Morgan Stanley settles email lawsuit
NEW YORK – US investment bank Morgan Stanley has settled a lawsuit with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in which the regulator alleged that the firm failed to produce "tens of thousands of emails" during the SEC's investigation into initial public offerings and research analysts from December 11, 2000 through July 2005.
The SEC said Morgan Stanley "did not diligently search for back-up tapes containing responsive emails until 2005. Morgan Stanley also failed to produce responsive emails because it over-wrote back-up tapes." The complaint also alleges that the firm "made numerous misstatements regarding the status and completeness of its productions; the unavailability of certain documents; and its efforts to preserve requested email." The regulator charged Morgan Stanley with violating the provisions of the federal securities laws requiring it, as a regulated broker-dealer, to produce its records and documents in a timely fashion to the regulator.
The investment bank settled the suit without admitting or denying the allegations. It has also consented to a permanent injunction and payment of a $15 million civil penalty, $5 million of which will be paid to NASD and the New York Stock Exchange in separate related proceedings. The firm has also agreed to adopt and implement policies, procedures and training focused on the preservation and production of email communications.
Antonia Chion, associate director of the SEC's division of enforcement, said "Morgan Stanley's repeated production failures and misstatements prejudiced two major investigations. This settlement will require Morgan Stanley to put into place reforms to prevent similar misconduct from recurring."
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision
Industry frowns on FCA’s single-sided trade reporting efforts
Buy side warns UK attempt to ease Mifir burden may miss target; dealers aren’t happy either
One vision, two paths: UK reporting revamp diverges from EU
FCA and Esma could learn from each other on how to cut industry compliance costs
Market doesn’t share FSB concerns over basis trade
Industry warns tougher haircut regulation could restrict market capacity as debt issuance rises
FCMs warn of regulatory gaps in crypto clearing
CFTC request for comment uncovers concerns over customer protection and unchecked advertising
UK clearing houses face tougher capital regime than EU peers
Ice resists BoE plan to move second skin in the game higher up capital stack, but members approve
ECB seeks capital clarity on Spire repacks
Dealers split between counterparty credit risk and market risk frameworks for repack RWAs
FSB chief defends global non-bank regulation drive
Schindler slams ‘misconception’ that regulators intend to impose standardised bank-like rules