Advertisement

July 25, 2014

SEC Oversight of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Exempt from FOIA Request

The District Court for the District of Columbia has held that the Securities and Exchange Commission is exempt from producing documents relating to its audit, inspections, and review of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

An association of attorneys representing public investors in securities arbitrations requested that the SEC produce documents related to its oversight of FINRA’s Dispute Resolution branch and examination of its administrative function. Specifically, the association sought documents concerning FINRA’s arbitrator selection process. The associations believed the arbitration selection process should be more transparent and fair. The SEC claimed Exemption 8 of FOIA did not require the SEC to produce responsive materials. The exemption protects documents “related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions.”

The court rejected the association’s arguments that Congressional intent weighed in favor of requiring the SEC to produce. Instead, the court found that the exemption was designed to safeguard the relationship between the financial institution and the reviewing agency in order to ensure that FINRA would continue to fully cooperate with the SEC. Coupled with the broad language of the exemption, the court concluded that SEC documents “related to” its oversight of FINRA need not be disclosed. The court nevertheless expressed reservations about the breadth of the SEC’s disclosure exemption, noting that the association “may be correct that Exemption 8 is overbroad because it extends to records related to the oversight of self-regulatory organizations,” but concluded that in light of the statutory language, “plaintiff’s arguments must be directed to Congress.” Public Investors Arbitration Bar Ass’n v. S.E.C., No. 11-2285 (D.D.C. Mar. 14, 2013).

©2014 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

About the Author

Emily Stern, Financial Insituations Attorney, Katten Muchin Law firm
Partner

Emily Stern focuses her practice on complex commercial civil litigation and white collar criminal investigations and defense.

In civil matters, Emily represents clients in individual and class actions, as well as at bench and jury trials, before federal, state and appellate courts and arbitral tribunals. Her litigation experience extends to consumer and securities fraud putative class actions; shareholder derivative suits and complex contract, licensing and partnership disputes in a variety of industries. She represents clients in the finance, pharmaceuticals, medical devices,...

212-940-8515

About the Author

Dean N. Razavi, Litigation Attorney, Katten Muchin law firm
Associate

Dean Razavi concentrates his practice in litigation and dispute resolution matters.

212-940-6743

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.