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.

DOES YOUR FINANCIAL ADVISER HAVE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE?

Believe it or not, your trusted financial adviser is only human. He or she can make a very costly mistake despite his or her best intentions. Perhaps you have taken comfort in the fact that your adviser, whether a registered representative or an investment adviser representative, has a company with whom they are affiliated. Surely the company has insurance, right? Well, I have more bad news for you – that company might not have an errors and omissions policy either, particularly if they are a small outfit.

Our advice is that you ask to receive a copy of your advisor’s policy at the beginning of your relationship. If your advisor does commit a negligent or even fraudulent act – consult with an attorney experienced in such matters. You may wish to confirm that an insurance policy is in place before you proceed with expensive litigation. And if you are an uninsured adviser that made a mistake, you should seek legal counsel immediately. Food for thought.

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.

Court Strikes Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Provisions

 In a financial services industry dispute, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a district court's enforcement of a non-compete agreement and non-solicitation agreement in employment contracts. The appellants were a financial advisor and her new financial services firm. The appellee that lost on appeal was the financial advisor's former employer.

The financial advisor was Cara Miller. When she worked for Honkamp Krueger Financial Services, she signed an employment agreement that included a non-compete and non-solicitation agreement and then an Agreement Ancillary to Employment that failed to include a non-compete provision. Miller voluntarily terminated her employment when Honkamp Krueger was purchased by another firm. She wisely sent a letter terminating her employment agreement rather than just her employment. She sought a declaratory judgment in the district court. Honkamp Kruger counterclaimed, seeking a preliminary injunction against her, and prevailed.  

The Court of Appeals took different approaches to the non-compete and non-solicitation agreement[1]. The Court concluded that the non-compete agreement ended when Miller provided written notice that the employment contract had ended. The Court found that the District Court's application of the non-solicitation agreement was void against public policy in that it prohibited accepting clients as well as soliciting them. Two quotes from the opinion are worthy of repetition: 1) "…non-compete agreements are 'strictly' constructed against the one seeking to restrain another from pursuing his profession, business, or employment", and 2) "…a contract cannot prevent former employees from accepting clients of their former employers because clients are not parties to the contract and should be allowed to choose with whom they want to do business." Food for thought.

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

---

[1]https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic18609b004ed11ec8cc1ca5e79b1b862/View/FullText.html?listSource=Foldering&originationContext=clientid&transitionType=MyResearchHistoryItem&contextData=%28oc.Search%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0

The Harms and Indicators of Excessive Trading

 

Many securities brokers work for commissions. This means that they charge investors a fee whenever executing a trade on their behalf. This method of compensation has, in the past, enticed some nefarious brokers to increase their compensation by making more trades on a customer’s behalf than is in the customer’s best interest.

What is Excessive Trading?

Excessive trading, also known as churning, occurs when a securities broker executes trades in a customer’s account at an unsuitable frequency in an effort to increase their own commissions. Make no mistake, excessive trading is illegal. Unfortunately, in all but the most egregious circumstances, you may need to consult a professional to determine whether you are a victim of excessive trading. There is no “one size fits all” test to determine whether a broker is churning a customer’s account. Instead, courts and regulators balance several factors to determine whether a broker’s trading would be deemed excessive. It is determined by the volume at which trades are being executed, the type of security being traded, the investor’s stated investment objectives and the investor’s risk tolerance (including their age, net worth, and investment experience). For instance, the same number of trades may be suitable for an investor with more speculative objectives but unsuitable for an investor with more conservative objectives. Moreover, one type of product traded a certain number of times may be suitable; whereas, a different type of product—not meant for that volume of trading—traded just as many times may be unsuitable.

The Harms of Excessive Trading 

            Excessive trading can cause significant and irreparable harm to investors beyond simply loss of principal. It will almost always prevent the desired growth due both to excessive fees that accompany it and the excessive switching of investment products that will only yield growth if they are held onto for certain periods of time. Even if an investor’s principal investment remains intact after a ten year period, the fact that an account achieved no, or minimal, growth over that period—when a properly traded account would have seen the growth the investor desired—can cause damage to an investor’s financial health which cannot be undone. 

The Evolution of Excessive Trading           

Excessive trading primarily occurs when securities brokers engage in unnecessarily frequent switching of equities sold on public securities exchanges. When this occurs, the broker “earns” a commission for each trade. Over time, these charges compound and cause substantial harm. In recent years, more and more securities brokers are starting to engage in excessive trading of more long term investment products not sold on public exchanges such as mutual funds, unit investment trusts, private equity funds, closed-end funds, and, most notably, variable annuities. Long-term product switching, especially when it involves variable annuities, does not need to occur at the same volume as equity switching in order to be deemed excessive. For example, annuities are specifically designed to be held onto long term and are often marketed to elderly vulnerable investors with very low risk tolerance. Investors placed in products such as variable annuities may be charged inordinately high[1] fees when they are both placed in and exit the product. That means that the fees investors incur as a result of excessive trading will rack up even more when the trading involves individually tailored private investment products like annuities.

