FINRA Discloses Its September 2025 Disciplinary and Other Actions

The self-regulatory body that monitors the conduct of financial professionals just issued its results for last month. The following are just a sampling of the summaries it provided:

Greenbird Capital, LLC (CRD #306692, Boca Raton, Florida)  

July 24, 2025 - An AWC was issued in which the firm was censured and fined $50,000. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that it lacked a system reasonably designed to supervise solicitations of private placement offerings. The findings stated that the firm’s written procedures did not prohibit registered representatives from engaging in a general solicitation of such offerings or provide any guidance on what constituted a pre-existing, substantive relationship. In addition, the firm did not have a system to reasonably monitor and document when the firm had established a substantive relationship with a prospective investor, or to confirm, before a prospective investor was solicited for an offering, that the firm had such a relationship with that investor. In connection with the offerings, registered representatives made hundreds of thousands of calls to prospective investors without a reasonable system to ensure that the firm established substantive relationships with those individuals prior to soliciting the individual for a specific investment. The findings also stated that the firm failed to establish, maintain, and enforce a system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with FINRA’s telemarketing rules. The firm had no system or procedure to monitor outbound calls made by the firm’s registered representatives for number on the national do-not-call list. In addition, although a principal of the firm occasionally checked whether registered representatives called customers during the times permitted by FINRA Rule 3230, the firm did not specify when, or how often, such reviews took place. Subsequently, the firm implemented the use of a pre-existing relationship form, revised its WSPs to include language addressing general solicitation and the pre-existing relationship form, and stopped engaging in cold calling. (FINRA Case #2023077022001)

Noble Capital Markets, Inc. (CRD #15768, Boca Raton, Florida)

            July 29, 2025 – An AWC was issued in which the firm was censured and fined $45,000. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that it failed to establish, maintain, and enforce a supervisory system, including WSPs, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with provisions of the federal securities laws related to the general solicitation of private placement offerings. The findings stated that the firm’s WSPs failed to address Rule 506(b) of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, and incorrectly permitted the general solicitation of all private placements sold in reliance on Rule 506(b) as long as the prospective investors met certain suitability qualifications. The firm’s WSPs also failed to provide guidance on the need to establish a pre-existing, substantive relationship with prospective investors or address how designated supervisors should ensure the firm had established such a relationship. In addition, the firm also had no process to check whether private placement investors had pre-existing, substantive relationships with it even in the case of investors who first opened accounts at the firm after its participation in the offering. The findings also stated that the firm failed to reasonably supervise a registered representative who, in connection with two private offerings, cold-called more than 40 prospective investors who did not have substantive relationships with the firm prior to its participation in the offerings. Seven of the investors invested a total of $775,000 in one of the private placement offerings. The firm later revised its WSPs to provide updated guidance to the firm’s registered representatives and supervisors on the requirements of Regulation D. (FINRA Case #2020065533402)

Eric Anthony Dupre (CRD #2174456, San Antonio, Texas)

            July 17, 2025 – An AWC was issued in which Dupre was barred from association with any FINRA member in al capacities. Without admitting or denying the findings, Dupre consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he borrowed at least $2,236,000 from two customers without providing prior notice to, or obtaining written approval from, his member firm. The findings stated that Dupre borrowed $65,000 from a married couple, who were his customers, which Dupre repaid. Dupre also borrowed at least $2,171,000 through a series of loans from a senior customer. Dupre told the senior customer that he would pay back the principal of the loan plus an additional amount. Dupre needed the loans because he was experiencing financial difficulties. To loan a significant portion of the funds to Dupre, the senior customer borrowed funds on margin from his account, which he transferred to a personal bank account before loaning to Dupre. As a result, the senior customer incurred substantial margin debt. Given Dupre’s financial circumstances at the time he borrowed the money from the customer, he did not have a reasonable expectation of repaying the loans, and to date, he has not repaid any portion of the funds loaned to him by the senior customer. (FINRA Case #2023079280501)

Calvin Lee Gray (CRD #7575351, Salem, Missouri)

            July 21, 2025 – An OHO decision became final in which Gray was barred from associating with any FINRA member in all capacities for failing to produce information and documents requested by FINRA during its investigation. The sanctions were based on the findings that Gray’s member firm informed FINRA that he had been indicted in June 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, fraud in connection with identification documents, aggravated identity theft, and other chargers. The findings stated that the indictment alleged that, using account information that he stole from the firm, Gray obtained credit and debit cards that he used to make fraudulent purchases and transfer money to his control. FINRA’s investigation included trying to determine whether Gray had committed fraud or had engaged in identity theft since August 27, 2024, in a county jail in Salem, Missouri. On April 21, 2025, Gray pled guilty to the criminal charges and is scheduled to be sentenced on July 29, 2025. (FINRA Case #2024083063101) 

Donald Franklin Spivey (CRD #847360, Camden, South Carolina)

            July 21, 2025 – An AWC was issued in which Spivey was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities. Without admitting or denying the findings, Spivey consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he refused to appear for on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA in connection with its investigation into whether certain recommendations were suitable for or in the best interests of retail customers. The findings stated that Spivey initially cooperated with FINRA’s investigation but ceased doing so. (FINRA Case #2023078794801)

Meredith Archer Webber (CRD #2435263, Cobleskill, New York)

            July 28, 2025 – An Order Accepting Offer of Settlement was issued in which Webber was barred from association with any FINRA member in any capacity. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Webber consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that she failed to provide documents and information or appear for on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA as part of its investigation into whether she misappropriated funds from two elderly customers. The findings stated that the information and documents and on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA were material to its investigation because they directly related to whether Webber misappropriated funds and were necessary for FINRA to complete its investigation. Webber’s failure to provide the requested documents and information or provide testimony impeded FINRA’s investigation into her potential misconduct. (FINRA Case #2024082788802)

Devin Lamarr Wicker (CRD #4228250, New York, New York)

