An irreverent Wall Street Blog
by Bill Singer
 
Join BrokeAndBroker blog on Facebook  Follow the BrokeAndBroker blog on Twitter  Connect with BrokeAndBroker on LinkedIn  Join Bill Singer on Google+  Subscribe to RSS Feed

Former Schwab Employee Lost Defamation Arbitration But Employer Gets Slammed By Panel
Written: November 17, 2011

In a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Arbitration Statement of Claim filed in July 2010, Claimant Johnson, representing himself pro se, asserted defamation, duress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence and invasion of privacy as they related to a letter purportedly sent by Respondent Schwab to Claimant’s then current and now previous employer. 

Claimant sought $500,000 in compensatory damages; $10 Million in punitive damages; interest;  fees; costs;  and a “full letter of retraction to Claimant’s previous employer.” At the close of the arbitration hearings, Claimant added a request of an additional net award of $75,000 for four years of lost compensation William James Johnson, Claimant, vs. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Respondent (FINRA Arbitration 10-03164, November 11, 2011).

Respondent Schwab generally denied the allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses.

SIDE BAR: Given that I found the FINRA Arbitration Decision in this case to be vague as to the precise nature of this dispute, I communicated with Claimant Johnson in an effort to clarify some of the issues. 

Based upon Claimant Johnson’s explanations and the facts specified and implied in the FINRA Arbitration Decision (and a whole lot of inference on my part), it seems that Respondent Schwab sent two letters to a former and also to a then-current employer of Johnson. Apparently, Schwab complained in its correspondence about representations pertaining to the scope and nature of Johnson’s duties during his employment at Schwab.  Allegedly, Schwab  characterized Claimant’s online biographies and biographical blurbs in several of his published works as inaccurate and untruthful when it came to describing his role at Schwab; and Schwab requested that such marketing materials be removed from the former and current employers’ websites and hard-copy publications.  Claimant Johnson believed that the communications damaged his relationship with his then employer.

Round One: Sanctions

Claimant Johnson filed a Motion for Sanctionsalleging abuse of the discovery process by Respondent Schwab. Claimant asserted that Respondent Schwab had made

false statements to the FINRA Arbitration Panel and was recklessly seeking irrelevant information. Claimant further asserted that the majority of Respondent’s discovery production was marked “redacted” or “attorney-client privilege” and additionally, that Respondent was avoiding his discovery requests.

Respondent Schwab denied the discovery abuse allegations and countered that it was Claimant who was not cooperating and had not made an effort to resolve the discovery issues. The FINRA Panel denied Claimant’s Motion for Sanctions.

Round Two: Sanctions

Thereafter, Respondent Schwab filed its own Motion for Sanctions alleging that Claimant Johnson had failed to comply with a July 2011 Order from the FINRA Arbitration Chair. Claimant argued, among other things, that the information sought was irrelevant and outside the relevant time period. The Panel denied Respondent’s Motion for Sanctions.

One Last Shot

Thereafter, Claimant Johnson filed a Motion to Object to Respondent’s Supplemental Notices of Compliance, Witness Lists and Other Discovery. The Panel ultimately determined the motion to be moot and did not rule on it.

Decision

The FINRA Arbitration Panel found Respondent not liable on any of Claimant’s claims, but ordered Respondent to pay to Claimant the $600 refundable portion of his FINRA filing fee.

Okay, as they would say at the scene of a fender bender, nothing to see here, move on — except, the FINRA Arbitration Panel added this odd comment after ruling against Claimant Johnson:

The Panel wishes to note its view that Respondent’s investigation of Claimant’s biography was insufficient and incomplete by failing to contact either Respondent’s Orlando office or any of Claimant’s previous co-workers. We recommend that Respondent review its procedures to insure that in the future in similar circumstances that each and every statement taken together or standing alone, is accurate.

Bill Singer’s Comment

Ooooooooookay, ummm . . . what the Hell???

Seems to me that this whole dispute was about Claimant Johnson’s contention that Respondent Schwab sent out letters to a former employer and a current employer that he felt damaged his ongoing relationship with the latter and defamed him with both.  Claimant loses his case but the FINRA Arbitration Panel makes Respondent Schwab pay him $600 — and then the Panel admonishes Schwab that it’s “investigation of Claimant’s biography was insufficient and incomplete. . .”

For starters, why is the Panel requiring Respondent Schwab — the victor in this case — to pay $600 to the losing Claimant?  If you can make sense out of that, congratulations.

