Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
WEDBUSH SECURITIES, INC. and Edward William Wedbush, Petitioners, v. U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM ***
1. Substantial evidence supports the Securities & Exchange Commission’s finding that Edward Wedbush failed to reasonably supervise the regulatory filings of Wedbush Securities. See 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(4). Throughout the relevant period, Wedbush was the firm’s president and, for part of the period, he was also its chief compliance officer and the manager of the business-conduct department. As such, Wedbush had ultimate responsibility for the firm’s regulatory compliance. Because Wedbush was on notice as to the firm’s continuing failure to satisfy its regulatory requirements, he was liable for ensuring its compliance.
2. The Commission did not abuse its discretion in affirming Wedbush’s suspension. The Commission found that the firm’s violations were egregious, and the sanctions were intended to gain Wedbush’s specific compliance. The sanctions therefore were not “unwarranted in law or without justification in fact.” Ponce v. SEC, 345 F.3d 722, 740 (9th Cir. 2003).
3. The Commission correctly concluded that Wedbush and the firm received a fair hearing. In its complaint, FINRA’s Enforcement Department requested sanctions under FINRA Rule 8310(a), which lists suspension among the range of possible sanctions. In addition, the FINRA Sanction Guidelines expressly contemplate a suspension of up to 30 business days. Wedbush therefore had fair notice of the sanctions he ultimately received.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-73284
Decided: April 20, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)