Skip to main content

Steven Lofchie is the Chief Legal Architect and a co-founder of Caffrey.AI, an AI platform built for law firms, banks, and the financial regulatory industry. He is also a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright, where he advises financial institutions on securities laws, the Commodity Exchange Act, and broker-dealer regulation. Ranked by Chambers USA every year since 2007, he is the author of “Lofchie’s Guide to Broker-Dealer Regulation,” long considered the leading treatise on the subject.

Recent Articles & Comments

The question is not whether the trade-through rule should be rescinded, but how fast and what, if anything, replaces it; i.e., does the SEC forgo new rulemaking and simply point to a broker-dealer's obligation to obtain best execution for its clients, supplemented by the existing requirements for broker-dealers to provide disclosure pursuant to NMS on order execution and on order routing.

If Chair Atkins is correct as to the (negative) consequences of the trade-through rule,…

Hester Peirce is the paradigm of what one would want in a regulator: smart, funny, graceful, open-minded, imaginative, learned, respectful of the law, both statutory and Constitutional, and always very supportive of the value of personal freedom. During the tenure of SEC Chair Gensler, she was a constant voice of reasoned dissent, pointing out deficiencies in substance, process, and authority. In her remarks at the US Chamber, she was modest as to the role of individuals within the…

This may be quite literally the first time that I have ever agreed with Mr. Gensler on an issue of any controversy.  At the end of the day, the issue of the proper scope of event contracts that should fall within the jurisdiction of the CFTC is an issue for Congress to determine, not an issue for the CFTC to resolve by fiat on a very limited evidentiary basis (See our prior comment in the story on  By asserting that all prediction contracts fall within the CFTC's jurisdiction, the…

FINRA continues a pattern of imposing more significant penalities on individuals who steal somewhat insignificant amounts from their employers than it does on individuals who steal very sigificant amounts from their clients, including from senior citizens. This discrepancy should be addressed.