            July 28, 2025 – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissal of Wicker’s appeal of an SEC decision became final. Wicker was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities and ordered to pay $50,000, plus interest, in restitution to a customer. The SEC had sustained the findings and sanctions imposed by the National Adjudicatory Counsel (NAC). The sanctions were based on the findings that Wicker converted a customer’s funds. The findings stated that the customer hired Wicker’s member firm to serve as the underwriter for its anticipated public offering and transferred $50,000 to the firm for the sole purpose of paying a retainer to a law firm, but Wicker used the funds for other purposes. Wicker never used these or any other funds to pay the law firm, and he never returned the funds to the customer, even though he received at least seven written requests from the customer and the law firm to do so. Instead, after the customer wired the $50,000 to the firm’s bank account, essentially all of that account’s funds were used to pay the firm’s other expenses, as well as to transfer approximately $440,500 into Wicker’s personal bank account. Wicker controlled the firm’s bank account into which the retainer was wired, and he authorized withdrawals and payments from the account for other purposes, including substantial payments to himself. To date, Wicker has not repaid the customer or sent the money to the law firm. (FINRA Case #2016052104101) 

Brian Richard Baine (CRD #1355980, Rye, New York)

            July 1, 2025 – An AWC was issued in which Baine was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months. Without admitting or denying the findings, Baine consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he signed or caused a third party to sign non-securities customers’ signatures, including senior customers, on insurance-related documents without the customers’ permission. The findings stated that Baine did so to expedite the insurance application process and not in furtherance of other misconduct. The underlying transactions were authorized and none of the customers complained. The suspension is in effect from July 7, 2025, through October 6, 2025. (FINRA CASE #2023080198401)

Michael Ciro Colletti (CRD #4577898)

            July 10, 2025 – Colletti appealed a NAC decision to the SEC. The NAC affirmed the findings and sanctions imposed by the OHO. Colletti was fined $10, 000, suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for eight months, ordered to pay $5,417, plus interest, in restitution to a customer, and required to requalify by examination as a General Securities Representative before again serving in that capacity. The sanctions were based on the findings that Colletti executed unauthorized trades in the customer’s account and engaged in quantitatively unsuitable trading. The findings stated that Colletti selected the security that was traded and determined the volume and frequency of the trading in the customer’s account. As a result, Colletti exercised de facto control over the account. In addition, Colletti’s trading was inconsistent with the customer’s investment objectives and investment profile. The customer was in his 60s at the time he opened his account with Colletti, nearing retirement, his account was an individual retirement account (IRA), and he listed his risk tolerance as “moderate” and his objectives as income and growth. Colletti engaged in a pattern in the account of buying a stock, holding it a short time, and selling it to buy another stock, which was also sold after a short time, until the customer closed his account. Colletti’s trading resulted in losses of $5,417. For these traders, Colletti charged $5,081 in commissions. The sanctions are not in effect pending review. (FINRA Case #2019061942901)

Daniel Michael Roper (CRD #6188279, Omaha, Nebraska)

            July 17, 2025 – An AWC was issued in which Roper was assessed a deferred fine of $15,000, suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two years, ordered to pay deferred disgorgement of unlawful profits in the amount of $80,747, plus interest, and required to requalify by examination as a General Securities Representative prior to associating with any FINRA member. Without admitting or denying the findings, Roper consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he entered more than 14,000 equity trades and 6,300 options trades in his customer’s self-directed retail account for a share of the customer’s profits. The findings stated that Roper did not disclose to his member firm that he and the customer had entered into an oral profit-sharing agreement related to the trading, and the firm did not provide authorization to him to share in the profits in the customer’s account. Rather, Roper took numerous steps to conceal his conduct from his firm. In total, Roper received $80,747 in profit-sharing payments from the customer. The findings also stated that Roper exercised discretion without prior written authorization in connection with the equity and options trades in the account of the customer with whom Roper had a profit-sharing agreement. The customer orally authorized Roper to exercise discretion in his account, but never provided him with prior written authorization to exercise such authority, and his firm never accepted the customer’s account as discretionary. In addition, Roper attested in his firm’s annual compliance questionnaires that his disclosures were complete and account maintained with the firm over which he exercised discretion. The findings also included that Roper exchanged thousands of text message and emails with the customer with whom he had a profit-sharing agreement using his personal mobile device. These messages and emails included, among other things, communications about account performance information, the trades that Roper entered in the customer’s account, and profit-sharing payments that the customer made to Roper. Roper did not provide his firm copies of the text messages or personal emails, which caused the firm to maintain incomplete records of business communications. The suspension is in effect from July 21, 2025, through July 20, 2027. (FINRA Case #2023079598001)

Chad Michael Rogers (CRD #4029698, Tuttle, Oklahoma)

            July 22, 2025 – An AWC was issued in which Rogers was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 45 days. Without admitting or denying the findings, Rogers consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he impersonated customers during phone calls to his prior member firm. The findings stated that Rogers impersonated the customers to facilitate the transfer of their accounts to his employing member firm, or, in some instances, to transfer funds to the customers’ bank accounts. Although the customers consented to transferring their accounts or funds, none of them gave Rogers permission to impersonate them during these calls. The suspension is in effect from August 4, 2025, through September 17, 2025. (FINRA Case #2023079833901)

Andrew Steven Mack (CRD #5932062, New York, New York)

            July 23, 2025 – An AWC was issued in which Mack was assessed a deferred fine of $10,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months. Without admitting or denying the findings, Mack consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he exercised discretion without written authorization in connection with trades in customer accounts. The findings stated that although the customers understood that Mack was conducting trading in their accounts, none had given him prior written authorization and his member firm had not accepted the accounts as discretionary. For six months during the relevant period, Mack was on a heightened supervision plan that prohibited his exercise of discretion, yet he placed discretionary trades without written authorization in customer accounts during that time. Furthermore, Mack inaccurately stated that he did not exercise discretion in customer accounts on three of the firm’s annual compliance questionnaires. The suspension is in effect from August 4, 2025, through November 3, 2025. (FINRA Case #2023077059101)

Charles Scott Burford Sr. (CRD #1658201, Dallas, Texas)

