This request for exemptive relief is granted based on the Firms’ representation that the Contribution was made by an employee who does not and has never engaged in the solicitation of municipal securities business, the imposition of certain “information restrictions” and other Firm-wide compliance measures, a Firm- imposed “censure” and compensation restrictions, and the return of the Contribution.
An exemption is granted based on the following considerations. First, you have represented that Name, prior to being hired by the Firm, was not engaged in the solicitation of municipal securities business, as defined in the Rule. Second, you have represented that the Firm has a long relationship as an underwriter of municipal securities for the State and State agencies, and neither the hiring of Name nor his Contribution was necessary to obtain municipal securities business from such issuers. Third, the Firm has agreed to institute preventive information barriers to help avoid the potential for conflicting interests to exist and be used, or appear to be used, by the Firm or Name to obtain municipal securities business or compensation or other financial benefits related to such business.
Exemption from lock-up provisions in Rule 2710(g) for shares to be issued upon the split of common stock that takes place within 180 days of the required filing of the offering with NASD when the pre-split shares were acquired prior to the 180 day timeframe.
The request for exemption stems from the fact that several political contributions were made from Firm X's checking account which Person A contends should have been issued from Person A's checking account. Under the MSRB rules, the NASD may grant exemptions only when the situation involves a disgruntled employee contribution or a number of small contributions totaling slightly more than the $250 de minimis amount. Accordingly, Firm X's request for an exemption is denied.
Exemptive relief is denied. Although C's employment with Firm X was the result of an "internal reorganization", it did result in C being a new employee with Firm X. Had Firm X's procedures as to new hires been followed, the disclosure of the contribution would have been known before C's transfer from an affiliated entity had been effected, rather than after.
It appears that the violation of the rule described in your letter related directly to the failure of Firm X to adopt procedures to review for political contributions prior to offering employment. Therefore, we cannot conclude that Firm X has demonstrated reasonable justification or excuse for granting the requested exemption. Accordingly, Firm X's request for an exemption is denied.
Exemptive relief is based on the firm's failed to implement compliance procedures sufficient to educate its municipal finance professionals regarding the particular provisions of the Rule, or otherwise prevent the occurrence of the contributions.
Exemptive relief is not granted based on the firm's failure to implement compliance procedures sufficient to educate its municipal finance professionals regarding the particular provisions of the Rule, or otherwise prevent the occurrence of the contributions.
Exemptive relief is denied based on the firm's failure to implement compliance procedures sufficient to educate its municipal finance professionals regarding the particular provisions of the Rule, or otherwise prevent the occurrence of the contributions.
Exemptive relief is denied due to a failure of the firm to develop and institute procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with Rule G-37.