FINRA Gets “A” For Funniest Branding and Double-Speak, Says Industry Watcher

FINRA

When it comes to its own “brand positioning” and the doublespeak corporate messaging used within the collateral of securities industry self-regulator FINRA, the powers that be might be better off spending more time policing itself as opposed to the millions of dollars it spends on policing its brokerdealer constituents, particularly when it comes to beating up BDs whose advertising messages are alleged to be “inaccurate and/or misleading,” according to Forbes writer Ed Siedle.

BrokerDealer.com blog update is courtesy of Siedle’s recent piece “Finra Keeps America Laughing” with extract below from Siedle’s “Financial Watchdog” blog.

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) employment advertisement from the Wall Street Journal I read in 2013 was such a hoot that I had to clip it, save it and promise myself I’d write about it someday. The newspaper ad scrap, now yellow, still is a knee-slapping, rib-tickler.

Here’s the hysterical double-speak FINRA used to describe itself in the recruitment piece (with emphasis added on only the most absurd).

“FINRA is an independent, non-government regulator for all securities firms doing business with the public in the United States. FINRA works to protect investors and maintain market integrity in a public-private partnership with the Securities and Exchange Commission, while also benefitting from the SEC’s oversight. In its role as investor guardian, FINRA is informed, but not influenced, by the industry that it regulates.”

Mama Mia!

For the entire article from Ed Siedle, click here.

Finra Focus On High-Frequency Trading; HFTs Might Need BrokerDealer License

high frequency trader

BrokerDealer.com blog update profiles the latest shoe to drop as both the US Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) and Finra contemplate regulatory changes that could require firms engaged in high-frequency trading aka HFT to become registered brokerdealers. Below is excerpt of coverage from FT.com

US regulators have moved to close a loophole that allows some high-frequency trading firms that trade equities away from regulated exchanges to operate with light supervision.

The Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday proposed requiring proprietary traders to become members of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a markets regulator.

The change would give authorities greater oversight for the day-to-day operations and recordkeeping for many high-speed traders and electronic market makers who dominate much of trading on US equity markets.

“Today’s proposed rules would close a regulatory gap by extending oversight to a significant portion of off-exchange trading,” said SEC chair Mary Jo White.

It is the first move by the US regulator to tighten monitoring of high-speed electronic traders, which aim to profit from rapid-fire moves in the market, following intense scrutiny on the industry a year ago. Flash Boys, a book by author Michael Lewis, alleged that high-frequency traders were among the beneficiaries to a market structure that was “rigged”. That led to calls for greater oversight of HFTs and off-exchange trading which had been building as equity trading increasingly moved to venues outside the traditional exchanges.

The SEC’s proposal would amend a rule that exempts certain brokers and dealers from membership in a national securities association. The existing rule reflected practices more than two decades ago, when equity markets were dominated by floor-based exchanges which could more easily regulate all of their members’ trading activity.

That world has largely disappeared as the emergence of high-speed technology and alternative trading venueshas helped usher in a new breed of proprietary traders that dominate trading. Although some have registered as broker-dealers at Finra, such as RGM Securities, Quantlab Securities and Tradebot Systems, there are also many that have not.

To read the entire story from FT, click here

FINRA and MSRB Pair Up Re Pay-To-Play Rules

pay-to-play rules

(National Law Review)-FINRA and MSRB Propose New Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Broker-Dealer Solicitors and Municipal Advisors; Rules Will Trigger SEC Investment Advisor Third-Party Solicitation Ban

The following brokerdealer.com update is courtesy of submission to National Law Review by Greenberg Traurig, LLP

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) simultaneously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule proposals that will have broad and substantial impacts on the political giving of broker-dealers, investment advisers and municipal advisors and their ability to engage in business with governmental entities under SEC, FINRA and MSRB rules.

