD RULES 2110, 3010(A) AND(B), 3110, 8210 - RESPONDENT MEMBER FAILED TO REPORT ON A TIMELYBASIS MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WITH OTHER DEALERS;FAILED TO REPORT ACCURATELY THE PRICE OR TIME OR WHETHER ITACTED AS PRINCIPAL OR AGENT ON NUMEROUS MUNICIPAL SECURITIESTRADES WITH CUSTOMERS; FAILED TO REPORT OR REPORTEDMUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS THAT WERE NEVER EFFECTEDON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS; FAILED TO RESPOND IN A TIMELY MANNERTO NASD REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION; FAILED TOHAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE TO SAVE ALL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONSBETWEEN ITS EMPLOYEES, AND ALLOWED ITS EMPLOYEES TO DELETEELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.



Resolution:


No






https://www.finra.org/industry/disciplinary-actions/finra-disciplinary-actions-online?search=ce420050002



Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, OPPENHEIMER &CO. INC. CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRYOF FINDINGS, THEREFORE THE FIRM IS FINED $800,000 AND REQUIRED TOCARRY OUT THE FOLLOWING UNDERTAKING: RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSELTO REVIEW, MODIFY, AND ENHANCE OPPENHEIMER'S WRITTENSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO MUNICIPAL TRADEREPORTING AND COMPLYING WITH REGULATORY REQUESTS. OUTSIDECOUNSEL MUST PREPARE A REPORT DESCRIBING THE NATURE ANDEXTENT OF ITS REVIEW, AND THE MODIFICATIONS AND ENHANCEMENTSTHAT IT RECOMMENDS. REVIEW ITS PROCEDURES REGARDINGPRESERVATION OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS; WITHIN 120 DAYS OFNOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER, OPPENHEIMER WILL INFORMNASD IN WRITING THAT IT HAS COMPLETED ITS REVIEW ANDESTABLISHED SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE PRESERVATION OFELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS; WITHIN 120 DAYS OF NOTICE OFACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER, A SENIOR OFFICER OF OPPENHEIMER WILLPROVIDE NASD A NOTARIZED CERTIFICATION THAT IT HAS COMPLIEDWITH THE UNDERTAKINGS AND IMPLEMENTED PROCEDURES.


No



Allegations: SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, RULE 17A-4THEREUNDER, MSRB RULES G-14, G-27, NASD RULES 2110, 3010(A) AND(B), 3110, 8210 - RESPONDENT MEMBER FAILED IN MAY 2003 TO REPORTON A TIMELY BASIS MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WITH OTHERDEALERS; FAILED TO REPORT ACCURATELY THE PRICE OR TIME ORWHETHER IT ACTED AS PRINCIPAL OR AGENT ON NUMEROUS MUNICIPALSECURITIES TRADES WITH CUSTOMERS; FAILED TO REPORT ORREPORTED MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS THAT WERE NEVEREFFECTED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS; FAILED TO RESPOND IN A TIMELYMANNER TO NASD REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION;FAILED TO HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE TO SAVE ALL ELECTRONICCOMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ITS EMPLOYEES, AND ALLOWED ITSEMPLOYEES TO DELETE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.







Initiated By: NASD




RETENTION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO REVIEW, MODIFY AND ENHANCEWRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES REGARDING MUNICIPAL TRADEREPORTING AND COMPLYING WITH REGULATORY REQUESTS; REVIEW ITSPROCEDURES REGARDING THE PRESERVATIONS OF ELECTRONICCOMMUNICATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NASD RULE OF FEDERALSECURITIES LAWS.


Docket/Case Number: CE4050002

Principal Product Type: Debt - Government

Other Product Type(s): DEBT - MUNICIPAL

SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, RULE 17A-4THEREUNDER, MSRB RULES G-14, G-27, NASD RULES 2110, 3010(A) AND(B), 3110, 8210 - RESPONDENT MEMBER FAILED IN MAY 2003 TO REPORTON A TIMELY BASIS MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WITH OTHERDEALERS; FAILED TO REPORT ACCURATELY THE PRICE OR TIME ORWHETHER IT ACTED AS PRINCIPAL OR AGENT ON NUMEROUS MUNICIPALSECURITIES TRADES WITH CUSTOMERS; FAILED TO REPORT ORREPORTED MUNICIPAL SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS THAT WERE NEVEREFFECTED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS; FAILED TO RESPOND IN A TIMELYMANNER TO NASD REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION;FAILED TO HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE TO SAVE ALL ELECTRONICCOMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ITS EMPLOYEES, AND ALLOWED ITSEMPLOYEES TO DELETE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.


Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: MEMBER IS REQUIRED TO RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO REVIEW, MODIFYAND ENHANCE WRITTEN PROCEDURES REGARDING MUNICIPAL TRADEREPORTING AND COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUESTS.

Sanction Details: $800,000.00 FINE TO BE PAID BY APPLICANT

Firm Statement PLEASE SEE RESPONSE TO 7 ABOVE. MATTER RESOLVED BY APPLICANTWITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING ALLEGATIONS (APPLICANTCONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS MADE AND FILED UNDER NASD DOCKET NO. CE4050002)



Disclosure 60 of 92

i


Allegations: SEC RULES 10A-1, 10B-10, 17A-3 AND 17A-4 NASD CONDUCT RULES 21103110, 3010 AND 3370 NASD MARKETPLACE RULE 5220(E) - FAHNESTOCKEFFECTED TWO SHORT SALES IN CERTAIN SECURITIES FOR THE FIRM'SPROPRIETARY ACCOUNTS AND FAILED TO MAKE AND ANNOTATE ANAFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION THAT THE FIRM COULD BORROW THESECURITIES OR OTHERWISE PROVIDE FOR DELIVERY OF THE SECURITIESBY SETTLEMENT DATE. THE FIRM EXECUTED FIVE SHORT SALE ORDERSIN CQS SECURITIES AND FAILED TO PROPERLY MARK THE ORDERS ASSHORT IN ITS TRADING LEDGER. ALSO, THE FIRM ON THREE OCCASIONSFAILED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THE TRANSACTION. THE FIRMINCORRECTLY STATED ITS CAPACITY AS AGENT ON THE CUSTOMERCONFIRMATIONS. IN ADDITION, THE FIRM FAILED ON ONE OCCASION TOSHOW THE TIME OF ORDER RECEIPT ON THE MEMORANDUM OF ITSBROKERAGE ORDERS AND FAILED ON ONE OCCASION TO SHOW THECORRECT VOLUME ON THE MEMORANDUM OF ITS BROKERAGE ORDERS.THE FIRM FAILED ON THREE OCCASIONS TO DOCUMENT THE NAME OFEACH DEALER IT CONTACTED AND THE QUOTATIONS RECEIVED TODETERMINE THE BEST INTER-DEALER MARKET. THE FIRM, REGISTEREDWITH NASD AS AN ITS/CAES MARKET MAKER, AS THE TERM IS DEFINED INNASD MARKETPLACE RULE 5210(E), IN EACH SECURITY IN WHICH IT MADEA MARKET IN ITS, FAILED IN 78 INSTANCES TO MAINTAIN CONTINUOUSTWO-SIDED QUOTATIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE GRANT OF ANEXCUSED WITHDRAWAL OR A FUNCTIONAL EXCUSED WITHDRAWAL BYTHE NASD. THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FORSUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITHRESPECT TO THE APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS AND REGULATIONS, ANDTHE RULES OF NASD, CONCERNING: (I) REGISTRATION QUALIFICATIONSOF FIRM PERSONNEL, (II) BEST EXECUTION, (III) ANTI-INTIMIDATION, (IV)SHORT SALES, AND (V) MAINTAINING CONTINUOUS TWO-SIDEDQUOTATIONS AS AN ITS/CAES MARKET MAKER.







Initiated By: NASD




Docket/Case Number: CMS040156



SEC RULES 10A-1, 10B-10, 17A-3 AND 17A-4 NASD CONDUCT RULES 21103110, 3010 AND 3370 NASD MARKETPLACE RULE 5220(E) - FAHNESTOCKEFFECTED TWO SHORT SALES IN CERTAIN SECURITIES FOR THE FIRM'SPROPRIETARY ACCOUNTS AND FAILED TO MAKE AND ANNOTATE ANAFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION THAT THE FIRM COULD BORROW THESECURITIES OR OTHERWISE PROVIDE FOR DELIVERY OF THE SECURITIESBY SETTLEMENT DATE. THE FIRM EXECUTED FIVE SHORT SALE ORDERSIN CQS SECURITIES AND FAILED TO PROPERLY MARK THE ORDERS ASSHORT IN ITS TRADING LEDGER. ALSO, THE FIRM ON THREE OCCASIONSFAILED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION DISCLOSING TO ITSCUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THE TRANSACTION. THE FIRMINCORRECTLY STATED ITS CAPACITY AS AGENT ON THE CUSTOMERCONFIRMATIONS. IN ADDITION, THE FIRM FAILED ON ONE OCCASION TOSHOW THE TIME OF ORDER RECEIPT ON THE MEMORANDUM OF ITSBROKERAGE ORDERS AND FAILED ON ONE OCCASION TO SHOW THECORRECT VOLUME ON THE MEMORANDUM OF ITS BROKERAGE ORDERS.THE FIRM FAILED ON THREE OCCASIONS TO DOCUMENT THE NAME OFEACH DEALER IT CONTACTED AND THE QUOTATIONS RECEIVED TODETERMINE THE BEST INTER-DEALER MARKET. THE FIRM, REGISTEREDWITH NASD AS AN ITS/CAES MARKET MAKER, AS THE TERM IS DEFINED INNASD MARKETPLACE RULE 5210(E), IN EACH SECURITY IN WHICH IT MADEA MARKET IN ITS, FAILED IN 78 INSTANCES TO MAINTAIN CONTINUOUSTWO-SIDED QUOTATIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE GRANT OF ANEXCUSED WITHDRAWAL OR A FUNCTIONAL EXCUSED WITHDRAWAL BYTHE NASD. THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FORSUPERVISION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITHRESPECT TO THE APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS AND REGULATIONS, ANDTHE RULES OF NASD, CONCERNING: (I) REGISTRATION QUALIFICATIONSOF FIRM PERSONNEL, (II) BEST EXECUTION, (III) ANTI-INTIMIDATION, (IV)SHORT SALES, AND (V) MAINTAINING CONTINUOUS TWO-SIDEDQUOTATIONS AS AN ITS/CAES MARKET MAKER.


Resolution:


No






https://www.finra.org/industry/disciplinary-actions/finra-disciplinary-actions-online?search=cms040156



Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, OPPENHEIMER &CO., INC. CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THEENTRY OF FINDINGS, THEREFORE THE FIRM IS CENSURED AND FINED$32,500.


No



Allegations: FAHNESTOCK EFFECTED TWO SHORT SALES IN CERTAIN SECURITIES FORTHE FIRM'S PROPRIETARY ACCOUNTS AND FAILED TO MAKE ANDANNOTATE AN AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION THAT THE FIRM COULDBORROW THE SECURITIES OR OTHERWISE PROVIDE FOR DELIVERY OFTHE SECURITIES BY SETTLEMENT DATE. THE FIRM EXECUTED FIVESHORT SALE ORDERS IN CQS SECURITIES AND FAILED TO PROPERLYMARK THE ORDERS AS SHORT IN ITS TRADING LEDGER. ALSO, THE FIRMON THREE OCCASIONS FAILED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATIONDISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THETRANSACTION. THE FIRM INCORRECTLY STATED ITS CAPACITY AS AGENTON THE CUSTOMER CONFIRMATIONS. IN ADDITION, THE FIRM FAILED ONONE OCCASION TO SHOW THE TIME OF ORDER RECEIPT ON THEMEMORANDUM OF ITS BROKERAGE ORDERS AND FAILED ON ONEOCCASION TO SHOW THE CORRECT VOLUME ON THE MEMORANDUM OFITS BROKERAGE ORDERS. THE FIRM FAILED ON THREE OCCASIONS TODOCUMENT THE NAME OF EACH DEALER IT CONTACTED AND THEQUOTATIONS RECEIVED TO DETERMINE THE BEST INTER-DEALERMARKET. THE FIRM, REGISTERED WITH NASD AS AN ITS/CAES MARKETMAKER, AS THE TERM IS DEFINED IN NASD MARKETPLACE RULE 5210(E),IN EACH SECURITY IN WHICH IT MADE A MARKET IN ITS, FAILED IN 78INSTANCES TO MAINTAIN CONTINUOUS TWO-SIDED QUOTATIONS IN THEABSENCE OF THE GRANT OF AN EXCUSED WITHDRAWAL OR AFUNCTIONAL EXCUSED WITHDRAWAL BY THE NASD. THE FIRM'SSUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FOR SUPERVISIONREASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TOTHE APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS AND REGULATIONS, AND THE RULESOF NASD, CONCERNING: (I) REGISTRATION QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRMPERSONNEL, (II) BEST EXECUTION, (III) ANTI-INTIMIDATION, (IV) SHORTSALES, AND (V) MAINTAINING CONTINUOUS TWO-SIDED QUOTATIONS ASAN ITS/CAES MARKET MAKER.







Initiated By: NASD


Censure






FAHNESTOCK EFFECTED TWO SHORT SALES IN CERTAIN SECURITIES FORTHE FIRM'S PROPRIETARY ACCOUNTS AND FAILED TO MAKE ANDANNOTATE AN AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION THAT THE FIRM COULDBORROW THE SECURITIES OR OTHERWISE PROVIDE FOR DELIVERY OFTHE SECURITIES BY SETTLEMENT DATE. THE FIRM EXECUTED FIVESHORT SALE ORDERS IN CQS SECURITIES AND FAILED TO PROPERLYMARK THE ORDERS AS SHORT IN ITS TRADING LEDGER. ALSO, THE FIRMON THREE OCCASIONS FAILED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATIONDISCLOSING TO ITS CUSTOMER ITS CORRECT CAPACITY IN THETRANSACTION. THE FIRM INCORRECTLY STATED ITS CAPACITY AS AGENTON THE CUSTOMER CONFIRMATIONS. IN ADDITION, THE FIRM FAILED ONONE OCCASION TO SHOW THE TIME OF ORDER RECEIPT ON THEMEMORANDUM OF ITS BROKERAGE ORDERS AND FAILED ON ONEOCCASION TO SHOW THE CORRECT VOLUME ON THE MEMORANDUM OFITS BROKERAGE ORDERS. THE FIRM FAILED ON THREE OCCASIONS TODOCUMENT THE NAME OF EACH DEALER IT CONTACTED AND THEQUOTATIONS RECEIVED TO DETERMINE THE BEST INTER-DEALERMARKET. THE FIRM, REGISTERED WITH NASD AS AN ITS/CAES MARKETMAKER, AS THE TERM IS DEFINED IN NASD MARKETPLACE RULE 5210(E),IN EACH SECURITY IN WHICH IT MADE A MARKET IN ITS, FAILED IN 78INSTANCES TO MAINTAIN CONTINUOUS TWO-SIDED QUOTATIONS IN THEABSENCE OF THE GRANT OF AN EXCUSED WITHDRAWAL OR AFUNCTIONAL EXCUSED WITHDRAWAL BY THE NASD. THE FIRM'SSUPERVISORY SYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE FOR SUPERVISIONREASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TOTHE APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS AND REGULATIONS, AND THE RULESOF NASD, CONCERNING: (I) REGISTRATION QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRMPERSONNEL, (II) BEST EXECUTION, (III) ANTI-INTIMIDATION, (IV) SHORTSALES, AND (V) MAINTAINING CONTINUOUS TWO-SIDED QUOTATIONS ASAN ITS/CAES MARKET MAKER.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: CENSURE AND FINE OF $32500.00 PAID.