The Indicators of Excessive Trading 

            Regulatory agencies such as FINRA have two main tools to identify excessive trading. One is by looking at the Turn-Over Rate. This is the number of times the securities in the account turn into new securities. The second is called the Cost-Equity Ratio. This is the amount the account would need to appreciate in order for the customer to simply cover the fees they are being charged. A turn-over rate of 6 and a cost-equity ratio of 20 percent are the prime indicators that excessive trading is most likely occurring. However, as noted above, these are just two indicators of many. Excessive trading still may exist where these indicators are not met.

Who Can Stop Excessive Trading? 

More so than both FINRA and the customers themselves, it is actually the broker-dealer who is in the best position to both spot and put a stop to excessive trading. Many securities firms have alert systems in place where they will be automatically be notified if an investor’s turn-over rate reaches 6 and their cost-equity ratio reaches 20 percent; however, case-law dictates that these two numbers are not necessary to make someone liable for excessive trading. Many brokers engaging in this practice know how to effectively skirt these alerts and avoid raising red flags by engaging in trading that falls just shy of reaching the numbers necessary to trigger the alerts. For this reason, FINRA has called on all broker-dealers to be more vigilant in broker supervision beyond merely “checking in on things” once an alert has gone off.

            Unfortunately, it is incredibly difficult for investors to recognize when excessive trading is actually occurring. The investor is not trained in this industry and may only receive quarterly or annual statements from their broker. In some of the most egregious violations, brokers will skirt supervision mechanisms by fraudulently changing an investor’s preferences to allow for more frequent and speculative trading, essentially banking on investors not noticing the change in preferences on their account statements.

            The best thing that investors can do is make sure that their investment objectives and risk tolerance are listed correctly on account statements, actively communicate with their broker, and take thorough notes of their conversations. If investors do have any suspicions, they should never be afraid to call the broker-dealer and speak to a supervising manager. Legitimate brokers are not offended by this action and it will have no affect on your working relationship.

            Here at Cosgrove Law Group, LLC, we have substantial experience dealing with fraud related to brokers and financial professionals. If you suspect that you are a victim of excessive trading, contact the experienced attorneys at Cosgrove Law Group, LLC.

Author: Alexander Oakes, J.D. Candidate 2023, St. Louis University School of Law

---

[1] It is not uncommon to see an investor charged 25 percent of their principal investment if they exit an annuity early.

Self-Reporting and Other Extraordinary Assistance Can Reap Benefits

FINRA and other regulators have long purported that substantial cooperation and self-reporting are given favorable consideration during the disciplinary phase after an investigation.

For over 15 years, FINRA (and its predecessor agencies) have encouraged member firms and associated persons to cooperate with them during exams and investigations in a candid manner, promising at least some level of leniency for those who do so. In July of this year, FINRA provided yet another public notice on this topic, Regulatory Notice 19-23 (“RN 19-23”).

RN 19-23 reiterates that pursuant to FINRA Rules 4530(b), 8210, and FINRA's Sanction Guidelines, a certain level of cooperation is expected any time FINRA is performing an examination, inquiry, or investigation. FINRA recognizes “extraordinary cooperation” as cooperation that is beyond “required cooperation” and does one or more of the following:

1. Shows an acceptance of responsibility and an acknowledgment of the misconduct at issue prior to detection and intervention by a firm or regulator,
2. Voluntarily employees initiatives to correct the issues prior to detection and intervention by a firm or regulator,
3. Voluntarily attempts to remedy the misconduct by restitution or another appropriate remedies prior to detection and intervention by a firm or regulator,
4. Voluntarily provides substantial assistance to FINRA during its examination and/or investigation of the misconduct at issue.

Per FINRA's Sanction Guidelines, “Sanctions in disciplinary proceedings are intended to be remedial and to prevent the recurrence of misconduct.” To the extent that member firms and associated persons show initiative in meeting this goal, FINRA states it will consider that fact when determining what, if any, disciplinary action they issue for misconduct. RN 19-23 provides three examples of FINRA adjusting its disciplinary decision based on what it deemed to be “extraordinary cooperation.”

FINRA also announces certain initiatives from time to time to further its goals of “investor protection and market integrity.” Once example of such an initiative is their “529 Plan Share Class Initiative” where FINRA encouraged member firms to review their 529 plan sales for common supervisory issues. To encourage firms to do this and to report their findings, FINRA stated they would issue settlement agreements for misconduct with no fines to remedy any identified and reported misconduct.

While there is always a risk when self-reporting, there is also a substantial risk in not doing so. Reviewing FINRA's RN 19-23 with counsel versed in securities regulations would be a wise first step in determining if and how you may wish to self-report or self-audit specific activity. Both member firms and associated persons can find themselves in a position where self-reporting should be considered. Taking that step can be daunting. Cosgrove Law Group, LLC has the experience to offer guidance and representation in such matters. Please give us a call!

Presidential Candidate Requests Information on Proposed Amendments to FINRA’s Expungement Rules

The Central Registration Depository (“CRD”) and the publicly available online portal, BrokerCheck, comprise FINRA’s registration and licensing system.  Via BrokerCheck, customers, employers, and regulators can access information regarding customer complaints levied against an individual broker.  BrokerCheck plays a key role in allowing customers to evaluate their broker’s track record before making investment decisions.  By the same token, adverse claims can have a devastating effect on a broker’s ability to retain their clients.   

