The Registration Gap
Adaeze is a SEC-registered sponsored individual who spent six years at XYZ Securities Limited, a dealing member of the Nigerian Exchange. In January she resigned and joined ABC Capital Limited as head of compliance, a role ABC describes as 'front-office supervisory.' Her SEC registration remained tied to XYZ, and neither firm filed a change-of-sponsorship application. Between February and June she onboarded seven clients, approved a NGN 25 million margin facility for a corporate client, and signed two account-opening packs. In May XYZ's annual renewal lapsed because its compliance officer left and no one paid the fee. In July SEC examiners reviewing ABC's records ask for Adaeze's registration certificate and evidence of her current sponsorship. ABC's managing director says she is 'covered by XYZ's licence' and that her experience speaks for itself. Adaeze has kept no record of the seven clients' risk profiles, and one of them is now disputing a leveraged position that lost NGN 4.1 million.
1. What is Adaeze's registration status from February to June, and which regulatory obligations were breached? Explain why ABC's 'covered by XYZ's licence' defence fails.
Read the worked answer
Adaeze's SEC registration is not a portable personal licence. A sponsored individual is registered to act for a specific sponsoring capital market operator, and a change of sponsoring firm requires an application to, and approval by, the SEC. When she resigned from XYZ in January, her sponsorship relationship ended in substance; from February she was not validly sponsored by ABC. She therefore performed regulated functions - client onboarding, margin approval, signing account packs - without a current registration and outside an approved sponsorship.
ABC's defence fails for three reasons. First, a licence is not transferable: XYZ could not lend its registration to ABC. Second, sponsorship is a supervisory relationship, not a badge; XYZ could not supervise her at ABC. Third, XYZ's own renewal lapsed in May, so even the fiction of coverage disappeared.
The breaches include acting as a sponsored individual without registration; ABC permitting an unregistered person to perform controlled functions; failure by both firms to notify the SEC of the change; failure to supervise; and record-keeping failures, since the seven client risk profiles were not documented.
2. What should ABC and Adaeze do now? Address the client files, the disputed leveraged position, and self-reporting.
Read the worked answer
ABC should immediately suspend Adaeze from all controlled functions until her registration is regularised. The board should pass a resolution, appoint an interim registered supervisor, and file a change-of-sponsorship/registration application with full fit-and-proper evidence, including her employment history and the circumstances of the lapse.
The client files must be reconstructed from source documents and interviews, not backdated. Each of the seven accounts should be risk-profiled and reviewed for suitability; the margin facility should be re-approved or unwound, and the leveraged position should be frozen pending investigation. The NGN 4.1 million loss must be traced: if the client was placed in a leveraged product outside her risk profile or without proper authority, the firm should consider remediation.
ABC should self-report the unregistered activity to the SEC, cooperate with the inspection, preserve all records, and provide a remediation plan with timelines. Adaeze should also be subject to the firm's disciplinary process, and all staff should be retrained on registration and sponsorship rules. Concealment or backdating would aggravate the breach.
3. What does the case illustrate about the meaning of 'sponsored' in sponsored individual, and where does accountability sit?
Read the worked answer
Sponsorship is a live, approved relationship between an individual and a registered operator. The operator vouches for the individual's fitness and propriety, supervises conduct, and notifies the SEC of changes; the individual accepts personal accountability for acting within the rules. It is not a qualification that follows the person from firm to firm.
Accountability is therefore shared. Adaeze is accountable for performing controlled functions without a valid sponsorship and for failing to create client records. ABC is accountable for using an unregistered person, failing to supervise, and failing to make the required notification. XYZ is accountable for the lapse in renewal and for not addressing her departure properly. Senior management is accountable for the compliance culture that allowed a 'covered by XYZ' explanation to pass unchallenged. The SEC will look at all of these, not just at the individual.