Brief Fact Summary. A securities salesman, Lehl (Defendant), requests reconsideration of the determination that he violated the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) Rules of Fair Practice by failing to make the proper revelations and imposingdisproportionate and imbalancedcharges to his customers as the SEC (Plaintiff) stated.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Comprehending the foundation and equality of prices charged to customers is requisite of a registered securities representative.Â
Issue. Are registered securities representatives required to comprehend the foundation and equality of prices charged to customers?
Held. (Anderson, J.) Yes. Registered securities representatives are required to discern the foundation of and equality of prices being charged to customers. The NASD Rules of Fair Practice, Article III, demand its members to sell securities at a â€œfairâ€ price, explicitly barring the selling of stock at amounts not realistically correlated to the securities market value. NASD determined a 5% markup as being the ceiling of fairness, seeing as most transactions take place at less than that. The guideline is meant to protect the trusting consumer against price extortion but fails to prevent a finding of fairness if the price rises less than 5%. The universal rule in defining the fair value of a security is the stocks cost to the dealer. While Lehl did not know the cost of the stock to First Choice, he did know the discrepancy between the â€œstrike priceâ€ and the â€œexecution priceâ€ and that the total commission received on the sale was roughly 23%. He was also cognizant of the 5% markup policy. Therefore, the court determined that Lehl had satisfactory warning that First Choice’s prices were imbalanced with his lack of additional questioning regarding the disproportionate pricing caused him being sanctioned. Affirmed.
We review the SEC's legal conclusions de novo.View Full Point of Law