As such, FINRA has established rules for the expungement of certain adverse claims from CRD.  Currently, FINRA Rules 12805 and 2080 control customer complaint expungement proceedings.  Rule 12805 requires that a broker file a Statement of Claim requesting expungement of the customer disclosure.  The panel must:

·    hold a recorded session regarding the appropriateness of the expungement;

·   when applicable, review settlement documents and consider the amount of payments made to any party;

·    provide a written explanation which indicates which of the grounds for expungement under Rule 2080 is the basis for the order; and

·    assess all fees for the hearing against the party requesting expungement.[1] 

Under Rule 2080, grounds for expungement include:

·    the claim, allegation or information is factually impossible or clearly erroneous;

·  the registered person was not involved in the alleged investment-related sales practice violation, forgery, theft, misappropriation or conversion of funds; or

·    the claim, allegation or information is false.[2] 

Following an arbitration award recommending an expungement, the broker must then file a petition in a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain an order confirming the award and directing such expungement.

In December 2017, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 17-42, a proposed amendment relating to requests to expunge customer dispute information.  Regulatory Notice 17-42 would create a roster of arbitrators with specific training and experience to handle all expungement requests.  It would also require:

·       the broker to appear at his or her expungement hearing;

·       unanimous agreement of the three person arbitration panel;

·      expungement requests to be brought within one year of the dispute; and

·       minimum fees for filing expungement requests.[3] 

Since publishing Regulatory Notice 17-42 for public comment, FINRA has not submitted it to the SEC.  As such, the proposed expungement rules are not currently in effect.  In a March 2019 letter to FINRA President and CEO Robert Cook, Senator Elizabeth Warren requested an update on FINRA’s proposed rule changes to its customer dispute information expungement process.[4]  If eventually submitted and finalized, the new process for removing customer dispute information from a broker’s CRD will be more onerous on the broker and likely decrease the frequency with which expungement requests are granted.  Senator Warren’s letter requests, among other things, a timeline for when FINRA will submit Regulatory Notice 17-42 to the SEC for approval.

It is unclear if or when the new CRD expungement rules will be submitted to the SEC and put into effect.  FINRA spokespersons have declined to comment on the substance of Senator Warren’s letter, stating, “We have received the senator’s letter and are working to respond accordingly.”[5] 

Given the uncertainty of the status of FINRA’s expungement rules, it is important that brokers seeking CRD expungement select an attorney capable of guiding them through expungement proceedings under the current and any potential future FINRA rules.  Cosgrove Law Group, LLC has represented numerous individuals in CRD expungement proceedings under the current rules and stands ready to represent brokers in proceedings governed by the proposed amended rules.  If you are seeking expungement of customer complaints from your CRD/BrokerCheck, you may wish to consult with experienced counsel at Cosgrove Law Group.

BY: Max Simpson

---

[1] FINRA Rule 12805, http://finra.complinet.com/en/display/display_main.html?rbid=2403&element_id=7229

[2] FINRA Rule 2080, http://finra.complinet.com/en/display/display_main.html?rbid=2403&element_id=8468

[3] Regulatory Notice 17-42, http://www.finra.org/industry/notices/17-42

[4]Letter, Sen. Warren to Cook, March 21, 2019, https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2019.03.21%20Letter%20to%20FINRA%20re%20Broker%20Expungement%20Data.pdf

[5] Financial-Planning.com, Warren presses FINRA for answers on expungement reform, https://www.financial-planning.com/news/elizabeth-warren-presses-finra-for-answers-on-expungement-reform

FINRA Continues To Investigate Expense Reports

          There are numerous examples of FINRA cracking down on expense report violations.  Following are a few of the reported cases.

In September, 2017, a former Morgan Stanley corporate stock manager accepted an industry bar over allegations that “event attendees on employee’s expense report incorrectly included one person who did not attend event.”  The employee     said she “couldn’t afford to fight her dismissal or to take the time to work with the regulator.”  “The direct cause of the bar was [her] refusal to appear for the hearing into the matter.”  (https://www.investmentnews.com/article/20170926/FREE/170929952/finra-bars-former-morgan-stanley-manager-over-expense-reports)

In late 2017, “a 21-year veteran Merrill Lynch broker managing director…accepted a one-year suspension from the securities industry and a $10,000 fine for ‘violating high standards of commercial honor by improperly using Merrill funds in connection with expense reports’”  (http://www.shufirm.com/brokerage-firms-and-finra-crack-down-on-broker-expense-account-violations)

In early 2018, a former Merrill Lynch broker was fined and suspended over a “$524 claim for mileage and dinner expenses that he said represented two meetings with prospective clients.  He subsequently admitted to the firm that he fabricated the events in order to use up, and be reimbursed for, the Business Development Account money that was deducted pretax from his compensation.”  https://advisorhub.com/finra-suspends-another-broker-over-expense-issue/

FINRA gets its authority to investigate expense report and other similar documents from Rule 8210, Provision of Information and Testimony and Inspection and Copying of Books.  “A failure to comply with an 8210 Request often results in an immediate enforcement proceeding and a permanent bar from the industry.”  (https://www.seclaw.com/finra-rule-8210-request-response/) Rule 8210 Investigations often spring from violations of Rule 2010, the catch-all, which states that “[a] member, in the conduct of its business, shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” 

            Cosgrove Law Group, LLC has represented numerous individuals in their FINRA investigations.  If you are the subject of a FINRA investigation and need counsel, Cosgrove Law Group may be able to help.

BROKER TERMINATIONS

Are you a financial adviser who has been terminated unfairly?  Well, if you are, you are not alone.  The attorneys at Cosgrove Law Group, LLC have represented advisers all over the country who have fallen prey to a system very unique to the financial services industry – the internet publication of involuntary termination justifications via the Form U-5.  And while the regulators thought this system would be a good thing for investors, it has proven to be a devastating system for many innocent advisers.  We refer to it as “the weaponization of the U-5.”

You will not obtain a new position with a Broker-Dealer or hybrid until your U-5 is filed.  And you probably will not get hired if it contains a negative narrative or one of the answers to question #7 (a) – (f) is marked in the affirmative.  Nor will your home state or FINRA register you until they are done investigating the purported reasons for termination.  If you are in this horrible situation, call us for help today.

SEC Affirms FINRA’s Findings of EKN Stockbroker’s Form U4 Violations

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) affirmed a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Decision in which EKN Financial Services Inc. stockbroker, Louis Ottimo, was assessed a $25,000.00 fine and two-year suspension in all capacities pursuant to findings that he willfully failed to accurately and timely update his Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (“Form U4”) to reflect judgments, unsatisfied tax liens, and a bankruptcy filing. (In the Matter of the Application of Louis Ottimo, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-17930 (June 28, 2018).

Back on August 22, 2013, FINRA’s Department of Enforcement filed a Complaint against Ottimo alleging that he, inter alia, violated FINRA Rules 2010, 1122, NASD IM-1000-1, and Article V, Section 2(c) of FINRA’s By-Laws by deliberately failing to disclose facts on his Form U4. An Extended Hearing Panel found Ottimo to have committed the violations, and assessed a $25,000.00 fine and two-year suspension; however, sanctions were not imposed in light of Ottimo being barred by the Extended Hearing Panel for a more serious act: committing securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

On appeal, the National Adjudicatory Council affirmed the Extended Hearing Panel’s findings of Ottimo’s Form U4 violations. Ottimo subsequently appealed to the SEC, who sustained FINRA’s findings with respect to Ottimo’s Form U4 violations.

Ottimo became registered with EKN Financial Services Inc. on March 9, 2009. Because he was registering with a FINRA member firm, Ottimo was obligated to submit a Form U4. Ottimo, like any associated person, was obligated by FINRA rules to keep his Form U4 current at all times. Under FINRA By-Laws Article V, Section 2(c), this meant that Ottimo was required to update his Form U4 within thirty days of learning facts or circumstances giving rise to the need to amend the form.

Question 14.M on the Form U4 prompted Ottimo to disclose whether he had any liens or judgments that were unsatisfied, and question 14.K prompted Ottimo to disclose whether he, or any organization that he controlled, filed a bankruptcy petition within the prior ten year period. The findings stated that after Ottimo commenced employment with EKN Financial Services Inc., he continually neglected to accurately and timely report information on his Form U4 concerning a bankruptcy filing, six unsatisfied civil judgments and seven unsatisfied liens.

Specifically, the findings stated that Ottimo failed to report five of the tax liens issued from January 2010 to April 2010 on his Form U4 until September 2010. In addition, a November 2010 tax lien was not reported by Ottimo on his Form U4 until June 2011, and a June 2011 tax lien was not reported until April of 2012. Evidently, Ottimo’s reporting of the liens occurred well after FINRA’s thirty day time limit for reporting. Critically, Ottimo revealed in a FINRA hearing that he was cognizant about FINRA’s requirements – but he obviously disregarded them.

Further, from March 2008 to April 2010, a total of six civil judgments had been entered against Ottimo, where Ottimo failed to accurately and timely report those judgements. One of the judgments against Ottimo on June 4, 2009 had been vacated on September 9, 2009. Despite Ottimo having amended his Form U4 on four occasions between June 2009 and August 2009, he failed to report that unsatisfied judgment. Notwithstanding the judgement being vacated, Ottimo was still subject to the reporting requirement.

In addition, Ottimo failed to report a bankruptcy petition for a company he founded and which he served as president, Wheatley Capital Corporation. The findings stated that Wheatley filed for bankruptcy on April 27, 2010, and the bankruptcy petition had been signed and submitted by Ottimo. Ottimo evidently neglected to make the bankruptcy known on his Form U4 until April 19, 2002.

In the Opinion, the SEC confirmed FINRA’s findings that Ottimo’s failure to make timely disclosures of liens, civil judgments and a bankruptcy was violative of FINRA By-Laws Article V, Section 2(c). SEC also found that by way of Ottimo’s Form U4 being misleading and inaccurate, he violated FINRA Rules 1122 and NASD IM-1000-1. And as a consequence of violating FINRA Rules 1122 and NASD IM-1000-1, the SEC confirmed that Ottimo violated FINRA Rule 2010.