Settled

Disclosure 61 of 92

i


Allegations: SEC RULE 17A-3, NASD RULES 3110, 3370, 6130(D), 6620(C)(2) -MEMBERFIRM EXECUTED ONE CUSTOMER SHORT SALE ORDER AND TWOPROPRIETARY SHORT SALE ORDER AND FAILED TO MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVEDETERMINATION PRIOR TO EXECUTING THE TRANSACTION; FAILED TOREPORT TO ACT THE CORRECT SYMBOL INDIATING WHETHER THREETRANSACTIONS IN ELIGIBLE SECURITIES WERE A BUY, SELL, SELL SHORT,SELL SHORT EXEMPT, OR CROSS; FAILED TO REPORT THE CORRECTNUMBER OF SHARES THROUGH ACT IN FOUR LAST SALE REPORTS OFTRANSACTIONS IN OTC EQUITY SECURITIES; FAILED TO SHOW THECORRECT TIME OF EXECUTION ON THE MEMORANDUM OF BROKERAGEORDERS; FAILED TO SHOW THE PRICE AND NUMBER OF SHARES OF EACHPARTIAL EXECUTION ON THE MEMORANDUM OF ONE BROKERAGEORDER; FAILED TO SHOW THE TIME OF ENTRY AND TERMS ANDCONDITIONS ON THE MEMORANDUM OF BROKERAGE ORDERS; FAILEDTO INDICATE WHETHER THE ORDER WAS LONG OR SHORT ON THEMEMORANDUM OF BROKERAGE ORDERS;






https://www.finra.org/industry/disciplinary-actions/finra-disciplinary-actions-online?search=cms040156


Initiated By: NASD







SEC RULE 17A-3, NASD RULES 3110, 3370, 6130(D), 6620(C)(2) -MEMBERFIRM EXECUTED ONE CUSTOMER SHORT SALE ORDER AND TWOPROPRIETARY SHORT SALE ORDER AND FAILED TO MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVEDETERMINATION PRIOR TO EXECUTING THE TRANSACTION; FAILED TOREPORT TO ACT THE CORRECT SYMBOL INDIATING WHETHER THREETRANSACTIONS IN ELIGIBLE SECURITIES WERE A BUY, SELL, SELL SHORT,SELL SHORT EXEMPT, OR CROSS; FAILED TO REPORT THE CORRECTNUMBER OF SHARES THROUGH ACT IN FOUR LAST SALE REPORTS OFTRANSACTIONS IN OTC EQUITY SECURITIES; FAILED TO SHOW THECORRECT TIME OF EXECUTION ON THE MEMORANDUM OF BROKERAGEORDERS; FAILED TO SHOW THE PRICE AND NUMBER OF SHARES OF EACHPARTIAL EXECUTION ON THE MEMORANDUM OF ONE BROKERAGEORDER; FAILED TO SHOW THE TIME OF ENTRY AND TERMS ANDCONDITIONS ON THE MEMORANDUM OF BROKERAGE ORDERS; FAILEDTO INDICATE WHETHER THE ORDER WAS LONG OR SHORT ON THEMEMORANDUM OF BROKERAGE ORDERS;


Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, THE FIRMCONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS, THEREFORE THE FIRM IS FINED $4,500 (C0MPOSED OF $1,000FINE FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION RULE VIOLATIONS AND$2,500 FOR THE TRANSACTION REPORTING VIOLATIONS, AND $1,000 FORTHE RECORDKEEPING RULE VIOLATIONS).


No




Allegations: THE FIRM, WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS,CONSENTED TO THE FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOLLOWINGRULES. NASD CONDUCT RULE 3370, NASD MARKETPLACE RULE 6130(D),NASD MARKETPLACE RULE 6620(C)(2). SEC RULE 17A-3 AND NASD RULE3110.







Initiated By: NASD


Other


AWC





THE FIRM, WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS,CONSENTED TO THE FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOLLOWINGRULES. NASD CONDUCT RULE 3370, NASD MARKETPLACE RULE 6130(D),NASD MARKETPLACE RULE 6620(C)(2). SEC RULE 17A-3 AND NASD RULE3110.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: A FINE OF $4,500 WAS PAID ON 1/16/04.



Disclosure 62 of 92

i


Initiated By: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC.





Other Product Type(s): UNKNOWN TYPE OF SECURITIES.

Allegations: NASD CONDUCT RULE 3320, NASD MARKETPLACE RULE 4613(B), AND SECRULE 11AC1-1 - RESPONDENT MEMBER ("FIRM") WAS A MARKET MAKER INSECURITIES, AND AN ORDER WAS PRESENTED TO THE FIRM AT THEFIRM'S PUBLISHED BID OR PUBLISHED OFFER IN AN AMOUNT UP TO ITSPUBLISHED QUOTATION SIZE. THE FIRM FAILED TO EXECUTE THE ORDERSUPON PRESENTMENT AND THEREBY FAILED TO HONOR ITS PUBLISHEDQUOTATION.










Resolution:


Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, RESPONDENTMEMBER CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THEENTRY OF FINDINGS; THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS FINED $5,000.






Other


AWC





Allegations: NASD CONDUCT RULE 3320 AND NASD MARKETPLACE RULE 4613(B), ANDSEC RULE 11AC1-1 RESPONDENT MEMBER ("FIRM") WAS A MARKETMAKER IN SECURITIES, AND AN ORDER WAS PRESENTED TO THE FIRM ATTHE FIRMS'S PUBLISHED BID OR PUBLISHED OFFER IN AN AMOUNT UP TOITS PUBLISHED QUOTATION SIZE. THE FIRM FAILED TO EXECUTE THEORDERS UPON PRESENTMENT AND THEREBY FAILED TO HONOR ITSPUBLISHED QUOTATION.



Resolution:










Sanction Details: A FINE OF $5000.00 HAS BEEN PAID ON 4/1/03.

Disclosure 63 of 92

i








Other Product Type(s): UNKNOWN TYPE OF SECURITIES.

Allegations: NASD RULES 2110 AND 2320 - WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THEALLEGATIONS, THE RESPONDENT FIRM CONSENTED TO THE ENTRY OFFINDINGS THAT IT FAILED, IN TRANSACTIONS FOR OR WITH A CUSTOMER,TO USE REASONABLE DILIGENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE BEST INTER-DEALERMARKET AND FAILED TO BUY OR SELL IN SUCH MARKET SO THAT THERESULTANT PRICE TO ITS CUSTOMER WAS AS FAVORABLE AS POSSIBLEUNDER PREVAILING MARKET CONDITIONS.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: A FINE OF $5,000 AND RESTITUTION TO THE CUSTOMERS IN THE TOTALAMOUNT OF $5,906.25, PLUS INTEREST AT THE RATE SET FORTH INSECTION 6621(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, FROM THE DATE OFTHE VIOLATIVE CONDUCT UNTIL THE DATE THIS AWC IS ACCEPTED BY THENAC. A REGISTERED PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRM SHALL SUBMITSATISFACTORY PROOF OF PAYMENT OF THE RESTITUTION, OR OFREASONABLE AND DOCUMENTED EFFORTS UNDERTAKEN TO EFFECTRESTITUTION, TO THE NASD MARKET REGULATION DEPARTMENT NOLATER THAN 120 DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AWC. IF FOR ANYREASON RESPONDENT FIRM CANNOT LOCATE ANY CUSTOMER AFTERREASONABLE AND DOCUMENTED EFFORTS WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, ORSUCH ADDITIONAL PERIOD AGREED BY THE NASD, THE RESPONDENTFIRM SHALL FORWARD ANY UNDISTRIBUTED RESTITUTION AND INTERESTTO THE APPROPRIATE ESCHEAT, UNCLAIMED PROPERTY, OR ABANDONEDPROPERTY FUND FOR THE STATE IN WHICH THE CUSTOMER IS LASTKNOWN TO HAVE RESIDED.








A FINE OF $5,000 AND RESTITUTION TO THE CUSTOMERS IN THE TOTALAMOUNT OF $5,906.25, PLUS INTEREST AT THE RATE SET FORTH INSECTION 6621(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, FROM THE DATE OFTHE VIOLATIVE CONDUCT UNTIL THE DATE THIS AWC IS ACCEPTED BY THENAC. A REGISTERED PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRM SHALL SUBMITSATISFACTORY PROOF OF PAYMENT OF THE RESTITUTION, OR OFREASONABLE AND DOCUMENTED EFFORTS UNDERTAKEN TO EFFECTRESTITUTION, TO THE NASD MARKET REGULATION DEPARTMENT NOLATER THAN 120 DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AWC. IF FOR ANYREASON RESPONDENT FIRM CANNOT LOCATE ANY CUSTOMER AFTERREASONABLE AND DOCUMENTED EFFORTS WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, ORSUCH ADDITIONAL PERIOD AGREED BY THE NASD, THE RESPONDENTFIRM SHALL FORWARD ANY UNDISTRIBUTED RESTITUTION AND INTERESTTO THE APPROPRIATE ESCHEAT, UNCLAIMED PROPERTY, OR ABANDONEDPROPERTY FUND FOR THE STATE IN WHICH THE CUSTOMER IS LASTKNOWN TO HAVE RESIDED.


Initiated By: NASD REGULATION, INC.


Restitution


FINED





Allegations: THE FIRM FAILED TO USE REASONABLE DILIGENCE TO ASCERTAIN THEBEST INTER-MARKET AND FAILED TO BUY OR SELL IN SUCH MARKET SOTHAT THE RESULT PRICE TO ITS CUSTOMER WAS AS FAVORABLE ASPOSSIBLE UNDER PREVAILING MARKET CONDITIONS.



Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: RESTITUTION

Sanction Details: RESTITUTION OF $5906.25 PLUS INTEREST AND A FINE OF $5000.00 PAID



Disclosure 64 of 92

i


Allegations: MSRB RULE G-36 - WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS,RESPONDENT MEMBER CONSENTED TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT ITACTED AS AN UNDERWRITER IN PRIMARY OFFERINGS OF MUNICIPALSECURITIES AND WAS REQUIRED TO FILE DOCUMENTS WITH THE MSRB INCONNECTION WITH THE OFFERINGS, FAILED TO TIMELY SUBMIT OFFICIALSTATEMENTS AND/OR OTHER DOCUMENTS TO THE MSRB AS REQUIREDBY MSRB RULE G-36.











Docket/Case Number: C10020009



Allegations: MSRB RULE G-36 - WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS,RESPONDENT MEMBER CONSENTED TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT ITACTED AS AN UNDERWRITER IN PRIMARY OFFERINGS OF MUNICIPALSECURITIES AND WAS REQUIRED TO FILE DOCUMENTS WITH THE MSRB INCONNECTION WITH THE OFFERINGS, FAILED TO TIMELY SUBMIT OFFICIALSTATEMENTS AND/OR OTHER DOCUMENTS TO THE MSRB AS REQUIREDBY MSRB RULE G-36.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: FINED $2,000




Initiated By: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION SECURITIES DEALERS, INC.



Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, FAHNESTOCK & CO.CONSENTED TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT ACTED AS ANUNDERWRITER IN PRIMARY OFFERINGS OF MUNICIPAL SECURITIES ANDWAS REQUIRED TO FILE DOCUMENTS WITH THE MSRB IN CONNECTIONWITH THE OFFERINGS, FAILED TO TIMELY SUBMIT OFFICAL STATEMENTSAND/OR OTHER DOCUMENTS TO THE MSRB AS REQUIRED BY MSRB RULEG-36.













Resolution:


Sanction Details: PAID FINE OF $2000.00

Firm Statement ON 1/29/02 THE FIRM WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE NASD HAD ACCEPTED ALETTER OF ACCEPTANCE (AWC) TO SETTLE FINDINGS THAT WE HADFAILED TO TIMELY SUBMIT OFFICAL STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO MSRBRULE G-36.



Disclosure 65 of 92

i







Allegations: SEC RULE 1AC1-4, NASD RULE 6130(D) - RESPONDENT MEMBER FAILEDTO DISPLAY IMMEDIATELY CUSTOMER LIMIT ORDERS IN NASDAQSECURITIES IN ITS PUBLIC QUOTATION, WHEN SUCH ORDER WAS AT APRICE THAT WOULD HAVE IMPROVED THE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER IN EACHSUCH SECURITY OR WHEN EACH SUCH ORDER WAS PRICED EQUAL TOITS BID OR OFFER AND THE NATIONAL BEST BID OR OFFER FOR EACHSUCH SECURITY, AND THE SIZE OF THE ORDER REPRESENTED MORETHAN A DE MINIMUS CHANGE IN RELATION TO THE SIZE ASSOCIATED WITHTHE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER IN EACH SUCH SECURITY; AND FAILED TOREPORT TO ACT THE CORRECT SYMBOL INDICATING WHETHER THE FIRMEXECUTED TRANSACTIONS IN ELIGIBLE SECURITIES IN A PRINCIPAL ORAGENCY CAPACITY.











Resolution:






Initiated By: NASD





Docket/Case Number: CMS000075AWC



Allegations: ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC RULE 11AC1-4 LIMIT ORDER DISPLAY ANDNASD MARKETPLACE RULE 6130 (D), ACT REPORTING.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: A FINE OF $4000.00 WAS PAID.

Firm Statement A LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE WAIVER AND CONSENT WAS ACCEPTED BYNASD REGULATION, INC'S OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY AFFAIRS AND THENATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL ON 6/7/00. A $4000.00 FINE WAS PAID.








A LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE WAIVER AND CONSENT WAS ACCEPTED BYNASD REGULATION, INC'S OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY AFFAIRS AND THENATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL ON 6/7/00. A $4000.00 FINE WAS PAID.

