Articles Posted in Arbitration

The Securities and Exchange Commission has approved the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s proposal to give investors the choice of having their securities claims against broker-dealers heard by an arbitration panel that doesn’t include any industry members. FINRA says that its Rule 12403, which lets investors choose between a majority-public panel and all-public panel, will go into effect right away. Arbitration cases that began prior to the SEC’s decision to approve the proposal will be notified of this new rule.

Prior to submitting its proposal to the SEC, FINRA tested the idea as a pilot program for more than two years. FINRA says that while investors regularly chose to have nonpublic arbitrators hear their securities case, it became clear that giving them other options improved their perception that the arbitration process was a fair one.

State securities regulators are praising the SEC’s decision. However, they are calling for even more reform.

Optional All Public Panel Rule 12403(d):
FINRA will send the parties three lists. One list will contain the name of 10 non-public arbitrators. The other list will name 10 chair-qualified public arbitrators. The other list will name 10 public arbitrators. Each party will be able to strike up to four arbitrators from the public and chair-qualified lists. Parties can strike the names of all 10 arbitrators from the non-public arbitrator list.

Majority Public Panel Rule 12403(c):
This panel will include one non-public arbitrator, one public arbitrator, and one chair-qualified public arbitrator. The same three lists as the ones mentioned for the All Public Panel will be sent to the parties. Up to four arbitrators from each list can be struck.


Related Web Resources:

Notice to Parties – New Optional All Public Panel Rules, FINRA

SEC Approves FINRA Proposal to Give Investors Permanent Option of All Public Arbitration Panels, FINRA, February 1, 2011

Related Blog Posts:
FINRA Wants to Make All-Public Arbitration Panel for Investors Permanent, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 7, 2010
Number of FINRA Arbitration Claims Rose in 2009 Following Market Crisis, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 13, 2010
FINRA Says Number of Stockbroker Fraud Arbitration Claims by Plaintiffs is Rising, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 14, 2009 Continue Reading ›

QA3 Financial Corp. has announced that it will be closing down its business. In an email sent to its 400 brokers after the market closed on Friday, QA3 owner and CEO Steve Wild says the decision was made following the securities arbitration award that was issued against the independent brokerage firm last month and the fact that its errors and omissions carrier has yet to provide coverage.

Catlin Specialty Insurance Co. is QA3’s insurer. The broker-dealer sued the insurer last year alleging failure to uphold the insurance contract, which QA3 claims is supposed to provide $7.5 million in coverage for legal claims, expenses, and damages related to private placement. Catlin then sued QA3, contending that there was a $1 million cap on QA3 private-placement claims.

Once a leading seller of high-risk private placements, QA3 has been dealing with dozens of arbitration cases and securities lawsuits from clients that purchased private placements, such as Medical Capital Holdings Inc, DBSI Inc., and Provident Royalties LLC.

Recently, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. panel ordered QA3 to pay $1.6 million after losing an arbitration claim filed by an elderly couple. The panel found that the brokerage firm failed to adequately supervise broker James R. Files or provide sufficient training regarding the sale of tenant-in-common exchanges (TIC’s). The plaintiffs, Mary-Ann and Arthur Cargill, are in their 70’s, possess limited financial resources, and don’t have a great deal of investment experience. The FINRA panel also says that the brokerage firm appears to have routinely disregarded sales and marketing approval practices.

Related Web Resources:
B-D down: QA3 to close up shop next week, Investment News, February 7, 2011
Arbitrator awards Wilton couple nearly $1.6 million for investment, American Chronicle, January 19, 2011
Catlin Specialty Insurance Company v. QA3 Financial Corp., Justia Dockets and Filings, November 23, 2010
Private Placements, Stockbroker Fraud Lawyers Continue Reading ›

TV star Larry Hagman, best known for playing the roles of Texas oil tycoon JR Ewing on “Dallas” and Major Anthony Nelson on “I Dream of Jeannie,” recently won an $11.6 million securities fraud arbitration award against Citigroup. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that the award is the largest that has been issued to an individual investor for 2010 and the ninth largest ever. Citi Global Markets is now seeking to dismiss the award.