The FINRA proposal seeks to establish so-called pay-to-play restrictions on broker-dealers that engage in certain distribution and solicitation activities on behalf of investment advisers (third-party solicitors) under new FINRA Rule 2030, on Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities, and associated FINRA Rule 4580, on Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities. The MSRB proposal would extend to municipal advisors (including certain third-party solicitors) its existing pay-to-play rule applicable to municipal securities broker-dealers, MSRB Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business.

The FINRA rules, and in part the MSRB rule amendment, are designed to complement the SEC’s existing pay-to-play rule for investment advisers, Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When effective, the FINRA and MSRB rules would trigger compliance requirements under the SEC’s ban on third party solicitations on behalf of investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, as provided for under SEC staff’s current no-action posture which has put this provision of the SEC pay-to-play rule in abeyance subject to completion of FINRA and MSRB rulemaking.

While each rule has its own unique provisions, the SEC, FINRA and MSRB pay-to-play rules generally create two-year bans, or “time-outs,” from engaging in investment advisory, underwriting/distribution or municipal advisory activities with state or local governmental entities if the investment adviser, broker-dealer or municipal advisor firm or specific professionals within the firm have made political contributions to elected officials of such governmental entities, subject to permitted de minimis contributions. The rules also prohibit such firms and professionals from soliciting or coordinating political contributions by others to elected officials of governmental entities with which they are undertaking or seeking business, or to state or local political parties within any jurisdiction where such business is being undertaken or sought.

In addition, the SEC rule prohibits investment advisers from paying a third-party to solicit on their behalf a governmental entity for investment advisory business unless such third-party is subject to the SEC, FINRA or MSRB pay-to-play rule. The MSRB rule also includes a public disclosure regime that requires quarterly information filings with the MSRB that are made public on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Finally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also has adopted its own pay-to-play rule for swap dealers entering into swap transactions with governmental special entities, Rule 23.451 on Political Contributions By Certain Swap Dealers. Firms covered by one or more of these pay-to-play rules will need to engage in extensive compliance and recordkeeping activities that take into account the range of activities they undertake and the varying requirements of the applicable SEC, CFTC, FINRA and/or MSRB rules.

The FINRA and MSRB proposals are subject to the SEC’s public comment and approval process, and the restrictions and related requirements would apply only for contributions made after the effective date, which would be a date to be announced no sooner than 6 months after SEC approval.

The FINRA rule proposal may be found here.

The MSRB rule proposal may be found here.

Currently effective pay-to-play rules may be found as follows: SEC Rule 206(4)-5; and CFTC Rule 23.451.

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

FINRA and MSRB Propose New Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Broker-Dealer Solicitors and Municipal Advisors; Rules Will Trigger SEC Investment Advisor Third-Party Solicitation Ban

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) simultaneously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule proposals that will have broad and substantial impacts on the political giving of broker-dealers, investment advisers and municipal advisors and their ability to engage in business with governmental entities under SEC, FINRA and MSRB rules.

The FINRA proposal seeks to establish so-called pay-to-play restrictions on broker-dealers that engage in certain distribution and solicitation activities on behalf of investment advisers (third-party solicitors) under new FINRA Rule 2030, on Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities, and associated FINRA Rule 4580, on Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities. The MSRB proposal would extend to municipal advisors (including certain third-party solicitors) its existing pay-to-play rule applicable to municipal securities broker-dealers, MSRB Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business.

The FINRA rules, and in part the MSRB rule amendment, are designed to complement the SEC’s existing pay-to-play rule for investment advisers, Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When effective, the FINRA and MSRB rules would trigger compliance requirements under the SEC’s ban on third party solicitations on behalf of investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, as provided for under SEC staff’s current no-action posture which has put this provision of the SEC pay-to-play rule in abeyance subject to completion of FINRA and MSRB rulemaking.