            July 28, 2025 – Burford appealed an SEC decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The SEC sustained the findings and sanctions imposed by the NAC. Burford was fined $10,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for six months. The sanctions were based on the findings that Burford executed unauthorized trades in, and facilitated unauthorized withdrawals from, his deceased customer’s account. The findings stated that Burford did not submit the customer’s death certificate to his member firm until over 14 months after his death. Further, Burford executed the trades and facilitated the withdrawals in the account on instructions from the customer’s widow. Burford did not submit the death certificate to the firm until it was necessary to permit the customer’s widow, who was named beneficiary, to take the required minimum distribution from the customer’s beneficiary IRA by year’s end. When Burford submitted the death certificate for this purpose, he failed to inform the firm that the customer’s account remained open and active. Burford executed additional trades and withdrawals in the account. In all, at the widow’s request, Burford executed nine sales transactions totaling nearly $130,000 and facilitated eight withdrawals totaling nearly $85,000. After learning that the customer’s daughter planned to contest the customer’s will, Buford asked the firm to freeze the customer’s account. Even then, Burford failed to inform the firm that he had improperly effected any transactions in the customer’s account until the daughter’s attorney informed Burford that she had challenged the will and warned him that the firm might be liable for the distributions from the customer’s account. The sanctions are not in effect pending review (FINRA Case #2019064656601)

Venugopal Ramakrishnappa Reddy (CRD #5125813)

            July 29, 2025 – An AWC was issued in which Reddy was assessed a deferred fine or $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for six months. Without admitting or denying the findings, Reddy consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he participated in private securities transactions without providing prior notice to his member firm. The findings stated that Reddy and a partner formed an investment fund and several affiliated entities for the purpose of raising capital to invest in early-stage technology companies. Reddy timely disclosed his role as co-owner and co-manager of these entities to his firm. Among other things, Reddy disclosed that the entities would engage in “investment related” activities, including offering interests in the fund to investors, and that he would be entitled to receive a share of carried interest under certain circumstances. Reddy also provided draft offering materials to the firm. Ultimately, the firm approved Reddy’s involvement in these entities as outside business activities (OBAs). 36 accredited investors committed a total of $9.2 million in capital to the fund and affiliated entities. Reddy participated in transactions involving nine of these customers and approximately $5 million in capital by helping to solicit investments and by executing subscription agreements on behalf of the fund and affiliated entities. To date, Reddy has not received any carried interest. Once the firm became aware of the transactions, its chief executive officer signed forms documenting the firm’s approval of them. The suspension is in effect from August 4, 2025, through February 3, 2026. (FINRA Case #2022076766202)

            If you are an aggrieved investor or a professional dealing with FINRA, we are here to provide you with experience-based assistance. Please give one of our attorneys a call today.

Are You A Financial Advisor With A Wrongful Termination or Defamation Claim?

           Advisors terminated by their broker-dealer should immediately retain experienced legal counsel.

The broker-dealer has 30 days after termination to file the mandatory U-5.  Legal counsel can help you negotiate fair and accurate language for this critical and potentially public disclosure.  Moreover, how the U-5 is completed above and beyond the narrative “reason for termination” can be pivotal.

          Many advisors fail to appreciate that, for the most part, their broker-dealer can terminate them without cause.  But there are contractual and public policy exceptions to this general rule that must be evaluated.  Cosgrove Law Group has extensive experience working with financial advisors who have been terminated, including not just U-5 issues, but also issues such as promissory notes and other compensation matters.

The Evolution of a Wells Process and the Anticipated SEC Sweeps

       The Wells Process has a long history dating back to 1972 when SEC Chairman William J Casey appointed John Wells along with two others to the “Wells Committee.” The SEC is charged with the compliance and enforcement of the federal securities law to protect citizens from fraud and theft while maintaining a fair and efficient market. Before the Wells Committee, the SEC could investigate, as it does today, but did not bring forth any notice as to what they were investigating or even who they were investigating. Attorneys who were specialized in this field could formally write to the SEC, ask what charges were being brought against their client, and file a rebuttal. Veterans of this process knew how it worked and used that to their advantage, but the vast majority of the population had no idea about any investigation until the formal charges were made. Then in January of 1972, the Wells Committee saw this as an opportunity to change just that.

            The start of the Wells Process was born. The Wells Process starts with a written letter made near the end of an SEC investigation known as a “Wells Notice.” A Wells Notice is made up of three things. It informs the person(s) or business of the intent of the SEC to file an action against them. It identifies the exact laws allegedly being violated. And finally, it provides notice on how to make a submission for your own defense called a “Wells Submission.” The Wells Submission will have parameters on length and time set by the Wells Notice. According to the notice, one has 180 days to enter a submission. The SEC can choose to extend that time, but the one submitting cannot. It is important to note that the Wells Notice has never been a formal rule in the SEC, and the SEC is not required to give a Wells Notice to begin the Wells Process. In fact, if they deem it as a public safety issue, they can completely forgo the Wells Process, and the 180 days is strictly an internal time frame. The SEC can still file a complaint after 180 days has passed.

After a Wells Notice is made, the next step is a “Wells Call” and finally a “Wells Meeting.” The call is an informal call to gather information and ask questions, while the meeting is a bit more formal which includes the Wells Submission. These Wells Submissions are written documents that need to be very carefully written. There is no formal charge at this time, but the submission can be used in discovery later. At this time in the process, the meeting is conducted by the Director or Assistant Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. This is the last chance for one to give their best defense. It is at this time, the Staff can: settle the case, drop the case, or formally file charges. There are not many statistics about the Wells Process, but we do know in 2012-2013, 20% of Wells Notices ended with the case being dropped and no charges ever filed. While 20% sounds promising, Wall Street Journal financial reporter Jean Eaglesham thinks the percentage was higher the decade before and is dwindling the decade after due to how the, “SEC stockpiles significant ammunition before issuing a Well.” Still, the 20% does give hope. The ultimate goal of the SEC is to settle these cases with the best outcome for all involved, not waste time and resources.

            That brings us to Gurbir Grewal, the current director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. Grewal is now taking the Well Process to the next evolutionary step. The Wells Process typically takes up to 2 years. That is a long time to be under investigation and requires a fair amount of resources. As mentioned, the Wells meeting used to be conducted by the Director or Assistant Director, but Grewal’s next step is opening the meetings to be conducted by regional directors. Grewal claims everyone will get a meeting, just not with him. “Unless there’s really a real factual dispute, a novel legal issue or an area of programmatic concern, you’re not going to get a meeting with the director or the deputy,” says Grewal. While some may not appreciate this, it will quicken the pace of investigations, but also quicken the pace of the number of investigations, famously known as SEC sweeps.

