This request for exemptive relief is granted based on the Firm's representation that the contributor has never solicited municipal securities business, as defined by MSRB Rule G-37, from the State or entities or agencies connected with the State of whom the contribution recipient is considered to be an issuer official, the Contribution was returned, and representations that the Firm has imposed certain limitations on the individual's municipal business solicitation, and receipt of compensation from the Firm's municipal securities business with the State or State agencies.
The staff granted an exemption from NASD Rule 2790 in connection with new issue offering where all decisions regarding the allocation of shares in the offering are determined at the sole discretion of the issuer.February 3, 2006 Bruce E. Lee, Esq.208 North 29th StreetSuite 221P.O. Box 1222Billings, MT 59103 Re: Request for Exemption from Rule 2790 Dear Mr. Lee
The staff granted an exemption from NASD Rule 2790 in connection with new issue offering where all decisions regarding the allocation of shares in the offering are determined at the sole discretion of the issuer, and the involvement of a member in the offering is mandated under state law and limited solely to ministerial functions.October 18, 2005 Noel M. Gruber, Esq.Kennedy &
An exemption is granted based on the following: First, the Firm took prompt remedial action by placing Name in an "inactive status" and directing him to not engage in any work for the Firm. Second, 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, and during his Firm employment as an MFP Name did not engage in municipal securities representative activities and did not solicit municipal business. Third, you have represented that the Firm has a long relationship as an underwriter of municipal securities for County #1 and County #2, and the State and neither the hiring of Name nor his Contributions were necessary to obtain municipal securities business from such issuers. Fourth, the Firm has agreed to undertake an education initiative, as described below, for all employees of the Firm's Municipal Securities Group.
The staff granted an exemption from NASD Rule 2790 in connection with new issue offering of a registered securities exchange for certain allocations as part of its issuer-directed share program.
December 3, 2004
Dana G. Fleischman, Esq.
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton
One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006-1470
Re: Request for Exemption from Rule 2790
Dear Ms. Fleischman
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.