Then there’s the Panel’s shot against Schwab for undertaking an insufficient and incomplete investigation of its assertions.  Insufficient and incomplete as in wrong and damaging the Claimant? – or insufficient and incomplete as in no big deal?

Clearly, I’m not understanding what the Panel said or meant to say. Did the Panel find Schwab’s statements defamatory or not:  Simply going by the Decision, you’d have to say the Panel found no defamation but for the fact that the Panel is also chastising Schwab for not properly checking out the information upon which its letters were based.  Which sort of drives me crazy because I’m not understanding why an arbitration panel would complain about a given Respondent’s purported investigative sloppiness if the disputed statements were found to be accurate and not defamatory? 

On top of that confusion, I can’t even begin to wrap my arms around the point of the Panel’s adding that Schwab should ”review its procedures to insure that in the future in similar circumstances that each and every statement taken together or standing alone, is accurate. . .”  Does that mean that Schwab’s letter(s) contained some defamatory comments?  I’m still not getting why this Panel did not conclude that Schwab drafted letters based upon incomplete and inaccurate information, transmitted those flawed allegations to two third-parties, and, as a result, defamed Claimant Johnson.

All of which reminds me of a restaurant review that is glowing about the food and service, only to end with the critic giving the establishment one star out of a possible five.  You scratch your head.  You re-read the review. It doesn’t matter — you just can’t reconcile what was written with the rating.

Ultimately, Johnson v. Schwab seems to find that Claimant was defamed but dismisses his case.  I fully appreciate that such may be my personal inference and others may read this case differently, but I still don’t like this Decision.  Bending over backwards to be fair, the best that I will say is that this is a case the FINRA Arbitration Panel:

  • reached the right verdict but woefully failed to explain the facts and rationale;
  • reached the wrong verdict and woefully failed to explain the facts and its rationale; or
  • issued a Decision that will forever remain inexplicable and indecipherable. 

Regardless of which of the three bullet-points is correct, FINRA owes the industry and the public far more than a jig-saw puzzle with a missing piece.  As if you haven’t heard me voice that same complaint over and over and over again.


 
[^top^]

Previous Entries
December 17, 2014
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and a recent FINRA regulatory settlement involving a customer's email request for a wire transfer certa... Read On
December 16, 2014
A Personal Note From Bill Singer:It is with great sadness that I note the passing of my friend and veteran industry compliance professional Richard Be... Read On
December 15, 2014
If a public customer wants to place an idiotic order or insists on engaging in trading that seems destined to commit "economic suicide," what, if any,... Read On
December 13, 2014
Military Veterans Win $7.5 Million Employment Dispute Against Goldman SachsWhen BrokeAndBroker.com Blog's Bill Singer describes a FINRA Arbitration De... Read On
December 12, 2014
When BrokeAndBroker.com Blog's Bill Singer describes a FINRA Arbitration Decision as a "disgrace," you have to know that he's really worked up and ang... Read On
December 11, 2014
On December 8, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ("2Cir") In re: Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (... Read On
December 10, 2014
BREAKING STORYREAD: FULL-TEXT 2nd Circuit OpinionStripped to its basics, federal prosecutors had charged that portfolio managers Anthony Chiasson and ... Read On
December 10, 2014
And now a trip back to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI’s”) online archive: "The Vault." This time we examine the just uploaded FBI files in... Read On
BrokeAndBroker.com Job Search