Moreover, the SEC concluded that Ottimo was subject to a statutory disqualification because of his (1) willful conduct in neglecting to update his Form U4, and (2) material omissions relating to his Form U4. The SEC turned to Securities Exchange Act Section 3(a)(39)(F), which provides a basis for statutory disqualification when a FINRA member intentionally omits a material fact in applying for association with a member.  Finally, the SEC found Ottimo’s conduct willful given Ottimo’s knowledge of his disclosure obligations and the significance of that information (six unsatisfied civil judgements that totaled more than $440,000.00 and unsatisfied tax liens that totaled more than $260,000.00) to investors, employers and regulators.

Interestingly enough, the SEC reversed a part of FINRA’s fraud findings, and in so doing, set aside the barring of Ottimo and remanded the matter to FINRA to determine what sanctions it deems appropriate. The SEC invited FINRA to reconsider its decision not to impose sanctions against Ottimo for his willful Form U4 violations.

Financial advisors and stockbrokers often question whether to make disclosures concerning negative events. If you are in one of those situations, it is best to be careful versus taking a risk that could possibly end your career in the securities industry. If you need assistance with your Form U4 matter, call (314) 563-2490 today to consult with the experienced counsel at Cosgrove Law Group.

The attorneys of Cosgrove Law Group, LLC represent investment advisors, brokers, and other associated persons nationwide in securities employment and regulatory matters, including U-5 defamation matters. Our attorneys also practice in a variety of other areas of law.  If you have a legal matter or concern, please give us a call and speak directly with one of our experienced professionals.

Arbitration Panel Finds Merrill Lynch Defamed Former Employee

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., a brokerage firm registered with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and investment adviser firm registered with Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”), as well as Merrill Lynch International Finance, Inc. (collectively, the “firms”), have been ordered by an Arbitration Panel to pay former employee, Miguel Andres Ballestas, $750,000.00 in compensatory damages based upon the firms having been found liable for defamation on FINRA Form U5 relating to the circumstances of Ballestas’ termination. (FINRA Office of Dispute Resolution Arbitration Award No. 14-01946, April 30, 2018).

According to the Arbitration Award, the firms brought an arbitration against Ballestas alleging unjust enrichment and breach of contract, contending that Ballestas failed to pay a promissory note executed on January 9, 2009. Ballestas counterclaimed, alleging that the firms, inter alia: breached duties of good fair and fair dealing; violated FINRA Rule 2010; wrongfully terminated Ballestas; breached fiduciary and contractual duties owed to Ballestas; and committed Central Registration Depository (“CRD”) Form U5 defamation pertaining to Ballestas’ termination from the firms.

In the “Termination Disclosure” section of the Form U5, the firms were apparently asked if Ballestas voluntarily resigned from the firms, or had been discharged or permitted to resign from the firms, after allegations were made that accused Ballestas of: (1) violating investment-related statutes, regulations, rules or industry standards of conduct; and/or (2) fraud or the wrongful taking of property. Evidently, those questions were answered by the firms in the affirmative.

The Arbitration Award revealed that the firms collectively sought: $407,451.40, which reflected the outstanding promissory note balance, as well as interest, costs and attorneys’ fees; and for Ballestas’ counterclaim to be completely dismissed. However, Ballestas sought a total of $26,000,000.00 in damages from the firms based upon the loss of Ballestas’ book of business, pension, and deferred compensation, and for having suffered from mental pain and anguish by the firms. Moreover, Ballestas sought for his promissory note to be cancelled or at least offset by service payments pertaining to his employment with those firms, and for his CRD Form U5 to be expunged. Evidently, on June 27, 2017, FINRA Office of Dispute Resolution was provided a notice of settlement regarding a portion of the claims made by the firms and Ballestas against each other.

After having considered the evidence, testimony and pleadings, the Arbitration Panel concluded that the firms were jointly and severally liable for CRD Form U5 defamation of Ballestas, and ordered the firms to pay Ballestas $750,000.00 in compensatory damages. Further, the Arbitration Panel recommended that the firms’ answers in the “Termination Disclosure” section of Form U5 be changed to “No” based on the firm’s initial responses being of a defamatory nature.

Cosgrove Law Group, LLC has represented former employees in several U5 defamation cases nationwide, helping them obtain settlements and awards ranging from $100,000.00 to $3,500,000.00. If you feel that you have been a victim to U5 defamation, call Cosgrove Law Group and speak to our experienced counsel today.

EX-CITIGROUP BROKER VINDICATED WITH $4M FINRA ARBITRATION AWARD

A Miami broker, formerly with Citigroup, won a nearly $4 million award in a recent FINRA arbitration case regarding wrongful termination.  Christian Gherardi “worked at Smith Barney and other Citigroup units in Miami from the start of his career in 1996 until he was fired in December 2015.”[1]  Gherardi alleged that Citi fired him because it was afraid he would leave the firm and it wanted to retain his $200 million book of business.

            Moreover, Citi was allegedly worried that Gherardi would leave because of a moratorium that had been imposed on the bank which prevented brokers from pursuing new business until the bank got some things in order with its anti-money-laundering program.  “Citi managers alleged that Gherardi had physically threatened other brokers who were trying to poach his accounts.”¹  Mr. Gherardi claimed the incidents were distorted by Citi in an effort to terminate him and take his book of business.  Gherardi was unable to take the majority of his substantial book of business with him to his new firm.

