LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v WILLIAM J. MURPHY Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 34-41804, Defendant: William J. Murphy, Plaintiff: SEC, State: WA Washington, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>34-41804, Murphy, Exchange, Account, Trading, Violation, Discretion, Trade, Disciplinary Action, Equitable Principles, Chicago Board Options, Customer, Registered Options, Cboe, Securities Exchange Act, Commission, Exchange Act, Inconsistent, Firm, Written Authorization, Maciorowski, Stock Purchases, Oppenheimer, Proceeding, Prior Written Authorization, Transactions, Jurisdiction, Riverside Plaza, National Options Exchange, Member Organization , ContentID: 120247180

Case Documents
1 1999-08-27 SEC COMMISSION OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 117330
10 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 10 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC COMMISSION OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EXCHANGE
ACCOUNT
TRADING
VIOLATION
DISCRETION
MEMBER
TRADE
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES
CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS
CUSTOMER
REGISTERED OPTIONS
CBOE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
COMMISSION
EXCHANGE ACT
INCONSISTENT
FIRM
WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION
MACIOROWSKI
STOCK PURCHASES
OPPENHEIMER
PROCEEDING
PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION
TRANSACTIONS
JURISDICTION
RIVERSIDE PLAZA
NATIONAL OPTIONS EXCHANGE
MEMBER ORGANIZATION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Rel. No. 34-41804 / August 27, 1999

   Admin. Proc. File No. 3-9682
     _________________________________________________________________

   In the Matter of the Application of
   WILLIAM J. MURPHY
   c/o James J. Moylan, Esq.
   Arnstein & Lehr
   120 S. Riverside Plaza
   Suite 1200
   Chicago IL 60606-3913
   For Review of Disciplinary Action Taken by the
   CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INC.
   _________________________________________________________________

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

REGISTERED OPTIONS EXCHANGE -- REVIEW OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

   Violations of Exchange Rules

   Conduct Inconsistent with Just and Equitable Principles of Trade

   Failure to Obtain Advance Written Approval for Discretionary Trading
   in Options

   Former associated person of member of national options exchange failed
   to obtain advance written approval from customer and firm for
   discretionary trading in customer account. Held, review proceeding is
   sustained.

   APPEARANCES

   James J. Moylan, of Arnstein & Lehr, for William J. Murphy.

   Andrew D. Spiwak and Christopher R. Hill, for the Chicago Board
   Options Exchange, Inc.

   Appeal filed February 26, 1998

   Last brief received December 18, 1998

   I.
SNIPPETS:
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • 120 S. Riverside Plaza Suite 1200 Chicago IL 60606-3913
  • REGISTERED OPTIONS EXCHANGE -- REVIEW OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
  • Conduct Inconsistent with Just and Equitable Principles of Trade
  • Former associated person of member of national options exchange failed to obtain advance
  • James J. Moylan, of Arnstein & Lehr, for William J. Murphy.
  • Andrew D. Spiwak and Christopher R. Hill, for the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
  • William J. Murphy appeals the decision of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. ("CBOE" or
  • The CBOE found that, while employed by Oppenheimer & Co., a CBOE member, Murphy violated CBOE
  • Murphy neither sought nor obtained written authorization from Tiernan or from Oppenheimer to
  • Murphy did not discuss with Tiernan the trades at issue here -- two opening options
  • Because Maciorowski had recently purchased Morgan Stanley warrants, Murphy transferred the
  • In a mid-August meeting with Sadzewicz and Maciorowski, Murphy admitted to Sadzewicz that the
  • On January 8, 1997, the CBOE began a disciplinary action against Murphy.
  • Murphy's handling of Tiernan's account was inconsistent with just and equitable principles of
  • The Manual emphasized that, without proper discretionary authority, failure to consult with a
  • Murphy violated CBOE Rule 9.10with respect to purchases of the options contracts because he
  • Murphy challenges the CBOE's jurisdiction with respect to the two charges involving Japanese
  • who is alleged to have violated or aided or abetted a violation of any provision of the
  • There is no requirement in Rule 17.1that a member organization that has committed a violation
  •    |