Business and Securities Law Forum

1. July 2013 Vol. 59, No. 1
Business & Securities
Law Forum
The newsletter of the Illinois State Bar Association’s Section on Business & Securities Law
ILLINOIS STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
INSIDE
A new option for
resolving investment
fraud disputes . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Compliance projects . . . . . . 1
Upcoming CLE projects . . . 6
If you're getting
this newsletter
by postal mail
and would
prefer electronic
delivery, just
send an e-mail to
Ann Boucher at
aboucher@isba.org
This article provides the analytical framework
for deciding whether to arbitrate a securities dis-
pute involving a registered investment advisor
within the FINRA Dispute Resolution process rather
than file a lawsuit and litigate the claims in court.
I
nvestment fraud is ubiquitous, and results
in losses measured in billions of dollars. The
recent financial crisis in the United States ex-
posed a growing number of investment fraud
schemes perpetrated against unsuspecting in-
vestors. In 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion, along with several other federal agencies,
initiated a sweep known as Operation Broken
Trust that focused on scams directly targeting
individual investors. The four-month, ground-
breaking investigation identified 120,000 victims
ofinvestmentfraudwholostmorethan$8billion
due to various fraudulent investment schemes.1
Aggrieved investors who pursue damage
claims against their investment advisors typically
do not have a choice of forum to pursue their
cases. Claims against brokerage firms, which are
regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (FINRA), uniformly require disputes
to be arbitrated through FINRA’s dispute resolu-
tion process. In contrast, actions against regis-
tered investment advisory firms (RIAs), which are
regulated by the SEC or its state equivalents, are
generally subject to lawsuits in court. As a result,
investorspursuingtheseinvestmentfraudclaims
have, historically, faced unavoidable disparities
H
istorically equity markets are quieter
during the U.S. summer season, so it is
a good time to improve golf games and
compliance programs.
Regulators regularly admonish that compli-
ance needs to be a top priority. For the major-
ity of firms, however, there is little time, energy
or funding to regularly schedule a compliance
project. At this time of year, with lower volatility
and clients on vacation, business and supervi-
sory personnel might have more availability for
a compliance project.
The never-ending rules and rule changes
provide a disheartening number of potential
compliance projects, but if viewed from the busi-
ness perspective, certain projects will make bet-
ter sense because they increase efficiencies or
provide another benefit to the firm or its clients.
Regardless, if the only reason remains regulatory,
i.e., improving the compliance tone at the top, it
is better to choose one or two projects than to
avoid all of them.
Summarized below are steps that help assess
the type of compliance project a firm should un-
dertake.
Make a General Evaluation of the Firm’s
Compliance Program
A relatively limited number of firms may have
Continued on page 2
Continued on page 5
Compliance projects
By Jennifer Zordani
A new option for resolving investment fraud
disputes
By Laurence M. Landsman, Esq.
(Notice to librarians: The following
issues were published in Volume 58 of this
newsletter during the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2013: January, No. 1; February,
No. 2; May, No. 3; June, No. 4).

2. 2
Business & Securities Law Forum | July 2013, Vol. 59, No. 1
in the expense and complexity of bringing
securities fraud cases based only on whether
their advisor is regulated by FINRA or by the
SEC.
While the differences between the two
forums endure, some investors now have
a choice to resolve their investment fraud
disputes in arbitration or in court. In Novem-
ber 2012, FINRA announced that its arbitra-
tion forum would be available to administer
investor claims against non-member firms
on a voluntary basis. Attorneys considering
whether to litigate claims against RIAs in
FINRA arbitration rather than in court need
to consider the significant differences in the
costs, the availability of discovery, and the
nature of the hearing on the merits. This ar-
ticle offers practical guidance to lawyers de-
ciding the appropriate forum for resolution
of investment disputes against RIAs and their
advisors.
A. FINRA’s Decision Impacts A Large
Number of Litigants
In large numbers, investors are taking
matters into their own hands and pursing
individual claims for damages against their
advisors for these losses. In FY 2011, 1,402
lawsuits involving securities and commodi-
ties transactions were filed in federal district
courts throughout the United States.1
Dur-
ing the same period, 3,705 arbitration claims
by investors were filed against brokers be-
fore FINRA.3
Many more lawsuits are filed in
variousstatecourtseveryyearonthebasisof
state Blue Sky laws4
and before private arbi-
tration forums such as the American Arbitra-
tion Association.5
As a result of FINRA’s decision to open
its arbitration process to non-member RIAs,
parties who would otherwise litigate in court
can now decide whether the advantages of
arbitration better meet their needs and cir-
cumstances.There are significant differences
between court and FINRA arbitration that a
party would have to evaluate before decid-
ing which forum is most appropriate.
