Tag Archives: FINRA

When The Consequences Outweigh the Risk

19 Monday Jan 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It is not difficult, doing the right thing. There are rules regardless of what game in life you’re playing. Ignorance is no defense.

Unfortunately, just as the simplicities of the day, the “Pleases” and “Thank Yous” have fallen by the wayside, so too has the mindset “I will work hard and succeed.” Instead, today is about the quick fix, the shortcuts and unfortunately, the cheating and the breaking of the law.

For those who are taking the shortcuts, who are cheating others to get ahead, chances are you’re going to be caught, and it will cost you more than you gained. For those stockbrokers who are trying to cheat the system, by making the unauthorized trades in a client’s account, trading the account for the purpose of generating commissions or making an unsuitable recommendation to a client, there are consequences.

These consequences come in many forms, one of which is an arbitration claim. Stockbrokers are registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). When a customer opens a trading account, there is an arbitration requirement that mandates any claims relating to the trading in the account to be filed before FINRA’s dispute resolution. Depending upon the dollar amount of the losses, FINRA will provide (at a fee) one or three arbitrators to hear the case. The filing fee for the complaining investor is relatively small and in most instances the attorney handling the cases take the matters on a contingency basis (attorney does not charge on an hourly rate, but takes a percentage of any money recovered).

Pursuant to FINRA rules, an investor has six years from the date of the trade to file a claim against the broker. Once an arbitration claim has been filed, FINRA has streamlined discovery, a process in which the parties exchange documents prior to the actual arbitration. Pursuant to FINRA rules, there are certain categories of documents deemed “presumptively discoverable” and must be produced if they exist. While the burden of proof is always on the person bringing the claim, FINRA appears to do all it can to assist the investors in bringing their claims to a hearing.

For the broker who is looking to make a quick dollar, say a $500 commission on an unauthorized trade, and then another, and then another, the legal fees associated with the defense of the claim can be up to ten times the original commission. And this does not account for any award assessed by the arbitrators, the FINRA hearing fees assessed by the arbitrators or the possibility of punitive (punishment) damages.  An arbitration award is regularly converted into a judgment by the courts, and if not paid, the investor can go after your income or assets to collect on the judgment.

The stockbroker who thinks no one will notice the cheating is shortsighted. On a daily basis the trading is reviewed by a supervisor and often times a person in the firm’s compliance office. From the investor standpoint, not only does the investor see the trading from confirmations and account statements, but most likely the investor’s accountant is reviewing the trading for the tax purposes.

While it’s a lost art, hard work really does pay in the long run. The consequences simply are not worth the risks.

The Law Offices of Barry M. Bordetsky represents customers and industry representatives in FINRA securities and employment arbitrations as well as litigants before state and federal courts. If you have questions about an issue you are involved with, please contact Barry at (800) 998-7705 or email barry@bordetskylaw.com.

Time To Return the Favor of “The Talk” With Your Parents

12 Monday Jan 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

As parents, there often are situations with children that necessitate a series of uncomfortable discussions, where questions must be asked and sensitive topics discussed. Regardless of what can be an awkward situation – – for both parents and the children, it is the responsibility of the parent to have the conversations. The phrase “I’m not here to be their friend”, is undoubtedly uttered on a daily, if not hourly or minute basis by parents.

But what happens when the proverbial shoe is on the other foot? What of the situation where it is the child, now an adult, that must discuss issues and raise questions to the parents; questions that are uncomfortable for everyone, but for the protection of the parents?

Nothing can make for a more uncomfortable conversation than a discussion about money with your parents. Unfortunately, like the “birds and bees” conversation you had decades ago, this is just as important. As our parents get older, there are times when their decision-making abilities are lessened, and the opportunity for someone to take advantage of them financially has increased.

It is not coincidental states have laws on the books that protect older investors. There unfortunately are people who will target such investors, knowing they can be worn down much more easily than others and will place their trust in strangers.

And now the uncomfortable conversation. Most likely, before having the “talk” with you, your parents prepared themselves. Just as they may have taken the time to bring the topic to you, you should do the same with them. Your parents may have spoken to your teachers or your friend’s parents; today there is nothing wrong with you having a conversation with your parent’s accountant to make sure at the very least the accountant is another set of eyes reviewing your parent’s investments.

When talking with your parents, start with basic conversation about where they have their money invested, but do so with an understanding of basic investing principals. Here are some basic terms and rules to help you out in the process.