The investment firm contends that the arbitration panel’s chairman did not disclose a possible conflict of interest. In its petition, Citi cites a FINRA rule obligating arbitrators to reveal such conflicts that could prevent them from issuing an impartial ruling. The financial firm claiming that because the arbitration panel head was once a plaintiff in a lawsuit that dealt with the same type of claims and subject matter, he had an undisclosed potential conflict. Hagman’s legal team have since responded with a memo arguing that the arbitrator’s lawsuit was not related to this complaint and did not involve a securities investment, the same parties, or the same facts.

Hagman and his wife Maj had accused Citigroup of securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and other allegations. They claimed financial losses on bonds and stocks and a life insurance policy. In addition to the arbitration award, which consists of $1.1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages that will go to a charity of Hagman’s choice, Citigroup must also pay a 10% interest on the award.

Related Web Resources:
Messing With J.R., Take Four, NY Times, November 23, 2010
Actor Larry Hagman Wins $12 Million in Finra Case With Citigroup, Bloomberg, October 7, 2010

Citigroup’s petition to dismiss award to Larry Hagman

Citigroup, Stockbroker Fraud Blog Continue Reading ›

According to Illinois securities regulator Tanya Solov, brokerage firms are driving investors with securities arbitration claims against them to settle their cases. Solov says that they are doing this by barraging investors with discovery information requests. Solov was quoted at the yearly North American Securities Administrators Association Inc. meeting.

Solov said that broker-dealers’ discovery practices end up making the FINRA arbitration process more costly for investors. Such tactics, says Solov, are compelling investors to settle their securities cases rather than go into litigation. She also noted that while broker-dealers keep pressing investors into coming up with discovery material, many investment firms, when faced with a discovery request by an investor, have been known not to provide the information.

William Shepherd, a securities fraud attorney and the founder of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, represents many clients with securities cases against brokerage firms. He noted the challenges his investment fraud firm has had when trying to obtain discovery information for his clients: “Our firm responds in kind, fighting hard for discovery from the firms as well. We have invested in the latest technology to be able to process millions of documents and search these for clues. We do not let abusive requests thwart our goal and we protect our clients from such abuses. We refuse to be bullied by large financial firms who think they can run over investors and their attorneys. These firms now know we are ready, willing and able to fight them and most have abandoned such tactics against us.”

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says it wants investors with securities claims against broker-dealers to have the right to an arbitration panel that doesn’t include industry representatives. FINRA will file its proposal with the Securities and Exchange Commission for approval.

Under the new rule, investors would have the option of choosing between a panel comprised of one industry arbitrator and two public arbitrators and a panel made up of three public arbitrators. FINRA is hoping this will create a greater perception of fairness in the mandatory arbitration system, which it oversees.

During the last two years, FINRA has run a pilot program that gave investors the option between the two types of panels. The program was created to test whether all-public panels gave investors a fairer shake in their disputes with broker-dealers. 14 investment firms took part in the program. According to FINRA, investors chose to have their securities case heard by an all-public panel 60% of the time. 50% of the time they chose the panel that included one industry member. The pilot has been extended for another year. As of September 28, nearly 560 cases have been part of this program.

Now that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has been enacted, the SEC can limit or ban mandatory arbitration clauses, which can be found in contracts between broker-dealers and their clients. Investor advocates are hoping for this.

Related Web Resources:
Finra asks SEC to OK all-public panels for arbitration disputes, Investment News, September 28, 2010
FINRA Proposes to Permanently Give Investors the Option of All-Public Arbitration Panels, September 28, 2010
Number of FINRA Arbitration Claims Rose in 2009 Following Market Crisis, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 13, 2010 Continue Reading ›

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel has ordered UBS Financial Services Inc. to pay investor Kajeet Inc. $80.8 million for failed auction-rate securities. The brokerage firm disagrees with the decision and intends to file a motion to have the claim vacated.

Although Kajeet had only invested $8 million in ARS through UBS, the company, which markets cell phones for kids, contends that because its securities were frozen, a “domino effect” resulted and it ultimately lost $110 million. Also, Kajeet was forced to significantly cut its 60-person work team and it lost a key distribution deal with a national retail chain.

UBS had previously resolved ARS-related charges with an agreement that it would pay a $150 million fine and buy back $18.6 billion of the securities. The brokerage firm was one of a number of broker-dealers that agreed to repurchase over $60 billion in ARS from investors because they had allegedly misrepresented the securities as safe investments. When the $330 million ARS market froze in February 2008, UBS had over $35 billion in ARS that were held by some 40,000 customers.

