Previous Dissent by Arbitrator is Not Reason to Vacate Award Morgan Keegan Was Ordered to Pay Investors, Says District Court

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida is holding that an arbitration award granted to investors cannot be vacated under the Federal Arbitration Act just because an arbitrator exhibited obvious partiality when failing to reveal that he wrote a dissent in an unrelated arbitration that allegedly showed he had prejudged issues of law. The securities case is Antietam Industries Inc. v. Morgan Keegan & Co.

Petitioners Antietam Industries Inc., Janice Warfel, and William Warfel contend they sustained financial losses over their RMK fund investments. In 2011, they filed a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration case claiming that their money was lost because Morgan Keegan had made misrepresentations while failing to disclose how risky the funds were.

Last year, the panel awarded the petitioners $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages, plus fees and interest, for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and other claims. When they sought to confirm the award, Morgan Keegan submitted a motion to vacate, pointing to FAA and contending that arbitrator Christopher Mass allegedly showed partiality and “misbehavior” with his failure to disclose his previous dissent. The court, however, rejected Morgan Keegan’s argument, saying it was not convinced that Mass was predisposed or had prejudged.

“Many investors do not realize that the securities arbitration process is much different than court, said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP and Securities Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd. “When investors open a brokerage account, they agree to resolve disputes in arbitration and will not be able to file a lawsuit against the firm or broker. However, this has some advantages to the investor. Court cases can last for years, but the arbitration process is usually completed in just over a year. As well, it is more difficult to overturn an arbitration decision than a court case. In this case, the investor was able to avoid losing a victory on appeal.”

To schedule your free consultation, contact our FINRA arbitration law firm today.

Antietam Industries Inc. v. Morgan Keegan & Co.

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Keegan Settles Subprime Mortgage-Backed Securities Charges for $200M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 29, 2011
Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing Must Pay $20.5M Arbitration Award in Bayou Ponzi Scam, Upholds 2nd Circuit, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 14, 2012