B. Because RIAs Are Not FINRA
Members, Use of its Dispute Resolu-
tion Forum isVoluntary
The ability to arbitrate before FINRA a
claim against an RIA requires that all parties
agree in writing to FINRA jurisdiction over
the claim. Additionally, an RIA must agree to
pay all arbitration surcharge fees, which are
not charged to a firm litigating in a court of
law.6
Because it is voluntary, attorneys and
their clients need to make strategic decisions
regarding the differences between the two
forums, including the associated costs, the
scope of discovery that can be obtained, the
likelihood that a hearing on the merits will
occur, the length of time it takes to reach a
hearing on the merits, the rules governing
the conduct of the hearing/trial, and the abil-
ity to appeal an adverse decision.
(1)The Costs of Arbitration and Lawsuit
While not determinative, costs associated
with the two forums should always be a fac-
tor an attorney should consider. While the
filing and forum fees charged by FINRA are
higher than charged to parties to a lawsuit,
litigation expenses (including attorneys’fees)
are much greater in court proceedings than
in arbitration.
Both parties face higher fees in FINRA ar-
bitration than in court. For example, a claim
involving damages between $100,000 and
$500,000 requires the claimant to pay FINRA
a$1,475filingfee.7
Incontrast,thefilingfeein
federal court is $350.8
However, the financial
burden of arbitration is much higher on an
RIA. For the same FINRA claim, a respondent
would have to pay a Member Surcharge fee
of $1,700,9
a non-refundable prehearing pro-
cess fee of $750 and a non-refundable hear-
ing process fee of $2,750.10
In court, a defen-
dant RIA would incur no comparable fees.
Another FINRA-imposed fee that par-
ties would not bear in court is the cost of
the arbitration’s hearing sessions. A hearing
session is any meeting between the parties
and the arbitrators of four hours or less, in-
cluding prehearing conferences as well as
the arbitration hearing itself.11
For a claim
involving damages between $100,000 and
$500,000, the hearing session fee is $1,125.12
The arbitrators are responsible for allocating
the hearing session fees among the parties13
although often they allocate the hearing ses-
sion fees equally among the parties. A typical
claim can involve 10 hearing sessions, includ-
ing one or two prehearing conferences and
a four-day (e.g., eight session) hearing on
the merits, for total hearing session fees of
$11,250. In this example, each party would
bear an additional cost of more than $5,000.
By contrast, the parties are not responsible
for the court system’s costs associated with a
trial on the merits.
Accordingly, for the above example, the
fees from the filing of the case through the
hearing on the merits, can be compared as
follows:
Claimant in FINRA: $7,100
Respondent in FINRA: $10,825
Plaintiff in Court: $350
Defendant in Court: $0
Although dramatic, this cost difference is
not the complete story relating to the rela-
tive expense of arbitration versus court. As
discussed in more detail below, the expenses
of actually preparing and presenting a claim
in FINRA arbitration are generally much low-
er than the costs of litigating a case in court,
and can more than offset the higher FINRA-
based fees. Arbitration also offers non-mon-
etary strategic benefits that might attract a
party regardless of any cost difference.
(2) Discovery In Arbitration Is Limited As
Compared to Court Cases
An important distinction between arbi-
tration and court that affects both cost and
litigation strategy is the availability of dis-
covery. Parties in court expect extensive dis-
covery, including interrogatories, document
requests and depositions, in order to fully
prepare for trial. Given the number of wit-
nesses in a typical arbitration case, the depo-
sition costs for court reporter fees and tran-
scripts can add up to thousands of dollars.14
By contrast, discovery in arbitration pro-
ceedings is sharply curtailed. FINRA rules
allow only the exchange of relevant docu-
ments as well as requests for information
that are generally limited to identification of
individuals, entities and time periods related
to the dispute.15
FINRA rules preclude the
use of depositions, except in very limited cir-
cumstances,16
and prohibit the use of stan-
dard interrogatories.17
As significant as the cost savings (includ-
ing attorneys’ fees) from limited discovery
may be, the counterbalance is that attorneys
go into the arbitration hearing on the merits
armed only with their best interpretation of
the documents they are able to obtain. This
limitation conflicts with the “modern atti-
A new option for resolving investment fraud disputes
Continued from page 1

3. 3
July 2013, Vol. 59, No. 1 | Business & Securities Law Forum
Business & Securities
Law Forum
Published at least four times per year.