Author: Hanna Sprigg

Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC wins FINRA Award sum of $15,300,000.00+ in Damage

     On February 2, 2023, a FINRA arbitration panel awarded the Claimant, Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC a sum of 15,300,000.00 in Compensatory Damages and over $4,000,000.00 in additional costs and attorney fees.

Case Summary:

            In October 2018, Kent Jackson Rhoades left his job at Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC in Mountain Home, Arkansas to start an independent financial consulting firm with Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. Rhoades not only left the corporate company to venture out on his own but also hired on a 12- person team, all of which worked under Rhoades at Wells Fargo, and named them the Financial Services and Investment Strategies Group. It is important to note that the Wells Fargo branch is no longer in business. 

            In August of 2020, Wells Fargo filed a complaint alleging Raymond James Financial Services and Kent Jackson Rhoades led a “coordinated raid.” What is a raid you might ask? A raid is poaching another financial advisor’s team or clients with the intent of harming that firm’s business. One might not see a case regarding “coordinated raids’ because they don’t happen frequently and are difficult to prove. FINRA rule 2010 states, “A member, in the conduct of its business, shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” While a little vague, under this rule, a financial firm cannot ethically poach a significant portion of another firm’s team and/or clients, and in October 2018, Raymond James Financial Services did just that. 

Wells Fargo claimed Raymond James took the entire financial advisor team, as well as clients that Rhoades had been working with over the 20 years he worked at Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo sought damages, costs and fees against Raymond James Financial Services, Kent Jackson Rhoades and the 12-person team that collectively moved from Wells Fargo to Raymond James Financial Services. Rhoades claimed that the clients at Wells Fargo moved to his firm due to the “untruths and/or deception [which] caused clients to sever their relationships.” Rhoades and the 12 pursued a counterclaim award against Wells Fargo as well. However, on August 25,2022, Wells Fargo dropped the claim against the 12, and the 12 dropped the counterclaim against Wells Fargo, leaving just Rhoades and Raymond James Financial. 

After multiple hearings, FINRA awarded Wells Fargo Inc. $15.3M in compensatory damages (with a 6% annual interest rate), $3.5M in attorneys’ fee, $847,000 in costs, $1M in punitive damages, a $500 non-refundable claim filing fee, and $53,775 in hearing session fees totalling over $20M. The counterclaim was completely dismissed and all claims for relief for Raymond James Financial Services were denied. 

 

+ Awards are rendered by independent arbitrators who are chosen by the parties to issue final, binding decisions. FINRA makes available an arbitration forum—pursuant to rules approved by the SEC—but has no part in deciding the award.

Additional sources:

https://www.advisorhub.com/wells-fargo-advisors-wins-nearly-20m-in-raiding-claim-against-raymond-james/

https://www.advisorhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Good-Moves-Bad-Moves-Bad-Move-Being-part-of-a-raid-1.pdf

ARE YOU A FINANCIAL ADVISOR WITH A WRONGFUL TERMINATION OR DEFAMATION CLAIM?

            Advisors terminated by their broker-dealer should immediately retain experienced legal counsel.

The broker-dealer has 30 days after termination to file the mandatory U-5.  Legal counsel can help you negotiate fair and accurate language for this critical and potentially public disclosure.  Moreover, how the U-5 is completed above and beyond the narrative “reason for termination” can be pivotal.

          Many advisors fail to appreciate that, for the most part, their broker-dealer can terminate them without cause.  But there are contractual and public policy exceptions to this general rule that must be evaluated.  Cosgrove Law Group has extensive experience working with financial advisors who have been terminated, including not just U-5 issues, but also issues such as promissory notes and other compensation matters.

What to do about FINRA Customer Complaints

Trust is essential for a successful career as a securities broker. FINRA’s BrokerCheck website allows the public and employers to search a securities broker by name and discover any disciplinary actions that have been issued against that broker. A BrokerCheck report also lists any formal complaints by previous investors. This system helps prevent investors from getting involved with securities brokers with a history of fraudulent and/or negligent behavior. In some instances, however, BrokerCheck casts too wide a net, causing significant reputational harm to undeserving brokers.

When a customer complaint appears on a broker’s BrokerCheck report, it is originally listed as pending. This occurs whether or not the complaint actually has merit. Unfortunately, complaints can be listed as pending for years until settled or decided in an arbitration. If the Broker-Dealer or FINRA deny the complaint on its merits the status of the complaint changes from pending to denied; however, the complaint remains on the BrokerCheck report. Even though a complaint is listed as denied, investors may still find themselves weary of that broker when comparing them to a broker with a claim-free record.

Recognizing that BrokerCheck complaints can have a tremendous influence on a broker’s career, FINRA allows brokers to request expungement of claims on their BrokerCheck report.  Here at Cosgrove Law Group, LLC, we have experience helping securities brokers remove meritless complaints from their FINRA BrokerCheck report. If you are suffering under a meritless claim on your BrokerCheck report, please contact the Cosgrove Law Group, LLC for more information on how we can help. 

Authors: Alexander Oakes and Max Simpson

Please follow us on Twitter @CosLawGroup, on LinkedIn at Cosgrove Law Group, LLC, and on Facebook at Cosgrove Law Group, LLC. 

U-5 Filings and the Compelled Self-published Defamation Doctrine

 

Last year, the California Court of Appeals issued a highly instructive opinion in the area of U-5 defamation. Some excerpts from that opinion will help us get started on a variety of blogs. The case is Tilkey v Allstate Insurance Company.

INTRODUCTION

While Michael Tilkey and his girlfriend Jacqueline Mann were visiting at her home, the two got into an argument. Tilkey decided to leave the apartment. When he stepped out onto the enclosed patio to collect his cooler, Mann locked the door behind him. Tilkey banged on the door to regain entry, and Mann called police. Tilkey was arrested and pled guilty to a disorderly conduct charge only, and other charges were dropped. After Tilkey completed a domestic nonviolence diversion program, the disorderly conduct charge was dismissed as well.

