Articles Posted in Arbitration

US Supreme Court Once Again Upholds Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements

Published on: February 17, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, the US Supreme Court has issued a ruling holding that federal and state courts have to follow the Federal Arbitration Act and support any arbitration agreement that is covered under the statute. The Court said that the FAA pre-empts a state law that doesn’t allow the enforcement of this type of agreement, which requires that personal injury and wrongful claims against nursing homes be resolved outside of court. By holding, the Supreme Court was reaffirming its holding in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that FAA displaces conflicting rule when state law doesn’t allow the arbitration of a certain kind of claim.

In this latest ruling, the Court examined three nursing home negligence lawsuits filed by the relatives of patients that died at assisted living facilities. Each family had a signed agreement noting that any disputes, except for those regarding non-payment, would be dealt with via arbitration. Although the trial court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims because of the arbitration agreements, the West Virginia Supreme Court decided to reverse the court’s ruling, holding that public policy of the state prevented a pre-occurrence arbitration agreement in an admission contract for a nursing home that mandated that a negligence claim over wrongful death or personal injury be resolved through arbitration.

By issuing this decision the state’s Supreme Court was rejecting the way the US Supreme Court interpreted the FAA on the grounds that Congress would not have meant for the Act to be applicable to civil claims of injury or death that are tangentially connected to a contract—especially when needed service is a factor.

The US Supreme Court, however, reversed that decision, staying with its own interpretation of the FAA being controlling and a lower court not being able to ignore precedent. The Court sent the case back to state court where inquiry into whether the provision allowing only for arbitration can’t be enforced under state common law principals not specifically addressing arbitration and therefore the FAA wouldn’t pre-empt.

At Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP, our stockbroker fraud law firm represents individual and institutional investors with securities fraud claims and lawsuits. We have helped thousands of investors recoup their losses via arbitration and through the courts.

With securities fraud, the majority of claims have to be resolved through arbitration. One reason for this is that most investors that sign up for accounts through brokerage firms almost always end up agreeing to binding arbitration clauses.

Read the Supreme Court’s ruling in Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown (PDF)

More Blog Posts:

SEC and SIPC Go to Court to Over Whether SIPA Protects Stanford Ponzi Fraud Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 6, 2012

FINRA Says Charles Schwab Corp. is Making Customers Waive Right to Pursue Class Action Lawsuits

Published on: February 8, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has filed a complaint against Charles Schwab Corp. The SRO says the online brokerage is in violation of FINRA rules because it makes clients waive their rights to pursue class actions against it.

Per a new provision added to over 6.8 million customer account agreements, Charles Schwab clients are now not allowed to begin or join class-action complaints against the financial firm. Customers must also agree that arbitrators won’t be given authority to consolidate claims from different parties, as this would set up a class-action situation.

Over 50,000 clients have opened accounts with the financial firm since it implemented this new limitation. Now, FINRA wants an expedited hearing. The SRO is concerned that the class action waiver will cause millions of Schwab clients to mistakenly think they cannot bring or take part in an already existing class action complaint against the brokerage firm. Also, FINRA has specific rules about the conditions that financial firms can place on clients, and the SRO says this provision is a definite violation.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Sues Two Saudi Investors in an Attempt to Block Their FINRA Arbitration Claim Over $383M in Losses

Published on: October 22, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (C) is suing Abdullah and Ghazi Abbar. The Saudi investors have filed a FINRA arbitration claim against the Citigroup unit seeking to recover the $383 million that they say the bank lost their family’s money. The Abbars, who are father and son, are accusing Citigroup Global Markets of mismanaging their family’s savings.

Citigroup, which wants injunctive relief, says that the entities that took care of the the Abbars’ private-equity loan and leveraged option transactions are located abroad and therefore not under FINRA’s jurisdiction for arbitration. The financial firm also says that father, son, and their investment entities are not CGMI clients and their claims are not activities related it. The investment bank has noted that the Abbars chose to pursue it rather than the non-U.S. parties that they actually had agreements with that completed the transactions. The Abbars, however, say that those overseeing the Citigroup entities that took party in the daily management of their credit deal are personnel that are registered with FINRA.