  

            The award included “$3.45 million in compensatory damages for wrongful termination, $150,000 for ‘lost quarter’ trail fees and almost $396,000 for deferred compensation.”¹  Ironically, Cosgrove Law Group, LLC has obtained awards and settlements of about the same amount for other defamed registered representatives.

            The arbitration award can be viewed here.

-Maria T. Eggert

---

[1] https://advisorhub.com/ex-citi-broker-wins-4-million-wrongful-termination-case/

FINRA Statutory Disqualifications and the MC-400 Process

Under the Securities Exchange Commission’s authority FINRA promulgates rules of its own as a self regulatory organization (“SRO”). Pursuant to FINRA’s By-Laws (and the By-Laws of the NASD and the NYSE before it) a person may be disqualified from membership. A person disqualified from membership would be prohibited from participation in the securities industry. In July 2007 FINRA adopted a revised version of the NASD’s definition of disqualification contained in its By-Laws such that any person subject to a statutory disqualification under the Securities Exchange Act Section 3(a)(39) also is subject to disqualification under FINRA’s By-Laws.

Prior to the amendment, the NASD’s By-Laws listed some, but not all, of the grounds for statutory disqualification contained in Exchange Act Section 3(a)(39). However, after the amendment to the NASD’s then existing By-Laws, FINRA’s By-Laws provided that: “A person is subject to a ‘disqualification’ with respect to membership, or association with a member, if such person is subject to any ‘statutory disqualification’ as such term is defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the [Securities Exchange Act of 1934].”

The revised definition of disqualification incorporated three additional categories of statutory disqualification which previously did not exist. One of those additional categories of disqualification comes from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Section 604 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act expanded the definition of statutory disqualification under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by creating Exchange Act Section 15(b)(4)(H) and then incorporating it into Exchange Act Section 3(a)(39). As a result of this change, statutory disqualification under Exchange Act Section 15(b)(4)(H) includes a person that:

is subject to any final order of a State securities commission (or any agency or officer performing like functions), State authority that supervises or examines banks, savings associations, or credit unions, State insurance commission (or any agency or office performing like functions), an appropriate Federal banking agency (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(q))), or the National Credit Union Administration, that --

1. bars such person from association with an entity regulated by such commission, authority, agency, or officer, or from engaging in the business of securities, insurance, banking, savings association activities, or credit union activities; or

2. constitutes a final order based on violations of any laws or regulations that prohibit fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive conduct.

This revised definition of statutory disqualification became effective as of July 2007. The effect of the revised definition would have been the immediate disqualification of a large number of individuals subject to the new categories of disqualification. In order to remain in the securities industry, these individuals would have had to utilize the then existing NASD eligibility proceedings for persons subject to disqualification; i.e. NASD Rule 9520.

In order to avoid this result, the NASD requested that the Securities Exchange Commission Staff not recommend enforcement action to the Commission under Exchange Act Section 15A(g)(2) or Rule 19h-1(a) for those persons subject to the new definition of disqualification until the NASD could update and improve its eligibility proceedings to address the changes to the definition of statutory disqualification. As a result, the SEC, by Chief Counsel Catherine McGuire, issued a No Action Letter on July 27, 2007, informing the NASD that it would not seek enforcement against the individuals subject to the new categories of statutory disqualification if NASD did not file notice with the Commission for enforcement between the time the amended By-Laws containing the revised definition of statutory disqualification became effective and the effective date of the revised eligibility procedures. This would mean that those persons subject to the revised definition could continue membership in FINRA without going through the application process for eligibility pending the adoption of the revised eligibility procedures.

In April 2009, FINRA released Regulatory Notice 09-19 which set forth the amendments to FINRA Rule 9520 Series to become effective June 15, 2009. The revised FINRA Rule 9520 Series established procedures applicable to firms and associated persons subject to the additional statutory disqualifications as a result of the adoption of the revised definition of disqualification. Under this new construct of the Rule 9520 Series, individuals subject to one of the additional categories of disqualification would need to seek FINRA’s approval to enter or remain in the securities industry by way of an application with FINRA’s Department of Registration and Disclosure (“RAD”) only under certain circumstances. The need to file an application depends on 1) the type of disqualification; 2) the date of the disqualification; and 3) whether the firm or individual was seeking admission, readmission or continuance in the securities industry.

There are likely four different ways that a member of FINRA would know that they are required to file an application with RAD as a result of the application of revised Rule 9520 Series to an order of a state securities commission. First, Regulatory Notice 09-19 states that as of June 15, 2009, FINRA began reviewing its records to identify persons that met any of the additional conditions that would require the filing of an application under the revised Rule 9520 Series. In what manner FINRA has undertaken this review is unknown. Second, an individual could identify on their own that they are subject to an existing order which would require an application with RAD.

