Communications: Speaking to Industry Peers Without Triggering Regulatory Concerns About Collusion, Shareholder Activism, or Even Misappropriation of Client Assets (Never Mind MNPI)
It is regular practice for analysts and PMs to speak with others they know while sounding out their investment thesis. Chatting to discuss publicly available information, trends, or even the basic facts of a company is fine, but a line is crossed when the conversation includes intent to buy or sell, details on holdings, or sharing research that is paid for with client commissions.
Conversations on trading intentions, particularly where there is agreement between the parties in the conversation, can appear to be an attempt to coordinate activity for the purposes of price manipulation. Similarly, where short selling is involved, parties appearing to coordinate their activity can additionally be deemed as an activist group, a designation that poses additional regulatory obligations.
What do you do when you find this sort of content in your communications surveillance? How do you investigate, address, memorialize, and train staff to prevent misunderstandings during a regulatory examination of your communications records? When is it necessary to escalate to legal counsel?
During this session, we will review hypothetical case examples for a number of troublesome scenarios. However, we invite you to also submit your issues or questions, anonymously, ahead of this session for open discussion. This is an opportunity to frankly address your concerns while receiving practical advice and guidance on a non-attribution basis.
• Benjamin E. Kozinn, Partner, Lowenstein Sandler LLP
• Suzan Rose, Senior Advisor, Government & Regulatory Affairs, AIMA
Submit your questions: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GRN8LHN