Annual subscription rate for ISBA
members: $25.
To subscribe, visit www.isba.org
or call 217-525-1760
Office
Illinois Bar Center
424 S. Second Street
Springfield, IL 62701
Phones: 217-525-1760 OR 800-252-8908
www.isba.org
Co-Editors
Co-Editors
Markus May
200 E. Fifth Ave., Ste. 125
Naperville, IL 60563
Managing Editor/Production
Katie Underwood
kunderwood@isba.org
Business & Securities Law
Section Council
Cory White, Chair
Tracy J. Nugent, Vice Chair
Michelle L. Nijm, Secretary
Anthony J. Jacob, Ex-Officio
Kenya A. Jenkins-Wright, Board Liaison
Mary M. Grant, Staff Liaison
Brent H. Gwilliam, CLE Coordinator
William T. Kaplan, CLE Committee Liaison
Disclaimer:This newsletter is for subscribers’per-
sonal use only; redistribution is prohibited. Copyright
Illinois State Bar Association. Statements or expressions
of opinion appearing herein are those of the authors
and not necessarily those of the Association or Editors,
and likewise the publication of any advertisement is not
to be construed as an endorsement of the product or
service offered unless it is specifically stated in the ad
that there is such approval or endorsement.
Articles are prepared as an educational service to
members of ISBA.They should not be relied upon as a
substitute for individual legal research.
The articles in this newsletter are not intended to be
used and may not be relied on for penalty avoidance.
Postmaster: Please send address changes to the
Illinois State Bar Association, 424 S. 2nd St., Springfield,
IL 62701-1779.
Elizabeth A. Bleakley
D. Scott Carfello
Mark A. Carter
Brian F. Johnson
Michael R. Karnuth
Michael R. Liss
Kelli E. Madigan
Charles W. Murdock
William A. Price
Daniel R. Saeedi
Tanya Solov
John J. Tufano, Jr.
tude toward discovery”that“regards secrecy
as uncongenial to truth-seeking and trial by
ambush as destructive of the overarching
goal that cases be justly determined on their
merits.”18
Nevertheless, the limitations to
prehearing discovery are unavoidable, and a
lawyer considering arbitration should be suf-
ficiently familiar with industry rules and prac-
tices, in addition to securities laws, to try the
case without knowing any details regarding
the testimony of the opponent’s witnesses.
(3) Prehearing Dispositive Motions in
Arbitration Are Strictly Limited
While FINRA rules restrict discovery op-
tions, they also dramatically increase the
likelihood that parties can fully present their
case at a hearing on the merits. In court, rules
of civil procedure allow defendants to avoid
trial through various pretrial dispositive mo-
tions including motions to dismiss a law-
suit19
and, if those fail, a motion for summary
judgment after the close of discovery.20
By contrast, FINRA arbitration rules limit
pre-hearing dispositive motions to three
narrow circumstances: (1) the claims were
previously released pursuant to a signed
settlement agreement, (2) the moving party
was not associated with the account, securi-
ties or conduct at issue,21
and (3) the claim is
ineligible for arbitration because more than
sixyearshaspassedsincetheoccurrencegiv-
ing rise to the claim.22
Accordingly, investors
who file FINRA arbitrations face a largely un-
impeded path to a full hearing on the merits
than for claims pursued in court. And advi-
sors who believe they have legal bases for
denial of the claim may still make their argu-
ments, but must nevertheless wait until the
arbitrators have heard all of the testimony
and other evidence at the hearing.
(4) Parties in Arbitration Reach a Hearing
on the Merits More QuicklyThan Parties
in Court
The additional discovery and availability
of pre-trial dispositive motions for litigants in
court not only increases cost and uncertainty
for litigants in court, they also extend the
time it takes to reach the trial. The time dif-
ferential between starting trial in court and
starting a hearing in arbitration is significant.
In FY 2011, for U.S. District Courts within
the Seventh Circuit, the median time interval
between filing a civil case and trial was 28.4
months.23
In state court, the time lapse can
be longer. For a plaintiff filing a case in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, the average
time between the date of filing a civil case
and the date of verdict was 36.4 months.24
By contrast, hearing decisions in FINRA ar-
bitrations were rendered, on average, 15.9
months after cases were filed, significantly
quicker than the court alternatives.25
(5) Arbitrators Oversee HearingsThat Are
More Informal thanTrials
Differences in the conduct of the hearing
on the merits as opposed to trial are impor-
tant considerations as well. For an arbitration
claim involving damages between $100,000
and $500,000, a panel consists of three arbi-
trators,26
while a trial is heard by a jury (or by
the judge in the absence of a jury demand).