Third, if someone is seeking to transfer their registration to a new broker-dealer, then any existing state orders which would require an application with RAD as a result of the revised Rule 9520 Series would be disclosed by the CRD (the central licensing and registration system for the U.S. securities industry and its regulators) when it is reviewed by FINRA. Fourth, if an individual is subject to a new order of a state regulator, then an alert is sent out to all other state regulators as well as FINRA through the CRD. Whether FINRA reviews each alert it receives in order to decide to take action against an individual subject to an order of a state securities commission is unknown.

For those subject to a statutory disqualification arising from orders specified in Exchange Act Section 15(b)(4)(H)(i) and Exchange Act Section 15(b)(4)(H)(ii), find below an outline of the circumstances under which the person must file an application with RAD under FINRA’s revised Rule 9520 Series:

A. If the person is seeking admission or re-admission to the industry; and

1. the person is subject to an order under Exchange Act Section 15(b)(4)(H)(i), then the person must file an application unless the order imposing a bar on the person is time-limited and the time period is expired. However, if the bar is related to Fraudulent, Manipulative or Deceptive (“FMD”) conduct, then the person must submit an application under the circumstances described in section I.B.

2. the person is subject to an order under Exchange Act Section 15(b)(4)(H)(ii), then the person must submit an application unless:

i. the sanctions do not involve licensing or registration revocation or suspension (or analogous sanctions) and the sanctions are no longer in effect; or

ii. the sanctions do involve licensing or registration revocation or suspension (or analogous sanctions), the sanctions are no longer in effect, and the order was entered 10 or more years ago.

B. If the person was, as of March 17, 2009, a member of, or an associated person of a member of FINRA or another SRO, and was subject to a statutory disqualification as of that same date and is seeking to continue in the industry; and

1. the person is subject to an order under Exchange Act Section 15(b)(4)(H)(i); and
i. the bar is no longer in effect and is not related to FMD conduct, then no application is required.

ii. the bar is still in effect and is not related to FMD conduct then no application is required unless there is a “triggering event” - which occurs when the person subject to the statutory disqualification either changes employers or the member firm makes an application for the registration of such person as a principal pursuant to FINRA rules.

iii. the bar is still in effect and is related to FMD conduct, then an application is required.

2. the person is subject to an order under Exchange Act Section 15(b)(4)(H)(ii), then an application is required unless:

i. the sanctions do not involve licensing or registration revocation or suspension (or analogous sanctions), and the sanctions are no longer in effect; or

ii. the sanctions do not involve licensing or registration revocation or suspension (or analogous sanctions), and the sanctions are still in effect, in which event an application is required only if there is a triggering event; or

iii. the sanctions do involve licensing or registration revocation or suspension (or analogous sanctions), and the sanctions are no longer in effect, and the order was entered 10 or more years ago. However, if the order was issued less than 10 years ago, then an application is required if there is a triggering event.

C. If the person was, as of March 17, 2009, a member of, or an associated person of a member of FINRA or another SRO, and is subject to a statutory disqualification that arose after March 17, 2009, and is seeking to continue in the industry; and

1. the person is subject to an order under Exchange Act Section 15(b)(4)(H)(i), then the person must file an application unless the order imposing a bar on the person is time-limited and the time period is expired. However, if the bar is related to FMD conduct, then the person must submit an application under the circumstances described in section III.B.

2. the person is subject to an order under Exchange Act Section 15(b)(4)(H)(ii), then an application is required unless:

i. the sanctions do not involve licensing or registration revocation or suspension (or analogous sanctions) and the sanctions are no longer in effect; or

ii. the sanctions do involve licensing or registration revocation or suspension (or analogous sanctions), the sanctions are no longer in effect, and the order was entered 10 or more years ago.

Some more recent articles touching upon this process include: “Stockbroker's DUI Puts Career in the FINRA Ditch” by Bill Singer, “Bankrupt Stockbroker Winds Up Statutorily Disqualified” by Bill Singer, “U-4 Omissions and Statutory Disqualification:Much Ado About Nothing” by Alan Wolper. Do not hesitate to call us if you or your broker-dealer need assistance with a potential MC-400 application.

Financial Advisors Expunging Baseless Customer Complaints in State Court

The Internet is awash with articles about “bad brokers” with clean U-4s, and “rouge brokers” obtaining expungements of valid customer complaints.  Indeed, studies have been published ostensibly demonstrating that state regulators poses more valuable information on their system than what appears on FINRA’s public Broker-Check data base.  In sum, there is a consensus that too many complaints are being expunged.  But whether that consensus is based on fact is subject to debate.

Regardless, FINRA has repeatedly responded to the hue and cry by making it increasingly difficult for a financial adviser to obtain an expungement of a customer complaint published on his or her professional record.  But amidst all of this anguish and gnashing of teeth, a politically incorrect truth has been left in the shadows.  I feel compelled to share it with you.  Here it is:  some customer complaints are baseless.  There; I said it.

Another often-overlooked fact is that FA’s are able to go straight to a court of law, rather than a FINRA arbitration, to obtain an expungement.  Almost exactly one year ago, FINRA issued new guidance to its arbitrators raising ever higher the procedural bars for a panel to recommend expungement[1].  Should a FA surmount the procedural hurdles and slim avenues to success, the FA still has to go to court to get the Award confirmed.  And, in that state court action, he or she still needs to name FINRA as a party so that they can show up and oppose the FINRA arbitrator’s recommendation.

