• Home
  • About
  • The Law Offices of Barry M. Bordetsky
  • Disclaimer

bordetskylawblog

~ Bringing Issues That Matter To You

bordetskylawblog

Tag Archives: SEC

Dodd-Frank Dilemma: Protect Yourself or Your Company?

30 Tuesday Dec 2014

Posted by Barry M. Bordetsky, Esq. in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Dodd-Frank, Employment, Improper Firing, Retaliation, Retaliatory Demotion, Retaliatory Firing, SEC, SEC Examination, Securities and Exchange Commission, Securities Violations, Whistleblower

If you have been fired because you informed your supervisor or human resource department that your employer (or other employees) has violated securities laws, before filing a whistleblower complaint under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank”), there is one critical point that is required before the filing of the complaint: you must have reported the violation to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).   The issue was recently clarified before the federal court located in the Southern District of New York in the case Daniel Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy LLC and WPP Group USA Inc., 1:14-cv-523-GHW-SN (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2014).

Relying upon a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case (while also disagreeing with a New York federal decision), the court made it clear the plain language in Dodd-Frank creates a private cause of action for those employees retaliated against by their employers only if the employee had informed the SEC of the alleged securities violation. This decision will inevitably create a delay in reporting by an employee to an employer, and that could very well preclude the employer from putting a stop to the improper actions of a fellow employee who is violating the securities laws.

The employee discovering the securities violation must take a moment and consider the ramifications of who is first informed of the violation. Without informing the SEC, the former employee will not have a viable Dodd-Frank whistleblower claim. Conversely, to employers in New York, your employees will not be immediately helping to resolve a problem without taking the time to first protect themselves.   This will delay any internal investigations, delay the stopping of improper behavior by employees who are violating securities laws and inevitably invite an examination by the SEC.

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.

Is FINRA Hurting Investors?

30 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Barry M. Bordetsky, Esq. in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Arbitration, Broker, Central Registration Depository, CRD, Expungement, FINRA, FINRA Hurting Public, FINRA Rule 2081, Investing Public, Investor Loss, SEC, Settlement, Stockbroker

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.

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • September 2015
  • April 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • March 2014

Categories

  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Law Offices of Barry M. Bordetsky

570 Lexington Avenue, 44th Floor
New York, New York 10022

22 N. Park Place, 2nd Floor
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
(800) 998-7705

Archives

  • September 2015
  • April 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • March 2014

Law Offices of Barry M. Bordetsky

Law Offices of Barry M. Bordetsky

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 262 other subscribers

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • bordetskylawblog
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • bordetskylawblog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar