The DC Circuit was able to move the lawsuit forward despite sharing the company’s concerns about the constitutionality of regulatory bodies.
On March 14, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Alpine Securities Corporation’s urgent request to suspend the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) enforcement action aimed at banning securities businesses.
The authorities will regulate member companies, monitor their activities, and draft and enforce rules that ensure compliance with rules and federal securities laws.
Authorities accused Alpine of charging excessive fees, violating suspension and mortal orders, and hopes to expel the company as a member of FINRA in a prompt enforcement process.
Related Stories
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is considering appealing the Salt Lake City-based company in November 2024 ruling by the divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which allowed regulators to proceed with enforcement action.
Doctrine is a constitutional principle that holds federal authority and may not be delegated to private bodies.
However, the District of Columbia Circuit refused to block enforcement action. “Exposed to enforcement action by a constitutionally unlawful actor does not constitute irreparable injuries,” the petition said.
Alpine asked the Supreme Court to “determine whether it has asserted its structure of FINRA and its authority to enforce federal law, including the exercise of its free prosecutor’s discretion.”
FINRA, a registered Delaware company, “enforces its own rules carrying the power of federal securities and federal law,” according to the petition.
When authorities “investigate, prosecute, award and punish individuals and entities who are forced to participate in FINRA as a condition of doing business in the US securities industry,” they “enforce policy decisions on behalf of the administrative agencies and the American people.”
This unconstitutionality stems from the fact that the authorities are “nominal private companies acting as federal enforcement agencies,” the petition says.
The petition said the SEC treats FINRA as a “private” enforcement unit” and “encourages it to engage in offensive behavior that is not burdened by constitutional or democratic accountability instructions.”
Harris has not yet filed a response to the petition. The High Court has directed her office to do so by March 26th.
In a simple matter of opposing the emergency application, she argued that it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would grant the petition for many reasons.
The brief also covered some of the FINRA allegations against the company in detail.
In 2017, the SEC began enforcement proceedings against Alpine for saying it was “large, large-scale, illegal” between 2011 and 2015, resulting in a civil penalty of $12 million. The SEC findings were confirmed by the U.S. District Court in 2019 and by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2020.
By 2019, FINRA had been investigating complaints from Alpine customers, claiming excessive fees. Authorities determined that the company’s actions were “intentional and terrible,” issued a suspension and assumed order, and ordered the company to be removed from its FINRA membership, the brief said.
FINRA launched another investigation and found that Alpine continued to commit fraud. Authorities have launched expedited disciplinary procedures, accusing them of violating more than 35,000 suspensions and anticipating the expected directive, and sought “instant banishment from FINRA,” the brief said.
The Epoch Times reached out for comments to the company’s lawyers, David Thompson and Kirk of Coopers in Washington, and the U.S. Department of Justice, representing Finla.
No replies were received by publication time.