Before the disorderly conduct charge was dismissed, Tilkey's company of 30 years, Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), terminated his employment based on his arrest for a domestic violence offense and his participation in the diversion program. Allstate informed Tilkey it was discharging him for threatening behavior and/or acts of physical harm or violence to another person. Following the termination, Allstate reported its reason for the termination on a Form U5, filed with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and accessible to any firm that hires licensed broker-dealers like Tilkey. Tilkey sued Allstate for wrongful termination and compelled self-published defamation.

The jury returned a verdict in Tilkey's favor on all causes of action and awarded him $2,663,137 in compensatory damages and $15,978,822 in punitive damages. The Court of Appeals concluded that compelled self-published defamation is a viable theory, and substantial evidence supported the verdict that the statement was not substantially true. The court did, however, remand the matter for recalculation of the punitive damages award.

FACTS

On August 31, 2014, Mann sent an e-mail to Tilkey at work mentioning the charges that had been filed against him. A field compliance employee later discovered this e-mail while conducting a routine compliance review and forwarded it to Human Resources (HR). HR professional Tera Alferos conducted the initial investigation, and she interviewed Tilkey. She noted Tilkey had been asked to accept a plea deal to have two of the three charges dropped, then the last one dismissed. She never spoke with Mann or interviewed the arresting officers. She also did not investigate Mann's background or review her social media accounts.

A couple weeks later, Alferos sent her supervisor a summary of her investigation, which stated that the police report had been reviewed and noted Tilkey had been charged with but not convicted of a crime. The summary also explained there was no FINRA reporting obligation because there were no felony charges, and it concluded there had been no violation of company policy.

A supervisor then changed the conclusion to state Tilkey's behavior may have been at a level that caused the company to lose confidence in him. At the supervisor’s request, Alferos next added references to the domestic violence charge because it suggested Tilkey had engaged in behavior that could be construed as acts of physical harm or violence toward another person, in violation of company policy. In an e-mail referencing the decision to terminate Tilkey's employment, a Ms. Metzger wrote that they were amending the reason for terminating Tilkey to be "violence against another person whether employed by Allstate or not. "It identified the policy violation as "[t]hreats or acts of physical harm or violence to the property or assets of the Company, or to any person, regardless of whether he/she is employed by Allstate." When the company terminated his employment, it informed Tilkey, "Your employment is being terminated as a result of engaging in behaviors that are in violation of Company Policy. Specifically, engaging in threatening behavior and/or acts of physical harm or violence to any person, regardless of whether he/she is employed by Allstate."

The company then filed a Form U5 with FINRA reporting its reason for terminating him as follows: "Termination of employment by parent property and casualty insurance company after allegations of engaging in behaviors that are in violation of company policy, specifically, engaging in threatening behavior and/or acts of physical harm or violence to any person, regardless of whether he/she is employed by Allstate. Not securities related."

Tilkey sued Allstate asserting three causes of action: (1) violation of California section 432.7; (2) wrongful termination based on noncompliance with section 432.7; and (3) compelled self-published defamation to prospective employers. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict for Tilkey and awarded $2,663,137 in compensatory damages, with $960,222 for wrongful termination and $1,702,915 for defamation, and $15,978,822 in punitive damages. Allstate moved for a new trial, which the trial court denied. Allstate appealed.

I: WRONGFUL TERMINATION

Allstate argued it did not violate the California wrongful termination statue (432.7) when it used as a factor in its termination decision Tilkey's arrest and subsequent conditional plea and entry into a diversion program. Tilkey countered that the company's reliance on his arrest records violated section 432.7; thus, he was wrongfully terminated. The parties' disagreement hinged on the interpretation of section 432.7, subdivision (a)(1), which prohibits employers from utilizing as a factor in employment decisions any record of arrest or detention that did not result in conviction or any record regarding referral to or participation in any pretrial or post trial diversion program.

Allstate argued a conditional plea agreement qualifies as a conviction. Tilkey contended he never entered a guilty plea; thus, there was no conviction. The court concluded we conclude the term "conviction" as defined in section 432.7 does not require entry of judgment: “The plain language here makes clear that a judgment is not required because the conviction can exist without respect to sentencing. (See ibid.) The statute's legislative history supports this interpretation.” A conviction under section 432.7 does not require an entry of judgment; it simply requires entry of a guilty plea. Thus, Allstate did not violate section 432.7 by using Tilkey's arrest as a factor in its decision to terminate his employment.

II: DEFAMATION

Allstate next challenged the defamation verdict, contending that self-compelled defamation should not provide a basis for a defamation per se cause of action. It further contended there was no evidence that Tilkey's self-publication was compelled by its publication of the reason for his employment termination on the Form U5 because that publication contained a privileged statement. Finally, Allstate maintained that its statement was substantially true, justifying reversal of the verdict.

For a valid defamation claim, the general rule is that "the publication must be done by the defendant." (Live Oak Publishing Co. v. Cohagan (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1277, 1284 (Live Oak Publishing).) But there is an exception "when it [is] foreseeable that the defendant's act would result in [a plaintiff's] publication to a third person." For the exception to apply, the defamed party must operate under a strong compulsion to republish the defamatory statement, and the circumstances creating the compulsion must be known to the originator of the statement at the time he or she makes it to the defamed individual.

Compelled Self-Published Defamation Per Se

In an action for defamation per se, the meaning is so clear from the face of the statement that the damages can be presumed. The originator of the statement is liable for the foreseeable repetition because of the causal link between the originator and the presumed damage to the plaintiff's reputation but the publication must be foreseeable.  The presumed injury is no less damaging because the plaintiff was compelled to make the statement instead of the employer making it directly to the third party. Allstate offered several other arguments for why the Court should not accept a theory of compelled self-published defamation.

Form U5 Privilege

Allstate provided a written explanation for Tilkey's termination of employment on the Form U5 to FINRA, which was available to every prospective employer of similarly licensed employees. Thus, disclosure was not absolutely privileged. Thus, Tilkey was compelled to explain the reason for his discharge, and this repetition was reasonably foreseeable.

