简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
Banking Giant Morgan Stanley to Pay SEC $249M for Settlement
Abstract:This article unravels the Securities and Exchange Commission's charges against Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and its former equity syndicate desk head, Pawan Passi, exposing a multi-year fraud involving the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information in the realm of block trades.

Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought charges against Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, a prominent investment banking giant, and Pawan Passi, the former head of its equity syndicate desk. The charges pertain to a lengthy period of fraud involving the disclosure of confidential information related to the sale of substantial quantities of stock, commonly referred to as “block trades.” Additionally, the SEC accused Morgan Stanley of neglecting to enforce its policies addressing the misuse of material non-public information linked to block trades.
Block trades typically involve the private arrangement and execution of a substantial number of shares of a company's stock outside the public markets.
According to the SEC's findings, spanning from June 2018 to August 2021, Passi and a subordinate on Morgan Stanley's equity syndicate desk revealed non-public, potentially market-moving information about imminent block trades to select buy-side investors. This disclosure occurred despite confidentiality requests from the sellers and Morgan Stanley's own policies concerning confidential information handling.

The SEC's orders assert that Morgan Stanley and Passi shared the block trade information with the expectation that the buy-side investors would utilize it to “pre-position” themselves by taking significant short positions in the stock slated for the impending block trade.
As per the SEC orders, in the event that Morgan Stanley proceeded to purchase the block trade, the buy-side investors would then seek and receive allocations from Morgan Stanley to cover their short positions. This pre-positioning strategy effectively mitigated Morgan Stanley's risk in acquiring block trades.
The SEC's order also notes Morgan Stanley's failure to implement effective information barriers, preventing material non-public information about specific block trades from being transmitted by the equity syndicate desk, situated on the private side of Morgan Stanley, to a trading division on the public side. Consequently, the firm could not adequately scrutinize whether trades by that division, made while the equity syndicate desk was in talks with selling shareholders regarding potential block trades, were based on confidential discussions.
The SEC's order against Morgan Stanley determines that the firm willfully violated Sections 10(b) and 15(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder. As a result, the firm is censured and required to pay around $138 million in disgorgement, approximately $28 million in prejudgment interest, and an $83 million civil penalty.
Concerning Pawan Passi, the SEC's order finds him willfully violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. He is mandated to pay a $250,000 civil penalty and faces associational, penny stock, and supervisory bars.
In a simultaneous development, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York announced criminal resolutions with both Morgan Stanley and Passi. The SEC's ordered disgorgement and prejudgment interest for Morgan Stanley will be considered partially satisfied by the firm's forfeiture and restitution, totaling $136,531,223, as part of its criminal resolution.

Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.
Read more

Garanti BBVA Securities Exposed: Traders Report Unfair Charges & Poor Customer Service
Have you been financially ruined through chargebacks allowed by Garanti BBVA Securities? Do you have to wait for hours to get your queries resolved by the broker’s customer support official? Did the same scenario prevail when you contact the officials in-person? Failed to close your account as Garanti BBVA Securities officials remained unresponsive to your calls? Many have expressed similar concerns while sharing the Garanti BBVA Securities review online. In this article, we have shared some complaints against the broker. Take a look!

In-Depth Review of Stonefort Securities Withdrawals and Funding Methods – What Traders Should Really
For any experienced forex and CFD trader, the mechanics of moving capital are as critical as the trading strategy itself. The efficiency, security, and transparency of a broker's funding procedures form the bedrock of a trustworthy, long-term trading relationship. A broker can offer the tightest spreads and the most advanced platform, but if depositing funds is cumbersome or withdrawing profits is a battle, all other advantages become moot. This review provides a data-driven examination of Stonefort Securities withdrawals and funding methods. We will dissect the available information on payment options, processing times, associated costs, and the real-world user experience. Our analysis is anchored primarily in data from the global broker regulatory inquiry platform, WikiFX, supplemented by a critical look at publicly available information to provide a comprehensive and unbiased perspective for traders evaluating this broker.

MH Markets Deposits and Withdrawals Overview: A Data-Driven Analysis for Traders
For any experienced trader, the integrity of a broker is not just measured by its spreads or platform stability, but by the efficiency and reliability of its financial plumbing. The ability to deposit and, more importantly, withdraw capital without friction is a cornerstone of trust. This review provides an in-depth, data-driven analysis of the MH Markets deposits and withdrawals overview, examining the entire fund management lifecycle—from funding methods and processing speeds to fees and potential obstacles. MH Markets, operating for 5-10 years under the name Mohicans Markets (Ltd), has established a global footprint. With a WikiFX score of 7.08/10, it positions itself as a multi-asset broker offering a range of account types and access to the popular MetaTrader platforms. However, for a discerning trader, the real test lies in the details of its payment systems and the security of their funds. This article dissects the MH Markets funding methods withdrawal experience, leveraging pr

GAIN Capital Review: Exploring Complaints on Withdrawal Denials, Fake Return Promises & More
Is your forex trading experience with GAIN Capital full of financial scams? Does the broker disallow you from withdrawing your funds, including profits? Have you been scammed under the guise of higher return promises by an official? Does the GAIN Capital forex broker not have an effective customer support service for your trading queries? Concerned by this, many traders have shared negative GAIN Capital reviews online. In this article, we have discussed some of them. Read on!