First, Discretionary versus Non-discretionary account. A discretionary account permits the broker to buy and sell securities in your parent’s account without the requirement of speaking to them first. A non-discretionary account, which is the majority of securities accounts, requires the broker to speak to your parents before every single trade. Ask your parents about what their broker is recommending, and when your parents learn of the trade – before it is effectuated or when they receive their monthly statements?

The next point you should know about is suitability. A broker is required to comply with the Know Your Customer Rule. This rule requires the broker to know about your parent’s investment experience, net worth, liquid net worth, level of risk they are prepared to take in their investments and their primary investment goals. No trade may properly be recommended to your parents unless the broker takes each of the above points into consideration.

The strength and resolve of a parent is not being concerned about the awkwardness of a conversation, but rather protecting you. It may be time to return the favor.

The Law Offices of Barry M. Bordetsky represents customers and industry representatives in FINRA securities and employment arbitrations as well as litigants before state and federal courts. If you have questions about an issue you are involved with, please contact Barry Bordetsky at (800) 998-7705 or email barry@bordetskylaw.com.

The Starting Point Is Now

05 Monday Jan 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

It’s the New Year, what is undeniably the greatest false start time of the year. People use the date as a starting point for something, whether it be starting a new hobby, starting a new business or simply reconnecting with old friends.

For investors, this is the time when they will be receiving a year-end statement from their broker-dealers. Often times this is the document provided to accountants from clients, to assist with the calculation of gains and losses for tax purposes.   For accountants, like the diet that your clients were always wanting to start but never did, many times investing clients are overwhelmed with the investing process and did not pay attention to their investment accounts as closely as they should have during the year. Now is as good a time as any for accountants to address the issue with their clients.

Upon receipt of the clients’ trading information, accountants may want to call their clients and pose the following form of questions: Tell me what you wanted to do with your account? What did your broker tell you before the trades took place? How many trades do you think took place in the account?

The answers to these questions will be very telling, the start of an understanding of what took place in the account. By way of example, if the client states she wanted the account to conservatively sit and grow with no activity, but there were thirty trades over the year, there is an explanation that should be received as to why the trades took place. Similarly, if the trading was unsuitable, or not in line with the client’s objectives (i.e., risk level, financial wherewithal, experience), then a stop should be put to the improper trading. Importantly, the suitability analysis takes place at the time of the trades, not at the time of the complaint, thus necessitating an immediate review of the trading.

On that note, unless the account is discretionary, brokers are required to speak to investors and receive specific authorization for every trade, buys and sells. If this did not happen, then there is a problem. In terms of the number of trades that took place, there comes a time when the trading in the account only makes money for one person – – and that is the broker. However, if the investor sits for years silently, riding the profits of the trading in the account and then complains years after the fact, such complaint may very well be looked at suspiciously as only a belated attempt to utilize the broker-dealer as an insurance company for market losses. By sitting silently, the investor may very well be waiving the ability to move forward on a viable claim. An investor has six years to file an arbitration claim against a broker before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).

The New Year is a great time for accountants to work with clients and provide them with the necessary nudge to protect their investments.

The Law Offices of Barry M. Bordetsky represents customers and industry representatives in FINRA securities and employment arbitrations as well as litigants before state and federal courts. If you have questions about an issue you are involved with, please contact Barry Bordetsky at (800) 998-7705 or email barry@bordetskylaw.com.

FINRA Arbitration Requirement Is On Its Deathbed

25 Monday Aug 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

What a difference a couple of years can make.

When a stockbroker joins a firm the broker is required to register with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). To do so he must complete and sign a Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer Form U-4 (“Form U-4”). The document contains an arbitration clause, in which the broker agrees to “arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy that may arise between me and my firm, or a customer, or any other person . . .”

Often times when a broker joins a firm the broker receives a bonus in the form of a forgivable loan. This loan is documented by a promissory note or loan agreement which identifies the repayment terms. Disputes arising from defaults of such loans must be arbitrated. Indeed, the arbitration requirement, in addition to the language in the Form U-4, is mandated and codified by FINRA’s Code of Arbitration (“FINRA Code”) that requires “a dispute must be arbitrated under the [FINRA Arbitration] Code if the dispute arises out of the business activities of a member or an associated person and is between or among: Members; Members and Associated Persons; or Associated Persons.” FINRA Code Rule 13200. FINRA’s interpretive material deems it a violation of its rules and “conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principals of trade” for a member firm to require brokers to waive the arbitration requirement. FINRA IM 13000.

This arbitration requirement was recently enforced in 2012, when Merrill Lynch was fined $1,000,000. The firm attempted to skirt the arbitration requirement by utilizing a third party non-FINRA entity to issue the bonus checks, or forgivable loans to Merrill Lynch’s brokers. Merrill Lynch tried to circumvent the arbitration requirement by having the non-FINRA entity include a forum selection clause requiring any and all disputes relating to the loan to be filed before the New York Supreme Court, New York County.

