Governor Jerry Brown recently signed Senate Bill 470, which amends California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c regarding summary judgment and summary adjudication. In addition to correcting grammar throughout the code section, the amendments will excuse judges from ruling on all evidentiary objections deemed not material to a motion for summary judgment. The following subsection will be added to the code section effective January 1, 2016:
“(q) In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion. Objections to evidence that are not ruled on for purposes of the motion shall be preserved for appellate review.”
This amendment codifies the 2010 California Supreme Court case Reid v. Google, in which the court held evidentiary objections contained in summary judgment papers are preserved for appellate review even if the trial court does not rule on the objections. The amendment will lift some of the burden from the courts of having to rule on the voluminous evidentiary objections attorneys frequently include in summary judgment papers. However, it will not relieve practitioners from having to make all necessary objections in their papers; objections not made in the parties’ papers will not be preserved for appeal.
Shustak Reynolds & Partners, P.C.’s San Diego, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York attorneys handle a wide range of litigation and arbitration matters. Contact us today for a confidential analysis of your situation.
This week, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced it has fined Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P. $1.8 million for violations relating to trade reporting, failing to submit accurate trade reports and related supervisory failures. According to FINRA, some of these violations occurred over a period of more than eight years, from July 2006 to March of 2015. During this time, FINRA alleges Goldman Sachs reported inaccurate or incomplete trading data to FINRA’s Order Audit Trail System (OATS), which is used to record information relating to trades.
Executive Vice President of FINRA Market Regulation Thomas Gira has said “OATS data is integral to FINRA’s automated market surveillance program to detect manipulative activity and other potential violations of FINRA rules and federal securities laws. It is critical that firms have the necessary systems and supervision in place to ensure compliance with their OATS and trade reporting obligations.” Goldman Sachs failed to have such systems in place to prevent its reporting problems, resulting in a hefty fine.
Goldman Sachs neither admitted nor denied FINRA’s charges, but it consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.
Shustak Reynolds & Partners, P.C.’s New York, San Francisco, Irvine and San Diego securities, FINRA and SEC attorneys handle a wide range of securities and FINRA related issues and have substantial expertise and experience in the securities and brokerage business. Contact us today for a confidential analysis of your situation.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) recently ordered Fidelity Investments to pay a $350,000 fine after determining the firm overcharged customers $2.4 million over a period of approximately 7 years. The overcharges affected over 20,000 customers, some of whom were double-billed or charged excess commissions on fee-based accounts. After discovering the problems in 2012, Fidelity self-reported the issue to FINRA, and it has reimbursed all affected clients.
FINRA concluded the problems were caused by Fidelity’s failure to supervise fee-based brokerage accounts. Notably, while these overcharges occurred, Fidelity had no supervisory principal in charge of overseeing the firm’s fee-based accounts. Fidelity consented to FINRA’s order, which includes a censure and $350,000 fine.
This is just one example of many where a brokerage firm has been fined for failing to supervise customer accounts. Shustak Reynolds & Partners, P.C.’s New York, San Francisco, Irvine and San Diego securities, FINRA and SEC attorneys handle a wide range of securities and FINRA related issues and have substantial expertise and experience in the securities and brokerage business. Contact us today for a confidential analysis of your situation.
Last week brought about an increase to the price of bringing a FINRA arbitration. Effective December 15, 2014, various fees associated with FINRA arbitration claims increased, including hearing session fees, filing fees and member process fees. These fee increases affect investors, associated persons, associated and non-associated persons alike. FINRA has clarified that these increased fees only apply to arbitration cases filed on or after December 15, 2014, so pending cases should not be affected.
The SEC-approved fee hike will cover an increase to the honoraria payments arbitrators receive for serving in FINRA cases, in support of FINRA’s recent efforts to attract and retain qualified arbitrators. Honoraria payments to arbitrators have not increased in 15 years. Now, FINRA arbitrators may receive $600 per day for serving in hearing sessions. On top of that payment, the chairperson may receive an additional $125 per hearing day.
FINRA’s arbitration division is the mandatory forum for most investors who bring claims against brokerage firms, stock brokers and financial advisors. Most financial advisors and employees of FINRA brokerage firms must bring employment disputes in the FINRA arbitration forum as well. Our securities and investment attorneys in San Diego, Irvine, San Francisco and New York are highly experienced in handling FINRA customer and employment disputes, as well as FINRA and SEC investigations and enforcement proceedings.
Shustak Reynolds & Partners is pleased to announce that Jessica H. Antoniades has joined the firm as an associate in its San Diego office. Jessica’s practice focuses on civil litigation and arbitration, primarily in the areas of securities fraud and employment disputes. Prior to joining the firm, Jessica practiced civil litigation here in San Diego, representing plaintiffs in personal injury, medical malpractice, and employment matters.
Jessica earned her Bachelor of Arts, cum laude, in Political Science and English from the University of Washington. She then graduated magna cum laude from the University of San Diego School of Law, where she was Executive Editor of the San Diego Law Review. During law school, Jessica also served as a Judicial Extern for the Honorable William Q. Hayes and the Honorable Marilyn L. Huff, both of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
