Guidance

We offer guidance to firms in the form of podcasts, webinars, FAQs, reports, and more. Use the toggle below to find guidance by topic, type or date. 

5 A B C D E F G H I L M N O P Q R S T V

5

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

V

Interpretive Letter
Interpretive Letter to Marilyn A. Sponzo, Jordan Burt

Separate sales contests are permissible under NASD Rule 2820(g) for group variable contracts.

February 03, 2003
Interpretive Letter
Interpretive Letter to Marion A. Kashan, London Pacific Securities, Inc. (Use of Negative Response Letters)
The use of negative response letters to transfer customers from one introducing broker/dealer to another may conflict with a member's obligation to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.
February 03, 2003
Interpretive Letter
Interpretive Letter to Marilyn J. Sponzo, Jorden Burt
Separate sales contests under NASD Rule 2820(g) for group variable annuity contracts and employer-sponsored retirement plans.
February 03, 2003
Exemptive Letter
Name Not Public
Exemptive relief is granted based on the following: (1) Name was not an MFP at the time the Contribution was made and was not engaged in, and did not supervise, municipal securities business; (2) the Firm took action once it became aware of the Contribution by retaining outside counsel to review the proposed reorganization and the possibility of municipal securities business restrictions as a result of the Contribution; (3) the Firm notified Name that when the municipal activities of certain retail sales brokers and MFP’s become part of the Business Unit on Month Day, 2003, the Firm will consider her to be an MFP and her municipal securities business activities will be restricted as a result of her Contribution and of her responsibilities3; (4) the Firm has agreed to restrict Name’s municipal securities activities, minimizing the potential for a quid pro quo resulting from the Contribution; and (5) although a less weighty factor, the Contribution has been returned.
January 07, 2003
Interpretive Letter
Interpretive Letter to R. Cromwell Coulson, Pink Sheets LLC

Application of NASD Rules to Member Firms using Pink Sheets Linkage.

December 12, 2002
Regulatory and Compliance Alerts (RCA)
Regulatory & Compliance Alert - Winter 2002
full_html
December 01, 2002
Exemptive Letter
Name Not Public
Exemptive relief is granted based on the following considerations: (1) Name was not an MFP at the time the Contribution was made and was not involved in the solicitation of new municipal securities business; (2) the Firm took action once it became aware of the Contribution by instituting a self-ban on new City municipal securities business; (3) the Firm notified Name of her designation as an MFP and the accompanying restrictions; (4) the Firm has agreed to establish information barriers to help ensure the segregation of information flow, minimizing the potential for quid pro quo resulting from the Contribution; (5) the Firm represents that it has corrected the technical political contributions database problems and has established new procedures for direct notification to legal and compliance personnel of additions to the Parent Management Committee; and (6) although the Contribution has not been returned, the Firm represents that reasonable efforts have been made to obtain the return of the Contribution.
November 15, 2002
Interpretive Letter
Interpretive Letter to Danny Ho, Commerzbank Securities

If a member transmits orders to buy and sell TRACE-eligible securities to other broker-dealers for the benefit of various proprietary accounts of foreign affiliates of the member, the member is acting as agent and must report the transactions under Rule 6230.

November 13, 2002
Interpretive Letter
Interpretive Letter to Dennis C. Hensley, Sidley Austin Brown and Wood LLP

If a member engages in a TRACE-eligible securities transaction that is part of an open market issuer repurchase, the member would not be in compliance with Rule 6230 if the member failed to report the transaction in reliance on Rule 6230(e)(3).

November 13, 2002
Interpretive Letter
Interpretive Letter to Donna B. Lawson, First Allied Securities, Inc.

Applicability of Rule 3040 to investment advisory activities of an individual who is dually registered as a registered representative and a registered investment advisor.

November 04, 2002
Interpretive Letter
Interpretive Letter to Kathleen H. Moriarty, Esq., Carter, Ledyard & Milburn

Secondary market trading in ETF Advisors Trust shares does not violate NASD Rules 2830, 2110 or 2420.

October 29, 2002
Interpretive Letter
Interpretive Letter to Janet Gallo, Acacia Life Insurance Company

Applicability of Rule 2820(g) to payments to an associated person from an issuer's deferred compensation plan.

October 14, 2002
Guidance
Improving Examination Results - October 2002

October 2002

In an effort to assist member firms' compliance efforts, NASD is issuing this regular communication, "Improving Examination Results." This document has two sections: "Examination Priorities" and "Frequently Found Violations," both of which relate to the Department of Member Regulation's routine examinations of firms. While each firm must establish its own compliance programs and supervisory procedures, we felt it may be helpful to share our overall priorities.