Arbitrators are selected from a list of pre-
qualified candidates sent to the parties, who
are permitted to reject a set number while
ranking the remaining ones.
The panel will consist of either (a) two
public arbitrators and one non-public arbi-
trator, or (b) at the election of the claimant,
three public arbitrators.27
A “public” arbitra-
tor must meet several criteria to establish a
lack of association with the securities indus-
try for an extended period of time.28
A“non-
public” arbitrator, sometimes referred to as
an“industry”arbitrator, is someone who is, or
has been, closely aligned with the securities
industry.29
For many years, attorneys repre-
senting investors in FINRA arbitrations com-
plained that the existence of the non-public
arbitrator created an unfair bias in favor of
industry-related parties. As a result, FINRA
recently amended its rules to give claimants
the option of selecting a mixed panel or an
all-public arbitrator panel.
Since the all-public option was imple-
mented in February 2011, investors have
benefited from the lack of non-public arbi-
trators on the panel. As of the date of this ar-
ticle, 52% of decisions rendered by all-public
panels awarded damages to the investors,
while only 30% of cases decided by panels
that included a non-public arbitrator award-
ed the investor damages.30
The arbitrators hear evidence in a manner
similar to the pattern followed at trial. Gener-
ally, a claimant will present his case-in-chief
first, including witness testimony and the ad-
mission of documentary evidence, followed
by the respondent’s case.31
As a counterbal-
ance to the lack of discovery options, howev-
er, FINRA arbitrations are designed to allow
the broadest latitude for the presentation
of evidence. Specifically, the rules provide
that the arbitration panel “will decide what
evidence to admit,” and that it need not fol-
low state or federal rules of evidence.32
Thus,
while litigants in court must strictly follow
Kenneth J. Ashman
55 W. Monroe, Ste. 2650
Chicago, IL 60603
Philip N. Hablutzel
565 W. Adams St., 2nd Fl.
Chicago, IL 60661
David E. Doyle
10 S. LaSalle St., Ste.
3500
Chicago, IL 60603
Alan J. Goldstein
55 E. Monroe St., Ste.
3700
Chicago, IL 60603-6029

4. 4
Business & Securities Law Forum | July 2013, Vol. 59, No. 1
the myriad rules that govern the admissibil-
ity of evidence, FINRA rules allow for the lib-
eral introduction of evidence, guided by the
general principal that the evidence should
relate in some way to the case, with the key
consideration being“fairness.”33
(6) Arbitration Decisions Are Generally
Not Appealable
FINRA arbitration offers finality as well as
expediency when compared to court pro-
ceedings.Often,atrialdoesnotendadispute
in court. Parties can freely appeal an adverse
verdict, which perpetuates further delay and
uncertainty, and adds considerable time and
expense to achieving a final resolution.
Arbitration decisions, on the other hand,
are essentially conclusive determinations
of the dispute, and can be appealed only in
narrowly limited circumstances. Under the
Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitration deci-
sion may be vacated by a court only where:
(1) the award was procured by corruption,
fraud, or undue means, (2) there was evident
partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, (3)
the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in
refusing to postpone the hearing or in refus-
ing to hear relevant evidence, or otherwise
prejudiced the rights of a party, and (4) the
arbitrators exceeded their powers.34
The Il-
linois Uniform Arbitration Act similarly limits
the bases for vacating an arbitration award.35
Attempts to vacate arbitration awards are
generally unavailing. In a study of all report-
edfederalandstatecourtcasesdecidingmo-
tions to vacate arbitration decisions between
January 1, 2004 and October 31, 2004, only
20 percent of the motions to vacate succeed-
ed.36
Sixty-six percent of the vacatur cases
were brought in state courts throughout the
country, and 34 percent were brought in fed-
eral courts. Of the state court cases decided,
25.8% resulted in a decision to vacate the
arbitration award. Of the federal court cases
decided, only 9.7% vacated the decision.37
None of the decisions – federal or state –
vacating an arbitration award was made by
a court in Illinois.38
Given the intent of the
statutes to recognize the finality of arbitra-
tion decisions, it is not surprising that courts
rarely vacate arbitrator awards.