While each rule has its own unique provisions, the SEC, FINRA and MSRB pay-to-play rules generally create two-year bans, or “time-outs,” from engaging in investment advisory, underwriting/distribution or municipal advisory activities with state or local governmental entities if the investment adviser, broker-dealer or municipal advisor firm or specific professionals within the firm have made political contributions to elected officials of such governmental entities, subject to permitted de minimis contributions. The rules also prohibit such firms and professionals from soliciting or coordinating political contributions by others to elected officials of governmental entities with which they are undertaking or seeking business, or to state or local political parties within any jurisdiction where such business is being undertaken or sought.

In addition, the SEC rule prohibits investment advisers from paying a third-party to solicit on their behalf a governmental entity for investment advisory business unless such third-party is subject to the SEC, FINRA or MSRB pay-to-play rule. The MSRB rule also includes a public disclosure regime that requires quarterly information filings with the MSRB that are made public on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Finally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also has adopted its own pay-to-play rule for swap dealers entering into swap transactions with governmental special entities, Rule 23.451 on Political Contributions By Certain Swap Dealers. Firms covered by one or more of these pay-to-play rules will need to engage in extensive compliance and recordkeeping activities that take into account the range of activities they undertake and the varying requirements of the applicable SEC, CFTC, FINRA and/or MSRB rules.

The FINRA and MSRB proposals are subject to the SEC’s public comment and approval process, and the restrictions and related requirements would apply only for contributions made after the effective date, which would be a date to be announced no sooner than 6 months after SEC approval.

The FINRA rule proposal may be found here.

The MSRB rule proposal may be found here.

Currently effective pay-to-play rules may be found as follows: SEC Rule 206(4)-5; and CFTC Rule 23.451.

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/finra-and-msrb-propose-new-pay-to-play-restrictions-broker-dealer-solicitors-and#sthash.BIDndxYl.dpuf

FINRA and MSRB Propose New Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Broker-Dealer Solicitors and Municipal Advisors; Rules Will Trigger SEC Investment Advisor Third-Party Solicitation Ban

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) simultaneously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule proposals that will have broad and substantial impacts on the political giving of broker-dealers, investment advisers and municipal advisors and their ability to engage in business with governmental entities under SEC, FINRA and MSRB rules.

The FINRA proposal seeks to establish so-called pay-to-play restrictions on broker-dealers that engage in certain distribution and solicitation activities on behalf of investment advisers (third-party solicitors) under new FINRA Rule 2030, on Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities, and associated FINRA Rule 4580, on Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities. The MSRB proposal would extend to municipal advisors (including certain third-party solicitors) its existing pay-to-play rule applicable to municipal securities broker-dealers, MSRB Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business.

The FINRA rules, and in part the MSRB rule amendment, are designed to complement the SEC’s existing pay-to-play rule for investment advisers, Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When effective, the FINRA and MSRB rules would trigger compliance requirements under the SEC’s ban on third party solicitations on behalf of investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, as provided for under SEC staff’s current no-action posture which has put this provision of the SEC pay-to-play rule in abeyance subject to completion of FINRA and MSRB rulemaking.

While each rule has its own unique provisions, the SEC, FINRA and MSRB pay-to-play rules generally create two-year bans, or “time-outs,” from engaging in investment advisory, underwriting/distribution or municipal advisory activities with state or local governmental entities if the investment adviser, broker-dealer or municipal advisor firm or specific professionals within the firm have made political contributions to elected officials of such governmental entities, subject to permitted de minimis contributions. The rules also prohibit such firms and professionals from soliciting or coordinating political contributions by others to elected officials of governmental entities with which they are undertaking or seeking business, or to state or local political parties within any jurisdiction where such business is being undertaken or sought.

In addition, the SEC rule prohibits investment advisers from paying a third-party to solicit on their behalf a governmental entity for investment advisory business unless such third-party is subject to the SEC, FINRA or MSRB pay-to-play rule. The MSRB rule also includes a public disclosure regime that requires quarterly information filings with the MSRB that are made public on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Finally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also has adopted its own pay-to-play rule for swap dealers entering into swap transactions with governmental special entities, Rule 23.451 on Political Contributions By Certain Swap Dealers. Firms covered by one or more of these pay-to-play rules will need to engage in extensive compliance and recordkeeping activities that take into account the range of activities they undertake and the varying requirements of the applicable SEC, CFTC, FINRA and/or MSRB rules.

