Articles Posted in FINRA Arbitration

00025601-300x166
FINRA recently published an AWC entered into with Richard L. Langer, a registered representative with Planner Securities LLC.  FINRA accused Langer of violating FINRA Rules 2210 and 2220.  FINRA Rule 2210 governs communications by registered representatives with the public and FINRA Rule 2220 sets forth requirements with respect to options-related communications.

The review of Langer’s communications originated with a cycle examination conducted by FINRA Member Supervision.  According to FINRA, between January 2016 and November 2019, Langer maintained a public Facebook page for an investment club he operated. Langer authored 20 posts on the Facebook page regarding the performance, investment returns, industry standing, and purported successes of the investment club and a separate hedge fund at which Langer traded.

For example, on January 9, 2018, Langer posted:

00025601-300x166
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.

00025601-300x166
On May 6, 2022, FINRA released a “Discussion Paper – Expungement of Customer Dispute Information” (the “Discussion Paper”) to address what FINRA clearly sees as problems with the current system for expunging customer complains.  Let’s be clear from the outset, FINRA is openly hostile to the expungement of customer complaint information.  FINRA is particularly hostile to what they describe as “straight-in” expungement arbitrations where the financial advisor seeks expungement by naming their  firm as the respondent (typically after a customer arbitration has settled).

As many practitioners know, FINRA passed an amendment, effective September 14, 2020, establishing a minimum filing fee for expungement arbitrations.  The Discussion Paper touts the success of this amendment in reducing the number of straight-in expungement actions by 37% between 2019 and 2020.  Thus, FINRA makes it clear that its goal is reduction of expungement claims rather than making sure the claims have merit.

The tone of the Discussion Paper starts off somewhat defensive as FINRA makes sure to let the public know how few expungements are actually awarded every year.  Between January 2016 and December 2021, approximately 8 percent of financial advisors registered with FINRA had a customer dispute disclosure on their record and only 1 in 10 had customer dispute information expunged during that time period.  If expungement of customer dispute information is so rare, it is hard to understand why FINRA has as they put it, “engaged in longstanding efforts with NASAA and state securities regulators to explore a redesign of the current expungement process.”  I recently blogged about the Alabama Securities Commission’s (“ASC”) intervention into an expungement award confirmation proceeding and the ASC’s very dim view of the “straight-in” expungement process.  In light of the intervention and then the subsequent release of this Discussion Paper, it seems likely that more state regulators than just Alabama are unhappy with the current expungement system.

00025601-300x166
At a FINRA arbitration in September 2021, Mr. Kent Kirby, a financial advisor at UBS Financial Services, Inc., sought the expungement from CRD of five customer complaints spanning a time frame from 2002 through 2011.  Mr. Kirby was successful in obtaining an award expunging all five occurrences despite the fact that one customer opposed the expungement in a pre-hearing brief and at the hearing.  In a detailed award, the arbitrator found that each of the claims against Mr. Kirby were “factually impossible or erroneous” as required by FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1)(A)  and “false” as required by FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1)(c).  Mr. Kirby then filed an action in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida to confirm the award.   Kent Kirby v. FINRA, Case No. 50-2021-CA-013816 (15th Judicial Cir., Palm Beach County, FL).

Many are familiar with FINRA Rule 2080, which involves the expungement of customer complaint information from a registered representative’s Form U4 and from the Central Registration Depository (“CRD”).  Rule 2080 requires any arbitration award granting expungement of customer complaint information to be confirmed by a court order.  In addition, the rep must name FINRA as a part to the court proceeding or request FINRA to waive that requirement.

What many practitioners may not know is that when FINRA receives a request for a waiver, it takes that request, along with accompanying documents, and sends it to all of the state regulators in each state where the individual is registered.  See https://www.finra.org/registration-exams-ce/classic-crd/faq/finra-rule-2080-frequently-asked-questions

64-morgan-stanley-300x200
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.

33-sec-300x199
We are all painfully aware of the recent volatility in the markets, which has not gone unnoticed by the SEC.  On March 14, 2022, the Staff of the Division of Trading and Markets stated that “broker-dealers should collect margin from counterparties to the fullest extent possible in accordance with any applicable regulatory and contractual requirements.”  We shall see whether Wall Street acts upon the SEC’s guidance, and whether investors are caught flat-footed by stepped-up maintenance margin requirements.

