In celebration of this Sunday's Mother's Day, the BrokeAndBroker.com
Blog presents a recent FINRA arbitration involving a maternal matter.
Among the cast of characters are a mother, her two sons, and a sister-in-law;
and, just to make things interesting, let's toss in the proceeds from the
redemption of mom's stock. Nothing like
a chunk of change disputed among siblings to set off a round of internecine
In a Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") Arbitration Statement of Claim filed
in September 2015, Claimant Schirtzinger, representing himself pro se, asserted
negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and
misrepresentations/non-disclosures in connection with the issuance of a check
to his mother by Respondent Putnam. Claimant sought unspecified damages, fees,
and costs. In the Matter of the FINRA Arbitration Between Joseph M.
Schirtzinger, Claimant, vs. Putnam Retail Management Limited
Partnership, Respondent(FINRA Arbitration
15-02272, May 3, 2016).
Respondent Putnam generally
denied the allegations and asserted various affirmative
Mom, Brother, and
I could try - I mean, you know,
I could give it one helluva shot but, frankly, I don't think anything that I
could say by way of characterizing Claimant's claims could do any better than
the synopsis offered in the FINRA Arbitration Decision:
of action related to Claimant's allegation that Putnam Investors Services, Inc.
("Putnam") issued a check to Claimant's mother due to a request for redemption
of stock by Claimant's brother and sister-in-law. Claimant alleged that the
check was deposited into a bank account registered in the name of Claimant's
mother and Claimant's brother, who was the power of attorney for their mother.
Claimant asserted that his brother then wrongfully withdrew the
After having conducted a hearing
on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, the FINRA Arbitration
Panel granted the motion. In setting forth their rationale, the arbitrators
1. Claimant pleaded no facts to constitute his
having been or currently being a customer of Respondent, or having been or
being the legal representative of a customer of
2. Claimant pleaded no facts
indicating that Respondent was associated with the account(s), security(ies),
or conduct at issue within the meaning of applicable FINRA Rules;
3. Claimant pleaded no facts
indicating that FINRA has jurisdiction over the dispute within the meaning of
applicable FINRA Rules, or that the claim is subject to arbitration under
FINRA's Code of Arbitration.
Claimant didn't prove
he was a customerof Respondent Putnam:
he was the legal
representative of the mother;
there was any
connection between the accounts/securities/conduct at
issue and the Respondent; and
jurisdiction over the dispute,
this Panel of
picky arbitrators goes ahead and dismisses the arbitration. I mean, geez,
what's a guy gotta do to win an arbitration these
days? Keeping with the spirit of Mother's Day, you think the Schirtzinger family is talking to each other after this lawsuit?