Says Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd, “The financial industry has created its own securities arbitration forum to resolve disputes and claims between and against its members. It is ironic when claims are filed that they often go to court to beg to get out of arbitration, their self-imposed fate. While courts in New York seem to operate to accommodate Wall Street’s wishes, the law for decades has held that decisions regarding the liability of securities firms are for the arbitrators, not the courts. If these investors have properly alleged any wrongdoing by the U.S. securities firm, the court has no business intervening. Such wrongdoing can be simply ‘control person liability,’ which is the failure to control or properly supervise the behavior or operations of a subordinate or subsidiary.”

CGMI placed $343 million of the Abbars money in hedge funds that were included in a leveraged option swap transaction. In their FINRA arbitration claim, the Abbars argue that leading CGMI officers, including ex- global wealth management chief Sallie Krawcheck and Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit, pursued them.

Father and son contend that because of alleged “gross misconduct” by CGMI, their wealth was lost. They say that the bank’s failure to monitor the investments properly led to their total collapse during the height of the economic collapse in 2008. The Abbars also believe that lendings related to the Citigroup investments played a role in the losses. The Abbars says that Citigroup, which then started managing the positions that remained in the portfolio while implementing a program to redeem it, will “unjustly benefit” by about $70 million from the redemption of these investments.

Citigroup Sues to Block Arbitration of Saudi Investors’ Claim, Bloomberg/Businessweek, October 6, 2011
Citigroup Aims to Stop Arbitration From Proceeding, OnWallStreet, October 7, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup Global Markets Fined $500,000 by FINRA for Inadequate Supervision of Broker Accused of Bilking Sick and Elderly Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 16, 2011
Citigroup Ordered by FINRA to Pay $54.1M to Two Investors Over Municipal Bond Fund Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 13, 2011
Citigroup to Pay $285M to Settle SEC Lawsuit Alleging SecuritiesFraud in $1B Derivatives Deal, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, October 20, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Claimant Not Only $100K Loses Securities Arbitration Case Against Citigroup Global Markets But Gets Stuck with Financial Firm’s $50K in Legal Bills

Published on: September 9, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Alphonse M. Lucchese, a CitiSmith Barney customer, has not only lost his $100,000 securities claim against the financial firm in Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration, but he also now must pay for Citigroup‘s $49,985 in attorney fees. The case is Alphonse M. Lucchese, Claimant, v. Citi Smith Barney, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Robert Joseph Malenfant, and Alfred George Weaver, Respondents.

Lucchese had originally filed a securities fraud lawsuit in Middlesex Superior Court of Massachusetts. The case was later dismissed and sent to arbitration.

Lucchese claims Smith Barney stockbroker Weaver, who is a Respondent, recommended that he buy 4,000 shares of Lehman preferred. Despite his reservations-including concerns about the stock and how they compared with other companies’ shares-Lucchese “reluctantly agreed” and at $25/share spent $100,000.

The stock initially dropped 20%-a $20,000 drop in value. The Claimant says that Weaver told him to hold on to his stock. When the financial markets collapsed, Lucchese’s stocks’ worth then dropped by 63%. He says that when he told Weaver to sell the position even though it meant losing $63,000, the broker recommended that the Claimant still hold on to his shares and that Lehman was not going to fail… only it did. Lucchese’s shares then became worthless when Lehman filed for bankruptcy.

While Weaver acknowledged making a mistake by not selling Lucchese’s stock, the Respondent claims that the Claimant never ordered him to sell. Lucchese disputes this account.

The arbitrator, when ruling on the case, decided that there was lack of credible evidence supporting Lucchese’s claim. He also found that Weaver acted on “good faith” when he advised Lucchese not to sell prior to Lehman filing for bankruptcy and that the broker would have no way of knowing that this would happen.

Lucchese’s claims of securities fraud, including breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, failure to supervise, violations of federal and state securities laws, and other violations were denied in their entirety. In addition, the arbitrator determined that the Claimant should be responsible for Citigroup’s legal fees of $49,985, $3,150 in arbitration forum fees, and $400 for the explained decision.