Additionally, the qualified privilege that attaches to communications about an employee's job performance when made without malice or abuse to a third party likewise protects an employer against compelled self-published defamation. This conditional privilege helps protect the free flow of reference information.

Firms are required to file a Form U5 with FINRA whenever a registered representative leaves the firm. If the registered representative's employment has been terminated, the form asks the firm to provide a reason for termination. When the Form U5 identifies allegations of improper conduct by a broker-dealer, an issue that FINRA may need to investigate, it can on those occasions be considered "a communication made 'in anticipation of an action or other official proceeding.' (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th [1106,] 1115.)" (Fontani v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 719, 732, disapproved of on other grounds in Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital District (2006) 39 Cal.4th 192.) In those instances, the information reported on the Form U5 would be protected by the absolute privilege outlined in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), at least in California.

Section 7 of the Form U5, however,  includes a list of disclosure questions for full terminations that asks if the terminated employee was the subject of a governmental investigation; was under internal review for fraud, wrongful taking of property, or violated investment related laws, regulations, or industry standards relating to compliance; was convicted of or pled guilty to a felony; or was convicted of or pled guilty to a misdemeanor that related to investments, fraud, false statements, bribery, perjury, forgery, counterfeiting, extortion, or wrongful taking of property. These questions make clear that FINRA seeks termination information that allows it to assess whether the employee's conduct lacked compliance with regulatory requirements in the securities arena. FINRA does not ask for information about non-securities-related activities because that information falls outside its scope of regulation.

Thus, according to the California Court, the absolute privilege extends to communications required by FINRA, i.e., fraud- and securities-related information. However, the communication of Tilkey's termination here did not regard improper securities-related conduct, and Allstate did not limit its responses to fraud- and securities-related information. Instead, Allstate explained Tilkey's departure was the result of a "termination of employment by parent property and casualty insurance company after allegations of engaging in behavior that are in violation of company policy, specifically, engaging in threatening behavior and/or acts of physical harm or violence to any person, regardless of whether he/she is employed by Allstate. Not securities related." This statement did not contain allegations of improper securities conduct, theft, or allegations or charges of fraud or dishonesty. It was not offered in anticipation of or to initiate an investigation; nor was it offered in the course of any other official 29 proceeding. (See Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b).) Thus, the absolute privilege does not apply[1].

Substantial Evidence Supported the Jury Findings That Tilkey Was Compelled to Self-Publish a Statement That Was Not Substantially True

The jury concluded that Tilkey was under strong pressure to communicate Allstate's defamatory statement to another person. There was ample evidence to support this conclusion. A “vocational evaluator” testified Tilkey would have a difficult time ever getting another job because he had been terminated, and the reason for termination reported on the Form U5 was negative. He also noted that because Tilkey sold life insurance, he was required to hold securities licenses, and agencies and employers hiring those with securities licenses would have access to U5 forms. Tilkey's supervisor at Allstate, testified that Allstate routinely reviewed the securities public information from the Form U5 of any person they were hiring, and he could not recall ever hiring anyone at Allstate whose Form U5 stated he was terminated for cause. Tilkey testified that when he recruited agents, he would have someone check the Form U5, and he never hired anyone whose Form U5 showed the termination was for cause. He also never received an interview from any company that had access to a Form U5, even though he had 30 years of experience and performed well, receiving the third largest bonus in the state just a few weeks before his termination. Even if the company never offered any specific information about the reason for Tilkey's discharge from employment to prospective employers, its statement at the time of discharge and its reporting of the information on the publicly available Form U5 necessitated Tilkey's self-publication in other settings. In sum, the Court of Appeals upheld the defamation verdict but concluded that the punitive damage award was excessive. More on that later.

---

[1] Had Allstate instead eliminated the specifics in its statement, privilege may have attached because Allstate was required to report the termination. For example, it could have supplied the following statement: "Termination of employment by parent property and casualty insurance company after allegations of engaging behavior that are in violation of company policy. Not securities related."

FINRA Orders Worden to Pay $1.2 Million in Restitution to Customers Whose Accounts Were Excessively Traded

FINRA announced last week that it sanctioned Worden Capital Management LLC (WCM) more than $1.5 million, including approximately $1.2 million in restitution to customers whose accounts were excessively traded by the firm’s representatives, and a $350,000 fine for supervisory and other violations. WCM must also retain an independent consultant to conduct a comprehensive review of the relevant portions of the firm’s supervisory systems and procedures.

FINRA found that from January 2015 to October 2019, WCM and the firm’s owner and CEO, Jamie Worden, failed to establish and enforce a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with FINRA’s rules relating to excessive trading. As a result, WCM’s registered representatives made unsuitable recommendations and excessively traded customers’ accounts, causing customers to incur more than $1.2 million in commissions..

Jessica Hopper, Head of FINRA’s Department of Enforcement, said, “FINRA has an unwavering commitment to protect investors from excessive and unsuitable trading. Firms must ensure they establish systems and procedures reasonably designed to supervise representatives’ recommendations to their customers, and firms’ supervisory personnel must have in place the necessary tools and training to address red flags.”

FINRA also found that WCM and Worden interfered with customers’ requests to transfer their accounts to another member firm. Finally, as a result of supervisory failures, WCM failed to timely file amendments to registered representatives’ Form U4s and Form U5s to disclose the filing or resolution of customer arbitrations[1]. 

---

[1] Michelle, Ong. (2020, December 31). FINRA Orders Worden Capital Management LLC to Pay More than $1.2 Million in Restitution to Customers Whose Accounts Were Excessively Traded. Retrieved January 05, 2021, from https://www.finra.org/media-center/newsreleases/2020/finra-orders-worden-capital-management-llc-pay-more-12-million

 

Robinhood Brokerage app under SEC and FINRA investigations

 Author: Juliana M. Ness, Cosgrove Law Group, LLC

In early September of this year, Robinhood (a brokerage app) became the subject of investigations by both the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)[1]. Both regulators cite two central concerns regarding Robinhood. The first relates to Robinhood’s practice of selling client orders to high-speed trading firms such as Citadel Securities and Two Sigma Securities[2]. The second relates to trading outages that occurred on Robinhood’s platform in March of 2020, the longest of which lasted 17 hours[3].  