But FINRA Rule 2080 actually reads as follows:

2080. Obtaining an Order of Expungement of Customer Dispute Information from the Central Registration Depository (CRD) System

(a) Members or associated persons seeking to expunge information from the CRD system arising from disputes with customers must obtain an order from a court of competent jurisdiction directing such expungement or confirming an arbitration award containing expungement relief.

(b) Members or associated persons petitioning a court for expungement relief or seeking judicial confirmation of an arbitration award containing expungement relief must name FINRA as an additional party and serve FINRA with all appropriate documents unless this requirement is waived pursuant to subparagraph (1) or (2) below.

(1) Upon request, FINRA may waive the obligation to name FINRA as a party if FINRA determines that the expungement relief is based on affirmative judicial or arbitral findings that:

(A) the claim, allegation or information is factually impossible or clearly erroneous;

(B) the registered person was not involved in the alleged investment-related sales practice violation, forgery, theft, misappropriation or conversion of funds; or

(C) the claim, allegation or information is false.

(2) If the expungement relief is based on judicial or arbitral findings other than those described above, FINRA, in its sole discretion and under extraordinary circumstances, also may waive the obligation to name FINRA as a party if it determines that:

(A) the expungement relief and accompanying findings on which it is based are meritorious; and

(B) the expungement would have no material adverse effect on investor protection, the integrity of the CRD system or regulatory requirements.

(c) For purposes of this Rule, the terms "sales practice violation," "investment-related," and "involved" shall have the meanings set forth in the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer ("Form U4") in effect at the time of issuance of the subject expungement order.

It seems as if very few have read the actual rule.  I recently read an attorney blog that makes no mention of the direct-to-court avenue whatsoever!  Well, our attorneys are very familiar with both the state court and arbitration options and procedures. 

   

There is actually some case law out there on a financial adviser’s right to go to court to seek an expungement.  In Lickiss v. FINRA, 208 Cal.App. 4^th 1125 (2012), the California Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s dismissal of the FA’s petition.  In fact, it held that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting itself to the criteria set forth in Rule 2080(b), rather than employing the court’s broad equitable power and discretion.  The Court of Appeals stated in part:

            FINRA has established BrokerCheck, an online application through which the public may obtain information on the background, business practices and conduct of FINRA member firms and their representatives.   Through BrokerCheck, FINRA releases to the public certain information maintained on the CRD, thereby enabling investors to make informed decisions about individuals and firms with which they may wish to conduct business.   This data includes historic customer complaints and information about investment-related, consumer-initiated litigation or arbitration….

            The issues surrounding Lickiss's sale of CET stock occurred more than 20 years ago, and the one regulatory matter against him resolved 15 years ago in 1997.   Since then, his record has been clear, yet Lickiss attested that he suffers professional and financial hardship relating to the prior sale of CET stock because current and potential clients increasingly use the Internet to obtain his BrokerCheck history.

Lickiss petitioned for expungement of his CRD records, asserting that the superior court had jurisdiction “pursuant to (1) FINRA Rule 2080(a);  [and] (2) the Court's equitable and inherent powers to effectuate expungements.”…

FINRA removed the action to federal court.   Upon Lickiss's motion, the federal district court remanded the matter back to the state superior court, ruling that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case because there is no statute, rule or regulation imposing a duty on FINRA to expunge….

Had Lickiss merely petitioned the court for expungement relief under rule 2080, without also invoking the court's equitable powers, that might be the end of the matter.   However, Lickiss explicitly invoked those powers….

Equity aims to do right and accomplish justice.  (Hirshfield v. Schwartz (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 749, 770.)… 

The equitable powers of a court are not curbed by rigid rules of law, and thus wide play is reserved to the court's conscience in formulating its decrees… 

This basic principle of equity jurisprudence means that in any given context in which the court is prevailed upon to exercise its equitable powers, it should weigh the competing equities bearing on the issue at hand and then grant or deny relief based on the overall balance of these equities…

The choice of a very narrow, rigid legal rule to assess the legal sufficiency of Lickiss's petition—a choice that closed off all avenues to the court's conscience in formulating a decree and disregarded basic principles of equity—was nothing short of an end run around equity…

This is not, as FINRA contends, merely a request for a remedy.   Rule 2080(a) essentially recognizes the right of members and associated persons to seek expungement of information from the CRD system by obtaining an order from a court of competent jurisdiction directing such expungement. 

See also Lickiss v. FINRA, Fed.Sec. L. Rep. P.96, 345 (2011). Compare Updegrove v. Betancourt, 2016 WL 3442762 (2016).

  

If you are a FA who has a U-4 scarred by one or more clearly erroneous customer complaints, we would be happy to evaluate your prospects for success in seeking an expungement in state court or arbitration.  Your chances of erasing an unfair or unfounded complaint in a court of law at a reasonable cost might be better than you think.

---

[1] http://www.fa-mag.com/news/finra-continues-to-tighten-lid-on-expungements-with-newly-enhanced-arbitrator-guidance-23443.html

http://finra.complinet.com/en/display/display.html?rbid=2403&record_id=15841&element_id=11616&highlight=2081#r15841