October 01, 2002
Interpretive Letter
Interpretive Letter to Susan S. Krawczyk, Esq., Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
Hypothetical illustration required by state law does not constitute "sales literature" under Rule 2210.
September 30, 2002
Exemptive Letter
Name Not Public
An exemption is granted based on the following: (1) Name was not an MFP at the time the Contribution was made and was not involved in the solicitation of new municipal securities business; (2) the Firm took action once it became aware of the Contribution by voluntarily refraining from new State or its issuing authorities municipal securities business pending the outcome of the exemption request; (3) the Firm notified Name of his designation as an MFP and the accompanying restrictions; (4) the Firm has agreed to restrict Name's municipal securities activities, minimizing the potential for quid pro quo resulting from the Contribution; and (5) although a less weighty factor, the Contribution has been returned.
September 30, 2002
Regulatory and Compliance Alerts (RCA)
Regulatory & Compliance Alert - Fall 2002
full_html
September 01, 2002
Interpretive Letter
Interpretive Letter to Howard L. Kramer, Schiff Hardin & Waite

Priced quotations by an ECN or ATS displayed on the OTC Bulletin Board are considered priced quotations for purposes of compliance with Rule 2320(g)(1).

August 19, 2002
Exemptive Letter
Name Not Public
Exemptive relieve is granted based on the following considerations: (1) Firm A took prompt action once it became aware of the Contribution by instituting a self-ban on any Issuer new business solicitation; (2) Firm A sent an electronic reminder to all Firm A and Firm A affiliate employees about Firm A's requirements for pre-clearance of all political contributions; (3) at the time of the Contribution, Name had no personal involvement in soliciting new, or participating in existing, municipal securities business; (4) Firm A has now offered to put in place processes to help ensure the segregation of Issuer information flow, minimizing the potential for quid pro quo resulting from the contribution; and (5) although a less weighty factor, the contribution was returned.
August 15, 2002
Exemptive Letter
Name Not Public
Exemptive relief is granted based on the following factors: (1) the Contribution was made by Company prior to signing an acquisition agreement with the Firm Parent;6 (2) at the time of the contribution Company had no involvement in soliciting new, or participating in existing, municipal securities business; (3) Company has been acquired by the Firm Parent and merged into Firm Y, an existing subsidiary of the Firm Parent that reports to and is controlled by the equities business unit of the Firm; (4) Firm Y securities information flow is controlled by NYSE approved information barriers designed to prevent the use of confidential information and conflicts of interest, minimizing the potential for quid pro quo resulting from the Contribution; (5) the Firm has put in place additional processes to ensure the segregation of the acquired Company business operations and its principals from State Business; and (6) although a less weighty factor, the Contribution was returned.
June 27, 2002
Exemptive Letter
Name Not Public
Exemptive relief is granted based on the following considerations: (1) the contributions were made prior to Individual's employment by the Firm; and (2) at the time of the contributions, Individual had no personal involvement in soliciting new, or participating in existing municipal securities business.
June 11, 2002
Interpretive Letter
Interpretive Letter to Selwyn Notelovitz, Global Compliance

Permissibility of electronic approval of accounts under NASD Rule 3110(c)(1)(C). (Note: Underlining indicates redactions from original letter).

June 04, 2002
Regulatory and Compliance Alerts (RCA)
Regulatory & Compliance Alert - Summer 2002
June 01, 2002
Exemptive Letter
Name Not Public
Exemptive relief is granted based on the following factors: (1.) prior to Name's contribution, Firm X maintained a thorough and comprehensive set of procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the Rule; (2.) the Firm had no knowledge of Name's contribution; (3.) once Firm X learned of Name's contribution, it took all available steps to return of the contribution; (4.) Firm X took appropriate remedial or preventive measures.
May 15, 2002
Exemptive Letter
Name Not Public
Exemptive relief is granted based on the following considerations: (1) the Contribution was made nine months after Name last held a position which would have resulted in his designation as an MFP; (2) since becoming a Title of Company C, Name continues to be designated an MFP only because of the Rule’s two-year “look back” provision; (3) at the time Name was a member of the Firm X Board, Name had no personal day-to-day involvement in Firm X's municipal securities activities, and, since resigning from the Firm X Board, Name has had no involvement in the Firm’s municipal securities business; and (4) , the Contribution was returned and was small.
May 01, 2002
Guidance
Improving Examination Results - April 2002

October 2002

April 01, 2002