Disclosure 66 of 92

i


Initiated By: NYSE DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT



Allegations: **04/22/2003** STIPULATION AND CONSENT TO PENALTY FILED BY NYSEDIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT AND PENDING. CONSENTED TOFINDINGS/STIPULATED SANCTION: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYINGGUILT, FAHNESTOCK CONSENTS TO: A. FINDINGS BY THE HEARING PANELTHAT IT VIOLATED AND/OR CAUSED OR PERMITTED A VIOLATION OF: 1.EXCHANGE RULE 401, IN THAT IT DID NOT ADHERE AT ALL TIMES TO THEPRINCIPLES OF GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE, BY FAILING TO NOTIFY THEEXCHANGE IMMEDIATELY UPON DISCOVERY OF ANY EXISTING ORIMPENDING CONDITION WHICH IT REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE BELIEVEDCOULD LEAD TO OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS AND/OR IMPAIRMENT OFRECORDKEEPING, CLEARANCE OR CONTROL FUNCTIONS. 2. SECREGULATION § 240.17A-3, SEC REGULATION § 240.17A-4, AND EXCHANGERULE 440, IN THAT IT FAILED TO MAKE AND/OR KEEP CURRENT CERTAINBOOKS AND RECORDS, AND IT DID NOT PRESERVE OR COULD NOTLOCATE ONE OR MORE REQUIRED RECORDS. 3. SEC REGULATION §240.17A-11(D), IN THAT IT FAILED TO TIMELY GIVE REQUIRED NOTICE TOTHE SEC AND THE EXCHANGE THAT IT DID NOT MAKE OR KEEP CURRENTCERTAIN REQUIRED BOOKS AND RECORDS. 4. EXCHANGE RULE 440.10(1),IN THAT IT FAILED TO RECONCILE MUTUAL FUND POSITIONS IN A TIMELYMANNER BY COMPARISON OF ITS BOOKS AND RECORDS WITH POSITIONSTATEMENTS REQUIRED TO BE RECEIVED FROM OTHER ORGANIZATIONS,AND FAILED TO TIMELY RESOLVE POSITION DIFFERENCES. 5. EXCHANGERULE 440.10(3), SEC REGULATION § 240.15C3-1(C)(2)(IV), AND SECREGULATION § 240.17A-13(B)(5), IN THAT: (I) IT FAILED TO ENTER AGEDUNRESOLVED SECURITY POSITION DIFFERENCES INTO A DIFFERENCEACCOUNT; AND, (II) IT FAILED TO VALUE SHORT SECURITY POSITIONDIFFERENCES AS OF THE DATE OF A REQUIRED COMPUTATION OF NETCAPITAL. 6. SEC REGULATION § 240.15C3-1, IN THAT IT DID NOTACCURATELY PREPARE COMPUTATIONS OF NET CAPITAL, BY FAILING TOTAKE A DEDUCTION FOR THE VALUE OF AGED UNRESOLVED SHORTSECURITIES DIFFERENCES, AND BY TAKING DEDUCTIONS FOR SUCHDIFFERENCES USING INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT CURRENT AS OF THEDATE OF THE COMPUTATIONS. **CONTINUED IN #13**












Resolution:


Sanction Details: **06/13/2003** VIOLATED AND/OR CAUSED OR PERMITTED A VIOLATION OF:EXCHANGE RULE 401 BY FAILING TO NOTIFY THE EXCHANGEIMMEDIATELY UPON DISCOVERY OF A CONDITION WHICH IT REASONABLYSHOULD HAVE BELIEVED COULD LEAD TO OPERATIONAL PROBLEMSAND/OR IMPAIRMENT OF SPECIFIED FUNCTIONS; SEC REGULATION§240.17A-3, SEC REGULATION §240.17A-4, AND EXCHANGE RULE 440, INTHAT IT FAILED TO MAKE AND/OR KEEP CURRENT CERTAIN BOOKS ANDRECORDS, AND DID NOT PRESERVE OR COULD NOT LOCATE REQUIREDRECORDS; SEC REGULATION §240.17A-11(D), IN THAT IT FAILED TO TIMELYGIVE REQUIRED NOTICE TO THE SEC AND THE EXCHANGE THAT IT DIDNOT MAKE OR KEEP CURRENT CERTAIN REQUIRED BOOKS ANDRECORDS; EXCHANGE RULE 440.10(1), IN THAT IT FAILED TO RECONCILEMUTUAL FUNDS POSITIONS IN A TIMELY MANNER AND IT FAILED TO TIMELYRESOLVE POSITION DIFFERENCES; EXCHANGE RULE 440.10(3), SECREGULATION §240.15C3-1(C)(2)(IV), AND SEC REGULATION §240.17A-13(B)(5), IN THAT IT FAILED TO: (I) ENTER AGED UNRESOLVED SECURITYPOSITIONS DIFFERENCES INTO A DIFFERENCE ACCOUNT, AND (II) VALUESHORT SECURITY POSITION DIFFERENCE AS OF THE DATE OF AREQUIRED COMPUTATION OF NET CAPITAL; SEC REGULATION §240.15C3-1, IN THAT IT DID NOT ACCURATELY PREPARE COMPUTATIONS OF NETCAPITAL; BY FAILING TO TAKE A DEDUCTION FOR THE VALUE OF AGEDUNRESOLVED SHORT SECURITIES DIFFERENCES, AND BY TAKINGDEDUCTIONS FOR SUCH DIFFERENCES USING INFORMATION THAT WASNOT CURRENT AS OF THE DATE OF THE COMPUTATIONS; SECREGULATION §240.17A-5 AND EXCHANGE RULE 476(A)(10), IN THAT IT FILEDINACCURATE FOCUS REPORTS WITH THE EXCHANGE; SEC REGULATION§240.15C3-3(B)(1), (E) AND (H), IN THAT IT FAILED TO: (I) OBTAIN AND/ORMAINTAIN THE PHYSICAL POSITION OR CONTROL OF FULLY-PAIDSECURITIES OR EXCESS MARGIN SECURITIES CARRIED BY IT FORACCOUNTS OF CUSTOMERS; (II) **CONTINUED IN #13**

Regulator Statement ACCURATELY COMPUTE THE AMOUNT OF CASH OR QUALIFIEDSECURITIES REQUIRED TO BE ON DEPOSIT IN ITS SPECIAL RESERVEBANK ACCOUNT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF CUSTOMERS; AND (III)BUY IN UNRESOLVED SHORT SECURITY DIFFERENCES WITHIN THEREQUIRED TIME PERIOD; EXCHANGE RULE 412, IN THAT IT DID NOTOBTAIN AN EXEMPTION FROM THE EXCHANGE CONCERNING THEDELIVERY OF MUTUAL FUND ASSETS OUTSIDE THE ESTABLISHEDSYSTEM; EXCHANGE RULE 342, IN THAT IT FAILED TO SUPERVISE ANDCONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES OFSUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, INCLUDINGITS MUTUAL FUND CLEARANCE ACTIVITIES, ITS FINANCIAL REGULATORYREPORTING ACTIVITIES, AND ITS COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORYNOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS - CONSENT TO CENSURE, $500,000 FINEAND A REQUIREMENT TO COMPLY WITH TWO UNDERTAKINGS.**07/11/2003** THE DECISION IS NOW FINAL AND IS EFFECTIVEIMMEDIATELY. CONTACT: PEGGY GERMINO (212) 656-8450.


Decision






Regulator Statement ACCURATELY COMPUTE THE AMOUNT OF CASH OR QUALIFIEDSECURITIES REQUIRED TO BE ON DEPOSIT IN ITS SPECIAL RESERVEBANK ACCOUNT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF CUSTOMERS; AND (III)BUY IN UNRESOLVED SHORT SECURITY DIFFERENCES WITHIN THEREQUIRED TIME PERIOD; EXCHANGE RULE 412, IN THAT IT DID NOTOBTAIN AN EXEMPTION FROM THE EXCHANGE CONCERNING THEDELIVERY OF MUTUAL FUND ASSETS OUTSIDE THE ESTABLISHEDSYSTEM; EXCHANGE RULE 342, IN THAT IT FAILED TO SUPERVISE ANDCONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES OFSUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, INCLUDINGITS MUTUAL FUND CLEARANCE ACTIVITIES, ITS FINANCIAL REGULATORYREPORTING ACTIVITIES, AND ITS COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORYNOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS - CONSENT TO CENSURE, $500,000 FINEAND A REQUIREMENT TO COMPLY WITH TWO UNDERTAKINGS.**07/11/2003** THE DECISION IS NOW FINAL AND IS EFFECTIVEIMMEDIATELY. CONTACT: PEGGY GERMINO (212) 656-8450.


Initiated By: NYSE DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT


Other


STIPULATION AND CONSENT





Allegations: FAHNESTOCK & CO. INC. HAS BEEN CHARGED BY THE NYSE FORMATTERS PRIMARILY CONCERNING NET CAPITAL CALCULATIONS RELATEDTO INCOMPLETE RECEIPT OF MUTUAL FUND DATA IN CONNECTION WITHTHE FIRM'S ACQUISITION OF ANOTHER BROKER/DEALER. AT NO TIMEWAS THERE A DEFICIENCY IN EITHER THE FIRM'S BOOKS AND RECORDSOR NET CAPITAL.



Resolution:









Sanction Details: CONSENT TO CENSURE, $500,000.00 FINE AND A REQUIREMENT TOCOMPLY WITH TWO UNDERTAKINGS.


Disclosure 67 of 92

i










Allegations: NASD RULE 4613(E)- RESPONDENT MEMBER, A MARKET MAKER INSECURITIES, WITHOUT MAKING REASONABLE EFFORTS TO AVOID ALOCKED MARKET BY EXECUTING TRANSACTIONS WITH ALL MARKETMAKERS WHOSE QUOTATIONS WOULD BE LOCKED, ENTERED A BID ORASK QUOTATION IN THE NASDAQ STOCK MARKET WHICH CAUSED ALOCKED MARKET CONDITION TO OCCUR IN EACH INSTANCE.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: FINED $3,000.




Allegations: ALLEGED VIOLATION OF NASD MARKETPLACE RULE 4613(E) CAUSED ALOCKED OR CROSSED MARKED CONDITION.







Initiated By: NASD





Docket/Case Number: CMS-000063AWC



Allegations: ALLEGED VIOLATION OF NASD MARKETPLACE RULE 4613(E) CAUSED ALOCKED OR CROSSED MARKED CONDITION.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: ON 4/26/00 A FINE OF $3000.00 WAS PAID.

Firm Statement A LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE WAIVER AND CONSENT WAS ACCEPTED BYNASD REGULATION, INC'S. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY AFFAIRS AND THENATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL ON 3/31/00. A $3000.00 FINE WAS PAID.



Disclosure 68 of 92

i






Allegations: MSRB RULES G-8 AND G-36 - RESPONDENT MEMBER SERVED AS SOLE ORMANAGING UNDERWRITER IN PRIMARY OFFERINGS OF MUNICIPALSECURITIES AND FAILED TO SUBMIT OFFICIAL STATEMENTS AND/OROTHER DOCUMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKINGBOARD AS REQUIRED; AND FAILED TO SEND DOCUMENTS BY CERTIFIEDOR REGISTERED MAIL, OR SOME OTHER PROMPT MEANS TO THE MSRBAND FAILED TO MAINTAIN THESE RECORDS AS REQUIRED.












Resolution:






Initiated By: NASD








Allegations: ALLEGED VIOLATION OF MSRB RULES G36 AND G8(A)(XV). THE TIMELYSUBMISSION OF OFFICAL STATEMENTS.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: ON 4/19/00 A FINE OF $2500.00 WAS PAID.

Firm Statement A LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE WAIVER AND CONSENT WAS ACCEPTED BYNASD, REGULATION INC'S. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY AFFAIRS AND THENATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL ON 4/4/00. A FINE OF $2500.00 WASPAID.








Firm Statement A LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE WAIVER AND CONSENT WAS ACCEPTED BYNASD, REGULATION INC'S. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY AFFAIRS AND THENATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL ON 4/4/00. A FINE OF $2500.00 WASPAID.

Disclosure 69 of 92

i










Allegations: BASED UPON CBOE'S FINDING OF FACTS: ON AUGUST 13,1986 VINERFAILED TO SUBMIT TO THE EXCHANGE ON BEHALF OF ONE OF ITS NON-MEMBER CUSTOMERS A CBOE EXCERCISE ADVICE FORM. AND VINERFAILED TO TIME STAMP THE INTERNAL EXCERCISE NOTICE IT PREPAREDFOR 400 S&P 100, AUG 220 CALL OPTION CONTRACTS.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: THE COMMITTEE ACCEPTED VINER'S OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN WHICH ITNEITHER ADMITS OR DENIES THE VIOLATIONS ALLEGED. THE COMMITTEEBELIEVED IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ACCEPT VINER'S OFFER OF SETTLEMENTWHEREIN VINER WAS FINED $500.00

Sanctions Ordered: Monetary/Fine $500.00

Settled

Disclosure 70 of 92

i


Allegations: SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES OF FAIR PRACTICE IN TWOSEPARATE CAUSES AND VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE III SECTION I AND "FREERIDING" AND "WITHHOLDING" INTERPRETATION.







Initiated By: NASD DISTRICT BUSINESS CONDUCT COMMITTEE (DISTRICT 12)





Docket/Case Number: NY-1880



Allegations: SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES OF FAIR PRACTICE IN TWOSEPARATE CAUSES AND VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE III SECTION I AND "FREERIDING" AND "WITHHOLDING" INTERPRETATION.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: THE COMMITTEE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. BLANK.

Sanctions Ordered:

Settled

Disclosure 71 of 92

i


Allegations: NASD RULES 2110, 2320, 3010 AND SEC RULES 10B-10 AND 11AC1-4 -RESPONDENT MEMBER FAILED TO CONTEMPORANEOUSLY EXECUTE ORPARTIALLY EXECUTE A CUSTOMER LIMIT ORDER AFTER TRADING IN THESAME SECURITY FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT AT PRICES THAT WOULD HAVESATISFIED THE CUSTOMER LIMIT ORDER; FAILED TO USE REASONABLEDILIGENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE BEST INTER-DEALER MARKET FOR THEFIRM THAT THE RESULTANT PRICE TO ITS CUSTOMERS WAS ASFAVORABLE AS POSSIBLE UNDER PREVAILING MARKET CONDITIONS;PREPARED A CUSTOMER CONFIRMATION THAT FAILED TO DISCLOSE THATTHE PRICE FOR THE SECURITY WAS AN AVERAGE PRICE. THE "REPORTEDPRICE" ON THE CONFIRMATION WAS NOT REPORTED TO NASDAQ, BUTWAS RATHER AN AVERAGE PRICE OF SEVERAL TRANSACTIONS EACH OFWHICH WAS REPORTED TO NASDAQ SEPARATELY; FAILED TO DISCLOSETHAT IT WAS ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF A MARKET MAKER; FAILED TODISPLAY IMMEDIATELY CUSTOMER LIMIT ORDERS IN WHEN EACH SUCHORDER WAS AT A PRICE THAT WOULD HAVE IMPROVED ITS BID OR OFFERIN EACH SUCH SECURITY, OR WHEN THE FULL SIZE OF EACH SUCHORDER WAS PRICED EQUAL TO THE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER AND THENATIONAL BEST BID OR OFFER FOR EACH SUCH SECURITY, ANDREPRESENTED MORE THAN A DE MINIMIS CHARGE IN RELATION TO THESIZE ASSOCIATED WITH ITS BID OR OFFER IN EACH SUCH SECURITY; AND,FAILED TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND ENFORCE ADEQUATE WRITTENSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVECOMPLIANCE WITH REGARD TO ANNUAL REVIEWS, MARK UPS AND MARKDOWN, REGISTRATION OF TRADING PERSONNEL, SOES ORDERELIGIBILITY, AND HARASSMENT.