The FINRA and MSRB proposals are subject to the SEC’s public comment and approval process, and the restrictions and related requirements would apply only for contributions made after the effective date, which would be a date to be announced no sooner than 6 months after SEC approval.

The FINRA rule proposal may be found here.

The MSRB rule proposal may be found here.

Currently effective pay-to-play rules may be found as follows: SEC Rule 206(4)-5; and CFTC Rule 23.451.

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/finra-and-msrb-propose-new-pay-to-play-restrictions-broker-dealer-solicitors-and#sthash.BIDndxYl.dpuf

FINRA and MSRB Propose New Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Broker-Dealer Solicitors and Municipal Advisors; Rules Will Trigger SEC Investment Advisor Third-Party Solicitation Ban

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) simultaneously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule proposals that will have broad and substantial impacts on the political giving of broker-dealers, investment advisers and municipal advisors and their ability to engage in business with governmental entities under SEC, FINRA and MSRB rules.

The FINRA proposal seeks to establish so-called pay-to-play restrictions on broker-dealers that engage in certain distribution and solicitation activities on behalf of investment advisers (third-party solicitors) under new FINRA Rule 2030, on Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities, and associated FINRA Rule 4580, on Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities. The MSRB proposal would extend to municipal advisors (including certain third-party solicitors) its existing pay-to-play rule applicable to municipal securities broker-dealers, MSRB Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business.

The FINRA rules, and in part the MSRB rule amendment, are designed to complement the SEC’s existing pay-to-play rule for investment advisers, Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When effective, the FINRA and MSRB rules would trigger compliance requirements under the SEC’s ban on third party solicitations on behalf of investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, as provided for under SEC staff’s current no-action posture which has put this provision of the SEC pay-to-play rule in abeyance subject to completion of FINRA and MSRB rulemaking.

While each rule has its own unique provisions, the SEC, FINRA and MSRB pay-to-play rules generally create two-year bans, or “time-outs,” from engaging in investment advisory, underwriting/distribution or municipal advisory activities with state or local governmental entities if the investment adviser, broker-dealer or municipal advisor firm or specific professionals within the firm have made political contributions to elected officials of such governmental entities, subject to permitted de minimis contributions. The rules also prohibit such firms and professionals from soliciting or coordinating political contributions by others to elected officials of governmental entities with which they are undertaking or seeking business, or to state or local political parties within any jurisdiction where such business is being undertaken or sought.

In addition, the SEC rule prohibits investment advisers from paying a third-party to solicit on their behalf a governmental entity for investment advisory business unless such third-party is subject to the SEC, FINRA or MSRB pay-to-play rule. The MSRB rule also includes a public disclosure regime that requires quarterly information filings with the MSRB that are made public on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Finally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also has adopted its own pay-to-play rule for swap dealers entering into swap transactions with governmental special entities, Rule 23.451 on Political Contributions By Certain Swap Dealers. Firms covered by one or more of these pay-to-play rules will need to engage in extensive compliance and recordkeeping activities that take into account the range of activities they undertake and the varying requirements of the applicable SEC, CFTC, FINRA and/or MSRB rules.

The FINRA and MSRB proposals are subject to the SEC’s public comment and approval process, and the restrictions and related requirements would apply only for contributions made after the effective date, which would be a date to be announced no sooner than 6 months after SEC approval.

The FINRA rule proposal may be found here.

The MSRB rule proposal may be found here.

Currently effective pay-to-play rules may be found as follows: SEC Rule 206(4)-5; and CFTC Rule 23.451.

