On August 1, 2018, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Updated Second Amended Statement of Claim as Ineligible for Arbitration under Rule 12206 ("Motion to Dismiss"). On September 14, Claimant filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On October 1, Respondent filed a reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss. On October 2, Claimant filed a sur-reply in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On October 5, Respondent filed a response to Claimant's sur-reply, and on October 8, Claimant submitted another response.On November 9, Claimant submitted a Notice of Supplemental Authority in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss ("Supplemental Authority"), including orders from other FINRA arbitration cases. On November 13, Respondent filed a response to the Supplemental Authority. On November 21, Claimant filed a response to Respondent's response, and on November 25, Respondent filed another response. On November 27, Claimant filed a Second Notice of Supplemental Authority. On December 3, Claimant filed another Notice of Supplemental Authority. On December 4, 2018, the Panel ordered that the "parties shall cease additional briefings in this matter except upon a showing of new evidence or new law having precedential value. FINRA rules provide only for moving papers, opposition papers and reply papers. In general, additional briefing is not permitted and the panel will not consider it. Decisions from other arbitration panels have no precedential value."On February 7, 2019, Respondent filed demonstrative exhibits in support of the Motion to Dismiss. On February 13, Claimant filed demonstrative exhibits in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.On February 14, 2019, the Panel held a recorded pre-hearing conference to hear oral argument on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.
James A. Billington ("Billington") was an Associated Person employed by Respondent from approximately 1959 until 1998, when he retired. As part of his employment, Respondent provided him with MER stock and stock options. In January 2009, after Bank of America (BAC) acquired Respondent, the MER stock was converted to BAC stock. The securities were held in the name of the Trust, with Billington as trustee. On January 15, 2009, Billington sold all his BAC stock at a substantial loss.Billington passed away on September 7, 2014. His daughter Christina became the successor trustee of the Trust and is the claimant in this matter.Claimant filed the Statement of Claim on June 23, 2017, based on the loss on the sale of the stock. Respondent then filed a federal court action, seeking to stay this arbitration pending resolution of the court proceeding, among other things. The federal court ultimately denied Respondent's request, and ordered the parties to complete this arbitration.Respondent then filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the case was barred by the six-year limitations period in FINRA Code Rule 12206(a).Claimant opposed the Motion to Dismiss on several grounds: (1) Rule 12206 was inapplicable because the case had been directed to arbitration by a court; (2) the six-year period should be equitably tolled due to Respondent's alleged fraud and concealment; and (3) the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss should be delayed to allow Claimant to complete discovery allegedly necessary to adequately oppose the motion. Respondent then filed its reply, arguing that the opposition was insufficient.Rule 12206(a) provides that a claim may not be filed more than six years after "the occurrence or event giving rise to the claim." It is up to FINRA, not the courts, to determine the scope and application of Rule 12206(a). Huitt v. Wilbanks 2017 Lexis U.S. District 173164 at *11 (USDC D. Colo.), citing Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (2002) 537 U.S. 79, 85, 123 S. Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491. If a claim is filed beyond the six-year deadline, it must be dismissed.All of the key events underlying the claim occurred prior to January 15, 2009, more than six years before the filing of the Statement of Claim. Any damages Billington allegedly sustained became fixed upon the sale of his BAC stock in January 2009. The extension provided in Rule 12206(d) is inapplicable, since the Statement of Claim originated with FINRA, and not with a court filing. Moreover, the issues relating to Respondent's financial problems had been publicized at length prior to BAC's acquisition of Respondent by January 2009. In fact, the Statement of Claim refers to an article by author William D. Cohan entitled, "The Final Days of Merrill Lynch." That article was published in The Atlantic magazine in September 2009!The facts that the Securities Exchange Commission did not release its investigative report, and that BAC did not agree to the $17 billion fine until 2014, are immaterial. Those developments were merely the culmination of events and reporting which had occurred years earlier.Finally, the Panel denies Claimant's request to defer its ruling until Claimant completes discovery. Given that the relevant facts occurred well over six years prior to the filing of the Statement of Claim, and given that there was adequate information available to put Billington on notice of Respondent's financial problems and potential improprieties, both through information issued by Respondent, and information available publicly, there is no basis for an argument that further discovery would support Claimant's contention that the Statement of Claim was timely filed.For all of these reasons, the Panel unanimously grants Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and dismisses Claimant's claims.