Initiated By: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS







NASD RULES 2110, 2320, 3010 AND SEC RULES 10B-10 AND 11AC1-4 -RESPONDENT MEMBER FAILED TO CONTEMPORANEOUSLY EXECUTE ORPARTIALLY EXECUTE A CUSTOMER LIMIT ORDER AFTER TRADING IN THESAME SECURITY FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT AT PRICES THAT WOULD HAVESATISFIED THE CUSTOMER LIMIT ORDER; FAILED TO USE REASONABLEDILIGENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE BEST INTER-DEALER MARKET FOR THEFIRM THAT THE RESULTANT PRICE TO ITS CUSTOMERS WAS ASFAVORABLE AS POSSIBLE UNDER PREVAILING MARKET CONDITIONS;PREPARED A CUSTOMER CONFIRMATION THAT FAILED TO DISCLOSE THATTHE PRICE FOR THE SECURITY WAS AN AVERAGE PRICE. THE "REPORTEDPRICE" ON THE CONFIRMATION WAS NOT REPORTED TO NASDAQ, BUTWAS RATHER AN AVERAGE PRICE OF SEVERAL TRANSACTIONS EACH OFWHICH WAS REPORTED TO NASDAQ SEPARATELY; FAILED TO DISCLOSETHAT IT WAS ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF A MARKET MAKER; FAILED TODISPLAY IMMEDIATELY CUSTOMER LIMIT ORDERS IN WHEN EACH SUCHORDER WAS AT A PRICE THAT WOULD HAVE IMPROVED ITS BID OR OFFERIN EACH SUCH SECURITY, OR WHEN THE FULL SIZE OF EACH SUCHORDER WAS PRICED EQUAL TO THE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER AND THENATIONAL BEST BID OR OFFER FOR EACH SUCH SECURITY, ANDREPRESENTED MORE THAN A DE MINIMIS CHARGE IN RELATION TO THESIZE ASSOCIATED WITH ITS BID OR OFFER IN EACH SUCH SECURITY; AND,FAILED TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND ENFORCE ADEQUATE WRITTENSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVECOMPLIANCE WITH REGARD TO ANNUAL REVIEWS, MARK UPS AND MARKDOWN, REGISTRATION OF TRADING PERSONNEL, SOES ORDERELIGIBILITY, AND HARASSMENT.


Resolution:


Sanction Details: NONE




Initiated By: NASD


Docket/Case Number:

Allegations: ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF NASD CONDUCT RULE 2110 & IM-2110-2, NASDCONDUCT RULE 2320, SEC RULE 10B-10, 11AC1-4 LIMIT ORDERPROTECTION BEST EXECUTION, ORDER HANDLING & DEFICIENT WRITTENSUPERVISORY PROCEDURES.










CENSURE

Docket/Case Number:




Resolution:


Sanction Details: ON 10/29/99 THE FIRM WAS CENSURED AND A $14000.00 FINE WAS PAID.

Firm Statement A LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE WAIVER AND CONSENT WAS EXCEPTED BYNASD REGULATION, INC'S OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY AFFAIRS AND THENATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL ON 10/29/99 THE FIRM WASCENSURED AND A $14000.00 FINE WAS PAID.



Disclosure 72 of 92

i


Initiated By: KANSAS SECURITIES COMMISSIONER




Docket/Case Number: 97-3312/98E162


Principal Product Type:


Allegations: ON 2/2/98, A NOTICE OF INTENT TO INVOKEADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS WAS FILED. THE TYPES OF ALLEGEDVIOLATIONS WERE FAILURE TO SUPERVISE, UNAUTHORIZEDTRANSACTIONS, AND MISREPRESENTATIONS.









Resolution:


Sanction Details: ON 1/26/99, A STIPULATION FOR CONSENT ORDER WASSIGNED. THIS STIPULATION OFFERED A TOTAL OF $15,600 TO THREECUSTOMERS OF FORMER AGENT STEVE WAGES. A CONSENT ORDER WASISSUED 1/29/99 WHICH CENSURED AND FINED FAHNESTOCK $10,000.

Regulator Statement CONTACT: DAVE RUHNKE; 785-296-3307


Consent


Initiated By: KANSAS SECURITIES COMMISSIONER


Censure



Docket/Case Number: 97-3312/98E162



Allegations: ON 2/2/98 A NOTICE OF INTENT TO INVOKE ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONSWAS FILED. ALLEGATIONS OF A VIOLATION OF FAILURE TO SUPERVISE,UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTIONS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: ON 1/26/99 A STIPULATION FOR CONSENT ORDER WAS SIGNED. THISSTIPULATION OF $15,600. TO THREE CUSTOMERS OF FORMER AGENTSTEVE WAGES. A CONSENT ORDER WAS ISSUED ON 1/29/99 WHICHCENSURED AND FINED THE FIRM $10,000


Consent






Sanction Details: ON 1/26/99 A STIPULATION FOR CONSENT ORDER WAS SIGNED. THISSTIPULATION OF $15,600. TO THREE CUSTOMERS OF FORMER AGENTSTEVE WAGES. A CONSENT ORDER WAS ISSUED ON 1/29/99 WHICHCENSURED AND FINED THE FIRM $10,000

Disclosure 73 of 92

i


Initiated By: GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE SECURITIESDIVISION








Allegations: FAHNSTOCK FAILED TO SUPERVISE THEIR SALESMANALLOWING THEM TO SELL SECURITIES BEFORE THEY BECAMEREGISTERED



Resolution:


Sanction Details: Not Provided

Regulator Statement FAHNSTOCK & CON., INC. ALLOWED THEIR SALESMAN TOOFFER FOR SALE AND SELLS SECURITIES TO RESIDENTS OF THE STATEOF GEORGIA PRIOR TO BECOMING REGISTERED WITH THECOMMISSIONEROF SECURITIES.

Sanctions Ordered: Cease and Desist/Injunction

Order







Initiated By: GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE , SECURITIES DIVISION





Docket/Case Number: 50-92-05-05



Allegations: FAILURE TO SUPERVISE



Resolution:


Sanction Details: CEAST AND DESIST DECISION.

Sanctions Ordered: Cease and Desist/Injunction

Settled

Disclosure 74 of 92

i










Allegations: (MSRB RULE G-37 - RESPONDENT MEMBER FAILED TO DISCLOSE ONFORMS G-37 NEGOTIATED UNDERWRITINGS IN WHICH IT PARTICIPATED ASA SYNDICATE MEMBER; AND, FAILED TO TIMELY SUBMIT FORMS G-37).









Resolution:


Sanction Details: ON JUNE 18, 1998, DISTRICT NO. 10 NOTIFIED RESPONDENTFAHNESTOCK & CO., INC. THAT THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVERAND CONSENT NO. C10970151 WAS ACCEPTED; THEREFORE,RESPONDENT MEMBER IS CENSURED AND FINED $500 -

Sanctions Ordered: CensureMonetary/Fine $500.00





Censure


FINE





Allegations: MSRB RULE G-37, THE FIRM FAILED TO DISCLOSE ON FORMS G-37NEGOTIATED UNDERWRITINGS IN WHICH IT PARTICIPATED AS ASYNDICATE MEMBER; AND FAILED TO TIMELY SUBMIT FORMS G-37.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: CENSURE AND FINE OF $500.00 WAS PAID ON 7/20/98.

Sanctions Ordered: CensureMonetary/Fine $500.00

Consent






Disclosure 75 of 92

i


Initiated By: Not Provided




Docket/Case Number: HPD 98-48



Allegations: Not Provided



Resolution:



Regulator Statement *6/26/98*THE DECISION IS FINAL AND EFFECTIVEIMMEDIATELY. CONTACT: PEGGY GERMINO (212) 656-8450




Initiated By: DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT, NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE




Allegations: VARIOUS DEFIENCIES IN ADHERANCE TO RULES AND REGULATIONARISING OUT OF ROUTINE SALES PRACTICE AND OPERATIONSEXAMINATIONS













Resolution:


Sanction Details: IN MAY, 1998 THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. (THE "EXCHANGE")ACCEPTED A STIPULATION OF FACTS AND CONSENT TO PENALTYENTERED INTO WITH THE FIRM WITHOUT ITS ADMITTING OR DENYINGVIOLATION OF CERTAIN NYSE RULES AND SEC REGULATIONS. THE FIRMAGREED TO A FINE OF $100,000 AND AN UNDERTAKING TO RETAIN ACONSULTANT TO REVIEW CERTAIN OF THE FIRM'S SYSTEMS, POLICIESAND PROCEDURES.


Settled

Disclosure 76 of 92

i









Allegations:



Resolution:









Sanction Details:

Regulator Statement LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER & CONSENT NO. CMS960202 AWC. ONAPRIL 23, 1997, FAHNESTOCK & CO., INC. (FAHN) WAS NOTIFIED THATTHE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER & CONSENT (AWC) IT SUBMITTEDWAS ACCEPTED BY THE MARKET REGULATION AND THE NATIONALBUSINESSCONDUCT COMMITTEES. FAHN IS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATEDMARKETPLACE RULE 4613(e) FOR ENTERING OR MAINTAININGQUOTATIONSIN THE NASDAQ STOCK MARKET, DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS,WHICHCAUSED A LOCKED MARKET CONDITION TO OCCUR IN THREESECURITIES.FAHN IS HEREBY FINED $2,000.

***$2,000.00 PAID ON 6/2/97, INVOICE #97-MS-434***



Initiated By: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITES DEALERS, INC.


Other


FINED





Allegations: AN AWC WAS RECEIVED ON 4/23/1997, ALLEGING THAT THE FIRMVIOLATED RULE 4613(E) FOR ENTERING OR MAINTAINING QUOTATIONS INTHE NASDAQ STOCK MARKET DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS WHICHCAUSED A LOCKED MARKET CONDITION TO OCCUR IN THREESECURITIES.











Sanction Details: A FINE OF 2000.00 WAS PAID ON 6/2/97.


Disclosure 77 of 92

i










Allegations: FAHN IS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED SEC RULE 17A-3 AND NASDCONDUCT RULE 3010. FAHN RECORDED AN INACCURATE EXECUTIONTIME ON ORDER TICKETS FOR 215 TRANSACTIONS AND FAILED TOCREATE RECORDS SHOWING THE ENTRY OF TWO ORDERS. IN ADDITION,FAHN FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN WRITTEN SUPERVISORYPROCEDURES DESIGNED TO DETECT AND DETERTRADE REPORTING FUNCTIONS.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER AND CONSENT NO. CMS960226 AWC.ON APRIL 23, 1997, FAHNESTOCK & COMPANY, INC. (FAHN) WAS NOTIFIEDTHAT THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER AND CONSENT (AWC) ITSUBMITTED WAS ACCEPTED BY THE MARKET REGULATION AND THENATIONAL BUSINESS CONDUCT COMMITTEES. FAHN IS HEREBY FINED$10,000.











Other


FINED





Allegations: AWC RECEIVED ON 4/23/97 BY THE MARKET REGULATION AND THENATIONAL BUSINESS CONDUCT COMMITTEES. IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THEFIRM HAD VIOLATED SEC RULE 17A-3 AND NASD CONDUCT RULE 3010. ANINACCURATE EXECUTION TIME ON ORDER WAS RECORDED.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: FINE OF $10,000 WAS PAID ON 6/6/97.



Disclosure 78 of 92

i




Docket/Case Number: REL. 34-43054; FILE #3-9122

Allegations: THE COMMISSION ALLEGED THAT FROM FEBRUARY 1993 THROUGH MAY1994 FAHNESTOCK & CO., INC. ("FAHNESTOCK") FAILED REASONABLY TOSUPERVISE A FORMER REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE WHOMISAPPROPRIATED MORE THAN $260,000 FROM THE BROKERAGEACCOUNTS OF TWO FORMER FAHNESTOCK CUSTOMERS.








Cease and Desist


(1) CENSURE; AND (2) A CIVIL PENALTY.

Docket/Case Number: REL. 34-43054; FILE #3-9122




Resolution:

Other Sanctions Ordered: ORDERS FAHNESTOCK TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN UNDERTAKINGS,INCLUDING REVISING ITS INTERNAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURESREGARDING THE DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM CUSTOMERS'ACCOUNTS AND CONDUCTING ADDITIONAL IN-HOUSE SEMINARS ONPROPER COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES.

Sanction Details: (1) CENSURES FAHNESTOCK FOR ITS FAILURE TO REASONABLYSUPERVISE A FORMER REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE; (2) CEASE ANDDESIST FROM COMMITTING OR CAUSING ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OFSECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND RULE17A-3 THEREUNDER; AND (3) ORDERS FAHNESTOCK TO PAY A $20,000PENALTY.

Regulator Statement 10-02-96, SEC NEWS DIGEST ISSUE NO. 96-187, DATED 10/01/1996, ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS DISCLOSE: THE SEC HASINSTITUTED PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESISTPROCEEDINGS AGAINST FAHNESTOCK AND CO., INC. (FAHNESTOCK), AREGISTERED BROKER-DEALER PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15(B), 19(H) AND21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934. THE SEC'S ORDERALLEGES THAT FAHNESTOCK FAILED TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE AREGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE FORMERLY ASSOCIATED WITH THEJENKINTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA BRANCH OFFICE. THE ORDER ALSOALLEGES THAT FAHNESTOCK WILLFULLY VIOLATED THE RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT ANDRULES 17A-3 AND 17A-4 THEREUNDER. ** +07/24/2000+ SEC NEWS DIGEST,ISSUE NO. 2000-138, DATED 07/20/2000, ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGSDISCLOSES: THE SEC ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT REGISTERED BROKER-DEALER FAHNESTOCK & CO., INC. ("FAHNESTOCK") SETTLED ANADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY THE SEC ON SEPTEMBER30, 1996. IN SETTLEMENT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, FAHNESTOCK HASCONSENTED TO AN ORDER THAT CENSURES FAHNESTOCK FOR ITSFAILURE TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE A FORMER REGISTEREDREPRESENTATIVE, CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING OR CAUSINGANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECURITIES LAWS, ORDERS TO PAY A$20,000 PENALTY, AND ORDERS FAHNESTOCK TO COMPLY WITH CERTAINUNDERTAKINGS. THE ORDER ALSO RECOGNIZES CERTAINUNDERTAKINGS THAT FAHNESTOCK HAS ALREADY IMPLEMENTED TOPREVENT FUTURE VIOLATIONS, SUCH AS ASSIGNING A NEW COMPLIANCEMANAGER TO CONDUCT AN EXAMINATION OF FAHNESTOCK'SJENKINTOWN BRANCH OFFICE AND CONDUCTING REFRESHER TRAININGWITH EMPLOYEES ON SUPERVISORY AND COMPLIANCE PROCEDURESREGARDING THE DISBURSEMENT OF CUSTOMER FUNDS. (REL. 34-43054;FILE #3-9122)


Consent






10-02-96, SEC NEWS DIGEST ISSUE NO. 96-187, DATED 10/01/1996, ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS DISCLOSE: THE SEC HASINSTITUTED PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESISTPROCEEDINGS AGAINST FAHNESTOCK AND CO., INC. (FAHNESTOCK), AREGISTERED BROKER-DEALER PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15(B), 19(H) AND21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934. THE SEC'S ORDERALLEGES THAT FAHNESTOCK FAILED TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE AREGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE FORMERLY ASSOCIATED WITH THEJENKINTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA BRANCH OFFICE. THE ORDER ALSOALLEGES THAT FAHNESTOCK WILLFULLY VIOLATED THE RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT ANDRULES 17A-3 AND 17A-4 THEREUNDER. ** +07/24/2000+ SEC NEWS DIGEST,ISSUE NO. 2000-138, DATED 07/20/2000, ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGSDISCLOSES: THE SEC ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT REGISTERED BROKER-DEALER FAHNESTOCK & CO., INC. ("FAHNESTOCK") SETTLED ANADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY THE SEC ON SEPTEMBER30, 1996. IN SETTLEMENT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, FAHNESTOCK HASCONSENTED TO AN ORDER THAT CENSURES FAHNESTOCK FOR ITSFAILURE TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE A FORMER REGISTEREDREPRESENTATIVE, CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING OR CAUSINGANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECURITIES LAWS, ORDERS TO PAY A$20,000 PENALTY, AND ORDERS FAHNESTOCK TO COMPLY WITH CERTAINUNDERTAKINGS. THE ORDER ALSO RECOGNIZES CERTAINUNDERTAKINGS THAT FAHNESTOCK HAS ALREADY IMPLEMENTED TOPREVENT FUTURE VIOLATIONS, SUCH AS ASSIGNING A NEW COMPLIANCEMANAGER TO CONDUCT AN EXAMINATION OF FAHNESTOCK'SJENKINTOWN BRANCH OFFICE AND CONDUCTING REFRESHER TRAININGWITH EMPLOYEES ON SUPERVISORY AND COMPLIANCE PROCEDURESREGARDING THE DISBURSEMENT OF CUSTOMER FUNDS. (REL. 34-43054;FILE #3-9122)




Cease and Desist


CENSURE, FINE





Allegations: FIRM HAD INSUFFICIENT PROCEEDINGS IN PLACE WITH A VIEW TOWARDSPREVENTING WENDELL JEFFREY LEE'S FORGERY'S ANDMISAPPROPRIATION OF CUSTOMERS FUNDS.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: FIRM RESPONSIBLE FOR FULL AMOUNT OF FINE.

