Access Journal

Access to Science, Business, Innovation in the Digital Economy

Investor protection: segregation of assets

Published Online: Mar 2, 2023
Views: 751
Downloads: 34
Download PDF

Abstract:
The article is devoted to the contemporary problems of the ownership rights on intermediated securities and investor protection. Authors provide brief introduction to the major aspects of the Latvian securities law, then they study peculiarities of US approach to the ownership rights on intermediated securities as well US techniques of investor protection in the context of segregation and separation of assets of investors as well as briefly review the insolvency regimes and return of the financial assets to the investors, customers of insolvent US regulated firms. In conclusion authors provide brief comparative summarizing of Latvian and US approaches. Objectives: The study aims at continuing development of the securities law theory, while its task is to characterise the problematic of investor protection especially in insolvency proceedings on example of US as well as to discuss some peculiarities ownership rights on intermediated securities from the point of view of US law and practice. Methods/Approach Scientific research methods – both comparative and analytical – is used in the process of drawing up of this article. Results: Authors come to conclusion that US investor protection system is more complex than Latvian, it uses the separation and segregation approaches, while Latvian system only segregation approach. Both systems do not excluding situations of shortfall in customer assets. Both systems recognize the pro-rata distribution of damages, but US system recognises various pro-rata approaches to the distribution of damages (from the defined amount of assets; from all the assets; from all the assets belonging to a specific category of customers), while Latvian law stays silent regarding this topic. Authors believe that modernisation of the law is required for the better protection of the customers in case of insolvency of investment service providers and obtaining of the greater certainty of the legal outcomes. Author suggest should to determine the prohibition to meet the claims of one class of assets at the expense of another class of assets during insolvency proceedings of investment service providers in case of shortfall in assets.
Keywords:
Pages:
168-181
JEL Classification:
K11, K15, K22
How to cite:
Jukna, T.; Grasis, J. (2023). Investor protection: segregation of assets. Access to science, business, innovation in digital economy, ACCESS Press, 4(2): 168-181. https://doi.org/10.46656/access.2023.4.2(2)
References:
  • American Law Institute., & National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. (2009). Uniform commercial code: Official text and comments : including Article 1 (General Provisions), Article 2 (Sales), Article 2A (Leases), Article 3 (Negotiable Instruments), Article 4 (Bank Deposits and Collections), Article 4A (Funds Transfers), Article 5 (Letters of Credit), Article 6 (Bulk Sales), Article 7 (Documents of Title), Article 8 (Investment Securities), Article 9 (Secured Transactions), Article 10 (Effective Date and Repealer), Article 11 (Effective Date and Transition Provisions), Appendices, Index. St. Paul, Minn.: West., Cited as UCC.
  • Bankruptcy Code (1978), US law: Public Law 95–598, 92d Congress, H.R. 2549 (November 6, 1978)
  • Broker-Dealer & Investment Management Regulation Group, 2008. FAQs Regarding Customer Asset Protection in a Broker-Dealer Bankruptcy https://prfirmpwwwcdn0001.azureedge.net/prfirmstgacctpwwwcdncont0001/uploads /e46c420d773c9f7a9241d90eb19ef4c3.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2022)
  • Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (2018), Broker-Dealer Agrees To Settle Alleged Custody Rule Violations, Mondtag.com, 20 august 2018, https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/Finance-and-Banking/729036/Broker-Dealer-Agrees-To-Settle-Alleged-Custody-Rule-Violations (accessed on 29 April 2022)
  • Charles, G. (2014) Fundamentals of Futures Trading Compliance for Brokers-Dealers /Practical compliance and risk managements for the Securities Industry, p.19 https://charleslawpllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ Fundamentals-of-Futures-Trading-Compliance-for-Broker-Dealers.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2022)
  • Chun, C. (2012), “Intermediated System in the United States” [in] Cross Border Transaction of Intermediated Securities: a Comparative Analysis in Substantive Law and Private International law, Springer Berlin, 2012, ISBN 978-3-642-27852-5, pp. 197-248
  • Commodity Exchange Act (1936) USA law: Public Law 74-675, 74th Congress, H. R. 6772 (1936, June 15), cited as CEA
  • Cooper, A. (2013) Written statement on behalf of Managed Funds Association for the hearing “reauthorization of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission before U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, July 17, 2013. P.71. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-113shrg87566/html/CHRG-113shrg87566.htm (accessed 29 April 2022).
  • Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. (2010) US Law: Public law 11-203, 111th Congress, H. R. 4173 (2010, July 21) cited as Dodd-Frank Act