The SEC and FINRA investigations regarding Robinhood’s practice of selling client orders to third parties mainly focuses on disclosures. Robinhood did not have public disclosures regarding its third-party relations until 2018. This practice is one of Robinhood’s primary sources of income[4]. (Nearly 70% of Robinhood’s income comes from high-speed trading.) The SEC investigation aims to determine whether the lack of disclosure by Robinhood could be considered Civil Fraud[5]. If determined that Robinhood’s actions were Civil Fraud, Robinhood may face an SEC fine upwards to 10 Million Dollars. 

The SEC and FINRA are also reviewing trading outages within Robinhood’s platform. Robinhood’s defense to the investigation regarding the March outages includes the discussion of extreme volume increases. Robinhood claims that in March, high market volatility and a record number of new accounts generated stress on the brokerage application’s infrastructure[6]. The unusually high demand for trading in March short-circuited Robinhood’s platform, causing the outage. More than 400 complaints against Robinhood were filed in this year’s first quarter, possibly sparking SEC and FINRA interest. Yet the trading outages have not been resolved. A similar event occurred in late August after stock splits from Apple and Tesla generated an increased demand for trading. This resulted in service outages not only at Robinhood but other brokerages such as Vanguard, Charles Schwab, TD Ameritrade, and Merrill Lynch[7]. In June, Robinhood reported an astonishing 4.32 million new accounts. The app continues to gain users, which puts it in a position for review by regulatory agencies.

The investigations into the outages also sparks an important question--Is technological failure result responsibility of brokerages when the failure resulted in possible investor losses? This question becomes more complex regarding technical issues that relate to an increase in user demand generating outages. Brokerages may not be able to reasonably foresee these issues. Robinhood is also a new company, established in 2013, and follows a business model different from most large brokerages. Since Robinhood’s platform does not use financial advisors, how much responsibility does the brokerage have when it comes to the service it provides to the client? More investment applications similar to Robinhood are popping up, and regulators are working on ways to better regulate this new trend.

 

 

---

[1] Brasseur, K. (2020, September 01). Robinhood adds two CCOs amid reported SEC probe. Retrieved October 07, 2020, from https://www.complianceweek.com/grapevine/robinhood-adds-two-ccos-amid-reported-sec-probe/29391.article

[2] Smith, K. (2020, September 03). Robinhood Facing Multiple SEC Investigations Into Its Business Practices. Retrieved October 07, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2020/09/03/robinhood-investigation-sec-finra/

[3]Robinson, M., Alexander, S., & Massa, A. (2020, September 03). Robinhood Probed by SEC Over Payments From High-Speed Traders. Retrieved October 07, 2020, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-03/robinhood-probed-by-sec-over-payments-from-high-speed-traders

[4] Gunderia, E. (2020, September 03). Robinhood Under SEC Investigation. Retrieved October 07, 2020, from https://www.thestreet.com/streetlightning/stock-picks/secinvestigaton-robinhood-paymentforoderflow

[5] Gaus, A. (2020, September 02). Robinhood Faces SEC Fraud Investigation: Report. Retrieved October 07, 2020, from https://www.thestreet.com/investing/robinhood-faces-sec-fraud-investigation-report

[6] Tabacco, C. (2020, September 03). Robinhood Faces Investigations from SEC and FINRA - Tech. Retrieved October 07, 2020, from https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/robinhood-faces-investigations-from-sec-and-finra/

[7] Ongweso, E., Jr. (2020, August 31). Tesla and Apple Stock Split, Investors Crash Robinhood, Nothing Makes Sense. Retrieved October 07, 2020, from https://www.vice.com/en/article/3azeeb/tesla-and-apple-stock-split-investors-crash-robinhood-nothing-makes-sense

The Financial Advisor Succession Agreement

 “The Financial Advisor Succession Agreement: Can the Receiving Financial Advisor Contact Clients Associated with the Financial Advisor Succession Agreement upon Departure from the Firm?” 

Author: Brian St. James

What happens when a financial advisor enters into a Financial Advisor Succession Agreement and subsequently chooses to depart the firm? Is she or he able to contact those succession account clients after she or he lands at the new firm? As with most questions of this nature, the answer is “it depends.” 

A Financial Advisor Succession Agreement (the “Agreement”) is generally by and among the retiring financial advisor (the "Retiring FA"), the receiving financial advisor (the "Receiving FA") and the firm (the “Firm”), and is entered into pursuant to the terms of a Financial Advisor Succession Program.  The purposes are generally to  provide for trailing commissions to be paid the Retiring FA (the "Post-Retirement Payments") following the retirement date, and to ensure clients serviced by Retiring FA (the "Financial Advisor Succession Accounts") enjoy uninterrupted service throughout the defined post-retirement period as set forth in the Agreement (the “Post-Retirement Period"). Also, Receiving FA services the Financial Advisor Succession Accounts as a participant under the Agreement, and generally if Receiving FA departs the Firm for any reason during the Post-Retirement Period, then generally the Firm will re-assign the Financial Advisor Succession Accounts for servicing to another receiving FA so Post-Retirement Payments can continue until the end of the Post-Retirement Period. 

The Agreement may or may not contain a non-solicitation provision that prevents the solicitation of clients associated with the Financial Advisor Succession Accounts by the Receiving FA for a period of time after departure from the Firm. An industry-standard non-solicitation clause generally provides in some form or fashion for the following essential terms:

 “If Receiving FA's employment with the Firm terminates for any reason prior to the end of the Post-Retirement Period, she or he will not, for a period of one (1) year following such transition, directly or indirectly, on his or her behalf or on behalf of any other person,  solicit any clients associated with the Financial Advisor Succession Accounts for the purposes of providing financial services identical to or reasonably substitutable for the Firm’s financial services.  Solicitation shall include, but not limited to, contact or communication by mail, phone, email, or by any other means, either directly or indirectly, with any other person or party, for the purpose of requesting, encouraging, or inviting the transfer of an account from the Firm, the opening of new accounts with any other organization that does business in securities, or discontinuing any relationship with the Firm."  

