On July 15, 2022, FINRA filed Regulatory Notice 22-15 and announced the amendment of its Code of Arbitration for Industry Disputes to conform to the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-90, 136 Stat. 26 (2022). The amendments permit person with claims of sexual assault or sexual harassment to pursue those claims in court irrespective of any agreements otherwise mandating arbitration.

Background

FINRA members historically forced employees to arbitrate claims of sexual harassment or assault by use of agreements containing pre-dispute arbitration clauses. The pre-dispute arbitration clauses were typically contained within a Form U4, employment agreements or provisions within an employee manual that the employee was bound by.

Use of pre-dispute arbitration clauses for claims of sexual harassment or sexual assault was upended by the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021. FINRA has now changed its rules to comport with the Act.

Amendments to FINRA’s Rules FINRA Rule 2263 Rule 2263 (titled: Arbitration Disclosure to Associated Persons Signing or Acknowledging Form U4) now includes a new Section 4 stating:

“A party alleging a sexual assault claim or sexual harassment claim that has agreed to arbitrate before the dispute arose may elect post dispute not to arbitrate such a claim under the Code. Such a claim may be arbitrated if the parties have agreed to arbitrate it after the dispute arose.”

FINRA Rule 13100 Rule 13100 contains definitions applicable to the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes. FINRA has added a definition for “sexual assault claim,” meaning:

“a claim involving a nonconsensual sexual act or sexual contact, as such terms are defined in section 2246 of title 18 of the United States Code or similar applicable Tribal or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent.”

FINRA also added a definition for “sexual harassment claim,” meaning:

“a claim relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable Federal, Tribal, or State law.”

FINRA Rule 13201 Rule 13201, as amended, applies to arbitration of statutory discrimination claims and codifies a prohibition against the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements for claims under a whistleblower statute, or claims sexual harassment or sexual assault. Rule 13021 now includes a new Section (c) stating:

“A party alleging a sexual assault claim or sexual harassment claim that has agreed to arbitrate before the dispute arose may elect post dispute not to arbitrate such a claim under the Code. Such a claim may be arbitrated if the parties have agreed to arbitrate it after the dispute arose. If the parties arbitrate such a claim, the claim will be administered under Rule 13802.”

FINRA Rule 13803 Rule 13803 is triggered when a claimant files certain claims (such as a sexual harassment claim) in court and other claims (such as a compensation claim, for example) in arbitration. In an instance like this, a member is now permitted to file a motion forcing the employee to consolidate all outstanding claim in the court proceeding.

Herskovits PLLC has a nationwide practice representing individuals in the securities industry with claims of sexual assault or sexual harassment. Feel free to call us for a consultation at (212) 897-5410.

Herskovits PLLC is investigating whether Morgan Stanley unlawfully “forfeited” deferred compensation otherwise due and payable to financial advisers formerly employed by the firm. A class action lawsuit involving similar claims has begun in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. That litigation is in its early stages and may carry on for years before a resolution is reached.

Morgan Stanley’s Deferred Compensation Plan

Morgan Stanley compensates FAs based on revenues generated from the FA’s customers’ accounts. Morgan Stanley typically defers a portion of the fees generated as “deferred compensation” and allocates a substantial percentage of the FA’s deferred compensation to the Morgan Stanley Compensation Incentive Program. 75% of the deferred compensation vests over a six-year period and 25% vests over a four-year period. However, Morgan Stanley “cancels” the deferred compensation if the FA leaves Morgan Stanley prior to the vesting dates.

Potential Legal Claims

In simple terms, it can be argued that the deferred comp plan in an “employee benefit pension plan” under ERISA because it “results in a deferral of income” for services rendered years ago. If this argument proves successful, the deferred compensation program’s “cancellation rule” will be deemed a violation of ERISA’s vesting and anti-forfeiture requirements.

Where to Pursue these Claims?

Certain formerly employed FA’s may be eligible to join the class action lawsuit should the judge certify the class. It is unknown at this time whether or when the court will certify the class. Moreover, if the class is certified, it is unclear whether joining the class – as opposed to pursuing the ERISA claims on an individual basis in FINRA arbitration – is preferable avenue for the FA. FAs are always free to pursue their claims on an individual basis in FINRA arbitration.

Considerations for the FA When Deciding Whether and Where to Pursue the Claims

Class actions lawsuits sometimes result in recoveries of “pennies on the dollar” for the members of the class. This structure nonetheless serves the plaintiffs’ lawyers well, because the lawyers receive a substantial percentage of the class settlement – which may be a large pool of money – whether or not an individual class participant recovers much money.

Another consideration to weigh concerns claims which Morgan Stanley may assert. The firm can – and does – aggressively pursue claims for unpaid “employee forgivable loans” (EFLs). Morgan Stanley will pursue those EFL claims in FINRA arbitration. Therefore, the FA has to carefully weigh whether he would garner greater leverage by meeting the EFL claim with a deferred comp counterclaim in FINRA arbitration. By pursuing the deferred comp claim as part of a class, the FA would be left without a potentially potent defense against than EFL claims in FINRA arbitration.

A second consideration concerns the payout of any settlement in court versus arbitration. An FA has to make a determination when he believes he will recover more by pursuing his claims on an individual basis in FINRA arbitration.

Herskovits PLLC has a nationwide practice representing the interests of financial advisors, including FAs with claims for unpaid compensation. Please call us at 212-897-5410 for a consultation.

The arbitration was conducted under FINRA’s simplified rules before a single public arbitrator and the Claimant represented herself without an attorney. Merrill Lynch was represented by the law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

In her findings, the single arbitrator seemed particularly concerned that Merrill Lynch failed to even speak with the customer about the allegations in dispute. Merrill Lynch also failed to have the customer sign an affidavit supporting the allegations. The client in question was known to be suffering from memory problems so significant that Merrill Lynch terminated her as a brokerage client despite an account balance in excess of $500,000. The client had previously complained about unauthorized trading in her account by her primary advisor.

Reminiscent of the Wells Fargo account fraud scandal, several former Merrill Lynch employees testified that they were encouraged to open new accounts for customers even if the client had existing accounts. Those same former employees testified that the policy for opening up new accounts was “ambiguous and not uniformlty enforced.” Interestingly, the arbitrator noted that the Claimant “only earned $700” from opening up the account in question and concluded that, “[n]o reasonable person would have done so had he or she been aware of the severe consequences that would issue.”

Herskovits PLLC has a nationwide practice representing financial advisors with Form U5 and Form U4 expungement claims. Herskovits PLLC was recently featured in AdvisorHub for successfully obtaining expungement of an FAs Form U5 and even recouping attorneys’ fees. Feel free to contact us for a consultation at (212) 897-5410.