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.
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.
<p>Applicability of NASD Rules to registered representatives of subsidiary bank of member broker/dealer.<br/></p>
<p>Clarification of <i>NASD Notice to Members 96-33</i>: application of Rule 3040 to registered representatives of a distributor who also are employed by investment advisers to manage the portfolios of investment companies.<br/></p>
<p>Applicability of Rule 3040 to investment advisory activities of an individual who is dually registered as a registered representative and a registered investment advisor.</p>