Conclusion
No set formula exists for deciding wheth-
er to arbitrate or litigate a dispute between
an investor and an RIA. The determination
will require a considered review of the com-
peting advantages and disadvantages of-
fered by the different forums from the per-
spective of all parties. If cost, expediency and
finality are the primary concerns, then FINRA
arbitration may be appropriate for an invest-
ment fraud dispute. On the other hand, if
completeness of discovery and availability of
pre-trial dispositive motions are more impor-
tant, then court litigation may better serve a
party’s needs. In either event, investors and
theiradvisersarewell-servedbyFINRA’sdeci-
sion to open its dispute resolution forum to
claims against non-members and expanding
the choices to litigants interested in finding
the best forum for resolving investor fraud
disputes.
__________
Laurence M. Landsman is a partner at the
Chicago law firm Block & Landsman where he
concentrates his practice in the areas of securi-
ties and commercial litigation that involve issues
of breach of fiduciary duty, regulatory violations
and fraud.
1. FBI Announcement, Operation Broken Trust:
Historic Investment Fraud Sweep (12/6/10), http://
www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/december/
fraud_120610.
2. Judicial Business of the United States
Courts, 2011 Annual Report of the Director,Table
C2-A.
3. FINRA Dispute Resolution Statistics, http://
www.finra.org/ArbitrationAndMediation/FINRA-
DisputeResolution/AdditionalResources/Statis-
tics
4. State court jurisdiction can be based on sev-
eral common law and statutory claims, such as the
Illinois Securities Law, 815 ILCS 5/1, et seq., which
provides investors with a private right of action for
rescission against investment advisors who com-
mit securities fraud.
5. The American Arbitration Association has
created supplementary rules specifically de-
signed for the resolution of securities disputes.
See, generally, http://www.adr.org/
6. FINRA Guidance on Disputes Between In-
vestors and Investment Advisers which are Not
FINRA Members, http://www.finra.org/Arbitra-
tionAndMediation/Arbitration/SpecialProce-
dures/P196162
7. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12900.
8. http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/FeeSched-
ule.aspx
9. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12901.
10. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12903.
11. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12100(n).
12. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12902(a).
13. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12902(a-b).
14. Attorneys preparing an investment fraud
case for trial should expect depositions of at
least six witnesses including the investor, the
advisor, the advisor’s immediate supervisor, the
compliance officer responsible for the advisor’s
branch, and at least one expert for each party.
15. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rules 12506(a)
and 12507(a).
16. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12510.
The “very limited circumstances” where depo-
sitions may be allowed are: (1) to preserve the
testimony of ill or dying witnesses, (2) to accom-
modate essential witnesses who are unable or
unwilling to travel long distances for a hearing
and may not otherwise be required to partici-
pate in the hearing, (3) to expedite large or com-
plex cases, and (4) if the panel determines that
extraordinary circumstances exist.
17. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12507(a).
18. Lancelot Investors Fund, L.P. v. TSM Holdings,
Ltd., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34471, 2008WL 1883435,
at *4 (N.D. Ill. April 28, 2008)
19. See, e.g., F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b); 735 ILCS 5/2-
616 and 5/2-619.
20. See, e.g., F.R.C.P. Rule 56; 735 ILCS 5/2-
1005.
21. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12504(a)
(6)(A-B).
22. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12206(a).
23. Judicial Business of the United States
Courts, 2011 Annual Report of the Director,Table
C5.
24. Annual Report of the Illinois Courts, Sta-
tistical Summary – 2010.
25. Summary Arbitration Statistics, http://
www.finra.org/ArbitrationAndMediation/FINRA-
DisputeResolution/AdditionalResources/Statis-
tics
26. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12401.
27. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12403(b).
28. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12100(u).
29. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12100(p).
30. FINRA Dispute Resolution Statistics,
http://www.finra.org/ArbitrationAndMediation/
FINRADisputeResolution/AdditionalResources/
Statistics/index.htm
31. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12607.
32. FINRA Code of Arbitration, Rule 12604(a).
33. FINRA Dispute Resolution, Arbitrator’s
Guide, p. 47 (Oct. 2012).
34. 9 U.S.C. Sec § 10(a)(1-4).
35. 710 ILCS 5/12(a)(1-5).
36. Mills, Lawrence, Vacating Arbitration
Awards, Dispute Resolution Magazine, p. 24 (Sum-
mer 2005). This study was not limited to invest-
ment fraud arbitrations but rather reviewed the
attempts to vacate a wide variety of arbitration
awards.