  • Eversheds Sutherlands (2018), Navigating the issues: Securities Enforcement Global update, Issue 3, Winter 2018, p.5. https://us.eversheds-sutherland.com/portalresource/lookup/poid/Z1tOl9NPluKPtDNIqLMRV56Pab6TfzcRXncKb DtRr9tObDdEpG3EmS3!/fileUpload.name=/SecuritiesEnforcementGlobalUpdate_Winter2018.PDF (accesed on 17.02.2022).
  • Financial Instrument Market Law: Latvian law (2001, November 23) [Finanšu instrumentu tirgus likums (2003)], Latvijas Vēstnesis, 175 [In Latvian].
  • Gensler G. (2012), Oversight of the Swaps and Futures Markets: recent events and Impending regulatory reforms in Hearing Before the Committee on Agriculture House of Representatives One Hundred Twelfth Congress, second section July 25, 2012, Serial no. 112-34, pp.105-107 (July 25, 2012), https://books.google.lv /books?id=g9lIAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 2 May 2022)
  • Global Custodian (2006), Chapter eleven become effective https://www.globalcustodian.com/refco-chapter-11-becomes-effective/ (accessed on 17 October 2022)
  • Goldsmith, L. (2013) The Collapse of MF Global and Peregrine Financial Group: The Response from the Futures Industry, Regulators, and Customers, Review of Banking and Financial Law in Developments in Banking Law, (2012-2013), Boston University School of Law, pp. 22-37 https://www.bu.edu/rbfl/files/2013/09/The-Collapse-of-MF-Global-and-Peregrine-Financial-Group.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2022)
  • Gotlieb, C. (2017) Qualified Financial contracts and netting under U.S. Insolvency law, April 2017, p.6 https://www.clearygottlieb.com/-/media/organize-archive/cgsh/files/2017/publications/qualified-financial-contracts-and-netting-under-us-insolvency-laws.pdf (accessed on 2 May 2022)
  • Heitkamp (2013) “Reauthorization of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission” hearing before Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry United State Senate, One Hundred Thirteen Congress, First session, July 17, 2013. p.312. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-113shrg87566/html/CHRG-113shrg87566.htm (accessed on 29 April 2022)
  • Investor Protection Law: Latvian law (2001, November 23) [Ieguldītāju aizsardzības likums (2001), Latvijas Vēstnesis], 170 [In Latvian].
  • Jukna, T. (2019). The tendeces of the deveopment of mechanism of investor protection: ammedments of regulation in 2017 and 2018. [Ieguldītāju aizsardzības mehānisma attīstības tendences: normatīvo aktu grozījumi 2017. un 2018. gadā]. Rīga Stradiņš University Faculty of Law Electronic Scientific Journal of Law. Rīga: RSU, 2019, Nr. 2 (14). 9.–22. lpp. https://doi.org/10.25143/socr.14.2019.2.009-022 In Latvian].
  • Jukna, T., Grasis, J. (2022) Ownership rights on intermediated securities. Access to science, business, innovation in digital economy, ACCESS Press, 3(3): 206-220
  • Johansson, E. (2010), Property rights in investment securities, Springer Berlin, 2010, ISBN 978-3-642-09943-4
  • Kredītiestāžu un ieguldījumu brokeru sabiedrību darbības atjaunošanas un noregulējuma likums (2015). Law on Recovery of Activities and Resolution of Credit Institutions and Investment Brokerage Companies: Latvian law (2015, July 02). Latvijas Vēstnesis, 125 [In Latvian].
  • Lofchie, S. (2018), Broker-Dealer Settles Charges of Violating Customer Protection and Net Capital Rules, https://www.findknowdo.com/news/02/06/2018/broker-dealer-settles-charges-violating-customer-protection-and-net-capital-rules (accessed on 29 April 2022)
  • Merrill Lync, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp. v. SEC, (2016), https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/34-78141.pdf (accessed on 17.02.2020).
  • Maksātnespējas likums, (2010). Insolvency law: Latvian law (2010, August 06). Latvijas Vēstnesis, 124 [In Latvian].
  • Mooney, C. (2019), Global Standards for Securities Holding Infrastructures: A Soft Law/Fintech Model for Reform , Michigan Journal of International Law, Forthcoming U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 19-05, 2019, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3322040 (accessed on 21 April 2022)
  • Nenkov, N.V., Petrova M.M., Dyachenko, Yu. (2016). Intelligence Technologies in Management and Administration of Justice. SGEM 2016. VOL V Book Series: International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts, DOI: 10.5593/SGEMSOCIAL2016/B25/S07.050, Pages: 385-392
  • Ieguldījumu brokeru sabiedrību likums (2022), Investment Brokerage Companies Law: Latvian law (2022, May 17). Latvijas Vēstnesis, 94 [In Latvian].
  • Securities Exchange Act (1934): US law Public Law 73-291, 73d Congress, H.R. 9323 (June 6, 1934) Cited as SEA
  • Securities and Exchange Commission v Madoff, 2009WL980288 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2008 Cited as SEC vs Madoff, Securities Investment Protection Act (1970): US law: Public Law 91–598, 84 Congress H.R. 1636. (December 30, 1970). Cited as SIPA
  • SIPC v. Lehman Brothers Inc., No. 08 Civ. 8119 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2008
  • Sherry, A. (2017), FINRA fines JPMorgan $2.8M for Customer Protection Rule violations, (Dec 27, 2017), https://www.vitallaw.com/news/securities-regulation-daily-wrap-up-top-story-finra-fines-jpmorgan-2-8m-for-customer-protection-rule-violations-dec-27-2017/sld0148a4fed67ce81000bbbf90b11c18c90202 (accessed on 29 April 2022).
  • Tirrel W. SEC (2017), https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2017/34-81521.pdf (accessed on 17.02.2020)

Publish your science journal

If you like ACCESS journals system, you can publish your journal with us at a reasonable price