October 22, 2011

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

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

September 9, 2011

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

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

August 15, 2011

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

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
This kind of loan can lets its holder convert it into stock. In certain cases, the bond’s issuer may also do this. When employing the convertibility option, the issuer is allowed to pay a reduced interest rate on the loan. Companies use these financial instruments to get capital that they need to maintain or grow their operation.

This Dallas securities fraud case isn’t the only arbitration case that CapWest has recently lost. Also last month, a FINRA arbitration panel awarded CapWest clients and former broker Attila Toth $438,000 in damages and another $130,000 in legal fees and interest.

CapWest sold two private placements--$22 million in Provident Royalties LLC-issued private placements and $30.6 million in Medical Capital Holdings Inc. notes that the SEC claims were fraudulent. Once a leading seller of private placements, CapWest is in financial trouble. Earlier this year, the broker-dealer reported that a drop in net capital, an increase of securities fraud lawsuits against it, and three years of losses in a row have raised concerns over whether the financial firm can stay in operation.

Texas Securities Fraud
If you are an investor who has sustained financial losses from working with a broker-dealer or an investment adviser, our Texas securities fraud law firm can advise you of your options. Securities claims and lawsuits can be complex cases and you do not want to go into arbitration or court without an experienced Houston securities fraud lawyer representing you.

To obtain your free case evaluation, contact our Dallas stockbroker fraud law firm today. Our Texas private placement attorneys have helped thousands of investors recoup their losses.

Will arbitration loss cap CapWest?, Investment News, August 15, 2011


More Blog Posts:

Texas Securities Fraud: Insurance Agent Could Get 100 Years Behind Bars for Using Fraudulent Annuities to Bilk Elderly Seniors of Over $5M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 9, 2010

Accused Texas Ponzi Scammer May Have Defrauded Investors of $2M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 3, 2011

Houston Securities Fraud: Ex-Citigroup Broker Accused of Stealing Millions from Wealthy Mexican Investors is Barred from FINRA, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 29, 2011

July 25, 2011

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

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.

Our stockbroker fraud lawyers are experienced in recovering our clients' losses through FINRA arbitration. We also represent investors with securities fraud lawsuits in court.

Related Web Resources:
Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Shaffer, Justia Dockets

Court Confirms FINRA Award Finding Wells Fargo Defamed Employee in Form U-5, BNA Securities Law Daily, July 13, 2011


More Blog Posts:

AG Edwards & Sons (Wells Fargo Advisors) to Settle Securities Charges it Sold Variable Annuities that Lacked Proper Documentation to Elderly Clients, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 4, 2011

NASD Form U-5 Notice of Termination Statements Are ‘Absolutely Privileged,’ Says A Divided New York Court of Appeals, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 9, 2007

Wells Fargo Advisors LLC Agrees to $1 Million FINRA Fine for Securities Charges Related to Mutual Fund Prospectus Delivery, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 12, 2011

July 8, 2011

Fisher Investments Inc. Ordered to Pay Retired Investor $376,075 Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Fisher Investments Inc., which is a financial firm operated by Kenneth Fisher, has been ordered to pay $376,075 to a senior investor for breach of fiduciary duty. Fisher is a Forbes magazine columnist.

According to Bloomberg News, which obtained the interim arbitration award document, Fisher Investments liquidated investor Sharyn Silverstein’s bond portfolio and placed the entire proceeds in stocks. Per Karen Willcutts, the JAMS arbitrator for the case, Fisher not only pressured the 64-year-old retiree into investing, but also, it persuaded her to hand over all of her fixed-income securities so that they could be placed in equities.

The award document says that rather than making sure that the investments were appropriate for Silverstein and her husband’s financial situation and investment goals, Fisher gave Silverstein the same recommendation it gives most of its clients, which is “100 percent equities benchmarked to the MSCI World (MXWO) Index.” The Silversteins told their investment counselor that they were worried about the 100% stock allocations recommendation and they asked Fisher to stop handling their account for the moment. A Fisher salesperson then reportedly called Silverstein to express disapproval about the couple’s wanting to pause and said there would be a fee. Silverstein then decided to let the financial firm keep managing her count. The couple expressed similar concerns the next year and once again they were given assurances about their assets.