37. Id., p. 25.
38. Id.
Support the Illinois Bar
Foundation—the charitable
arm of your Association.
To receive an
application, call
1-800-252-8908.

5. 5
July 2013, Vol. 59, No. 1 | Business & Securities Law Forum
compliance programs that do not meet ba-
sic requirements. Perhaps, a firm has used
“off the shelf” procedures and failed to tai-
lor them to the firm’s business. Regulators
will suspect that this type of firm has spent
money, but has not yet dedicated time and
personnel to the compliance effort. Worse
yet, a firm’s procedures might have blanks in
them or refer to another firm. In these situa-
tions, regulators will be hard pressed to be-
lieve the firm has made much effort on the
compliance front because it will appear that
not even management has reviewed the
procedures.
At some point, firms with incomplete or
ill-fitting procedures will have to commit
time and resources to developing proce-
dures and documentation that reflect the
firm’s business and its compliance program.
This is more likely to be necessary for firms
that are not regularly examined, such as
state registered investment advisers. Mak-
ing the assessment now and crafting a plan
to update procedures before year end will
help the firm make substantial progress be-
fore revenue generating activities intensify,
before substantive rule violations occur and
before an examiner questions the effective-
ness of the existing procedures.
The majority of regulated firms are unlike-
ly to need large scale attention to their entire
compliance program. Yet there will continue
to be significant aspects of their compliance
programs that deserve attention.The follow-
ing types of assessments will help them de-
termine where they can best enhance their
compliance program.
Review Prior Issues
Examinations result in findings. Some
findings might not be meaningful, but most
findings are valid and reveal areas that need
improvement. Summer is a good time to re-
turn to prior issues that required follow up
and confirm all required actions have been
completed. Compliance and supervisory
personnel should confirm that personnel
continue to follow revised procedures and
that they have not reverted to old methods
that gave rise to an examiner’s findings. Of
course, failing to complete or maintain cor-
rective actions increases the risk of subse-
quent violations and higher penalties.
Review Rule Changes
Every firm should have a program in place
to review rule changes and regulatory de-
velopments and incorporate them into the
firm’s compliance program as appropriate.
Even with such a program in place, a mid-
year assessment is likely to reveal topics that
need updating.
Choose A HotTopicTo Review
Closely related to reviewing rule changes
is reviewing hot topics.The Securities and Ex-
change Commission currently is focused on
four “initiatives” that are common to all SEC
registrants:
management;
These are broad categories with numer-
ous sub-categories, many of which are rel-
evant to any regulated firm.
Additionally, within each segment of the
industry, there are“hot topics”that are draw-
ing regulators’interest. For example, advisory
firms’ custody and safekeeping of client
property are a renewed focus among SEC
and state examiners because of recent find-
ings among registered advisers. For retail
broker-dealers, sales practices for complex
products remain a focus, including because
of numerous customer complaints about
leveraged ETFs. For proprietary firms, trading
practices remain in the spotlight particularly
because of algorithmic or high frequency
trading, but more recently, the focus has
shifted from manipulation to “unethical”or
“disruptive” trading. For private funds, the
use of finders is once again on the SEC’s ra-
dar.
Firms that have implemented a compli-
ance risk assessment program might review
hot topics when they are completing a com-
pliance risk matrix. Whether the firm has a
formal or informal approach to assessing
compliance risk, hot topics factor into the as-
sessment and are excellent subjects for com-
pliance projects.
Review Controls andTesting
And of course, controls and testing are
difficult topics that regularly receive scant at-
tention. There is a great deal of subjectivity
as to what constitutes effective controls and
testing of procedures. As a result, reviews
and testing of controls are most often done
as part of the rush to prepare annual reports,
if required by regulators. This should not de-
tract from the benefits of controls and test-
ing. Assigning a team to review controls and
conduct testing on particular topics provides
an opportunity to catch gaps. If during the
project someone has an “ah-ha” moment,
that is precisely what helps the firm to up-
date its procedures and other aspects of its
compliance program before a problem oc-
curs.
The foregoing steps provide ways of iden-
tifying compliance projects. The projects
themselves will vary in length and complex-
ity. Even if projects proceed at a slower pace,
summer provides an opportunity to assess
the current state of the firm’s compliance
program and to take proactive steps to im-
prove it.
__________
Jennifer Zordani is the principal of Zordani
Law, P.C. in Chicago.
Ms. Zordani counsels professional traders, bro-
ker-dealers, investment advisers and other market
participants on regulatory, transactional and liti-
gation matters.
