According to FINRA, BofA Securities, Inc. (CRD #283942), based in New York, New York, was censured and fined $60,000 in a joint action that also involved Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The firm consented to these sanctions without admitting or denying the findings. FINRA found that BofA Securities failed to timely file amendments for its registered representatives' Forms U4 to update the representatives' outside business activities (OBAs) and to reflect changes in the representatives' business addresses. The Form U4, or Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer, is a critical disclosure document that provides regulators and the public with information about securities professionals, including their business activities and addresses. Timely updating of this form is a regulatory requirement under FINRA rules. After discovering these filing failures, the firm began and later completed filing the late amendments. However, the underlying problem was systemic. FINRA found that BofA Securities failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to ensure timely filing of Form U4 amendments. BofA Securities and Merrill Lynch share common supervisory systems and procedures relating to the filing of Form U4 amendments, and neither firm had any system in place to verify that such amendments were timely filed. The lack of a verification system meant that late filings could go undetected until discovered through other means. For investors, the timely and accurate filing of Form U4 amendments is more than a bureaucratic requirement. These filings ensure that regulators and the public have access to current information about the financial professionals handling their investments. Outside business activities, in particular, are important disclosures because they can reveal potential conflicts of interest. When a firm fails to timely report changes in OBAs or business addresses, it can deprive investors of information they need to make informed decisions about their financial advisors. This case demonstrates that even large, well-established firms can have gaps in their compliance systems that result in regulatory violations.