Regulatory and Contractual Requirements

The regulatory requirements for margin are set forth in FINRA Rule 4210.  Although the rule is lengthy, and incorporates other rules including Federal Reserve Board Regulation T, the essence of the rule allows a broker-dealer to lend a customer up to 50% of the total purchase price of an eligible stock.  A margin call may be issued if the margin account falls beneath the maintenance margin requirements (generally 25% of the current market value of the securities in the account) or if the margin account falls below the firm’s “house” maintenance margin requirements (which can be substantially higher than 25%).   Brokerage firms can, and often do, upwardly adjust “house” maintenance margin requirements if the firm has risk concerns relating to outstanding margin loans.  Most margin account agreements specifically permit broker-dealers to increase maintenance margin requirements at the sole discretion of the firm.  In light of the SEC’s recent guidance, it seems likely that broker-dealers will act upon its contractual rights and demand enlarged collateral from customers to protect its margin loans.

In September of 2018, Merrill Lynch terminated the Claimant in this arbitration for allegedly opening up a Bank of America bank account for a customer without authorization.  In 2020, the Claimant brought an arbitration against Merrill Lynch seeking expungement of the alleged defamatory reason for termination  and also sought $50,000 in compensatory damages.  The FINRA arbitration award is viewable here.

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.

00025601-300x166
On November 19, 2020, FINRA published a noteworthy arbitration award for a Herskovits PLLC client in FINRA Arbitration No. 20-01054.  This case has garnered significant attention in the press due to the fact that Wells Fargo was ordered to pay our client’s attorneys’ fees.  Stories about the case have been reported in AdvisorHub, InvestmentNews and ThinkAdvisor.

On February 18, 2020, Wells Fargo terminated the FA and inserted the following allegation on the Form U5:

“WF Bank, N.A., registered banker was discharged by the bank after a bank investigation reviewed complaints received by AMIG from two bank customers alleging the customers were enrolled in renter’s insurance policies for which the banker received referral sales credit without the customers’ authorization.  The registered banker denied the customers’ allegations.  The activity was not related to the securities business of WFCS.”

00025601-300x166
On September 22, 2020, FINRA submitted a proposed rule change to the SEC.   The proposed rule furthers FINRAs assault on the expungement process by imposing stringent requirements on expungement requests filed during a customer arbitration by or on behalf of the associated person (“on-behalf-of request”) or filed by a registered representative separate from a customer arbitration (“straight-in request”).  The proposed rule also (a) establishes a roster of arbitrators with enhanced training and experience, from which a panel of 3 arbitrators would decide straight-in requests; and (b) codifies and updates the Notice to Arbitrators and Parties on Expanded Expungement Guidance.

Here are some of the key takeaways from the proposed rule change:

Denial of FINRA Forum

00025601-300x166
In Next Financial Group, Inc. v. GMS Mine Repair and Maintenance, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-168 (USDC W.D. Pa.), the federal court was asked to define the term “customer” as it relates to FINRA’s Code of Arbitration Procedure.  The definition of that term carries significance because “customers” can compel a member firm to participate in FINRA arbitration whereas non-customers cannot.  In the case at hand, GMS Mine Repair had no account with Next Financial and received no goods or services from Next Financial itself.  This case bears some significance because the court compelled arbitration even though GMS Mine Repair was nothing more than an investor in the FAs outside business activity.

Background

The case arose from a supposedly fraudulent investment scheme perpetrated by Douglas P. Simanski, a former registered representative of Next Financial Group.  According to BrokerCheck, Next Financial terminated Douglas Simanski in May 2016 because “RR sold fictitious investment and converted funds for his own personal use and benefit.”  Mr. Simanksi currently has 30 disclosures on his BrokerCheck report, reflecting numerous settled customer claims.  On November 2, 2018, the SEC filed a complaint against Mr. Simanski alleging that Simanksi “raised over $3.9 million from approximately 27 investors by falsely representing he would invest their money in one of three ventures:  (1) a ‘tax free investment’ providing a fixed return for a specific number of years; (2) one of two coal mining companies in which Simanski claimed to have an ownership interest; or (3) a rental car company.”  According to BrokerCheck, the SEC ultimately barred Simanski and Simanski plead guilty to criminal charges filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Contact Information