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/finra-and-msrb-propose-new-pay-to-play-restrictions-broker-dealer-solicitors-and#sthash.bT8ZACWj.dpuf

FINRA and MSRB Propose New Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Broker-Dealer Solicitors and Municipal Advisors; Rules Will Trigger SEC Investment Advisor Third-Party Solicitation Ban

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) simultaneously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule proposals that will have broad and substantial impacts on the political giving of broker-dealers, investment advisers and municipal advisors and their ability to engage in business with governmental entities under SEC, FINRA and MSRB rules.

The FINRA proposal seeks to establish so-called pay-to-play restrictions on broker-dealers that engage in certain distribution and solicitation activities on behalf of investment advisers (third-party solicitors) under new FINRA Rule 2030, on Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities, and associated FINRA Rule 4580, on Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities. The MSRB proposal would extend to municipal advisors (including certain third-party solicitors) its existing pay-to-play rule applicable to municipal securities broker-dealers, MSRB Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business.

The FINRA rules, and in part the MSRB rule amendment, are designed to complement the SEC’s existing pay-to-play rule for investment advisers, Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When effective, the FINRA and MSRB rules would trigger compliance requirements under the SEC’s ban on third party solicitations on behalf of investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, as provided for under SEC staff’s current no-action posture which has put this provision of the SEC pay-to-play rule in abeyance subject to completion of FINRA and MSRB rulemaking.

While each rule has its own unique provisions, the SEC, FINRA and MSRB pay-to-play rules generally create two-year bans, or “time-outs,” from engaging in investment advisory, underwriting/distribution or municipal advisory activities with state or local governmental entities if the investment adviser, broker-dealer or municipal advisor firm or specific professionals within the firm have made political contributions to elected officials of such governmental entities, subject to permitted de minimis contributions. The rules also prohibit such firms and professionals from soliciting or coordinating political contributions by others to elected officials of governmental entities with which they are undertaking or seeking business, or to state or local political parties within any jurisdiction where such business is being undertaken or sought.

In addition, the SEC rule prohibits investment advisers from paying a third-party to solicit on their behalf a governmental entity for investment advisory business unless such third-party is subject to the SEC, FINRA or MSRB pay-to-play rule. The MSRB rule also includes a public disclosure regime that requires quarterly information filings with the MSRB that are made public on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Finally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also has adopted its own pay-to-play rule for swap dealers entering into swap transactions with governmental special entities, Rule 23.451 on Political Contributions By Certain Swap Dealers. Firms covered by one or more of these pay-to-play rules will need to engage in extensive compliance and recordkeeping activities that take into account the range of activities they undertake and the varying requirements of the applicable SEC, CFTC, FINRA and/or MSRB rules.

The FINRA and MSRB proposals are subject to the SEC’s public comment and approval process, and the restrictions and related requirements would apply only for contributions made after the effective date, which would be a date to be announced no sooner than 6 months after SEC approval.

The FINRA rule proposal may be found here.

The MSRB rule proposal may be found here.

Currently effective pay-to-play rules may be found as follows: SEC Rule 206(4)-5; and CFTC Rule 23.451.

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/finra-and-msrb-propose-new-pay-to-play-restrictions-broker-dealer-solicitors-and#sthash.bT8ZACWj.dpuf

Industry Regulators Block Disclosure of Bad Actor BrokerDealers; BrokerCheck System is Broken

California, Nevada , Arizona, Florida, New York & NJ have highest number of bad apple brokers.

BrokerDealer.com blog update courtesy of extract from Dec 26 WSJ story by Jean Eaglesham and Rob Barry …

brokercheckIn what can best be described as a Faustian tale taken from Alice in Wonderland, it should be no wonder that bad apple brokers continue to prey on investors, with no thanks to the archaic system overseen by financial industry regulators, most notably the “self-regulated” Financial Industry Regulatory Authority aka Finra. WSJ reporters Jean Eaglesham and Rob Barry provide insight into the dumb data system employed by the industry’s watchdog:

Wall Street’s own national watchdog doesn’t make public all the regulatory red flags it has about brokers, prompting calls from state regulators for more expansive disclosure.