Firm Statement WENDELL JEFFREY LEE, A REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE WITH BROKER-DEALER FROM JULY 1992 THROUGH MAY 1994, WAS CONVICTED OFFORGERY AND MISAPPROPRIATION OF CUSTOMER FUNDS. FAHNESTOCKVOLUNTARILY MADE FULL RESTITUTION TO ANY CLIENT AFFECTED.FAHNESTOCK WAS FOUND BY THE SEC TO HAVE FAILED TO REASONABLYSUPERVISE LEE, WITH A VIEW TO PREVENTING LEE'S VIOLATIONS.FAHNESTOCK AGREED, WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING TO A CENSURE,A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AND A FINE BY THE SEC OF $20,000.FAHNESTOCK FURTHER AGREED TO TAKE REMEDIAL STEPS TO SHORE UPITS PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO AVOID A SIMILAR OCCURANCE.








Firm Statement WENDELL JEFFREY LEE, A REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE WITH BROKER-DEALER FROM JULY 1992 THROUGH MAY 1994, WAS CONVICTED OFFORGERY AND MISAPPROPRIATION OF CUSTOMER FUNDS. FAHNESTOCKVOLUNTARILY MADE FULL RESTITUTION TO ANY CLIENT AFFECTED.FAHNESTOCK WAS FOUND BY THE SEC TO HAVE FAILED TO REASONABLYSUPERVISE LEE, WITH A VIEW TO PREVENTING LEE'S VIOLATIONS.FAHNESTOCK AGREED, WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING TO A CENSURE,A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AND A FINE BY THE SEC OF $20,000.FAHNESTOCK FURTHER AGREED TO TAKE REMEDIAL STEPS TO SHORE UPITS PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO AVOID A SIMILAR OCCURANCE.

Disclosure 79 of 92

i






Docket/Case Number: CMS-940036



Allegations:



Resolution:


Sanction Details:

Regulator Statement MARKET SURVEILLANCE COMMITTEE COMPLAINT #CMS940036 AWC

LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER AND CONSENT (AWC) ALLEGESVIOLATIONS OF SECTION c)2(D) OF THE RULES OF PRACTICE ANDPROCEDURE FOR SOES IN THAT THE RESPONDENTS ENTERED ORDERSON ANAGENCY BASIS INTO SOES FOR SECURITIES IN WHICH THEY WEREREGISTERED MARKET MAKERS. THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON 4/28/94AND ACCEPTED BY THE NBCC ON 8/29/94, WHEREBY FAHNESTOCK & CO.,INC WAS FINED $800. THE AWC BECAME FINAL ON AUGUST 29, 1994.

***$800 PAID ON 9/20/94 INVOICE #94-MS-576***








MARKET SURVEILLANCE COMMITTEE COMPLAINT #CMS940036 AWC

LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER AND CONSENT (AWC) ALLEGESVIOLATIONS OF SECTION c)2(D) OF THE RULES OF PRACTICE ANDPROCEDURE FOR SOES IN THAT THE RESPONDENTS ENTERED ORDERSON ANAGENCY BASIS INTO SOES FOR SECURITIES IN WHICH THEY WEREREGISTERED MARKET MAKERS. THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON 4/28/94AND ACCEPTED BY THE NBCC ON 8/29/94, WHEREBY FAHNESTOCK & CO.,INC WAS FINED $800. THE AWC BECAME FINAL ON AUGUST 29, 1994.

***$800 PAID ON 9/20/94 INVOICE #94-MS-576***




Other


FINE





Allegations: AWC LETTER ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF SECTION C)2(D) OF THE RULES OFPRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR SOES IN THAT THE FIRM ENTEREDORDERS ON AN AGENCY BASIS INTO SOES FOR SECURITIES IN WHICHTHEY WERE REGISTERED MARKET MAKERS.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: AWC BECAME FINAL ON 8/29/94 A FINE OF $800.00 WAS PAID.



Disclosure 80 of 92

i



Allegations:














Resolution:


Sanction Details:

Regulator Statement MARKET SURVEILLANCE COMMITTEE COMPLAINT #CMS940021 AWC

LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER AND CONSENT (AWC) ALLEGESVIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE III, SECTION 1 OF THE ASSOCIATION'S RULESOF FAIR PRACTICE IN THAT THE RESPONDENT UPDATED QUOTATIONS INTHE BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM OUTSIDE THE ALLOWABLE TIME FORUPDATING FOREIGN OR ADR SECURITIES ON THE BULLETIN BOARD. THECOMPLAINT WAS FILED ON 3/07/94, AND ACCEPTED BY THE NBCC ON5/31/94 WHEREBY, FAHNESTOCK & CO, INC. WAS FINED $250. THE AWCBECAME FINAL ON 6/02/94.

**$250 PAID ON 6/23/94 INVOICE #94-MS-417**







Allegations: AWC ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE III, SECTION 1 OF THEASSOCIATION'S RULES OF FAIR PRACTICE IN THAT THE FIRM UPDATEDQUOTATIONS IN THE BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM OUTSIDE THE ALLOWABLETIME FOR UPDATING FOREIGN OR ADR SECURITIES ON THE BULLETINBOARD.








Other


FINE





Resolution:


Sanction Details: FINE OF 250.00 WAS PAID ON 6/23/94.



Disclosure 81 of 92

i









Allegations:



Resolution:


Sanction Details:








Sanction Details:

Regulator Statement 11/18/93: MARKET SURVEILLANCE COMMITTEE COMPLAINT #CMS930042(AWC) (A) LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER AND CONSENT FILEDAUGUST12, 1993; AGAINST RESPONDENT MEMBER FAHNESTOCK & CO., INC.ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE III, SECTION 1 OF THEASSOCIATION'S RULES OF FAIR PRACTICE IN THAT THE RESPONDENTSUPDATED QUOTATIONS IN THE BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM OUTSIDE THEALLOWABLE TIME FOR UPDATING FOREIGN OR ADR SECURITIES ON THEBULLETIN BOARD.

THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER AND CONSENT WAS ACCEPTED BYTHE MARKET SURVEILLANCE COMMITTEE ON OCTOBER 14, 1993 AND BYTHE NATIONAL BUSINESS CONDUCT COMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 15, 1993.$250.00 FINED. ** $250.00 PAID ON 12/8/93 INVOICE #93-12-921**




Other


FINE





Allegations: ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE III, SECTION 1 OF THE ASSOCIATIONSRULES OF FAIR PRACTICE IN THAT WE UPDATED QUOTATIONS IN THEBULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM OUTSIDE THE ALLOWABLE TIME FOR UPDATINGFOREIGN SECURITIES ON THE BULLETIN BOARD.



Resolution:









Sanction Details: 250.00 FINE PAID ON 12/8/93

Disclosure 82 of 92

i


Initiated By: IOWA SECURITIES BUREAU




Docket/Case Number: C93-03-392




Allegations: FILED AUDITED FINANCIALS LATE



Resolution:


Sanction Details: $500.00 CIVIL PENALTY

Regulator Statement FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT GARYMARQUETT, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTOR, 515-281-4441

Sanctions Ordered:

Decision


Initiated By: IOWA SECURITIES BUREAU


Docket/Case Number: C93-03-392


Allegations: FIRM FILED AUDITIED FINANCIALS LATE.













Resolution:


Sanction Details: A CIVIL PENALTY OF $500.00 WAS PAID.


Settled

Disclosure 83 of 92

i









Allegations: FAHNESTOCK HAS BEEN A REGISTEREDBROKER-DEALER IN MASSACHUSETTS SINCE AT LEAST JULY 1981. PHILJACOB LIFSCHITZ WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF FAHNESTOCK AT ALL TIMESRELEVANT TO THE MATTERS REFERRED TO IN THE PROCEEDING. THEPRACTICE AT FAHNESTOCK WAS FOR CERTAIN AGENTS, INCLUDINGLIFSCHITZ TO "SHARE A BOOK". IN THESE ARRANGEMENTS, AGENTSSHARE CLIENTS AND THE COMMISSIONS GENERAED FROM SALES TOTHOSECLIENTS. BETWEEN DECEMBER, 1988 AND JANUARY, 1989 LIFSCHTIZSOLD SECURITIES OF THE ORIGINAL DIET PIZZA COMPANY TO THREEMASSACHUSETTS RESIDENT. HE DID NOT INFORM THESE INVESTORSTHATHE WAS NOT REGISTERED TO SELL SECURITIES IN MASSACHUSETTS.










Resolution:



Regulator Statement ON JUNE 28, 1994 THE MASSACHUSETTS SECURITIESDIVISION ENTERED AN ORDER INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS, MAKINGFINDINGS AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS. FAHNESTOCK HA VOLUNTARILYUNDERTAKEN AND REPRESENTED THAT IT HAS AMENDED ITS INTERNALPROCEDURES TO PROHIBIT "BOOK-SHARING" ARRANGEMENTS ON ALLOFFERS AND SALES OF SECURITIES TO MASS RESIDENTS UNLESS ALL OFTHE AGENTS WHO PARTICIPATE IN THOSE ARRANGEMENTS AREREGISTEREDIN THE COMMONWEALTH; THEY WILL COMPLY WITH ALLSTATUTESAND REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSACTION OFBUSINESSIN SECURITIES IN MASSACHUSETTS; THEY WILL MAKE WRITTEN OFFERSOF RESCISSSION TO ALL MASS INVESTORS IN DIET PIZZA STOCK WHOPURCHASE SUCH SHARES FROM AN AGENT NOT THE DULY REGISTEREDWITHTHE DIVIISION AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE AND SHALL PROVIDE COPIESOF SUCH OFFERS AND THE RESPONSE TO THE DIVISION ANDFAHNESTOCKSHALL PAY TO THE DIVISION COSTS OF $3,500 AND PAY TO THEDIVISION A FINE OF $6,500. AS TO LIFSCHITZ HE SHALL PAY TO THEDIVISION A FINE OF $500. CONTACT: KERRY STELZER 617-727-3548


Decision





Allegations: WITH RESPECT TO THREE UNSOLICITED SALES IN 1989 TO RESIDENTS OFMASSACHUSETTS BY A REPRESENTATIVE WHO WAS NOT REGISTERED INMASSACHUSETTS.














Resolution:


Sanction Details: THE MATTER WAS RESOLVED BY ALLOWING CUSTOMERS TO RESCINDTHEIR TRANSACTION, RECEIVE A FULL REFUND OF THE PURCHASE PRICEALONG WITH INTEREST WHERE APPLICABLE. FAHNESTOCK PAID THEDIVISION COSTS OF $3500.00 AND A FINE OF $6500.00


Settled

Disclosure 84 of 92

i






Docket/Case Number:



Allegations:



Resolution:


Decision







Sanction Details:

Regulator Statement ^6/25/90^ SEC LITIGATION, ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS BULLETIN FORTHE QUARTER ENDING 6/30/89 (VOLUME 55, BULLETIN 02, PAGE 255)DISCLOSES: THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE FINED FAHNESTOCK & CO$2,500 ON MARCH 10, 1989 BASED ON A VIOLATION OF EXCHANGE RULE132.30 AND FAILED TO SUBMIT AUDIT TRAIL DATA TO QUALIFIEDCLEARING AGENCY REGARDING STOCK TRANS. FOR THE WEEKS OF 8/1,9/12 AND 10/17/88.





Other


FINED 2500.00


Docket/Case Number:



Allegations: ALLEGED FAILURE TO SUBMIT AUDIT TRAIL DATA TO QUALIFIED CLEARINGAGENCY REGARDING STOCK TRANSACTIONS FOR THE WEEKS OF 8/1 AND9/12 AND 10/17/1988



Resolution:


Sanction Details: A VIOLATION OF EXCHANGE RULE 132.30 AND A FINE OF 2500.00 PAID ON3/10/89.


Decision

Disclosure 85 of 92

i














Allegations:



Resolution:


Sanction Details:

Regulator Statement 7/9/87-CBOE DECISION ACCEPTING OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN THEMATTER OF: EDWARD A. VINER & CO., INC., RESPONDENT; FILE NO.87-0006. THIS PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED BY THE BUSINESS CONDUCTCOMMITTEE OF THE CBOE AS A RESULT OF AN INVESTIGATION BY THESTAFF OF THE EXCHANGE, WHICH INDICATED THAT THERE WASPROBABLECAUSE FOR FINDING A VIOLATION WITHIN THE DISCIPLINARYJURISDICTION OF THE EXCHANGE. IN SUBMITTING THIS OFFER OFSETTLEMENT, THE RESPONDENT NEITHER ADMITS NOR DENIES THEVIOLATIONS ALLEGED IN THE STATEMENT OF CHARGES. ON THE BASIS OFTHE STATEMENT OF CHARGES AND OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, THECOMMITTEEHAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT THE RESPONDENT'S OFFER OFSETTLEMENTBASED UPON ITS FINDING OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS: ON AUGUST 13,1986, VINER FAILED TO SUBMIT TO THE EXCHANGE ON BEHALF OF ONEOF ITS NON-MEMBER CUSTOMERS A CBOE EXERCISE ADVICE FORM FORTHECUSTOMER'S EXERCISE OF 400 STANDARD & POOR'S 100 STOCK INDEX("OEX") AUG 220 CALL OPTION CONTRACTS. ON AUGUST 13, 1986,VINER FAILED TO TIME STAMP THE INTERNAL EXERCISE NOTICE ITPREPARED FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE OEX OPTION CONTRACTSREFERREDTO ABOVE. THE COMMITTEE HAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT THERESPONDENT'S OFFER OF SETTLEMENT BASED UPON ITS MAKING THEFOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS: THE ACTS, PRACTICES AND CONDUCTDESCRIBED ABOVE CONSTITUTE SEPARATE VIOLATIONS OF EXCHANGERULE11.1 BY VINER. WITH DUE REGARD FOR THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THISMATTER, THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES IT APPROPRIATE TO ACCEPT THERESPONDENT'S OFFER OF SETTLEMENT WHEREIN IT CONSENTS TO A$500FINE FOR THE CONDUCT DESCRIBED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY IT ISORDERED, THAT THE RESPONDENT, EDWARD A. VINER & CO., INC.,SHALL BE AND HEREBY IS FINED IN THE AMOUNT OF $500. ORDER DATEDAPRIL 21, 1987.