Related Topics
Tag Cloud
Internet FINRA Bear Stearns Bloomberg SEC NASD NYSE Money Laundering Due Diligence Waiver Forbes China Chepucavage Broy Woody Allen Madoff NAC NPR Marketplace Stanford UBS Ketchum Antitrust NASDAQ RRBDLAW Schapiro Bill Singer BrokerAndBroker USERRA Brokeandbroker.com Morgan Keegan Arbitration Counterclaim BrokeAndBroker.com Khuzami BrokeAndBroker Aleynikov Goldman Sachs brokeandbroker Promissory Note U4 Bill SInger EFL CFTC Huffington Post Flash Crash arbitration RBC RRBDLAW.com Ponzi Affinity Fraud Wachovia Raymond James BrokeandBroker.com Expungement Fraud Securities Fraud Outside Business Activity Registered Rep Magazine FOREX BrokerAndBroker.com FBI Banc of America Pro Se Supreme Court Morgan Stanley Smith Barney E*Trade Margin email Galleon Penson U5 Defamation Protocol Wells Fargo Punitive Damages Citigroup Merrill Lynch ARS Employee Forgivable Loan Street Legal Morgan Stanley AWC Fidelity Bankruptcy Broke And Broker HFT David Sobel Day Trading Ameriprise Commissions Spouse Schwab Commission CRD Kenneth Starr IRS CNBC Complaint ATM Skimming Hacking Phishing Malware Naskovets Poteroba Koval Lincoln Financial Selling Away Outside Business Activities Rakoff 2nd Circuit Second Circuit IRA 401k Forgery Tax RRBDlaw.com Email Netschi Moore Whistleblower Street Sweeper Tran Bharara Facebook Online Severance Bonus Eligibility Rule TD Ameritrade Hedge Fund SAC 1099 Smith Barney Lehman Brothers SIPC IC3 Scottrade Lehman JPMorgan Chase Hertz Insider Trading Bank of America Department of Justice Elles Bribe Auction Rate Securities Raiding Spam Edward Jones Medicare Diabetes Dow Schumer Thain Walter Bid Rigging Real Estate Discrimination Wall Street Statutory Disqualification Form U4 Form U5 Indictment Boyland DOJ Corruption bill singer FTC Do Not Call FINRA Arbitration Costa Rica Settlement LIBOR Varney Plea Rule 8210 Eligibility RRBDlaw Appeal Fowler LPL Johnson US Airways Reg D MSSB Vault Loan SunTrust Discovery Employment Rosenthal Recruiting Lawyer Trading Platform JP Morgan Employment Tuesday Wrongful Termination Bank Guarantee WaMu Solicitation REIT Martin Credit Cards Rule 3050 Away Account Credit Repair PN Advisor Placement Group Forex Mortgage Private Placement Moon CGMI Merrill Anderson Exam Lee Borrowing Tax Lien Conversion Oppenheimer Wedbush Felony Misdemeanor Expenses ING Lien OTR Estate Jobs Florida Credit Card Elderly Flash Drive Annuity Expense Reimbursement FNMA BrokeAndBroke TIC DWI Promissory Notes Suitability Will POA Power of Attorney Casino NSF MF Global Counterfeit Preet Bharara Corzine Hacker RIA Prison Disclosure NASAA Aguilar FCPA Subway Identity Theft Gold Dell Bar Injunction Bank Deutsche Bank Hospital God HSBC Private Placements Eric Stein Wire Fraud FINOP CCO Audit Joshua Brown Backstage Wall Street Obstruction of Justice Reuters Retaliation Variable Annuity Arbitraiton Outside Account Options Telephone Wine Social Media ADA Pacifico Non-Prosecution Agreement Confirm Tax Fraud Retirement OBA Equity Indexed Annuities EIA MetLife Continuing Education Cheating OIP Tax Liens Willful CE Unregistered Impersonation Annuities BBVA Business Expenses ETF JOBS Act Mail Fraud Parking Variable Annuities Signatures BitTorrent Impersonator Wire Transfer Wire Crowdfunding Nasdaq Away Accounts WSP Laptop Dodd Frank Checks RMBS AML PST Solicited Unsolicited Congress SRO Wife Discretion Non-Solicitation Restaurant Commodities Private Securities Transaction Offer of Settlement Money Market employment jobs Great Recession Chase Investment Services Arrest Barclays Liens Failure To Supervise Apple Time And Price T&P Willfully Husband Letter of Authorization LOA Sexism Debit Card Knight Test Practice Sale Unfair Competition Signature Judgments Undisclosed Settlement Trainee Fee Trust Laser Side Bar Mattera Female Sales Assistant Kennedy Charge Sexist NML Argentina Embezzlement Silver Investor Alert Judgment Bank Fraud Deceased TSSB Mary Jo White Trustee Motion To Dismiss Frumento Conspiracy 6th Circuit Proctor Rule 3040 Class Action Beneficiary NYAG Schneiderman Gallagher White Self Regulation Short Sale Compromise Website TRO Supervision Vacatur SDNY BrokeAndBroker Bill Singer Piwowar Stifel Rule 1122 Article V signature Confidential Inside Information VA Regulation SP Customer Rule 3270 Rule 3240 Annual Compliance Questionnaire OWB 2Cir Stockbrokers Altered Records
 
Email Bill Singer Connect with Bill Singer on Facebook Follow Bill Singer on Twitter Link up with Bill Singer on LinkedIn Join Bill Singer on Google+