Investors checking disciplinary records from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or Finra, can see that in Bennett Broad ’s 35-year career as a stockbroker, he has faced 25 customer complaints involving alleged trading abuses, and that 15 ended in payouts to clients.

What they won’t see is that a former employer, UBS AG , launched an internal investigation into Mr. Broad’s business practices back in 2003 and then, according to state regulators, “permitted” him “to resign.” At least eight of his 25 complaints involved conduct after that investigation.

Finra, an industry-funded overseer of brokers, encourages investors to check its BrokerCheck Web page to look for regulatory red flags about individual brokers, including complaints, regulatory actions, terminations for cause and personal bankruptcies. Mr. Broad’s BrokerCheck reveals neither the UBS investigation nor his resignation—even though they show up on his state regulatory record.

A Wall Street Journal examination of federal and state regulatory data revealed that a wealth of information about brokers is reported to the national regulator but not made public by it. The Journal found at least 38,400 brokers have regulatory or financial red flags that appear only on state records, which in most states aren’t available without contacting state regulators. Of those, at least 19,000 had completely clean BrokerCheck records. A comprehensive database of brokerdealers registered in the US and major countries throughout the globe is available here.

California, Nevada , Arizona, Florida, New York & NJ have highest number of bad actor brokers.

The Journal’s analysis included 6,527 registered stockbrokers with offices in Fort Lauderdale and Boca Raton, Fla., highlighted on the adjacent map. Of those, 342, or 5.2%, reported three or more red flags on their disciplinary records. For every 10 brokers in this area, there were 4.9 disclosures, 126% higher than the rate among all brokers in the Journal’s data.

Brokers with troubled regulatory records were often found in areas with wealthy, elderly populations. In this hot spot, the share of households headed by people aged 65 and up with incomes in excess of $100,000 was about 39% greater than the nation as a whole.

For the entire article from WSJ, please click here.

BrokerDealer WhistleBlowers Beware: Arbitration is a Double-Edged Sword

BrokerDealer.com blog update re the Finra arbitration process is courtesy of extract from 31 Aug New York Times story by Gretchen Morgenson

nytimes logoFive years ago, Sean Martin, a registered representative at Deutsche Bank Securities in New York, saw something troubling on his trading desk.

A few of his colleagues, he said, were letting preferred hedge fund clients listen in on confidential market commentary by the firm’s analysts before their views were made public. He alerted his superiors and was almost immediately given a negative review, a first in more than 10 years at the firm, he said. His bosses also removed him from the group he’d been working with and cut his compensation.

Mr. Martin, who continues to work at Deutsche Bank, said he believed that he was being punished for reporting misconduct and took the one avenue of redress that was open to him. In August 2012, he brought an arbitration case against the firm, contending retaliation and asking to recover his lost earnings. As is typical in the financial industry, his employment contract required that any dispute between him and his employer go through private arbitration, not the courts. Mr. Martin’s matter is being heard by three arbitrators associated with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a self-regulatory organization that operates the largest dispute resolution forum in the securities industry.

But Mr. Martin’s experience with arbitration, both he and his lawyer say, has raised questions of fairness in the process. The three-member panel hearing his case has barred him from testifying about certain crucial aspects of what he saw at Deutsche Bank and disallowed the introduction of documents that bolster his claims. This led his lawyer to conclude that the panel was not interested in specifics of the behavior at the heart of his accusations — and to ask a state court to step in.

“When I filed this arbitration, I expected that Finra would resolve the dispute between Deutsche Bank and me in a fair way,” Mr. Martin, 41, said in a statement provided by his lawyer. “I was surprised and disappointed when the arbitrators refused to listen to important parts of what I wanted to say and rejected or redacted my exhibits. I can’t see how a dispute can be fairly resolved if one party is not even allowed to tell their side.”

To continue reading the entirety of the NY Times article, click on this link