7/9/87-CBOE DECISION ACCEPTING OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN THEMATTER OF: EDWARD A. VINER & CO., INC., RESPONDENT; FILE NO.87-0006. THIS PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED BY THE BUSINESS CONDUCTCOMMITTEE OF THE CBOE AS A RESULT OF AN INVESTIGATION BY THESTAFF OF THE EXCHANGE, WHICH INDICATED THAT THERE WASPROBABLECAUSE FOR FINDING A VIOLATION WITHIN THE DISCIPLINARYJURISDICTION OF THE EXCHANGE. IN SUBMITTING THIS OFFER OFSETTLEMENT, THE RESPONDENT NEITHER ADMITS NOR DENIES THEVIOLATIONS ALLEGED IN THE STATEMENT OF CHARGES. ON THE BASIS OFTHE STATEMENT OF CHARGES AND OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, THECOMMITTEEHAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT THE RESPONDENT'S OFFER OFSETTLEMENTBASED UPON ITS FINDING OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS: ON AUGUST 13,1986, VINER FAILED TO SUBMIT TO THE EXCHANGE ON BEHALF OF ONEOF ITS NON-MEMBER CUSTOMERS A CBOE EXERCISE ADVICE FORM FORTHECUSTOMER'S EXERCISE OF 400 STANDARD & POOR'S 100 STOCK INDEX("OEX") AUG 220 CALL OPTION CONTRACTS. ON AUGUST 13, 1986,VINER FAILED TO TIME STAMP THE INTERNAL EXERCISE NOTICE ITPREPARED FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE OEX OPTION CONTRACTSREFERREDTO ABOVE. THE COMMITTEE HAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT THERESPONDENT'S OFFER OF SETTLEMENT BASED UPON ITS MAKING THEFOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS: THE ACTS, PRACTICES AND CONDUCTDESCRIBED ABOVE CONSTITUTE SEPARATE VIOLATIONS OF EXCHANGERULE11.1 BY VINER. WITH DUE REGARD FOR THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THISMATTER, THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES IT APPROPRIATE TO ACCEPT THERESPONDENT'S OFFER OF SETTLEMENT WHEREIN IT CONSENTS TO A$500FINE FOR THE CONDUCT DESCRIBED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY IT ISORDERED, THAT THE RESPONDENT, EDWARD A. VINER & CO., INC.,SHALL BE AND HEREBY IS FINED IN THE AMOUNT OF $500. ORDER DATEDAPRIL 21, 1987.




Other


FINE





Allegations: VINER FAILED TO SUBMIT TO THE EXCHANGE ON BEHALF OF ONE OF IT'SNON-MEMBER CUSTOMERS A CBOE EXCERCISE ADVICE FOR THECUSTOMERS EXCERCISE OF 400 S&P 10 STOCK INDEX AUG 220 CALLOPTION CONTRACTS.



Resolution:










Sanction Details: AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT WHERIN VINER CONSENTS TO A $500.00 FINE.

Disclosure 86 of 92

i






Docket/Case Number: MS-456-AWC



Allegations:



Resolution:


Sanction Details:

Regulator Statement MARKET SURVEILLANCE COMMITTEE COMPLAINT #MS-456-AWC:

LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER AND CONSENT (AWC) WAS FILED ONDECEMBER 9, 1986, ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF PART I, SECTIONC.3.(a) OF SCHEDULE D OF THE ASSOCIATION'S BY-LAWS IN THATRESPONDENT (EDWARD A. VINER & CO., INC.) ENTERED QUOTATIONS INTO THE NASDAQ SYSTEM ON 9/29/86, 10/2/86, AND 10/3/86 THATWERE NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO THE PREVAILING MARKET. THE AWCWAS ACCEPTED BY THE MARKET SURVEILLANCE COMMITTEE ON MARCH2,1987 AND BY THE NATIONAL BUSINESS CONDUCT COMMITTEE ON APRIL23, 1987. $1,000 FINE RECEIVED 1/23/87



i218©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.






Initiated By: NASD





Docket/Case Number:



Allegations: ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF PART I SECTION C,3.(A) OF SCHEDULE D OF THEASSOCIATIONS BYLAWS IN THAT VINER ENTERED QUOTATIONS I ON THENASDAQ SYSTEM ON 9/29/86,10/2/86, AND 10/3/86 THAT WERE NOTREASONABLY RELATED TO THE PREVAILING MARKET.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: A LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER AND CONSENT WAS ACCEPTED BYTHE MARKET SURVEILLANCE COMMITTEE ON 3/2/87 AND BY THENATIONAL BUSINESS CONDUCT COMMITTEE ON 4/23/87. A FINE OF$1000.00 WAS PAID.


Settled

Disclosure 87 of 92

i




Docket/Case Number: 82-30 AND 82-31



Allegations:











Resolution:


Sanction Details:

Regulator Statement NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE DECISION 82-30 AND 82-31APRIL 6, 1982AN EXCHANGE HEARING PANEL ACCEPTED A STIPULATION OF FACTS ANDCONSENT TO PENALTY AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE EXCHANGESTAFFAND EDWARD A VINER & COMPANY AND STEPHEN H. BLITTNER, A FORMERBOND CLERK WITH THAT FIRM. WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THEALLEGATIONS, THE RESPONDENTS CONSENTED TO THE FINDINGS THAT:BLITTNER HAD VIOLATED SECTION 10(b) OF THE SEC ACT OF 1934 ANDRULE 10b-5 THEREUNDER IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE ANDSALEOF CERTAIN BONDS; VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 476(a)(8) IN THAT HEUSED ANOTHER FIRM'S AUTOMATIC BOND SYSTEM TERMINAL TO MAKEANDENTER A FICTITIOUS SELL ORDER; VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 410 ANDSECTION 17a-3 AND 17a-4 OF THE 1934 ACT AND RULES THEREUNDER,IN THAT HE DESTROYED REPORTS OF EXECUTION OF CERTAIN BONDTRADES; AND VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 120 IN THAT HE EXERCISEDDISCRETION IN ENTERING BIDS AND OFFERS FOR THE PURCHASE ORSALEOF CERTAIN BONDS. THE FIRM WAS FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATEDEXCHANGERULE 343(b) IN CONNECTION WITH SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OFACTIVITIES OF ITS EMPLOYEE; VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 54 IN THAT ITPERMITTED AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE EXCHANGETOTRANSACT BUSINESS ON THE BOND FLOOR, AND VIOLATED EXCHANGERULE120 IN THAT IT FAILED TO ADHERE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF GOODPRACTICES IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS AFFAIRS IN THECONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASES AND SALES OF CERTAIN BONDS.THERESPONDENTS CONSENTED TO THE PENALTY FOR BLITTNER, WHICHWAS ACENSURE, A 19 MONTH SUSPENSION FROM EMPLOYMENT ON THE FLOOR,AFURTHER SUSPENSION FROM EMPLOYMENT WITH A BROKER-DEALERFOR TWOYEARS AND A TWELVE MONTH PROBATIONARY PERIOD. THE FIRMCONSENTEDTO A $25,000 FINE AND ANCILLARY REQUIREMENTS WHEREBY THE FIRMHAS AGREED TO: 1)WITHDRAWAL OF ITS EMPLOYEES FROM THE BONDFLOOROF THE EXCHANGE; PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND CIRCULATION OF NEWWRITTEN POLICIES DESIGNED TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALLEXCHANGERULES INVOLVING THE SUPERVISI*See FAQ #1*








NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE DECISION 82-30 AND 82-31APRIL 6, 1982AN EXCHANGE HEARING PANEL ACCEPTED A STIPULATION OF FACTS ANDCONSENT TO PENALTY AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE EXCHANGESTAFFAND EDWARD A VINER & COMPANY AND STEPHEN H. BLITTNER, A FORMERBOND CLERK WITH THAT FIRM. WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THEALLEGATIONS, THE RESPONDENTS CONSENTED TO THE FINDINGS THAT:BLITTNER HAD VIOLATED SECTION 10(b) OF THE SEC ACT OF 1934 ANDRULE 10b-5 THEREUNDER IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE ANDSALEOF CERTAIN BONDS; VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 476(a)(8) IN THAT HEUSED ANOTHER FIRM'S AUTOMATIC BOND SYSTEM TERMINAL TO MAKEANDENTER A FICTITIOUS SELL ORDER; VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 410 ANDSECTION 17a-3 AND 17a-4 OF THE 1934 ACT AND RULES THEREUNDER,IN THAT HE DESTROYED REPORTS OF EXECUTION OF CERTAIN BONDTRADES; AND VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 120 IN THAT HE EXERCISEDDISCRETION IN ENTERING BIDS AND OFFERS FOR THE PURCHASE ORSALEOF CERTAIN BONDS. THE FIRM WAS FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATEDEXCHANGERULE 343(b) IN CONNECTION WITH SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OFACTIVITIES OF ITS EMPLOYEE; VIOLATED EXCHANGE RULE 54 IN THAT ITPERMITTED AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE EXCHANGETOTRANSACT BUSINESS ON THE BOND FLOOR, AND VIOLATED EXCHANGERULE120 IN THAT IT FAILED TO ADHERE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF GOODPRACTICES IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS AFFAIRS IN THECONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASES AND SALES OF CERTAIN BONDS.THERESPONDENTS CONSENTED TO THE PENALTY FOR BLITTNER, WHICHWAS ACENSURE, A 19 MONTH SUSPENSION FROM EMPLOYMENT ON THE FLOOR,AFURTHER SUSPENSION FROM EMPLOYMENT WITH A BROKER-DEALERFOR TWOYEARS AND A TWELVE MONTH PROBATIONARY PERIOD. THE FIRMCONSENTEDTO A $25,000 FINE AND ANCILLARY REQUIREMENTS WHEREBY THE FIRMHAS AGREED TO: 1)WITHDRAWAL OF ITS EMPLOYEES FROM THE BONDFLOOROF THE EXCHANGE; PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND CIRCULATION OF NEWWRITTEN POLICIES DESIGNED TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALLEXCHANGERULES INVOLVING THE SUPERVISI*See FAQ #1*







Docket/Case Number:



Allegations: AN EXCHANGE HEARING PANEL OF THE NYSE RENDERED DECISIONS 82-30 AND 82-31 WHICH ADOPTED A STIPULATION OF FACTS AND CONSENTTO PENALTY ENTERED AMONG THE EXCHANGE, VINER AND A FORMERBOND CLERK OF VINER'S. VINER WAS FOUND TO HAVE FAILED TPPROPERLY SUPERVISE CLERK, WHICH LED TO A FINE OF $25,000 ANDSUBJECT TO CERTAIN ANCILLARY REQUIREMENTS.



Resolution:



Settled







Sanction Details: A FINE OF $25,000.00 WAS PAID ON 4/6/82.

Disclosure 88 of 92

i






Docket/Case Number: N-VS-235


Other Product Type(s): UNKNOWN

Allegations: NASDAQ COMPLAINT #N-VS-235 FILED 11/18/76



Resolution:


Sanction Details: DUE TO THE AGE OF THIS MATTER, THE FINAL DISPOSITION COULD NOTBE OBTAINED.


No

Sanctions Ordered:

Other


Initiated By: NASDAQ

Allegations: NO ALLEGATIONS ARE SPECIFIED DUE TO THE AGE OF THIS ACTION.







Initiated By: NASDAQ





Docket/Case Number: N-VS-235




Resolution:


Sanction Details: NO FURTHER INFORMATION IS OBTAINABLE

Sanctions Ordered:

Other

Disclosure 89 of 92

i









Allegations:



Resolution:


Decision







Sanction Details:

Regulator Statement COMPLAINT #NY-1309 FILED 10/30/70DECISION RENDERED 1/13/71 WHEREIN RESPONDENT MEMBER IS FINED$1,000. TO BE FINAL 2/12/71.ON 2/12/71 COMPLAINT WAS CALLED BEFORE THE B/G FOR REVIEW.DBCC DECISION IS STAYED.B/G DECISION RENDERED 10/1/71 WHEREIN FINDINGS MADE BY DBCCARE AFFIRMED BUT PENALTIES ARE INCREASED. RESPONDENT MEMBERIS CENSURED AND FINED $1,500. J&STO BE FINAL - 10/31/71PAID - 11/18/71





Censure


FINED





Allegations: FINDINGS MADE BY THE DBCC. DUE TO THE AGE OF THIS OCCURANCENO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS OBTAINABLE.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: CENSURE AND FIND PAID 1500.00 ON 11/18/1971


Decision






Disclosure 90 of 92

i









Allegations:



Resolution:


Sanction Details:

Regulator Statement COMPLAINT #NY-1234 FILED 7/22/70DECISION 9/23/70 - MEMBER CENSURED AND FINED $1200.IS FINAL 10/23/7010/23/70: B/G REMANDED COMPLAINT TO DISTRICT


Decision






Allegations: DUE TO THE AGE OF THIS ACTION, NO INFORMATION IS OBTAINABLE.








Censure


FINE




Resolution:


Sanction Details: CENSURE AND FINE OF 1200.00 WAS PAID, FINAL DECISUION ON10/23/1970.

Firm Statement COMPLAINT FILED 7/22/70 DECISION ON 9/23/70. FINE PAID ON 10/23/70.


Decision

Disclosure 91 of 92

i









Allegations: SEE RESULTS



Resolution:


Sanctions Ordered: CensureMonetary/Fine

Consent







Sanction Details: EDWARD A. VINER & CO.,INC. (NOW KNOWN ASFAHNESTOCK & CO.,INC.) VIOLATED SEC REGULATION 240.15c3-1 BYCOMPUTING ITS NET CAPITAL INACCURATELY; VIOLATED REGULATION240.15c3-3(e) IN THAT IT INCORRECTLY COMPUTED THE AMOUNTREQUIRED TO BE DEPOSITED INTO ITS SPECIAL RESERVE BANKACCOUNT,AND FAILED TO MAINTAIN ITS SPECIAL RESERVE ACCOUNT AT THE LEVELREQUIRED BY THE REGULATION; VIOLATED REGULATION 240.15c3-3(i)IN THAT IT FAILED TO NOTIFY THE SEC AND THE EXCHANGE THAT ITFAILED TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT REQUIRED TO BE DEPOSITED IN ITSSPECIAL RESERVE ACCOUNT; VIOLATED REGULATION 240.15c3-3(b)(1)IN THAT IT DID NOT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN THE PHYSICAL POSSESSIONOR CONTROL OF FULLY PAID AND EXCESS MARGIN SECURITIES;VIOLATEDREGULATION 240.15c3-3(d) IN THAT IT FAILED TO REDUCE TO ITSPOSSESSION OR CONTROL THE REQUIRED QUANTITY OF FULLY PAID ANDEXCESS MARGIN SECURITIES; VIOLATED REGULATION 240.15c3-3(m) INTHAT IT FAILED TO PURCHASE IMMEDIATELY SECURITIES OF LIKE KINDTO THASE SOLD BY A CUSTOMER AND NOT OBTAINED FROM THECUSTOMERWITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER SETTLEMENT DATE; VIOLATED 240.17a-3 INTHAT ITS CNS AND/OR SOME OTHER ACCOUNTS HAD NOT BEENRECONCILEDON A CURRENT BASIS; VIOLATED RULE 382(a) BY ENTERING INTO ACARRYING AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER BROKER WHICH AGREEMENTBECAME EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO BEING SUBMITTED TO THE EXCHANGE;VIOLATED RULE 401 IN THAT IT: ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TOCARRY ACCOUNTS WHEN IT LACKED THE CAPACITY TO CLEAR THEADDITIONAL BUSINESS, PERMITTED CERTAIN CUSTOMERS TO ENGAGE INOTC TRANSACTIONS AT PRICES NOT REASONABLY RELATED TOPREVAILINGMARKETS AND DID NOT HAVE PROCEDURES TO DETECT OR PREVENTSUCHTRANSACTIONS, DID NOT HAVE PROCEDURES DESIGNED TO BRINGCERTAINPRACTICES TO THE ATTENTION OF SENIOR MANAGEMENT, PERMITTEDOPTION TRADING IN ACCOUNTS WHICH HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLYAPPROVED, IMPROPERLY CANCELLED AND/OR REBILLED A PURCHASETRANSACTION, AND PERMITTED TWO SUPERVISORY PERSONS TOAPPROVEACCOUNT DESIGNA*See FAQ #1*

Regulator Statement SEE RESULTS















Allegations: THE NYSE ACCEPTED ON OFFER OF SETTLEMENT WHEREIN THEEXCHANGE ALLEGED CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF BOOKKEEPING, WHICHOCCURRED IN THE MID TO LATE 1980'S. THE FIRM WITHOUT ADMITTINGOR DENYING ANY OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS, AGREED TO A FINE OF$200,000 AND TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMITTEE OF THE BOARDOF DIRECTORS WHICH WOULD SUPERVISE A REVIEW OF ITSPROCEDURES.