Claimant Leonard Claus was awarded $25,000 by a National Association of Securities Dealers’ arbitration panel for his Texas securities arbitration claim. Claus had made a verbal agreement with Jerry Short, who worked for Institutional Capital Management Inc. over the sale and purchase of bonds.

Clause, who bought the bonds, was planning to sell them to Sterling Financial Investment Group Inc. The resale plan didn’t work out, and he sold them to another buyer at cost.

Clause then sued ICM and Sterling for breach of contract, violations of federal and state securities laws, and negligence.

In addition to the $25,000 compensatory damages award, NASD charged Clause $22,000 in arbitration fees. They awarded his lawyer $70,000 in legal fees.

ICM and Sterling asked that the Texas securities fraud award be vacated by the district court. A magistrate judge vacated, claiming that the NASD panel went beyond its authority when it violated Texas law and directly issued an award to Clause’s lawyer.

Clause and IMS appealed, claiming that the judge made a mistake when vacating the entire award on the basis of the awarded attorney’s fee. Meantime, Sterling and ICM contended that the attorney’s fee violated Texas law and that it conflicted with the contingency fee arrangement between clause and his attorney, which the NASD panel is not allowed to override. ICM and Sterling said the legal fee award was unreasonable.

Court of Appeals ruled that even though Texas statute must directly authorize any fee awards, the party that is told to pay the fee cannot challenge the payment’s propriety. The court called the award error harmless and “immaterial to the party” that is ordered to pay it. The court also noted that ICM/Sterling did not challenge the evidence that supported the fee award.

Related Web Resources:

National Association Of Securities Dealers – NASD
Continue Reading ›

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel has ordered Morgan Keegan & Co. to pay investor Andrew Stein $2.5 million because the bond funds that he invested in had bet poorly on mortgage-related holdings. Panel members found Morgan Keegan liable for failure to supervise, negligence, and for selling investments that were unsuitable for Stein and his companies. The claimants, who sustained financial losses, had initially sought $12 million.

Stein’s arbitration claim is just one of over 400 securities claims that have been filed against Morgan Keegan over its bond funds that had invested in subprime-related securities, such as CDO’s (collateralized debt obligations). When the US housing market collapsed, the funds went down in value by up to 82%.

Stein contends that Morgan Keegan did not reveal the kinds of risks involved in investing in the bond funds. He and his companies claim that Morgan Keegan artificially increased the fund assets’ value so that the funds would appear more stable and investors wouldn’t be able to see the actual risks involved.

According to FINRA dispute resolution president Linda Fienberg, the market turmoil of the last two years has led to an increase in the number of arbitration cases filed, as well as a change in the the kinds of claims that are submitted. Fienberg made her statements before the DC bar.

7,134 arbitration files were submitted last year-a definite increase from the 4,982 arbitration cases filed the year before and the 3,238 arbitration cases submitted in 2007. Fienberg said that the number of cases filed goes up when stock prices go down. For example, when the dotcom bubble burst, nearly 9,000 arbitration claims were submitted in 2003.

Fienberg told the group that in the wake of the auction-rate securities crisis, more large corporations filed claims over frozen assets last year. The last two years also saw an increase in claims over mutual funds, making this type of fund the most common security cited in arbitration cases.

A FINRA arbitration panel is ordering SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. to pay $4.1 million to a former institutional salesperson who claims he was defamed in a regulatory filing and wrongfully terminated. SunTrust Robinson Humphrey is the corporate and investment bank services unit of SunTrust Banks, Inc.

Lance B. Beck, who worked for the company 19 years and sold debt securities, claims he was slated to gross more than $3 million when, following the auction-rate securities market collapse, he was let go. According to a regulatory filing for the former institutional salesman, his case against his former employer involves a $2.9 million ARS transaction with a institutional customer. SunTrust later decided to repurchase the securities.

Beck is accusing SunTrust of making disclosures on his Form U5 that were “devastating,” and prevented him from getting hired by other companies or take his book of business with him. Beck wanted certain language in the form, which brokerage firms have to submit to regulators when a broker leaves the company, expunged.

Contact Information