NASD Approves Customer Transfer Interpretation – Securities Law News Update, From the Securities Law Home Page

   

]]> Home | Message Board Home Search Arbitration Investors Brokers Finance Law Compliance Archives NASD Approves Customer Transfer Interpretation
Freezing accounts when broker transfers firms no longer an option

Approved by the SEC on January 4, 2002, this new policy will assure that customers will be able to transfer accounts without restriction to follow a departing broker.

The full text of IM 2110-7 states that:

“It shall be inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade for a member or person associated with a member to interfere with a customer’s request to transfer his or her account in connection with the change in employment of the customer’s registered representative, provided that the account is not subject to any lien for monies owed by the customer or other bona fide claim. Prohibited interference includes, but is not limited to, seeking a judicial order or decree that would bar or restrict the submission, delivery or acceptance of a written request from a customer to transfer his or her account. Nothing in this interpretation shall affect the operation of Rule 11870.”

This language is quite similar to the initial proposal, published in NTM 01-36 in May 2001 (SAA 01-21), with the exception of the “in connection with” phrase and the reference to liens.

NASD received 85 comment letters and e-mails about the May proposal, 67 of which agreed that customers should be able to transfer without interference from the member firm holding the account.

The new Interpretation, which was declared immediately effective (SEC Rel. 34-45230, 1/4/02; SR-NASD-01-95) by the Commission, was announced in the Federal Register on January 14 (67 Fed. Reg. 9, p. 1790). The relationship between this Interpretation, which bars firms from seeking account freeze orders from the courts in raiding disputes, and the newly announced Rule 10335 is discussed in footnote 3 of the Release, with the Commission distinguishing between the procedural aspects of the Injunctive Relief Rule and IM 2110-7, which “would address the substantive problem of customer harm resulting from firms obtaining temporary injunctive relief that prevents customers from transferring their accounts.” (ed: Nevertheless, the “prize” in the TRO battles that characterize “raiding” disputes is retention of the accounts and, without freezes, that weapon may lose its “sting” (See article on NASAA and state action in this areas, “TROs to Lose their Sting? On Wall Street Magazine, by Rosalyn Retkwa (Jan. ’02, p. 49). This landscape change is likely to shift the focus to monetary damages and away from injunctive relief, we believe.) (SAC Ref. No. 02-04-02)


Copyright 2000-2002 Securities Arbitration Commentator, Inc. P.O. Box 112, Maplewood, NJ 07040; t: 973-761-5880 f: 973-761-1504. Materials denoted with a SAC Reference No. (e.g. SAC Ref. No. 99-01-001) are on hand at SAC and may be obtained by calling the Securities Arbitration Commentator, or by email to help@sacarbitration.com. The Securities Arbitration Commentator is the leading publication for securities arbitration news and information, and maintains the most complete database of arbitration awards availalble anywhere. For more information regarding their services, visit their website at www.sacarbitration.com

Nothing herein is intended as legal or financial advice. The law is different in different jurisdictions, and the facts of a particular matter can change the application of the law. Please consult an attorney or your financial advisor before acting upon the information contained in this article. 


Return to The Securities Law Home Page 

Visit Beam & Astarita, LLC, securities arbitration, regulation and litigation attorneys

]]> ]]>