Resolution:


Sanction Details: $200,000.00 FINE PAID 7/23/92.



Disclosure 92 of 92

i





Allegations:












Resolution:


Sanction Details:

Regulator Statement ON APRIL 17, 1996 AND OCTOBER 26, 1996 THE MARKET REGULATIONCOMMITTEE FILED A COMPLAINT (CMS950117A) AND AN AMENDEDCOMPLAINT RESPECTIVELY AGAINST FAHNESTOCK & CO., INC. ALLEGINGVIOLATIONS OF THE RULES OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIESDEALERS. ON MAY 1, 1997 THE MARKET REGULATION COMMITTEE ISSUEDA DECISION AND ORDER OF ACCEPTANCE OF FAHNESTOCK & CO., INC.OFFER OF SETTLEMENT. THE COMMITTEE FINES THAT FAHNESTOCKVIOLATED CONDUCT RULE 2110 AND MARKETPLACE RULE 4730(B)(5) OFTHE RULES OF THE ASSOCIATION. FAHNSTOCK IS CENSURED AND FINED$6,500.

***$6,500.00 PAID ON 5/15/97, INVOICE #97-MS-367***




Initiated By: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURTIES DEALERS, INC.


Censure





Allegations: THE MARKET REGULATION COMMITTEE ALLEGED A VIOLATION OFCONDUCT RULE 2110.








Censure


FINE


Resolution:


Sanction Details: CENSURE AND FINE OF 6500.00 WAS PAID ON 5/15/97.

Firm Statement ON APRIL 17, 1996 AND OCTOBER 26, 1996 THE MARKET REGULATIONCOMMITTEE FILED A COMPLAINT ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES.ON MAY 1, 1997 THE REGULATION MADE AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT.FAHNESTOCK WAS CENSURED AND FINED 6500.00








Arbitration Award - Award / Judgment

Brokerage firms are not required to report arbitration claims filed against them by customers; however, BrokerCheckprovides summary information regarding FINRA arbitration awards involving securities and commodities disputesbetween public customers and registered securities firms in this section of the report. The full text of arbitration awards issued by FINRA is available at www.finra.org/awardsonline.

Disclosure 1 of 172


Type of Event: ARBITRATION

Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:

Disputed Product Type:

Sum of All Relief Requested:

Disposition:

Disposition Date:

Sum of All Relief Awarded:

NASD

05/12/2000

00-01158

ACCOUNT RELATED-ERRORS-CHARGES; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TOSUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; ACCOUNT RELATED-TRANSFER

DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE; OTHER TYPES OFSECURITIES

$20,000.01

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

10/08/2001

$8,776.00

There may be a non-monetary award associated with this arbitration.Please select the Case Number above to view more detailed information.

Disclosure 2 of 172

i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:

NASD

05/26/2000

00-01631

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACHOF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE





www.finra.org/awardsonline

https://www.finra.org/arbitration-and-mediation/arbitration-awards-online?search=00-01158





Disposition:

Disposition Date:


COMMON STOCK; CORPORATE BONDS; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OFSEC INVOLVE

$1,400,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/20/2002

$295,605.02


Disclosure 3 of 172

i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

06/26/2000

00-02317

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACHOF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; ACCOUNT RELATED-OTHER

COMMON STOCK; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE

$472,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

03/21/2002

$197,300.01


Disclosure 4 of 172

i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Allegations:

NASD

10/13/2000

ACCOUNT RELATED-COLLECTION; DO NOT USE-NO OTHERCONTROVERSY INVOLVED







Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


10/13/2000

00-04498

DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE; UNKNOWN TYPE OFSECURITIES

$288,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

03/25/2002

$0.00


Disclosure 5 of 172

i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

01/11/2001

00-05357

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING

DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE

$185,960.01

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

09/20/2002

$80,000.00


Disclosure 6 of 172

i



Allegations: ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-ERRORS-CHARGES; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE;ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE








Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

02/15/2001

01-00114

ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-ERRORS-CHARGES; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE;ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE

COMMON STOCK; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE;MUTUAL FUNDS

$123,654.89

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

05/09/2002

$150,312.23


Disclosure 7 of 172

i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

05/09/2001

01-01340

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-SUITABILITY


$7,916,776.24

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/03/2003

$392,927.40


Disclosure 8 of 172

i








Disclosure 8 of 172



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

04/19/2001

01-01931

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING;ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$500.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

11/05/2002

$65,558.01


Disclosure 9 of 172

i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

05/16/2001

01-02491

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURETO SUPERVISE


$167,488.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/03/2002

$167,488.00235©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.







Sum of All Relief Awarded: $167,488.00


Disclosure 10 of 172

i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

08/24/2001

01-03155



$600,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

10/28/2002

$40,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



NASD

07/18/2001

01-03417











Disposition:

Disposition Date:


$925,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

08/13/2002

$275,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

09/06/2001

01-04440

DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TO EXECUTE; DO NOT USE-NO OTHERCONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$8,652.50

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

03/28/2002

$8,977.50



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:

NASD

09/18/2001

01-04829

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER;ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURETO SUPERVISE








Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


01-04829


$452,698.61

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/21/2003

$226,649.31



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

11/30/2001

01-04961

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURETO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; ACCOUNT RELATED-OTHER


$1,302,732.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/26/2002

$273,925.01



i



Arbitration Forum:

Allegations:

NASD

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACHOF CONTRACT








Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

11/19/2001

01-04996


$1,087,115.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/26/2002

$130,830.19



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

10/18/2001

01-05440

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING;ACCOUNT RELATED-MARGIN CALLS


$952,191.03

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

03/24/2003

$462,808.00



i



Allegations: ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING








Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

10/25/2001

01-05665



$302,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

11/26/2003

$50,150.01



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

11/15/2001

01-06025



$163,879.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/24/2002

$104,000.01



i











Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

12/17/2001

01-06124

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; ACCOUNTRELATED-OTHER


$213,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/26/2002

$20,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

11/30/2001

01-06296


COMMON STOCK; CORPORATE BONDS; MUTUAL FUNDS; OPTIONS

$6,007,450.40

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

03/17/2003

$6,158,176.42










i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

12/12/2001

01-06366

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MANIPULATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS


$11,964,183.66

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

01/17/2003

$300,000.01



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:

NASD

01/16/2002

01-06854

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNTRELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE


$33,764.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

05/20/2003 242©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.







Disposition Date:


05/20/2003

$25,498.01



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

02/25/2002

02-00957

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNTRELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT


$373,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

08/09/2004

$140,000.01



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:


NASD

03/11/2002

02-01206

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNTRELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT











Disposition:

Disposition Date:



$10,000,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

04/20/2004

$179,839.06



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

04/04/2003

02-02443

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURETO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-MARGIN CALLS; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$146,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

05/07/2004

$17,200.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Allegations:

NASD

08/20/2002

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSYINVOLVED







Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


08/20/2002

02-04609


$68,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

11/25/2003

$99,854.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

10/15/2002

02-05978

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER


$70,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/12/2003

$10,000.00



i



Allegations: ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-ERRORS-CHARGES; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE;ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE








Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

02/10/2003

02-06681

ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-ERRORS-CHARGES; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE;ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$40,718.76

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

07/09/2003

$2,902.61



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

11/13/2002

02-06758



$75,406.58

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/24/2003

$50,000.00



i










Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

12/10/2002

02-07211

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER;ACCOUNT RELATED-MARGIN CALLS; DO NOT USE-NO OTHERCONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$992,494.90

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/13/2004

$355,255.02



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

12/19/2002

02-07551

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER;ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$160,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

04/01/2004

$109,649.40










i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

12/23/2002

02-07577

ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURETO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-MARGIN CALLS; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$237,534.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/02/2004

$113,155.51



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:

NASD

02/10/2003

03-00833

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE

CORPORATE BONDS; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE

$245,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

05/24/2006











i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

04/24/2003

03-02667

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY


$200,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

08/04/2004

$15,225.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



NASD

04/24/2003

03-02669











Disposition:

Disposition Date:


$40,502.21

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

01/26/2004

$10,677.22



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

06/26/2003

03-03335

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNTRELATED-MARGIN CALLS


$1,725,525.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

10/26/2004

$36,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Allegations:

NASD

06/16/2003

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE







Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


06/16/2003

03-04232


$33,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

04/22/2004

$22,125.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

11/10/2003

03-06130



$125,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/24/2005

$75,000.00



i



Allegations: ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE 251©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.







Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

10/28/2003

03-07651

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE


Unspecified Damages

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

09/13/2004

$101,933.27



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

12/04/2003

03-08354

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNTRELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE


$270,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/13/2004

$15,000.00



i










Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

12/17/2003

03-08872

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT;ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE


$500,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

03/24/2005

$37,222.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

02/03/2004

04-00171

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; DO NOT USE-NOOTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED

ANNUITIES; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE

$49,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

01/19/2006

$30,675.50










i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

05/20/2004

04-03596

ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURETO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-MARGIN CALLS; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE

COMMON STOCK; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE;OPTIONS

$9,219,698.88

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/08/2005

$23,036.26



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:

NASD

08/03/2004

04-05439

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSIONOF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURETO SUPERVISE


$190,236.69

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

11/07/2005254©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.







Disposition Date:


11/07/2005

$36,400.01



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

05/20/2005

05-02458

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNTRELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT

DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE; MUTUAL FUNDS

$468,145.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

04/28/2006

$356,397.01



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:


NASD

06/10/2005

05-02506

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTRELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT











Disposition:

Disposition Date:



Unspecified Damages

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

09/12/2006

$20,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

06/06/2005

05-02908

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$100,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

05/08/2006

$102,600.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Allegations:

NASD

04/09/2007

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; DO NOT USE-OTHER-OTHER







Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


07-01108


Unspecified Damages

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/26/2008

$138,200.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

05/01/2008

08-01074

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNTRELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT


Unspecified Damages

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

04/14/2009

$22,000.00



i



Allegations: ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING








Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

08/29/2008

08-03005

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING


$677,432.78

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

05/06/2010

$328,684.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

03/02/2009

09-00878

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE;ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE

AUCTION RATE SECURITIES; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SECINVOLVE; OTHER TYPES OF SECURITIES; STRUCTURED PRODUCTS

$1,012,400,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

01/30/2013

$30,000,000.00



i










Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

03/13/2009

09-01309

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE

COMMON STOCK

$74,975.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/10/2009

$30,225.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

04/22/2009

09-01568


AUCTION RATE SECURITIES

$700,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

11/10/2010

$18,816.98










i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

04/02/2009

09-01728

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OFCONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE; ACCOUNT RELATED-OTHER

COMMON STOCK

$250,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

03/16/2011

$221,120.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

FINRA

04/17/2009

09-02041

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE

MUTUAL FUNDS; OTHER TYPES OF SECURITIES

$1,800,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY260©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.







Disposition:

Disposition Date:


AWARD AGAINST PARTY

03/12/2010

$110,800.01



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

08/24/2009

09-04587

ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TO EXECUTE

$27,078.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/29/2010

$8,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:


FINRA

09/17/2009

09-05276

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT;ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE

COMMON STOCK; OPTIONS










Disposition:

Disposition Date:



$1,538,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/03/2011

$40,600.01



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

10/02/2009

09-05596

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURETO SUPERVISE

COMMON STOCK

$4,000,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

01/17/2013

$1,074,552.22



i



Allegations: ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZEDTRADING; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNTRELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE 262©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.






Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

12/24/2009

09-07047

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZEDTRADING; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNTRELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE

OTHER TYPES OF SECURITIES

$5,383,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

01/29/2013

$2,450,000.01



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

12/29/2009

09-07108

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION

AUCTION RATE SECURITIES; MUTUAL FUNDS

$1,075,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

09/08/2011

$290,625.00



i



Allegations: ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MANIPULATION; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE








Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

03/24/2010

10-01145

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MANIPULATION; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$550,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

05/27/2011

$428,800.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

07/08/2010

10-03067

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TOSUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE


Unspecified Damages

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

01/05/2012

$134,108.00



i










Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

08/06/2010

10-03410

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE

COMMON STOCK; OPTIONS; PREFERRED STOCK

$4,000,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

08/26/2011

$1,112,500.01



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

09/15/2010

10-03776

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TOSUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$1,025,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

11/30/2011

$625,000.00










i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

09/23/2010

10-04145

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACHOF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE

$240,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

10/17/2011

$52,500.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

FINRA

12/06/2010

10-05250

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$430,200.00








Disposition:

Disposition Date:


AWARD AGAINST PARTY

05/16/2012

$143,400.01



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

02/23/2011

11-00703

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY;ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE

ANNUITIES; COMMON STOCK; CORPORATE BONDS; MUNICIPAL BONDS;MUTUAL FUNDS; VARIABLE ANNUITIES

$100,000.01

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

04/30/2012

$100,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:


FINRA

01/10/2012

12-00061

ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TOEXECUTE

COMMON STOCK 267©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.









