TREVOR SALIBA V. USSEC, No. 21-71114 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
NMS Capital Group, LLC, which was wholly owned by Petitioner purchased MCA Securities, LLC, and changed its name to NMS Capital Securities. MCA, now NMS Securities, was a member of FINRA, a securities industry self-regulatory organization registered with the SEC. NMS Securities submitted a Continuing Member Application (“CMA”) to request approval of the change in ownership. FINRA discovered that NMS Securities had failed to disclose that another registered investment advisor owned by Petitioner, NMS Capital Asset Management, was being investigated by the SEC for deficiencies in its compliance with securities laws. FINRA imposed Interim Restrictions on NMS Securities. While the Interim Restrictions were in effect, Petitioner signed agreements with investment banking clients on behalf of NMS Securities and engaged in other activities. FINRA began an investigation into whether Petitioner had violated the Interim Restrictions, and a FINRA panel found that Petitioner had violated FINRA.
The Ninth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Petitioner’s challenge to the SEC’s determination. The panel held that because the court could review only a “final order” of the SEC under 15 U.S.C. Section 78y(a), there was no jurisdiction to review whether the SEC had substantial evidence to find that Petitioner violated FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010 by failing to produce and testify truthfully about his computers because the sanction for this violation was still pending before FINRA. However, the panel further held that the SEC’s determinations concerning the sanction of two industry bars did constitute a final order for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction. The panel denied Petitioner’s petition for review of the SEC’s decision to affirm those two sanctions.
Court Description: Securities and Exchange Commission. The panel denied in part, and dismissed in part, a petition for review brought by Trevor Saliba challenging a determination by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sustaining two industry bars imposed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) against him and a separate finding that he violated FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010. In 2011, NMS Capital Group, LLC, which was wholly owned by Saliba, purchased MCA Securities, LLC, and changed its name to NMS Capital Securities. MCA, now NMS Securities, was a member of FINRA, a securities industry self-regulatory organization registered with the SEC under Section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. NMS Securities submitted a Continuing Member Application (“CMA”) to request approval of the change in ownership. FINRA discovered that NMS Securities had failed to disclose that another registered investment advisor owned by Saliba, NMS Capital Asset Management, was being investigated by the SEC for deficiencies in its compliance with securities laws. FINRA imposed Interim Restrictions on NMS Securities. While the Interim Restrictions were in effect, Saliba signed agreements with investment banking clients on behalf of NMS Securities, and engaged in other activities. FINRA began an investigation into whether Saliba had violated the Interim Restrictions, and a FINRA panel found that Saliba had violated FINRA SALIBA V. USSEC 3 Rules 2010 and 8210. The SEC upheld FINRA’s findings and conclusions as to two bars imposed as a result of Saliba’s violations of the Interim Restrictions and participation in providing backdated compliance forms to FINRA. The SEC also sustained FINRA’s findings that Saliba had violated FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010 by testifying falsely about and failing to produce his computers. The panel applied the test from Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997), to determine whether the SEC’s order was final. The panel held that because the court could review only a “final order” of the SEC under 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a), there was no jurisdiction to review whether the SEC had substantial evidence to find that Saliba violated FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010 by failing to produce and testify truthfully about his computers because the sanction for this violation was still pending before FINRA. However, the panel further held that the SEC’s determinations concerning the sanction of two industry bars did constitute a final order for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction. The panel denied Saliba’s petition for review of the SEC’s decision to affirm those two sanctions. Specifically, the panel held that the SEC did not abuse its discretion in upholding FINRA’s imposition of a bar preventing Saliba from associating with FINRA member firms based on Saliba’s violation of the Interim and Revised Restrictions and FINRA Rule 2010. Saliba waived his ability to challenge the SEC’s finding that he violated FINRA Rule 2010 by violating the Interim Restrictions and Revised Restrictions when he failed to raise his argument before the SEC. The panel also held that the SEC did not abuse its discretion in upholding FINRA’s imposition of a bar based on Saliba’s admitted violation of FINRA Rule 2010 by backdating firm compliance documents. The SEC was 4 SALIBA V. USSEC required to give deference to FINRA’s findings, including its findings that NMS Securities’s CCO Tabizon and Saliba’s accounts were not credible. Furthermore, it was reasonable for the SEC to conclude that this was egregious conduct that warranted a bar to protect the public.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.