Broker settles SEC charges of misuse of rebates to adviser

Instinet pays more than $800,000 in case over soft-dollar payments

Dec 26, 2013 @ 8:28 pm

By Mark Schoeff Jr.

soft dollars, instinet, securities and exchange commission
+ Zoom

A broker paid more than $800,000 to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges that it gave commission rebates to an investment advisory firm, whose president then used them to make improper payments to his ex-wife and to pay for a personal residence.

The SEC found that the broker, Instinet, approved about $430,000 in so-called soft-dollar payments to J.S. Oliver Capital Management, from January 2009 through July 2010 that the firm did not properly disclose to its clients.

Soft dollars are credits that brokerages give to advisers for commissions charged to their clients for trades in their accounts. They can legally be used to pay for brokerage and research services, as long as they are fully disclosed.

The SEC said that Instinet ignored “red flags” that the adviser was misusing the soft dollars, including $329,000 for the ex-wife of J.S. Oliver's president, Ian Mausner; $65,000 for 13 months of inflated rent payments at Mr. Mausner's home office and more than $40,000 for two payments on Mr. Mausner's New York City timeshare.

Instinet settled without admitting or denying the charges. Instinet's attorney, Jonathan Pressman, a partner at WilmerHale, declined to comment. The SEC charged J.S. Oliver and Mr. Mausner separately in August.

“Instinet repeatedly approved soft dollar payments despite clear warning signs that J.S. Oliver and Mausner were improperly using client funds for their benefit,” Marshall S. Sprung, co-chief of the SEC Enforcement Division's Asset Management Unit, said in a statement. “Brokers perform a crucial gatekeeper function in approving soft dollar payments, and they cannot turn a blind eye to red flags that investment advisers may be breaching their fiduciary duty to clients.”

J.S. Oliver said that the soft dollars would be used for “evaluating potential investment opportunities” and for “overhead expenses,” according to the SEC claim.

But the agency said that Instinet should have known that the payments for Mr. Mausner's ex-wife were fishy because she was not being compensated as an employee “but rather…to satisfy Mausner's personal obligation.”

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video

INTV

Ed Slott: 3 questions to ask before converting to a Roth IRA

To do a Roth conversion, money has to be spent. Here is what financial advisers and their clients should consider before they incur tax costs, according to Ed Slott, founder of Ed Slott's Elite IRA Advisor Group.

Latest news & opinion

Big gains attract new money to emerging markets, but should investors stay?

An estimated $6.7 billion has flowed into emerging-market stock funds and ETFs so far this year, according to Morningstar.

Attorney blasts Finra after regulator loses insider trading case

Lawyer says it was 'slimy' of Finra to publicize the case while it was still being litigated.

Will Jeffrey Gundlach's Trump-like approach on Twitter work in financial services?

The DoubleLine CEO's attacks on Wall Street Journal reporters is igniting a discussion on what's fair game on social media.

Fidelity wins arb case against wine mogul but earns a rebuke from Finra

In the case of investor Peter Deutsch, Fidelity doesn't have to pay any compensation, but regulator said firm put its interests ahead of his.

Plaintiffs win in Tibble vs. Edison 401(k) fee case

After a decade of activity around the lawsuit, including a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, judge rules a prudent fiduciary would have invested in institutional shares.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print