Disposition:

Disposition Date:


COMMON STOCK

$22,524.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/29/2012

$22,524.01



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

02/28/2012

12-00626


COMMON STOCK; MUTUAL FUNDS

$261,601.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

10/04/2013

$355,482.98



i



Allegations: ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OFCONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE







Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

06/07/2012

12-02024

COMMON STOCK; PRIVATE EQUITIES

$450,000.01

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/24/2014

$231,900.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

06/11/2012

12-02052

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTRELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE

COMMON STOCK; MUTUAL FUNDS; PRIVATE EQUITIES

$99,999.70

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

10/25/2013

$126,512.34



i



Allegations: ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTRELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TOSUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE








Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

10/18/2013

13-02460

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTRELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TOSUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE

COMMON STOCK

$500,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/13/2015

$299,948.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

11/27/2013

13-03412

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNTRELATED-MARGIN CALLS


$485,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

05/07/2015

$434,900.00










i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

03/18/2014

14-00824

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OFCONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE

COMMON STOCK; MUTUAL FUNDS; UNIT INVESTMENT TRUST

$66,964.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

09/26/2014

$14,600.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:

FINRA

10/28/2014

14-03220

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE


$1,500,000.01

AWARD AGAINST PARTY








Disposition Date:


05/18/2017

$915,640.25



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

06/04/2015

15-01241

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OFCONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE

COMMON STOCK; LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS; REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTTRUST

Unspecified Damages

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

10/21/2016

$13,050.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Allegations:

FINRA

09/22/2015

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTRELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TOSUPERVISE







Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


09/22/2015

15-02440

COMMON STOCK; CORPORATE BONDS; MUTUAL FUNDS; OPTIONS; OTHERTYPES OF SECURITIES

$150,000.01

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

08/24/2016

$115,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

02/17/2016

16-00430

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-VIOLATE OF BLUE SKY LWS; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OFCONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE

MUNICIPAL BOND FUNDS

$110,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/14/2017

$23,650.00



i










Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

07/01/2016

16-01829

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-FRAUD;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSIONOF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY;ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE

MUNICIPAL BOND FUNDS; MUTUAL FUNDS

$5,000,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

05/23/2018

$862,117.03



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

12/22/2016

16-03687

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TOSUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE

COMMON STOCK; EXCHANGE-TRADED FUNDS; OPTIONS; OTHER TYPESOF SECURITIES; STRUCTURED PRODUCTS

$3,500,000.02

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/04/2018

$800,000.00











i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


FINRA

02/15/2017

17-00188

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER;ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; ACCOUNT RELATED-OTHER


$396,726.06

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/26/2018

$300,300.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:


FINRA

03/01/2018

18-00778

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-FRAUD; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZEDTRADING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-VIOLATE OF BLUE SKY LWS; ACCOUNTRELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE

COMMON STOCK; OTHER TYPES OF SECURITIES









Disposition:

Disposition Date:


Unspecified Damages

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

01/08/2019

$250,495.11



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

88-00703

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSYINVOLVED


$9,250.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

11/27/1989

$9,250.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:


NASD

01/01/1989

89-01049

ACCOUNT RELATED-OTHER; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSYINVOLVED











Disposition:

Disposition Date:



$84,505.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

05/18/1990

$30,755.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

01/01/1989

89-01172

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TO EXECUTE


$200,112.50

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/11/1990

$27,844.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Allegations:

NASD

ACCOUNT RELATED-ERRORS-CHARGES; DO NOT USE-NO OTHERCONTROVERSY INVOLVED; TRADING DISPUTES-BUY IN







Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

03/20/1990

90-00521


$153,612.71

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

01/30/1992

$44,189.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

02/05/1991

90-02512

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; DO NOT USE-NO OTHERCONTROVERSY INVOLVED

COMMON STOCK; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE;WARRANTS/RIGHTS

$68,910.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/27/1992

$4,500.00



i



Allegations: ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TOEXECUTE; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED 278©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.







Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

05/20/1991

91-00869

ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TOEXECUTE; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED

DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE; MUNICIPAL BOND FUNDS

$494.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

03/26/1992

$200.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

10/23/1991

91-03131

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; DO NOTUSE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED


Unspecified Damages

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

10/22/1992

$35,000.00



i










Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

12/19/1991

91-03675

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT RELATED-ERRORS-CHARGES; DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TO EXECUTE; DO NOTUSE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED

DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE; OPTIONS

$120,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/30/1992

$60,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

12/12/1991

91-03843


DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE; LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS

$60,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/22/1992

$50,000.00










i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

02/21/1992

92-00426

ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; DO NOT USE-NO OTHERCONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$4,500.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/30/1992

$0.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

04/16/1992

92-01205

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TO EXECUTE; DO NOTUSE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$4,200.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/07/1993











i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

04/23/1992

92-01207



$825.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

05/24/1993

$687.50



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

NASD

08/27/1992

92-02358

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTRELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE


$678,936.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY 282©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.







Disposition:

Disposition Date:


AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/04/1994

$585,952.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

08/17/1992

92-02673



$299,234.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

01/05/1995

$312,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:


NASD

11/03/1992

92-03342

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT

DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE; LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS 283©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.









Disposition:

Disposition Date:



$90,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/06/1993

$62,056.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

10/08/1992

92-03375

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$503,204.25

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/16/1994

$174,460.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Allegations:

NASD

01/04/1993

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TOSUPERVISE; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED







Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


01/04/1993

92-04309


$247,708.36

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/17/1994

$97,500.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

05/24/1993

93-00201

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$735,739.55

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/18/1997

$31,185.00



i



Allegations: ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY








Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

04/07/1993

93-01136


COMMON STOCK; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE; LIMITEDPARTNERSHIPS; OPTIONS

Unspecified Damages

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

08/25/1995

$20,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

05/12/1993

93-01701

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY;ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$41,845.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

03/30/1994

$5,778.00



i











Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

05/19/1993

93-01748

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSIONOF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING


$200,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

11/25/1994

$25,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

05/19/1993

93-01989



$159,362.18

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/22/1994

$67,683.50










i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

10/12/1993

93-04048

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER;ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE

COMMODITIES FUTURES; COMMON STOCK; OPTIONS; PREFERRED STOCK

$360,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

04/10/1995

$36,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:

NASD

01/06/1994

93-04410

DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-EXECUTION PRICE; DO NOT USE-NO OTHERCONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$28,500.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/29/1994








Disposition Date:


12/29/1994

$28,506.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

06/10/1994

94-00927



$103,660.89

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

05/18/1995

$47,700.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:


NASD

09/30/1994

94-03224

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE;DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TO EXECUTE; DO NOT USE-NO OTHERCONTROVERSY INVOLVED

COMMON STOCK; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE;PREFERRED STOCK










Disposition:

Disposition Date:



$113,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/20/1997

$31,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

09/12/1994

94-03448

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; DO NOT USE-NO OTHERCONTROVERSY INVOLVED

COMMON STOCK; CORPORATE BONDS; OPTIONS; WARRANTS/RIGHTS

$430,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

10/24/1996

$131,804.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Allegations:

NASD

11/03/1994

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTRELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT







Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


11/03/1994

94-03489

COMMON STOCK; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE;OPTIONS; WARRANTS/RIGHTS

$20,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

07/01/1996

$30,068.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

09/13/1994

94-03630

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSIONOF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING


$97,150.96

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

10/09/1995

$24,306.00



i



Allegations: ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING








Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

11/17/1994

94-04463

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING


$112,697.69

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

01/04/1996

$36,521.20



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

01/05/1995

94-05207

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING

COMMON STOCK; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE;MUNICIPAL BOND FUNDS; MUNICIPAL BONDS

$1,000,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/31/1997

$3,675.00



i











Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

02/08/1995

95-00553



$94,152.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

04/16/1996

$4,134.59



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

04/03/1995

95-01356

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZEDTRADING; DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TO EXECUTE; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$68,593.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

11/29/1996

$21,600.00










i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

04/05/1995

95-01434



$257,345.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

08/20/1996

$119,244.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

NASD

04/28/1995

95-01977

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSIONOF FACTS; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$100,000.00








Disposition:

Disposition Date:


AWARD AGAINST PARTY

07/20/1998

$15,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

06/19/1995

95-02289



$336,742.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/26/1997

$298,912.90



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:


NASD

06/27/1995

95-03000

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSYINVOLVED











Disposition:

Disposition Date:



$20,001.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/13/1996

$15,179.95



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

07/24/1995

95-03206



$279,604.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

09/11/1997

$18,750.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Allegations:

NASD








Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

07/28/1995

95-03636


$63,990.50

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

08/02/1996

$40,500.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

11/22/1995

95-04065

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; DO NOT USE-NO OTHERCONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$4,920.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/20/1996

$5,045.00



i



Allegations: ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT;ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE 297©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.







Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

10/12/1995

95-04430

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT;ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE


$19,015.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

07/11/1996

$19,015.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

11/30/1995

95-05380



$413,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

07/23/1998

$269,305.00



i










Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

12/04/1995

95-05630

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE;ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$11,681.72

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

11/22/1996

$11,801.50



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

02/07/1996

95-05846

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; DO NOTUSE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$608,956.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/10/1996

$2,000.00










i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

04/02/1996

96-00262



$5,459.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

11/18/1996

$3,150.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

01/31/1996

96-00370

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSIONOF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURETO SUPERVISE


Unspecified Damages

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

03/19/1998

$175,000.00










i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

02/21/1996

96-00751

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACHOF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-OTHER; DO NOT USE-NO OTHERCONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$27,644.81

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/13/1996

$28,916.59



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:

NASD

03/04/1996

96-00901

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$14,805.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY








Disposition Date:


02/28/1997

$7,292.48



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

03/12/1996

96-00963



$535,124.05

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

03/11/1997

$980,845.99



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:


NASD

04/01/1996

96-01259


DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE; UNKNOWN TYPE OFSECURITIES 302©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.









Disposition:

Disposition Date:



$80,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

09/23/1997

$18,500.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

05/31/1996

96-01789

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; DONOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TO EXECUTE


$30,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

05/05/1997

$29,064.53



i



Arbitration Forum:

Allegations:

NASD

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE;DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED







Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

06/14/1996

96-02208

COMMON STOCK; CORPORATE BONDS; PREFERRED STOCK;WARRANTS/RIGHTS

$65,044.33

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

04/21/1998

$27,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

06/27/1996

96-02680

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE;DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$71,522.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

11/06/1997

$40,578.03



i










Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

10/02/1996

96-03074



$120,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

07/28/1998

$100,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

08/07/1996

96-03087

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; DO NOTUSE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$162,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

07/30/1997

$20,000.00










i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

08/16/1996

96-03439

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER;ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TOEXECUTE


$20,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

05/15/1997

$16,500.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

09/25/1996

96-03657

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TO EXECUTE; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$6,573.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/12/1997











i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

09/25/1996

96-04004

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER;ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$26,735.59

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/15/1997

$6,577.07



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

NASD

11/05/1996

96-04088

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$62,515.02

AWARD AGAINST PARTY 307©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.







Disposition:

Disposition Date:


AWARD AGAINST PARTY

10/13/1997

$63,015.02



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

10/28/1996

96-04130

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING;ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE

COMMON STOCK; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE; OTHERTYPES OF SECURITIES

$630,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

04/03/1998

$367,045.59



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:


NASD

10/07/1996

96-04209

ACCOUNT RELATED-OTHER; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSYINVOLVED











Disposition:

Disposition Date:



$50,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

04/11/2001

$50,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

12/11/1996

96-04612

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$14,099.40

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/18/1997

$15,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Allegations:

NASD

12/20/1996

ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TO EXECUTE; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED







Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


12/20/1996

96-05586


$90,758.50

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/24/1997

$10,200.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

12/30/1996

96-05716

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TO EXECUTE

CORPORATE BONDS; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE

$18,123.11

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/02/1997

$2,000.00



i



Allegations: DO NOT USE-EXECUTIONS-FAILURE TO EXECUTE; DO NOT USE-NO OTHERCONTROVERSY INVOLVED








Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

01/24/1997

97-00117



$1,250.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

10/21/1997

$560.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

03/18/1997

97-01204



$60,004.09

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/19/1997

$13,960.00



i



Allegations: ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNTRELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE








Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

04/28/1997

97-02028

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNTRELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE


$32,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/12/1998

$33,250.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

06/13/1997

97-02898



$89,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

04/20/1999

$15,000.00



i










Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

07/17/1997

97-03067

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSYINVOLVED


$50,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

01/26/1998

$4,200.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

09/23/1997

97-04322

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MANIPULATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS


$78,499.39

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

08/06/1998

$19,810.00

There may be a non-monetary award associated with this arbitration.








Please select the Case Number above to view more detailed information.


i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

10/02/1997

97-04536

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT;ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; DO NOT USE-NO OTHERCONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$411,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

03/02/1999

$311,549.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:

NASD

10/29/1997

97-05100

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNT RELATED-OTHER; DO NOT USE-NOOTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$39,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/23/1999











i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

01/06/1998

97-05893

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING

COMMON STOCK; CORPORATE BONDS; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OFSEC INVOLVE

$327,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/18/1998

$107,750.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



NASD

12/29/1997

97-05930

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZEDTRADING; DO NOT USE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$9,815.61








Disposition:

Disposition Date:


AWARD AGAINST PARTY

04/14/1998

$8,291.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

12/31/1997

97-05975

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; DO NOT USE-NO OTHERCONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$5,524.88

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

09/01/1998

$2,912.44



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:


NASD

01/27/1998

98-00133

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING

DO NOT USE-NO OTHER TYPE OF SEC INVOLVE; UNKNOWN TYPE OFSECURITIES 316©2019 FINRA. All rights reserved. Report about OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.









Disposition:

Disposition Date:



$450,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/11/1999

$180,000.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

04/13/1998

98-00492

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING


$67,326.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

08/16/1999

$50,300.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Allegations:

NASD

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT RELATED-FAILURE TO SUPERVISE







Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

03/03/1998

98-00681


$77,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/30/1999

$4,500.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

03/12/1998

98-00761

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING


$213,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

03/23/2000

$156,693.10



i



Allegations: ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE








Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

05/11/1998

98-01544

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$100,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

09/07/1999

$27,445.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

06/04/1998

98-01947



$90,534.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

09/07/1999

$40,889.00



i










Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

10/05/1998

98-02687

ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE; ACCOUNT RELATED-OTHER; DO NOTUSE-NO OTHER CONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$43,372.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

01/01/2000

$21,138.01



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

02/08/1999

99-00168



$117,008.30

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

12/13/1999

$10,000.00

There may be a non-monetary award associated with this arbitration.








Please select the Case Number above to view more detailed information.


i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

05/20/1999

99-01524

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OTHER;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT


$45,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

07/10/2000

$27,810.34



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:

NASD

06/03/1999

99-02291

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT RELATED-BREACH OF CONTRACT; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE

COMMON STOCK

$25,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/21/2000











i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

06/23/1999

99-02356

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSIONOF FACTS; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; DO NOT USE-NO OTHERCONTROVERSY INVOLVED


$622,508.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

01/04/2001

$85,107.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



NASD

06/28/1999

99-02708











Disposition:

Disposition Date:


$70,112.50

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

01/23/2001

$112.50



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

07/21/1999

99-03152

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-OMISSION OF FACTS;ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY


$350,196.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

06/05/2000

$119,216.39



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:

NASD

08/18/1999

99-03213

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-MISREPRESENTATION; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNTRELATED-NEGLIGENCE








Case Number:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


99-03213


$500,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

04/14/2000

$0.00



i



Arbitration Forum:

Case Initiated:

Case Number:

Allegations:



Disposition:

Disposition Date:


NASD

12/06/1999

99-05308

ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-BRCH OF FIDUCIARY DT; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-CHURNING; ACCOUNT ACTIVITY-SUITABILITY; ACCOUNT RELATED-NEGLIGENCE


$2,069,000.00

AWARD AGAINST PARTY

02/21/2001

$74,241.25









Civil Bond

This type of disclosure event involves a civil bond for the brokerage firm that has been denied, paid, or revoked by abonding company.

Disclosure 1 of 2


Policy Holder: FAHNESTOCK & CO. INC.

Bonding Company Name: CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

Disposition: Payout

Disposition Date: 07/25/1996

Payout Details: $70,000

Firm Statement ASSISTANT MADE FRAUDULENT MARGIN CALLS

Disclosure 2 of 2

i


Policy Holder: FAHNESTOCK & CO. INC.

Bonding Company Name: CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

Disposition: Payout

Disposition Date: 07/06/1995

Payout Details: $133,614.55

Firm Statement IT IS ALLEGED THAT A REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE STOLE MONEYFROM A CLIENTS ACCOUNT.






End of Report

This page is intentionally left blank.





oppenheimer & co. inc. - finra · oppenheimer & co. inc. crd# 249 sec# 8-4077 main office...

Documents