[O]n Sunday, September 14, 2008, Bank of America announced it was in talks to purchase Merrill Lynch for $38.25 billion in stock. The Wall Street Journal reported later that day that Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America for 0.8595 share of Bank of America common stock for each Merrill Lynch common share, or about US$50 billion or $29 per share. This price represented a 70.1% premium over the September 12 closing price or a 38% premium over Merrill's book value of $21 a share, but that also meant a discount of 61% from its September 2007 price.
1. This is an action to enjoin proceedings in three FINRA arbitrations (the "FINRA Arbitrations") that Defendants have recently initiated in this district against MLPF&S. In the FINRA Arbitrations, Defendants assert identical untimely fraud claims seeking recovery for the alleged decline in the value of their Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., ("ML & Co.") stock holdings. ML & Co.-- not MLPF&S --issued the stock that Defendants claim declined in value. As described below, Defendants assert various misrepresentations and omissions by ML & Co. that allegedly resulted in the decline in the stock's value. Defendants do not make any allegation against MLPF&S relating to its role as broker-dealer, let alone assert that MLPF&S's acts as broker-dealer caused their loss. These claims do not belong in arbitration at all, let alone in an arbitration against MLPF&S.1=====Footnote 1: Defendants' operative FINRA statements of claim (without voluminous attachments, consisting of public records) are attached as Exhibits B-D to this Complaint. In addition to these three FINRA claims, Defendants' counsel has filed, to date, sixteen other FINRA claims against MLPF&S across the country making identical allegations. None of these claims are appropriate for FINRA arbitration. MLPF&S intends to seek to enjoin all such inappropriately filed FINRA claims. MLPF&S reserves all rights arising under any class action settlement agreement pertaining to classes as to which any Defendant or predecessor-in-interest was a member, or other agreements as to which any Defendant or predecessor-in-interest was a party. MLPF&S further reserves all rights, arguments, and defenses, including with respect to jurisdiction and venue, in the event Defendants elect to dismiss their FINRA arbitrations and file claims in this or any other court.
2. In the arbitration statements of claim, each Defendant asserts that he or she was injured as a result of ML & Co.'s failure to disclose its alleged risks and activities related to subprime mortgage originations and subprime mortgage-related securities prior to 2008. Defendants assert that ML & Co.'s concealment of "billions of dollars of fraudulent mortgages and fraudulent RMBS and CDOs" (two types of mortgage-related securities) caused the Defendants to hold onto ML & Co. stock and suffer injury when the value of the stock declined.3. Defendants allege that they were injured by the decline in value of their ML & Co stock holdings. Defendants also cite ML & Co.'s conduct and public statements of ML & Co. management -- including its CEO and CFO -- as the cause of those injuries. Defendants do not, however, name ML & Co. as a respondent in their FINRA Arbitration claims. ML & Co. was not, and has never been, a FINRA member. To bring an action against ML & Co., Defendants would have to file suit in court. MLPF&S, by contrast, is a FINRA member -- but it did not engage in the conduct that Defendants cite as causing their injuries. Nevertheless, MLPF&S now finds itself named as the respondent in the Defendants' FINRA Arbitration claims.4. The reason Defendants have filed these claims against the wrong party (MLPF&S) and in the wrong forum (FINRA) is obvious: Defendants' claims are time-barred under applicable statutes of limitation and contain obvious facial defects. Private securities class actions and other investor actions against ML & Co. made allegations similar to Defendants' as early as 2007. Indeed, the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit have held that shareholders were on notice for statute of limitations purposes no later than May 2009 of such claims against ML & Co.5. Defendants have brought their claims in FINRA arbitration to delay focus on the applicable statutes of limitations and other facial defects in their claims. If Defendants' claims were to proceed before FINRA, despite their obvious defects (namely, that the claims target MLPF&S for ML & Co.'s alleged conduct, are untimely, and fail to state a claim), MLPF&S may not have the immediate ability to seek dismissal of claims in FINRA without participating in discovery and engaging in a full and unnecessarily wasteful hearing on the merits years into the arbitration.6. FINRA, however, is an improper forum for Defendants' claims. A claim against a FINRA member (such MLPF&S) is arbitrable before FINRA only if the claim is connected to the FINRA member's business activities. But Defendants' claims arise out of injuries that ML & Co.-not a FINRA member-allegedly caused to its shareholders through its alleged conduct and public statements over a decade ago. While Defendants allegedly held their ML & Co. stock holdings in MLPF&S brokerage accounts, Defendants' claims and alleged injuries do not arise out of any actions MLPF&S took as their broker. Defendants' claims, therefore, are not arbitrable. Their attempt to shoehorn untimely and meritless allegations targeting ML & Co.'s alleged conduct into FINRA arbitration claims against MLPF&S is improper.