Silverstein, who invested with Fisher between September 2007 and October 2008l lost approximately $376,075 of her $876,357 investment. Aside from the award, she also may get back attorney’s fees, interest, and other expenses.


Related Web Resources:

Kenneth Fisher’s Firm Told to Pay $376,000 on Retiree Investment Losses, Bloomberg, July 7, 2011

Fines, Awards Slapped on JP Morgan, Fisher Investments, Merrill Clearing, AdvisorOne, July 8, 2011

JAMS

Ken Fisher


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

FINRA Panel Orders Wedbush Securities to Pay $233,000 in Securities Fraud Damages, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 28, 2011

Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc. Must Pay $250K to Couple that Lost Investments in Hedge Fund with Ties to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 16, 2011


Continue reading "Fisher Investments Inc. Ordered to Pay Retired Investor $376,075 Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty" »

June 30, 2011

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

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

Stone & Youngberg, LLC v. Kay Family Revocable Trust UAD 02-07-90 FBO Lenore Bleadon Under Trust A, Justia Dockets, January 13, 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 "$750,000 Arbitration Award Against Stone & Youngberg LLC Confirmed by District Court" »

June 11, 2011

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

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

June 2, 2011

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

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

May 31, 2011

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

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

February 12, 2011

SEC Approves FINRA’s Proposal to Give Investors an All-Public Arbitration Panel Option

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 "SEC Approves FINRA’s Proposal to Give Investors an All-Public Arbitration Panel Option" »

February 7, 2011

QA3 Financial Corp. Notifies Its Brokers It is Closing Its Doors

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 "QA3 Financial Corp. Notifies Its Brokers It is Closing Its Doors" »

November 30, 2010

Citigroup Seeking to Dismiss $11.6 Million Securities Arbitration Award to “Dallas” TV Star Larry Hagman

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 "Citigroup Seeking to Dismiss $11.6 Million Securities Arbitration Award to “Dallas” TV Star Larry Hagman " »

October 11, 2010

Broker-Dealers Press Clients to Settle Arbitration Claims, Says Illinois Securities Regulator

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.”

Related Web Resources:
B-Ds bullying clients to settle arbitration cases: Regulator, Investment News, September 27, 2010

North American Securities Administrators Association

Arbitration and Mediation, FINRA

October 7, 2010

FINRA Wants to Make All-Public Arbitration Panel for Investors Permanent

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 "FINRA Wants to Make All-Public Arbitration Panel for Investors Permanent" »

August 10, 2010

UBS Ordered to Pay Auction-Rate Securities Investor Kajeet Inc. $81 Million

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.

Our securities fraud lawyers continue fight for clients’ right to recover their losses from the ARS market collapse. We want to remind you of the special arbitration procedure that has been set up to allow clients with frozen ARS that couldn’t access their funds to claim “recovery of consequential damages.” The procedure does not allow investment firms to contest liability claims that are based on the argument that brokers issued misrepresentations when they caused investors to think that reselling the assets would be easy.

Related Web Resources:
UBS to Pay $81 Million in Auction-Rate Case, The Wall Street Journal, August 5, 2010

FINRA arbitrators order UBS to pay $81 million, Reuters, August 4, 2010

February 26, 2010

Court Reinstates Texas Securities Arbitration Award

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:
Institutional Capital Management Inc. v. Claus

National Association Of Securities Dealers - NASD

Continue reading "Court Reinstates Texas Securities Arbitration Award " »

February 23, 2010

Morgan Keegan Ordered by FINRA Panel to Pay Investor $2.5 Million for Bond Fund Losses

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.

At least 80 of the securities cases have been heard, and claimants have so far been awarded $10.1 million. Morgan Keegan says that while it has settled a number of securities claims over the bond funds, claimants have dropped 114 other cases.

Stein and his two companies are pursuing a securities claim against Regions Financial and Morgan Asset Management, Inc. They are claiming fraudulent pricing and valuation of funds.

Our securities fraud law firm represents clients that sustained financial losses as a result of investing in Morgan Keegan bond funds. Please contact us for your free case evaluation.