Most securities cases must be resolved in arbitration and you want to make sure you are represented by experienced stockbroker fraud lawyers to increase your chances of recouping your losses. A securities claim is not the type of case you want to handle on your own.

Citi Smith Barney Customer Sues Over 2008 Failure to Sell Lehman Shares, Forbes, December 18, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Sues Two Saudi Investors in an Attempt to Block Their FINRA Arbitration Claim Over $383M in Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 22, 2011
Citigroup Global Markets Fined $500,000 by FINRA for Inadequate Supervision of Broker Accused of Bilking Sick and Elderly Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 16, 2011
Citigroup to Pay $285M to Settle SEC Lawsuit Alleging SecuritiesFraud in $1B Derivatives Deal, October 20, 2011
**This post has been backdated for publication.
Continue Reading ›

CapWest Loses $940,000 Dallas Securities Case in FINRA Arbitration

Published on: August 15, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has ordered CapWest Securities Incorporated to pay nearly $940,000 in a Texas securities fraud case filed by a group of investors over the recommendation and sale of numerous illiquid, risky, convertible debentures. The claimants had accused CapWest of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, state and federal securities law violations, fraud, gross negligence, negligence, and other actions.

Last month, the FINRA arbitration panel ordered CapWest to pay claimant Robert E. Lee, both as an individual and as a Robert Earl Lee Revocable Trust trustee, $137,000 in compensatory damages. CapWest was also ordered to pay $478,500 in compensatory damages to Beatrice M. McCrae and Buford E. McCrae, both as individuals and on behalf of B.E. McCrae Family Limited Partnership. Robert E. Lee was also to receive $37,330 in interest for the period of October 25, 2008 through July 15, 2011 at a 5% per annum rate. For Buford E. McCrae and Beatrice E. McCrae, the interest of 5% per annum was $95,180 for the period of October 16, 2006 through July 15, 2011. Under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Robert E. Lee is to receive $17,450 in punitive damages. Buford E. McCrae and Beatrice M. McCrae are to get paid $57,370. Payment of the claimants’ costs, legal fees, and other fees were also granted.

Convertible Debentures

$75K FINRA Arbitration Award Against Wells Fargo Advisors LLC For Defaming an Ex-Employee in Form U-5 is Confirmed by District Court

Published on: July 25, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In district court, Judge Samuel Conti has confirmed a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel’s $75,000 arbitration award to Kenneth Schaffer against Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC. It was the financial firm that began proceedings against its former employer last year.

Schaffer accused Wells Fargo of “ending” his career when on a Form U5, which is a Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration, the firm provided descriptions of alleged infractions that he said were misleading and had prevented him from being offered another job. He claimed that the reasons given for his firing were pretextual and that he was actually let go over health issues. Schaffer also disputed Wells Fargo’s claim that he owed them money for a promissory note. While he said that the financial firm had represented the note as a “sales bonus,” Wells Fargo said that after terminating Schaffer’s employment was terminated on October 1, 2009, it should receive the entire $74,617.76 that was owed on a promissory note.

The FINRA arbitration panel, however, agreed with Schaffer and found the promissory notice “unconscionable.” It said that Wells Fargo therefore could not recover on it. The panel also said that because the Form U5 Termination Explanation was of a “defamatory nature,” the financial firm was liable to Schaffer for compensatory damages. The court confirmed the arbitration award, while denying Wells Fargo’s motion to vacate, and entitled Schaffer to recover legal fees.

$750,000 Arbitration Award Against Stone & Youngberg LLC Confirmed by District Court

Published on: June 30, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court has confirmed an arbitration panel’s $750,000 award to the Kay Family Revocable Trust in its securities case against Stone & Youngberg LLP. The trust sustained financial losses when its money was invested in the FutureSelect Prime Advisor II, which had most of its capital invested with Ponzi scam mastermind Bernard Madoff.

