Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Rule 4530 Hasn’t Gone Away! Firms Should Remain Cognizant of their Self-Reporting Requirements

By Daniel Nathan & Ana-Maria Ignat on February 27, 2013
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Recent amendments to FINRA’s Rule 4530 that ease up on broker-dealers’ self-reporting requirements provide a convenient occasion for us to remind the industry of the Rule’s already existing requirement to report internal conclusions of violations. This requirement, set forth in Rule 4530(b), should be the focus of broker-dealer compliance efforts. Reportable potential violations targeted by the rule are those with widespread impact on a member firm, its customers or the markets, or those arising from a material failure of a member’s systems, policies and practices involving many customers, multiple errors, or significant dollar amounts. The mention of the need for enhanced controls in internal audit reports will not be determinative, but should be a factor considered by the firm in determining whether a reportable violation occurred.

FINRA’s head of enforcement indicated shortly before the Rule went into effect that Rule 4530(b) could be a “game changer” in terms of requiring more proactive self-reporting by firms, and the first enforcement action would likely be not “a close one” but rather “a situation in which the firm clearly knew of violations and chose not to self-report.”

FINRA likely is still looking for an appropriate set of facts to bring an enforcement action for violation of Rule 4530(b), and member firms should be mindful of this in their compliance with the language and spirit of this carefully worded and interpreted rule. Member firms should have procedures that, among other things, identify who will make the determination of whether a violation is reportable, and require that all such considerations be documented. Procedures and documentation are always good inoculants against actions for failure to act in good faith.

Read client alert.

Daniel Nathan

Mr. Nathan is a partner in the firm’s Securities Litigation, Enforcement and White-Collar Defense Group. Mr. Nathan’s practice includes representation of companies and individuals who are involved as witnesses or subjects in investigations conducted by the SEC, the CFTC, FINRA and other regulatory…

Mr. Nathan is a partner in the firm’s Securities Litigation, Enforcement and White-Collar Defense Group. Mr. Nathan’s practice includes representation of companies and individuals who are involved as witnesses or subjects in investigations conducted by the SEC, the CFTC, FINRA and other regulatory entities involving financial institutions or transactions. Mr. Nathan also consults with financial institutions on examinations, supervisory procedures, product disclosure and supervision, and other regulatory matters.

Email
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Banking, Finance and Securities
  • Blog:
    IM Insights
  • Organization:
    Morrison & Foerster LLP

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo