Firm X's request for exemption is denied. The Rule imposes a requirement on all firms subject to its provisions to know them and to have in place supervisory procedures to reasonably insure compliance with the Rule. The language of the rule is clear with respect to the limitations imposed on member firms, as distinct from municipal financial professionals. In the instant matter, we cannot conclude that ignorance of the Rule's provisions constitutes reasonable justification or excuse for granting the requested exemption.
A conditional exemption is granted. The Committee determined that B's second contribution was a violation of MSRB G-37 (the Rule) because, when consolidated with the first contribution, the total was $480. This significantly exceeded the $250 de minimis contribution exemption in the Rule. However, the Committee found that the second contribution at issue resulted from human error rather than from insufficient compliance procedures, failure by the firm to educate key personnel, or ignorance by firm personnel of the Rule.
Exemption granted to extend exemption previously granted from Rule 2720(l), to [Firm] on June 14, 1999 to include offerings of warrants and purchase contracts and to units consisting of debt securities, warrants, and/or purchase contracts.
Summary of Exemption Decision Re: Rule 2710 Issued by Corporate Financing Department
Request for Exemption from the Provisions of NASD Conduct Rule 2710
May 29, 1998
Mr. Kenneth W. Perlman
General Counsel
Mayer & Schweitzer, Inc.
111 Pavonia Avenue East
Jersey City, New Jersey 07310
Re: Exemption Pursuant to NASD Rule 2320(g)(2)
Dear Mr. Perlman:
We are in receipt of your letter in which you request that the Office of General Counsel, NASD Regulation grant your specific request for exemptive relief from NASD Rule 2320(g)(1), the