In its arbitration claim, Kay Family Revocable Trust claimed that S & Y failed to perform its requisite due diligence before recommending that the trust invest in the fund. S & Y rejoined with the argument that the trust had not succeeded in proving a causal link between the Madoff scheme and any alleged lack of due diligence. S & Y also argued it shouldn’t have to be responsible for the harm that the Trust suffered as a result of Madoff’s financial fraud. The brokerage firm even pointed to a federal district court ruling of a professional malpractice claim that concluded that “a simple ‘but for’ relationship between the claimed negligence and the injury” will not back up a finding of legal causation. S & Y also cited a decision by a federal appeals court that said it was up to a securities fraud plaintiff to prove that the loss it sustained was a foreseeable outcome of the alleged misrepresentation.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, however, concluded that the panel’s decision to confirm the award in favor of the investor and against S & Y was not manifest disregard of the law, but rather the application of the law to the facts the way it found them.

STONE & YOUNGBERG, LLC v. KAY FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST UAD 02-07-90 FBO LENORE BLEADON UNDER TRUST A, Leagle.com, June 22, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Houston Securities Arbitration: FINRA Panel Orders Penson Financial Services, Inc. to Pay Boushy North Investments, Ltd. $500,000, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 11, 2011
District Court Wants to Know Why FINRA Arbitration Panel Denied Freecharm Ltd.’s Securities Fraud Claim Against One Atlas Financial Group LLC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 11, 2011, May 31, 2011
Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 1, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Houston Securities Arbitration: FINRA Panel Orders Penson Financial Services, Inc. to Pay Boushy North Investments, Ltd. $500,000

Published on: June 11, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In Houston, a FINRA arbitration panel has awarded Boushy North Investments, Ltd. $500,000 in its securities arbitration case against Penson Financial Services, Inc. Boushy North Investments had initially sought $4M in punitive damages and more than $3.8M in compensatory damages for negligence, unauthorized trading, breach of fiduciary duty, and gross negligence. At the Texas securities arbitration hearing, however, the Claimant amended and reduced its compensatory damages and withdrew punitive damages and legal fees.

Boushy North Investments accused Penson of failing to prevent an unsuitable and unauthorized day-trading strategy for its family limited-partnership account. Meantime, Penson denied the allegations, asserted specific defenses, and submitted a Third-Party Complaint against Thomas Cooper and Second Mile Wealth Management, Inc., which asserted causes of action over crack of contract, indemnification, and rascal linked to the Third-Party Respondents’ purported element representations about the trade and the direction of the trading in Claimant’s account. Penson eventually discharged its Third-Party Claim’s result of action for fraud.

The claim for unauthorized trading hadn’t been included in the Original Statement of Claim submitted in September 2009. The first effort to amend that was February. However, FINRA denied it because different or new pleadings cannot be turned in after a panel has been chosen and if a leave to amend hasn’t been granted. Last month, however, after the proper motions were submitted, the panel granted the unauthorized trading count.

Penson Faced Multi-Million Dollar Day-Trading Claim in FINRA Arbitration, Broke and Broker, June 1, 2011
Multi-Million Dollar Day-Trading Claim Hits Penson in FINRA Arbitration, Forbes, May 31, 2011

More Blog Posts:
District Court in Texas Decides that Credit Suisse Securities Doesn’t Have to pay Additional $186,000 Arbitration Award to Luby’s Restaurant Over ARS, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 2, 2011
Texas Securities Commissioner’s Emergency Cease and Decease Order Accuses Insignia Energy Group Inc. of Misleading Teachers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 23, 2011
Texas-Based AIG’s Largest Private Shareholder Says US Will Likely Sell Its Shares in the Insurer At Lower Price than Expected, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›

District Court in Texas Decides that Credit Suisse Securities Doesn’t Have to pay Additional $186,000 Arbitration Award to Luby’s Restaurant Over ARS

Published on: June 2, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has ruled that Credit Suisse Securities shouldn’t have to pay Luby’s Restaurants another $186,000 as part of its arbitration to the investor. The case is Luby’s Restaurants LP v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC. Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas Founder and Texas Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd had this to say about the ruling: “Attorneys for each side have the opportunity to submit language to the arbitrators that it desires to be reflected in an award. In cases where the award sought is anything more than payment of a specific amount it is wise to submit such language.”

