In the Matter of First Albany Corporation, John T. Batal and Michael R. Lindburg

Exchange Act Release No. 30515 (1992)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In the Matter of First Albany Corporation, John T. Batal and Michael R. Lindburg

Securities and Exchange Commission
Exchange Act Release No. 30515 (1992)

  • Written by Sharon Feldman, JD

Facts

First Albany Corporation (FAC) (defendant) was a broker-dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (plaintiff). Michael Lindburg (defendant) was FAC’s vice president, general counsel, and chief compliance officer. John Batal (defendant) was the Boston office’s branch manager. Lindburg was responsible for compliance and could impose discipline for policy violations. A certain registered representative (RR) in the Boston office was restricted from soliciting purchases of a particular bank stock because his customers already owned a concentrated position with a large margin debt. No procedures were implemented to detect and prevent violations of the restriction. The RR executed cross trades (including wash sales) and falsely marked order tickets “unsolicited.” If customers complained or there was a margin issue, the RR canceled the trades and rebilled them to other accounts. The RR misappropriated customer funds and made unauthorized transfers between customer accounts. The compliance department reviewed the RR’s trading activity, but the firm’s trading reports did not identify cross trades or wash sales. Branch managers approved order-ticket changes, but no procedures were in place other than to ask the branch manager about his procedures. When the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) inquired about the RR’s trading, Lindberg accepted the RR’s statement that all trades were unsolicited. After a compliance audit revealed that the Boston office’s order tickets did not indicate whether a transaction was solicited or unsolicited, Batal failed to respond to a request that he detail the corrective steps being implemented, and Lindburg did not take further action. Lindburg was notified that the RR’s canceling and rebilling activity was unexplainable but did not conduct further inquiry or follow up when the RR stopped obtaining the required approvals for margin purchases. The SEC instituted administrative proceedings against FAC, Batal, and Lindburg for failing to supervise the RR, made findings, and imposed sanctions.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership