April 28, 2008

NY Court Upholds U-5 Immunity

In another installment of the incompetent/malevolent broker/dealer guidebook, Barclays Capital partially prevailed on a Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award filed against one of its former employees. In Barclays Capital Inc. vs. Elizabeth Bing Shen, 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2327, a NY Supreme Court judge (the lowest level trial court, interestingly enough) found that the ruling in Rosenberg v. MetLife barred recovery of punitive damages.

Rosenberg, as those who have been following this issue will recall, held that incorrect statements on a U-5 Termination Notice were absolutely privileged. In my opinion, regardless of whether you represent a firm or the broker, this is a wrong-headed decision that was decided by judges who ignored the impact on a broker's life a U-5 can have. There has been some discussion by commentators that there are ways "around" Rosenberg. Certainly, one of them is to avoid New York law in contracts. There are others as well, but if I shared them I'd have to shoot you.

Back to Ms. Shen. She was apparently owed a bonus and her U-5 was found to be erroneous by the arbitrators. By the description in the court's opinion, she does not qualify for "Employee of the Year" status by any means, but the arbitrators clearly felt that she didn't deserve the disclosure she received. They awarded her punitive damages.

The court found that the punitive damages could only have been for the U-5 defamation claim and, therefore, vacated that part of the award. We are currently representing brokers whose U-5s, we believe, are defamatory. We are not concerned about the New York choice of law provision because we feel that there are valid arguments against it when the the broker is in Florida. Nevertheless, this creates more stress and anxiety and creates a "free defamation zone" for broker-dealers, honorable and not.

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

Posted by Admin |

Posted In: Labor & Employment , Securities Industry

April 21, 2008

FINRA Changes Arbitration Hearing Practices

In an email from FINRA, formerly NASD, dated April 14, 2008, the agency announced that the arbitrators' procedures on damages and closing the hearing will be changing. This is, ostensibly, to unify the scripts between NASD and NYSE arbitration codes.

The first change has to do with damages. In an effort to have the percentage "win" rate more accurately reflect what was sought at hearing, the arbitrators will be asking for a summary of the "final request" for damages. It is off of this amount that the statisticians calculate customer "win" rates and percentages. Since the statisticians use the amount sought as described in the award, this amount will now be based upon what the party asks for at hearing.

Frankly, I don't see how this will make a difference. If it makes FINRA feel better, so be it.

The next change is more interesting. The NASD script always ended with the chairperson asking the parties if they had a "full and fair opportunity to be heard." Every once in a while a party would say "no." Interestingly, there's nothing that I recall from the chair's script that tells the arbitrators what to do in the case of "no." Basically, it causes a fire drill. Or the chair says that the objection is not relevant or necessary. I once used the threat of a "no" in a case where I felt the arbitrator was being unfair in the allocation of time to present my case. The arbitrator, an otherwise fair-minded individual, changed course and I was given the opportunity to present my client's case in full (successfully, as well).

The new script will ask the following "Do the parties have any other issues or objections that you would like to raise that you have not previously raised?" This was, I think, the intent of the prior question anyway. But there is a big perceived difference between "full and fair" and "any other issues or objections."

FINRA states that "full and fair" is nowhere to be found in its arbitration codes. Given some of the results I've received, "fair" certainly isn't in there.

These are hardly earth-shattering changes. But ever since I attended my first arbitration (when dinosaurs roamed the earth) I have heard the "full and fair" language. I'll miss it.

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

Posted by Admin |

Posted In: Securities Industry

Connect

facebook twitter linkedin View Author's Justia Profile Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

Contact Us

888-777-3884

Recent Entries