By its fine to Merrill Lynch, FINRA was letting member firms know it would not tolerate firms failing to comply with the mandated arbitration requirement (and avoid paying FINRA the member charges for the arbitration). It was a shot heard around the securities industry world.

The recent decision of the United States Supreme Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”) in Goldman Sachs & Co. v. Golden Empire Sch. Fin. Auth., No. 13-797-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 21, 2014) and Citigroup Global Mkts. Inc. v. N.C. E. Mun. Power Agency, No. 13-2247-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 21, 2014), which confirmed two lower court federal decisions, has now muted that shot. The decision has far reaching implications with FINRA and will test the regulatory entity’s wherewithal. The Second Circuit’s ruling that member firms may utilize forum selection clauses that supersede FINRA’s arbitration requirements opens a gateway of opportunities for firms to sidestep arbitration as it relates to loan agreements with brokers. By way of example, had the decision been in effect in 2012, it appears all Merrill Lynch needed to do to avoid mandatory arbitration was include a forum selection clause in its promissory notes or loan agreements requiring any and all disputes for any actions or proceedings regarding the note to be filed before the New York Supreme Court, New York County. What a difference two years makes!

It will be interesting to see if FINRA utilizes its enforcement authority to fine Goldman and Citibank for avoiding the arbitration requirement, and counter the ruling in one way or another. Will FINRA take the position that the Second Circuit (and corresponding Ninth Circuit) decision does not apply to the internal rules of the entity? If FINRA does not act, it will confirm to firms that the longstanding arbitration requirement in the FINRA Code is on its deathbed.

The Law Offices of Barry M. Bordetsky represents customers and industry representatives in FINRA arbitrations as well as before state and federal courts. If you have questions regarding the process, please contact The Law Offices of Barry M. Bordetsky by calling Barry Bordetsky at (800) 998-7705 or email barry@bordetskylaw.com.

FINRA Members Must Be Careful What They Ask For

22 Friday Aug 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The United States Supreme Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”) handed down a decision yesterday permitting Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) members to avoid arbitration by including in an agreement with a customer a forum selection clause requiring “all actions and proceedings” related to a transaction between the parties to be brought in court. Goldman Sachs & Co. v. Golden Empire Sch. Fin. Auth., No. 13-797-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 21, 2014) and Citigroup Global Mkts. Inc. v. N.C. E. Mun. Power Agency, No. 13-2247-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 21, 2014)

Hello Sword of Damocles.

The decision on its face may be held as a victory by Goldman and other banks, just as Dionysius surely felt the victory of being able to switch places with his king, Damocles. By enforcing the forum provision, the banks are now able to litigate within the court system, utilizing the process to delay the normal year-long process of an arbitration to what will be years tied up in litigation. For those litigants that do not have the wherewithal to finance the dispute, banks will use their vast resources to challenge the litigant’s resolve with multiple motions followed by significant discovery costs.

But beware of the horse string. For those litigants with the resolve and financial ability to withstand a court case, they hold a threat for the banks. Unlike an arbitration that is a private proceeding, where arbitration awards do not carry the weight of a precedential decision that a subsequent arbitration panel must follow, banks are taking a significant risk litigating matters that ordinarily would be private and before FINRA.

Take the discovery process, by way of example. In a FINRA proceeding, discovery is limited. Interrogatories and depositions are rarely permitted. Sworn statements by parties are not asked for or required in the discovery process, but only at the hearing on the merits. Conversely, in a court proceeding, the banks will be subject to submitting sworn statements from the outset of the proceedings. Smart plaintiff’s counsel will file verified complaints, requiring verified answers. Interrogatories will be served, again requiring a verification as to the truthfulness of the responses. Thereafter bank employees will be required to sit for depositions. A deposition is an oral examination of a witness after the witness is sworn in – – the testimony at a deposition carries the same weight as testimony at a trial. Also, banks will be subject to court discovery orders.

The peril of the recent decision is that plaintiffs’ counsel may very well be able to utilize these sworn statements obtained in the first case won for every other case filed on the same issue. And here is the nightmare for the banks: the moment a decision is rendered against a bank, that decision, unlike an arbitration award, is publicly available. Every litigant with similar facts will utilize the decision, with precedential value, to the detriment of the banks.

In a day and age when Wall Street is not the most popular street in America, one would think the last thing the banks would want is the public gaining access to these proceedings.

The Law Offices of Barry M. Bordetsky represents customers and industry representatives in FINRA arbitrations as well as before state and federal courts. If you have questions regarding the process, please contact The Law Offices of Barry M. Bordetsky by calling Barry Bordetsky at (800) 998-7705 or email barry@bordetskylaw.com.

Treat Your Brokerage Account Like Your Car? Absolutely.

01 Friday Aug 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Believe it or not, your car provides a perfect analogy of how you should handle your investment account and the broker working with you. Most people have little if any knowledge of cars or how they work. Similar to how you have your broker guide you with your investments, you bring your car to your local mechanic.

Cars receive oil changes every 3,000 miles, and when it is time for your oil change, you bring the car to the service station. When getting the oil changed your mechanic tells you instead of every 3,000 miles, you should get your oil changed every 500 miles.   This just doesn’t make any sense, but you decide to go ahead anyway, because in your mind, the mechanic is the one who does this work for a living, so he must know what he’s talking about.

Stop there. If it doesn’t make sense to you, chances are, you are right on point.  You don’t need to be an expert in the field to know when something is simply off.  First thing you should do: ask to speak to the supervisor.  This should be no different with your stockbroker.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Industry (“FINRA”) recently filed charges against the New York broker-dealer Newport Coast Securities and five of its current and former brokers, charging them of “knowingly engaging in a manipulative and deceptive and fraudulent scheme to churn the accounts of some two dozen customers to boost their commissions.” FINRA alleges rampant churning of customer accounts and other misdeeds that caused significant losses to retirees and other investors.

FINRA is taking action to correct the alleged wrongs of the firm and brokers, and if the firm and brokers are found to have violated both securities law and FINRA rules, there will be be heavy fines issued, as well as the possibility of suspensions and perhaps expulsions from the industry.   This action by FINRA is similar to what the district attorney’s office does with a criminal that steals money from someone.

The present enforcement action by FINRA relating to churning should be a warning to all investors, old and young. Churning is the act of over-trading an account where an exorbitant amount of commissions are generated from the trading.    By way of example, presume an investor has $100,000 in her account. The broker opens the account with a buy of $100,000 of Facebook stock. The broker then repeatedly sells, buys and then sells again the stock twenty times over a one-year period. Each sale is quickly followed by a repurchase.

When one of the sales results in a quick profit, the broker will undoubtedly call and tell you how happy you should be that he made you money on the trade. But did he? Here’s where the churning analysis comes into play. If the broker did not overly trade the position, but rather bought and held, the position would have grown with the market movement of the stock. Instead, the investor’s portfolio has decreased because the broker’s commissions on the buys and sells have actually eaten into the profits in the account, and in many cases simply decrease the portfolio value. The only parties making money on this trading are the broker and his firm.  This type of trading should raise questions – – questions that must be asked before allowing the activity to continue.  And like your mechanic, ask for the broker’s supervisor before things get out of hand with your account.

In addition to enforcement proceedings, FINRA provides investors the ability to bring a civil action against the broker and his employing firm through the arbitration process, a very condensed court-like action. Those who lost money from Newport Coast or any other firm through churning, or other improper acts and omissions, have the opportunity to seek a remedy on their own. Those investors get their proverbial “day in court” in an expedited arbitration process that streamlines both cost and time to have the merits of the claim heard by a panel of arbitrators.

The Law Offices of Barry M. Bordetsky represents parties in arbitrations involving churning, unsuitable trading and other investment related claims. If you have questions relating to investment issues, please contact The Law Offices of Barry M. Bordetsky by calling Barry Bordetsky at (800) 998-7705 or emailing at barry@bordetskylaw.com.

 

 

Is FINRA Hurting Investors?

30 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Negotiating a settlement of any dispute is difficult. Parties often have an emotional attachment to the claim, and when the claim involves the loss of money, emotions run that much higher. This money could have been targeted for retirement, a child’s college education, or simply an account meant to grow in value over time. An arbitration between an investor on the one hand who lost money and the broker on the other hand who was handling the account, is resolved before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).

Because of the very personal nature of the claim, in many cases a mediator is brought in to work with the parties to try to reach a settlement. It is not unheard of during a mediation the parties will not even meet to say hello at the day and place of the mediation.

You have undoubtedly heard the phrase “thinking outside the box”, something which can result in a good settlement in the course of a mediation. One important tool in settlement discussions is to give away something that does not cost anything, but get something of value in return. A good settlement is often one that both sides are unhappy with; and to get to that point the attorneys and the mediator must be able to use all tools necessary to reach a settlement agreeable to all.

In a FINRA setting, when a broker is named in an arbitration, the proceeding is on the broker’s permanent record maintained on FINRA’s central registration depository (“CRD”). This is a record that is generally available to the public. The arbitration can only be removed from the CRD if there is an award of expungement from a FINRA arbitration panel, and that award is subsequently confirmed by a court.

Parties to an arbitration will engage in settlement discussions prior to discovery, during discovery and often times on the day of an arbitration hearing.  For the investor involved in the settlement process, the goal is simple: get back as much of the money that was lost as possible. A tool referred to above for the investor, giving something that is of no value to the broker to get more settlement money, was the expungement tool. Said differently, in exchange for giving the investor money for the settlement, the broker would secure an agreement from the settling investor that he or she would not contest the broker’s expungement request. Keep in mind, this expungement request requires an independent hearing before a panel of FINRA arbitrators.  Simply including language in a settlement agreement was no guarantee the expungement would be granted.

The SEC recently approved FINRA Rule 2081, a rule that summarily removes this critical tool utilized by both sides when settling customer complaints. The rule reads “No member or associated person shall condition or seek to condition settlement of a dispute with a customer on, or to otherwise compensate the customer for, the customer’s agreement to consent to, or not to oppose, the member’s or associated person’s request to expunge such customer dispute information from the CRD system.”

In a word, FINRA Rule 2081 is foolhardy.  To answer the question raised in the title of this article, this rule not only works against the investing public, but hurts  investors trying to settle a claim. The expungement tool was used in the past to put together a good settlement for an investor, trading off the agreement not to oppose an expungement for a higher dollar settlement, or perhaps a settlement payment in a quicker time period.  It was a good trade-off for all the parties involved, and now it has been removed, making it that much more difficult for an investor to procure a better settlement.

If you have questions relating to expungement or investment issues, please contact The Law Offices of Barry M. Bordetsky by calling Barry M. Bordetsky at (800) 998-7705 or emailing at barry@bordetskylaw.com.

The Importance of The Activity Letter

23 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

You have a brokerage account. One day you open up your mail (you are responsible for opening the mail) and find a letter from your brokerage firm. The letter thanks you for being a customer of the firm.  The letter then begins the process of reiterating the trading objectives you selected when you opened the account or when the account information was updated. The letter may contain additional information such as the amount of trades in your account over a three-month period of time or the commissions generated from the account (the money the broker and firm is making from the trading in your account). Most likely the letter ends with a request that you countersign the letter to confirm your objectives have not changed, that you authorized and approve of the trading in your account. In some instances the letter will end with a statement indicating the firm will presume all is okay with the trading in the account unless the firm hears anything to the contrary from you. If written correctly, the letter invites you to call with any questions.

Gee, isn’t this nice, you’re thinking. The brokerage firm is checking in on me.

Actually, the brokerage firm is checking in on your broker. The firm is utilizing a very important tool to determine whether the activity in the account is what you have directed and is suitable for you. The letter is aptly called an Activity Letter.

The Activity Letter seeks to determine, for instance, if you are controlling the account or if the broker is controlling the account. To be clear, while there is such a thing as de facto control, if your broker is calling you and recommending a buy or sell, you are demonstrating a manner of control over your account when you agree or disagree with the recommendation. Unless your account is discretionary (meaning your broker trades without the need to speak to you) the broker must discuss, on the day of a trade, the particular recommendation to buy or sell.

The Activity Letter also allows the firm to confirm, independently from the broker, whether it is your intention to trade your account aggressively, conservatively, or somewhere in the middle. The Activity Letter confirms you are not only aware of the trading in the account, but approve of it as it takes place.

The Activity Letter is an important tool not only for the firm, but also you. In most instances the letter is from a compliance officer, branch manager or supervisor at the brokerage firm. If you have any questions relating to your account, take the opportunity to call and ask the questions. The benefit of the Activity Letter from someone other than your broker is you should not feel uncomfortable with the call, but rather emboldened to make sure your investments are being handled as you have instructed.

When you sign and return the Activity Letter to the firm, the firm is relying upon that information in terms of supervising both the account and the broker. Do not sign something that is not accurate. As I have written in the past, you are responsible for reading a document, knowing its content and will be bound by the terms of the document that bears your acknowledgement signature. An informed investor is a smart investor. If you have questions, whether to the broker or supervisor, take the time to ask them. Do not assume. We all know what happens then.

If you have questions relating to this topic or other investment matters, please contact The Law Offices of Barry M. Bordetsky by calling Barry M. Bordetsky at (800) 998-7705 or emailing at barry@bordetskylaw.com.