SEC Aims for Stronger Compliance With Pay-to-Play Ban

The Securities and Exchange Commission is seeking to strengthen compliance with a Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rule that limits political contributions by municipal securities professionals.

(September 4, 2012) — The US Securities and Exchange Commission has issued a risk alert saying it is aiming for improved compliance with a rule that calls for a ban on “pay-to-play” practices among underwriters and other professionals in the municipal bond market.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s rule, known as MSRB Rule G-37, is focused on prohibiting muni firms from doing business with muni bond issuers alongside certain political contributions to officials of the issuing entity. The alert issued by the agency’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations notes that SEC examiners have observed practices that raise concerns about firms’ compliance with their obligations under MSRB Rule G-37. As outlined by the SEC, these concerns include:

1) Compliance with the rule’s ban on doing business with a municipal issuer within two years of a political contribution to officials of the issuer by any of the firm’s municipal finance professionals

2) Possible record-keeping violations

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news. 

3) Failure to file accurate and complete required forms with regulators regarding political contributions

4) Inadequate supervision

According to the agency, the risk alert identifies practices that examiners have seen some firms use to comply with federal, state, and local rules on contributions. “These include training programs for municipal finance professionals, self-certification of compliance with restrictions on political contributions, surveillance for unreported political contributions, and preclearance or restrictions on political contributions when permitted by state or local law,” the statement by the SEC asserted.

“This Risk Alert is intended to help firms to strengthen their compliance and risk management efforts with regard to political contributions,” said OCIE Director Carlo di Florio in a statement. “We hope that by describing practices that our examiners have observed, we will promote compliance by helping firms to consider how each of them can most effectively meet their obligations under MSRB rules.”

Louisiana’s police pension fund, a custodial client of JP Morgan, is suing the bank for allegedly manipulating clients' foreign-exchange transactions to pad its own profits.

(September 3, 2012) — Louisiana’s police pension fund has filed a class action suit against JP Morgan Chase in Manhattan district court, claiming that the custodial bank manipulated interest rates in foreign exchange trades to skim off millions of additional dollars from the pension fund.

“JP Morgan extracted inappropriate fees from its custodial clients, abusing its superior position and disregarding its fiduciary duties,” attorneys for the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System (LAMPERS) argue in the complaint. “Moreover, rather than disclose the profits it earned by trading FX, JPMorgan bundled the exchange rate and its profit into the conversion ‘rate’ it provided to clients. Thus, LAMPERS…did not and could not know that JP Morgan was extracting profits from indirect FX trading nor could they determine the amount of profit JP Morgan was extracting. JP Morgan’s excess profit from FX transactions resulted in a breach of fiduciary duties, including duties of care and loyalty, to LAMPERS.”

The US Department of Justice brought a similar case again BNY Mellon in July. The lawsuit alleged the bank cheated customers on foreign exchange services, leading to ill-gotten gains of more than $1.5 billion from some of the largest institutional investors worldwide, including the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the Kuwait Investment Authority, and the Alaska Permanent Fund.

LAMPERS is demanding a jury trial, and is seeking recovered assets, compensation for damages, and reimbursement of its legal fees.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news. 

LAMPERS itself is on something of a litigation streak. In August, the fund filed a lawsuit against a property developer over its CEO’s pay. The $1.4 billion public plan has also previously sued JP Morgan, alleging breach of fiduciary duty over banking sanction violations in November 2011.