Compliance projects
Continued from page 1
Now Every Article Is
the Start of a Discussion
If you’re an ISBA section
member, you can comment on
articles in the online version
of this newsletter
Visit
to access the archives.

6. 6
Business & Securities Law Forum | July 2013, Vol. 59, No. 1
Upcoming CLE programs
To register, go to www.isba.org/cle or call the ISBA registrar at 800-252-8908 or 217-525-1760.
July
Tuesday, 7/2/13- Teleseminar—Porta-
bility of the Estate Tax Exemption: Planning
Compliance and Drafting Issues. Presented
by the Illinois State Bar Association. 12-1.
Tuesday, 7/9/13- Teleseminar—Real Es-
tate Management Agreements. Presented by
the Illinois State Bar Association. 12-1.
Tuesday, 7/9/13 –Webinar—Intro to Le-
gal Research on Fastcase. Presented by the Il-
linois State Bar Association – Complimentary
to ISBA Members Only. 3:00 – 4:00 p.m. CST.
Thursday, 7/11/13 – Webinar—Ad-
vanced Tips for Enhanced Legal Research on
Fastcase. Presented by the Illinois State Bar
Association – Complimentary to ISBA Mem-
bers Only. 3:00 – 4:00 p.m. CST.
Thursday, 7/11/13- Teleseminar—Cor-
porate Governance for Nonprofits. Presented
by the Illinois State Bar Association. 12-1.
Tuesday, 7/16/13-Teleseminar—Health
Care Issues in Estate Planning. Presented by
the Illinois State Bar Association. 12-1.
Wednesday, 7/17/13- Webinar (MCLE
Credit Uncertain)—Business Building Strat-
egies for Lawyers: UsingTechnology, Finding
Clients, Getting Referrals. Presented by the
Illinois State Bar Association and The Rain-
maker Institute. 12-1.
Thursday, 7/18/13- Teleseminar—Man-
aging Employee Leave. Presented by the Illi-
nois State Bar Association. 12-1.
Tuesday, 7/23/13- Teleseminar—Pri-
vate Placements for Closely Held Businesses,
Part 1. Presented by the Illinois State Bar As-
sociation. 12-1.
Wednesday, 7/24/13 – Webinar—Intro-
duction to Boolean (Keyword) Search. Pre-
sented by the Illinois State Bar Association –
Complimentary to ISBA Members Only. 3:00
– 4:00 p.m. CST.
Wednesday, 7/24/13- Teleseminar—
Private Placements for Closely Held Business-
es, Part 2. Presented by the Illinois State Bar
Association. 12-1.
Tuesday, 7/30/13- Teleseminar—Attor-
ney Ethics in Real Estate Practice. Presented
by the Illinois State Bar Association. 12-1.
August
Tuesday, 8/6/13 –Webinar—Intro to Le-
gal Research on Fastcase. Presented by the Il-
linois State Bar Association – Complimentary
to ISBA Members Only. 1:30 – 2:30 p.m. CST.
Tuesday, 8/6/13- Teleseminar—UCC Ar-
ticle 9 Update. Presented by the Illinois State
Bar Association. 12-1.
Thursday,8/8/13–Webinar—Advanced
Tips for Enhanced Legal Research on Fast-
case. Presented by the Illinois State Bar As-
sociation – Complimentary to ISBA Members
Only. 1:30 – 2:30 p.m. CST.
Tuesday, 8/13/13- Teleseminar—Asset
Protection in Estate Planning. Presented by
the Illinois State Bar Association. 12-1.
Thursday, 8/15/13- Teleseminar—Eth-
ics,VirtualLawOfficesandMulti-Jurisdiction-
al Practice. Presented by the Illinois State Bar
Association. 12-1.
Tuesday, 8/20/13- Teleseminar—Un-
derstanding the Law of Debt Collection for
Businesses, Part 1. Presented by the Illinois
State Bar Association. 12-1.
Wednesday, 8/21/13- Teleseminar—
Understanding the Law of Debt Collection
for Businesses, Part 2. Presented by the Illi-
nois State Bar Association. 12-1.
Wednesday, 8/21/13 – Webinar—Intro-
duction to Boolean (Keyword) Search. Pre-
sented by the Illinois State Bar Association –
Complimentary to ISBA Members Only. 1:30
– 2:30 p.m. CST.
Thursday, 8/22/13- Teleseminar—Out-
sourcing Agreements: Structuring and Draft-
ing Issues. Presented by the Illinois State Bar
Association. 12-1.