Luby’s Restaurants LP bought over $30 million in auction-rate securities from Credit Suisse. The investor bought the ARS based on the financial firm’s representation that the instruments were very liquid, safe, and a suitable investment.

Luby’s later filed its arbitration claim with FINRA for ARS losses. By then it had gotten back everything but $8.9 million in securities. Then, after initiating the proceedings-but prior to the arbitration hearing-Luby’s redeemed another one of its securities for less than par and lost $186,000.

The arbitration panel would go on to rule in favor of Luby’s. Credit Suisse was directed to buy back the ARS from Luby’s at par and with interest. While both parties sought to confirm the award, they were in dispute over whether the $186,000 that Luby’s lost after it filed its arbitration case should be included.

The court says that Credit Suisse does not have to pay that amount to Luby’s. The court noted that the Award doesn’t mention the additional damages that Luby’s sustained when it sold some of the securities under par during pendency of the arbitration but prior to the hearing.

Related Web Resources:
$186K Under Arbitration Award, BNA Securities Law Daily, May 31, 2011
Luby’s Restaurants LP v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Justia

More Blog Posts:
Credit Suisse Group AG Must Pay ST Microelectronics NV $431 Million Auction-Rate Securities Arbitration Award, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 5, 2010
Texas Securities Commissioner’s Emergency Cease and Decease Order Accuses Insignia Energy Group Inc. of Misleading Teachers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 23, 2011
Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo Investments Repurchase $26.9M in Auction-Rate Securities from New Jersey Investors, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, May 25, 2011 Continue Reading ›

District Court Wants to Know Why FINRA Arbitration Panel Denied Freecharm Ltd.’s Securities Fraud Claim Against One Atlas Financial Group LLC

Published on: May 31, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Judge Marcia G. Cooke of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is asking why a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel denied Freecharm Ltd.’s breach of fiduciary duty and fraud claims against Atlas One Financial Group LLC. Cooke wants to know about the panel’s reasoning so it can make a ruling regarding the parties’ conflicting motions to modify, confirm, or vacate the award.

The court says that, Freecharm Ltd. began arbitration proceedings against associated entity Atlas One Financial Group LLC and three individuals in 2009. Freecharm accused Atlas of committing Florida statutory violations, breach of fiduciary, fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoings linked to the alleged excessive and/or unauthorized trading in a number of securities accounts.

After the FINRA panel entered an award denying Freecharm’s claims “in their entirety,” Freecharm then submitted a motion to modify or vacate, while Atlas put forward its own motion to have the award confirmed.

Freecharm is claiming that the panel went beyond its powers, exhibited partiality, ignored the law and the facts, and was prejudiced in refusing to see that Atlas allegedly concealed discovery documents. Freecharm is also challenging the credibility of certain witness testimony and discovery documents.

Although the district court has acknowledged that the FINRA panel’s decision deserves “considerable deference,” it also has found that in this instance the award does not “expressly state” the reason Freecharm’s claims were entirely denied. The court says that it needs more information so it can identify the possible evidence for the panel’s logic, as well as determine what principal of law the arbitrators allegedly disregarded. District courts are authorized to remand a case to an arbitration panel for the purpose of getting clarification about the panel’s intent when “in making an award evidences a manifest disregard of the law.”

Related Web Resources:
In Weighing Motion to Confirm, Court Asks Arbitrators to Clarify Basis of Award, Alacra Store, May 25, 2011 Atlas One Financial Group, LLC et al v. Freecharm Limited, Justia Dockets

More Blog Posts:
District Court in Texas Decides that Credit Suisse Securities Doesn’t Have to pay Additional $186,000 Arbitration Award to Luby’s Restaurant Over ARS, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 2, 2011
SEC Approves FINRA’s Proposal to Give Investors an All-Public Arbitration Panel Option, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 12, 2011
Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 1, 2010 Continue Reading ›