Related Web Resources:
Morgan Keegan Must Pay Investor, Wall Street Journal, February 22, 2010

FINRA

January 13, 2010

Number of FINRA Arbitration Claims Rose in 2009 Following Market Crisis

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.

Fienberg also reported that more claimants are prevailing—48% in 2009— compared to 42% in 2008 and that cases are being resolved in a shorter period of time—within 14 months last year compared to more than 15.5 months during each of the two years prior.

Commenting on Fienberg’s statements, Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas founder and stockbroker fraud lawyer Bill Shepherd said, “Securities class action claims are down because the law and the justice system has decimated them. All securities class actions can only be filed under federal (not state) securities laws, which are very unfriendly to investors. Judges that were recently appointed to the federal bench (at all levels) are pro-business and anti-lawsuit. Thus, if possible the majority of securities class action claims must be settled early or they risk dismissal before any money is recovered. This means that the attorney filing these cases loses their own money.”

“For these and other reasons,” Shepherd went on to say, “the average recovery in securities class action claims has fallen to less than seven cents per dollar lost. Put another way, crime does pay when that crime is securities fraud. Also, the largest securities class action firm was recently closed and several principals were put in jail (not uncommon for an enemy of Wall Street). Other firms have ceased filing such cases. One again, Wall Street wins and investors lose. This will only change when ordinary people realize that lawsuits are their only hope of leveling the playing field.”

Related Web Resources:
Crisis Caused Spike, Different Trends In Arbitration Cases, FINRA Official Says, BNA, January 11, 2010

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

Linda Fienberg, FINRA

January 7, 2010

SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Ordered to Pay $4.1 Million to Former Institutional Salesperson for Alleged Defamation and Wrongful Termination

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.

A FINRA panel has recommended expungement. It noted that a review of Beck’s firing showed that the brokerage firm’s allegations against him were false and “intended to defame” so that another brokerage firm wouldn't want to hire him and prevented him from taking his clients with him.

Beck was awarded $1.2 in compensatory damages, $419,000 in lawyer’s fees, and $2.5 million in punitive damages.

“Recovery for statements made in regulatory filings are very difficult to obtain,” says Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP founder and securities fraud attorney William Shepherd, who has represented a number of licensed securities persons. “No attorney should attempt to represent securities persons without a full understanding of the law and background concerning such claims, as well as the experience to handle these claims in securities arbitration.” Shepherd was himself licensed in securities and served as a vice president at several major Wall Street firms for 20 years. He also obtained a Masters Degree in Securities Regulation (LLM) from Georgetown Law School and has been a securities attorney for more than 20 years.

Related Web Resources:
SunTrust Robinson Humphrey to pay $4.1 mln in defamation case, Marketwatch, January 4, 2010

FINRA

December 9, 2009

UBS Loses Lehman Arbitration Note Claim by Small Investor

In an arbitration case that could affect numerous cases that are still pending, a Financial Industry Regulation Authority panel awarded a small investor $200,000 after finding that a UBS Financial Services broker acted inappropriately when he sold high-risk Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. principal-protected notes to the claimant.

The case involving Lehman notes is one of the first to be decided by a FINRA panel. While the ruling won't establish a precedent, it could be an indication of how similar rulings may go in the future. “There are many cases pending against UBS and other firms that sold Lehman notes shortly before Lehman failed,” said stockbroker fraud attorney William Shepherd, whose firm, securities fraud firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, is handling a number of such cases. “These cases often involve misrepresentations and omissions as well as unsuitability, since the investments were sold to clients who sought safety and income,” he added.

The claimant filed the arbitration claim accusing UBS of recommending structured products that are not suitable for “unsophisticated investors.” The broker purchased for the client a $75,000 return optimization note and a $225,000 guaranteed principal protection note. The FINRA panel determined that the claimant should be compensated for the principal protected note, in addition to legal fees and interest.

Although the amount awarded is less than what the investor hoped to recover, a UBS spokesman said the securities firm was disappointed that the claimant was awarded any damages and maintains the investor’s financial losses were a result of the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Investor Wins Lehman Note Arbitration, Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2009

FINRA awards US investor in Lehman notes $200,000, Reuters, December 5, 2009

Continue reading "UBS Loses Lehman Arbitration Note Claim by Small Investor" »