Tuesday, 8/27/13- Teleseminar—Buy-
ing/ Selling LLC and Partnership Interests.
Presented by the Illinois State Bar Associa-
tion. 12-1.
Thursday, 8/29/13- Teleseminar—
Mixed Use Developments in Real Estate:
Planning and Drafting Issues. Presented by
the Illinois State Bar Association. 12-1.
September
Thursday, 9/5/13- Teleseminar—Gen-
eration Skipping Transfer Tax Planning. Pre-
sented by the Illinois State Bar Association.
12-1.
Monday, 9/9/13- Chicago, ISBA Chi-
cago Regional Office—ISBA Basic Skills Live
for Newly Admitted Attorneys. Complimen-
tary program presented by the Illinois State
Bar Association. 8:55-5:00.
Tuesday, 9/10/13- Teleseminar—
Choice of entity for Real Estate. Presented by
the Illinois State Bar Association. 12-1.
Tuesday, 9/10/13 – Webinar—Intro to
Legal Research on Fastcase. Presented by the
Illinois State Bar Association – Complimenta-
ry to ISBA Members Only. 10:00 – 11:00 a.m.
CST.
Thursday, 9/12/13 – Webinar—Ad-
vanced Tips for Enhanced Legal Research on
Fastcase. Presented by the Illinois State Bar
Association – Complimentary to ISBA Mem-
bers Only. 10:00 – 11:00 a.m. CST.
Thursday, 9/12/13- Teleseminar—UCC
9: Fixtures, Liens, Foreclosures and Remedies.
Presented by the Illinois State Bar Associa-
tion. 12-1.
Thursday, 9/12/13- Chicago, ISBA Re-
gional Office—Trial Practice Series: The Trial
of a Retaliation Case. Presented by the ISBA
Labor and Employment Section. 8:55-4:15.
Monday, 9/16-Friday, 9/20/13 - Chica-
go, ISBA Regional Office—40 Hour Media-
tion/ArbitrationTraining. Presented by the Il-
linois State Bar Association. 8:30-5:45 daily.

7. 7
July 2013, Vol. 59, No. 1 | Business & Securities Law Forum
Illinois has a history of
some pretty good lawyers.
We’re out to keep it that way.
This brand-new edition of Gino L. DiVito’s color-coded analysis of the Illinois Rules of
Evidence is updated through January 1, 2013. The new three-column format allows easy
the pre-amendment version. DiVito, a former appellate justice, is a member of the Special
Supreme Court Committee on Illinois Evidence, the body that formulated the rules and
presented them to the Illinois Supreme Court.
THE ILLINOIS RULES OF EVIDENCE:
A COLOR-CODED GUIDE
Updated, enhanced edition of DiVito’s analysis
of Illinois evidence rules – the book the judges read!
A newly enhanced reference guide to the Illinois rules of evidence!
Order the new guide at
THE ILLINOIS RULES OF EVIDENCE: A COLOR-CODED GUIDE

8. Business & Securities
Law Forum
Illinois Bar Center
Springfield, Illinois 62701-1779
July 2013
Vol. 59 No. 1
Non-Profit Org.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Springfield, Ill.
Permit No. 820
FREE to ISBA Members
Filled with Marketing Information
for ISBA Members
Call Nancy Vonnahmen
to request your copy today.
800-252-8908 ext. 1437
I L L I N O I S S TAT E B A R A S S O C I AT I O N
MAKE THE MOST OF
YOUR ISBA MEMBERSHIP.
ILLINOIS STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONwww.ISBA.org
DAILY CASE DIGESTS & LEGAL NEWS
E-CLIPS
᪐ Read it with your morning coffee ᪐
START YOUR WORKDAY IN THE KNOW. www.ISBA.org/ECLIPS
FREE
ONLINE LEGAL RESEARCH
BROUGHT TO YOU BY ISBA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
NOW WITH MOBILE ACCESS
TIED TO YOUR ISBA ACCOUNT.
FASTCASE
Now Available
Meet your MCLE requirement for FREE over a 2 year period.
FASTCLEFASTCLE FREE CLE
CHANNEL
www.ISBA.org/FREECLEEARN 15 HOURS MCLE PER BAR YEAR
www.ISBA.org/FASTCASE
>> Comprehensive 50-State & Federal Caselaw Datebase
Covering the Illinois Supreme,
Appellate & Seventh Circuit Court.{ }