Stockbroker, Compliance, Legal, and Regulatory Jobs
NOTICE TO EMPLOYERS: BrokeAndBroker offers the perfect Wall Street demographic of industry professionals: stockbrokers, advisors, lawyers, regulators, compliance officers, and Click POST A JOB and your position will be promptly listed.
Only $50 for 30 days!
In today's BrokeAndBroker.com Blog we consider an arbitration featuring a customer who is not actually a customer but somehow deemed one, but, no matter, because she's being sued by a registered representative, who apparently was never assigned to handle any of her business. Then we have some companies over which FINRA's arbitration forum has no jurisdiction but those entities are involved, in a way, sort of . . . maybe? Finally, the non-customer customer filed some kind of a complaint about a promissory note, which may or may not have existed, but no one seems to have proven that condition; and, for an extra dose of idiocy, the non-customer customer apparently sued over the note but she didn't have any legal right to do so.
Hello . . . how are you? Fine? Oh, that's nice. Listen, sorry for this early interruption and digression but I wanted to give you a head's up. The FINRA Arbitration Decision that I'm analyzing struck me as among the most mystifying that I have ever read. Keep in mind that I live a pathetic and lonely life during which I literally read virtually every published FINRA Arbitration Decision; and, as such, for me to cite a particular Decision as among the least intelligible that I've ever read is a notable if not dubious honor. So, come with me, Abbott and Costello, and the Marx Brothers as we all slide down the rabbit hole and journey to the Twilight Zone. READ