Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

In re SG Americas Securities, LLC, NYSE Hearing Panel Decision 2011-3; 2011 NYSE Disc.
Action LEXIS 3 (May 13, 2011).
In a settled disciplinary proceeding, consented to by respondent without admitting or
denying the allegations, respondent was found to have violated NYSE Rule 342 by failing to
reasonably supervise and implement adequate controls, including a reasonable system of followup
and review, designed to achieve compliance with NYSE Rule 123C regarding compliance
with the requirements governing the cancellation of market-on-close and limit-on-close orders.
Specifically, NYSE found that the firm failed to have any systems or procedures in place to
detect possible violations of Rule 123C until March 2009, when it created an exception report for
that purpose, and failed to implement procedures designed to hold individual supervisors
responsible for reviewing the exception report. The firm also consented to findings that it
violated Rule 123C itself. As a result, for its supervisory violations, together with its Rule 123C
violations, the firm consented to a censure and a $ 350,000 fine.
In re UBS Securities LLC, NYSE Hearing Panel Decision 2011-2; 2011 NYSE Disc. Action
LEXIS 2 (Feb. 2, 2011).
In a settled disciplinary proceeding, consented to by respondent without admitting or
denying the allegations, respondent was found to have violated, among other rules, NYSE Rule
342 by failing to reasonably supervise and implement adequate controls, including a separate
system of follow-up and review, in connection with pre-opening odd lot orders routed to the
NYSE, and the submission of complete and accurate blue sheet data. NYSE found that the firm
had entered pre-opening, thousands of principal odd lot market orders for execution on the
NYSE in the same stock on the same side of the market, that aggregated 100 shares or more
without consolidating them into round lot orders as much as possible. Further NYSE found that
the firm had submitted incomplete or inaccurate blue sheet responses on approximately 437
occasions. In addition, the firm consented to findings that it violated, among other rules, NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 6.18 by failing to establish, maintain and/or enforce appropriate written
policies and procedures for supervision and control, including a separate system of follow-up and
review, with respect to odd lot transactions on the NYSE Arca Marketplace. In connection with
the Arca violations, the firm was found to have unbundled round lots for the purpose of entering
approximately 8,800 odd lot limit order.
As a result, Respondent consented to a censure and a fine of $225,000 for all its NYSE
violations, and $175,000 for all its NYSE Arca violations, inclusive of fines relating to
underlying handling of odd lot transactions.
P.3
P.3
400