Apex Fined $3.2M For Securities Lending Violations
Apex was fined $3.2M for rule violations of its fully paid
securities lending program - this is on top of previous fines to four
broker-dealers on the same issue that totaled $2.6M (including $1M in
restitution to retail investors). Basically, Apex borrowed securities from
clients of various broker dealers, but failed to determine whether those retail
investors should have been allowed to loan their shares. There were serious
disclosure problems here, with FINRA highlighting that Apex did not disclose to
retail investors that lending their shares would result in:
The loss of their voting
rights;
Receiving cash in lieu of a
dividend, with potential adverse tax consequences;
Their positions not being covered
by SIPC insurance when they were lent out; and
The risk that they might
not be able to recover their positions.
Apex’s broker customers were supposed to pay retail investors
part of the lending fees, but some of them did not, leading to misleading
disclosures from Apex.
Apex was fined $3.2M for rule violations of its fully paid securities lending program - this is on top of previous fines to four broker-dealers on the same issue that totaled $2.6M (including $1M in restitution to retail investors). Basically, Apex borrowed securities from clients of various broker dealers, but failed to determine whether those retail investors should have been allowed to loan their shares. There were serious disclosure problems here, with FINRA highlighting that Apex did not disclose to retail investors that lending their shares would result in:
The loss of their voting rights;
Receiving cash in lieu of a dividend, with potential adverse tax consequences;
Their positions not being covered by SIPC insurance when they were lent out; and
The risk that they might not be able to recover their positions.
Apex’s broker customers were supposed to pay retail investors part of the lending fees, but some of them did not, leading to misleading disclosures from Apex.
... Show more
Was that a high or low fee? Where there any actual losses for the customers and if yes, do we know how much of them was covered?