The Agreement also may or not contain a non-disclosure provision that prevents the use of client information by the Receiving FA to solicit clients after departure from the Firm. An industry-standard non-disclosure provision may generally state as follows: 

Receiving FA shall not remove, use, disclose or transmit any confidential information or documents related to the Financial Advisor Succession Accounts or clients associated with the Financial Advisor Succession Accounts, including, but not limited to the names, addresses, phone numbers, account holdings or financial information related to the  Financial Advisor Succession Accounts."  

Based upon the inter-working of the non-solicitation and non-disclosure provisions, it seems abundantly clear that Receiving FA cannot contact any clients associated with the Financial Advisor Succession Accounts without breaching the Agreement. The analytical framework requires looking in two places to determine whether this is correct or not. 

The first is the Protocol for Broker Recruiting (the "Protocol"). In general, when a registered representative (“RR”) moves from one firm to another and both are signatories to the Protocol, the departing RR may take with him/her the client name, address, phone number, email address and account title of clients that she or he serviced while at the departing firm with him/her (the "Client Information"). RRs who comply with the Protocol are "free to solicit customers that they serviced while at their former firm" after she or he joins their new firms, and with the exceptions of team agreements and raiding cases, neither the departing RR or the firm that she or he joins "would have any monetary or other liability by reason of the RR taking Client Information or the solicitation of clients." 

The Protocol therefore seems rather definitive that Receiving FA can take Client Information with him/her to another signatory to the Protocol, but that is not the case with the Agreement, with respect to which the Protocol clearly states: "[i]f accounts serviced by the departing RR were transferred to the departing RR pursuant to  a retirement program that pays a retiring RR trailing commissions on the accounts in return for certain assistance provided by the retiring RR prior to his or her retirement in transitioning the accounts to the departing RR, the departing RR's ability to take Client Information related to those accounts and the departing RR's right to solicit those accounts shall be governed by the terms of the contract between the retiring RR, the departing RR, and the firm with which both were affiliated.” So, this does not work. 

The second place to look is at the non-solicitation and non-disclosure provisions themselves.  With respect to the non-solicitation provision, it restricts Receiving FA from directly or indirectly soliciting any clients associated with the Financial Advisor Succession Accounts. So, it is necessary to determine what constitutes a "solicitation." Pursuant to the Agreement, "solicitation" is defined to "include, but not limited to, contact or communication by mail, or by any other means, either directly or indirectly, with any other person or party, for the purpose of requesting, encouraging, or inviting the transfer of an account from the Firm, the opening of new accounts with any other organization that does business in securities, or discontinuing any relationship with the Firm."  Consequently, whether or not Receiving FA solicits any clients associated with the Financial Advisor Succession Accounts clients turns on Receiving FA’s intent when contacting the former clients.  

Under Missouri law, if Receiving FA does not do "anything but inform [his/her] former clients of [his/her] new employment," it is not a solicitation. Edward D. Jones & Co. v. Kerr, 415 F.Supp.3d 861, 874 (S.D. Ind. 2019) (applying Missouri law). (See, also fn. 11 that cites several cases for the proposition that merely contacting former clients to inform them of their departure and provide new contact information was not an indirect solicitation). This finding is consistent with Bittiker v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 404 S.W.2d 402, 405 (Mo. App. 1966), a seminal Missouri case on what constitutes “soliciting” that states: soliciting "means to ask for or to request something or some action in language which convinces that the asking or requesting is done in earnest and that the solicitor wants results." A mere announcement would not according to Bittiker.    

The Kerr case was cited in Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. v. Clyburn, No. 7:20CV00433, 2020 WL 4819547 (W.D. Va. Aug. 19, 2020), another case applying Missouri law and involving an industry-standard non-solicitation provision that states as follows: 

"Your agreement not to solicit means that you will not, during your employment with Edward Jones, and for a period of one year thereafter, initiate any contact or communication of any kind whatsoever for the purpose of inviting, encouraging or requesting any Edward Jones client to transfer from Edward Jones to you or to your new employer, to open a new account with you or to your new employer, to open a new account with you or with your new employer or to otherwise discontinue his/her/its patronage and business relationships with Edward Jones."  

Clyburn distinguished Kerr by finding "the district court specifically emphasized that there was 'no evidence to show that Mr. Kerr did anything but inform his former clients of his new employment.'" (citation omitted). Here "Mr. Clyburn contacted specific clients to schedule appointments, ... asked at least three particular clients to move their accounts to Ameriprise, and ... contacted another client more than once and advised her that he wanted to complete the paperwork necessary for her to switch firms." Consequently, there appears to be good authority under Missouri law that if Receiving FA does not do "anything but inform [his/her] former clients of [his/her] new employment," it is not a solicitation. But this safe harbor may be difficult to navigate given the factual circumstances of each client contact in connection with a departure. 

The second question is how to respect the non-disclosure provision without breaching the Agreement. And "Courts are more likely to find … contact constitutes a solicitation when there is evidence that the defendants - employees improperly used confidential records or trade secrets obtained while at their former employers to issue the announcements." Kerr, 414 F.Supp.3d at 877, fn. 12 (and cases cited therein).  

In Kerr it was specifically found that "Mr. Kerr denies using any of Edward Jones's information when issuing his announcement," and that "the transferee clients, who first learned of Mr. Kerr's transition from his announcement, had pre-existing, personal relationships with Mr. Kerr." So, it appears that one way to respect the non-disclosure provision without breaching the Agreement is for Receiving FA to limit the announcement of his/her transition to former clients who have pre-existing, personal relationships with him/her, such as family members or close friends.  Another way appears to be if Receiving FA is also dual registered as an RIA. If so, then the argument can be made that consistent with Receiving FA’s fiduciary duty of care, she or he has to inform his or her former clients of his or her departure from the Firm.  The argument would be that this fiduciary duty is not satisfied by relying upon the Firm to inform your customers, and that this fiduciary duty supersedes the non-disclosure obligation as it relates to using confidential information as to customer names and addresses to issue the announcements.   

Therefore, there is a lot to unpack regarding “it depends.” So, if you need assistance in this regard, you may wish to consult with experienced securities industry counsel at Cosgrove Law Group.  

Please follow us on Twitter @CosLawGroup, on LinkedIn at Cosgrove LawGroup, LLC, and on Facebook at Cosgrove Law Group, LLC.