The Billington Arbitration25. On June 23, 2017, Billington filed a Statement of Claim in FINRA arbitration ("Initial Statement of Claim"). In the Initial Statement of Claim, Billington asserted that "Merrill Lynch" had misstated its exposure to risky mortgages during the housing bubble, causing the value of the Billington Trust's ML & Co. stock holdings to decline once the full extent of ML & Co.'s exposure to subprime mortgages allegedly became known.26. Billington named "Merrill Lynch, Inc." as the respondent in the Initial Statement of Claim. There is no such corporate entity. In subsequent correspondence, Billington's counsel confirmed that he had actually intended to name ML & Co. as the respondent. Moreover, on or around July 26, 2017, Billington entered into a tolling agreement relating to the claims raised in the FINRA arbitration in which Billington agreed that ML & Co. had been "incorrectly identified in the [arbitration] as Merrill Lynch, Inc.," confirming that Billington's claims targeted alleged conduct by ML & Co. The tolling agreement pertained only to claims against ML & Co., not MLPF&S. ML & Co., as noted above, is not a FINRA member.27. The Initial Statement of Claim on behalf of Billington requested assignment to FINRA's Los Angeles office and the arbitration was assigned there.28. On June 28, 2017, Billington's attorney followed up with a letter attaching the Initial Statement of Claim. In the June 28 letter (Ex. A), Billington's counsel alleged that James Billington, the former trustee of the Billington Trust, "was misled by Merrill Lynch, Stanley O'Neal, John Thain, and others on investor conference calls regarding the financial health of the firm. As the victim of these false statements he lost over $100 million on his MER shares." Messrs. O'Neal and Thain were former CEOs of ML & Co.-the publicly traded company- and any "investor conference calls" they would have spoken on were ML & Co. calls.29. On September 21, 2017, Billington filed an Amended Statement of Claim ("Amended Statement of Claim") (Ex. B). The Amended Statement of Claim substituted MLPF&S, a FINRA member, as the sole respondent.30. Although the Amended Statement of Claim names MLPF&S as respondent, its substantive allegations are virtually identical to those made in the Initial Statement of Claim (which, as noted, Billington's counsel admitted had been directed at ML & Co.). In addition, the focus of the Amended Statement of Claim remains the activities of ML & Co and the decline of the Billington Trust's ML & Co. stock holdings as allegedly caused by ML & Co. conduct and statements. The Amended Statement of Claim again alleges that "Merrill Lynch and its top officers committed fraud upon the public, including Mr. Billington, by concealing . . . billions of dollars in fraudulent mortgages, fraudulent RMBS, and fraudulent CDOs" (Ex. B at 9) and this alleged fraud "devastated the firm and shareholders, including Mr. Billington." (Ex. B at 10). It cites statements and actions by former ML & Co. executives and employees-including ML & Co.'s former CEOs Stanley O'Neal and John Thain, and its former CFO Jeffrey Edwards-as constituting the alleged fraud. As noted above, the allegations in the Amended Statement of Claim mirror allegations in shareholder and other investor actions against ML & Co. dating back to 2007.31. The Amended Statement of Claim asserts that as a result of ML & Co.'s alleged fraud, the Billington Trust suffered over $100 million in losses in its ML & Co. stock holdings. The Amended Statement of Claim asserts claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and RICO. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and treble damages under RICO.
[D]efendants who were its employees to hold their compensation in the form of MER common stock and options in brokerage accounts maintained at MLPF&S. Each Defendant's brokerage account had an arbitration clause requiring all disputes to be resolved at FINRA.
Plaintiff Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "MLPFS") sues Defendants Christina Billington as Successor Trustee for the James A. Billington Trust, Steven Moreno, and Donald Straszheim (collectively "Defendants") for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and for injunctive relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). See generally Complaint ("Compl."), Docket No. 1. MLPFS seeks a judicial determination that it has no obligation to participate in arbitration proceedings brought by Defendants before the Financial Industry Regulation Authority ("FINRA"), and an order enjoining the three ongoing FINRA Arbitrations initiated by Defendants against MLPFS. Id. . . .=====Footnote 1: The Complaint avers that:
ML & Co. was, until 2008, a publicly traded company listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "MER." ML & Co. was acquired by Bank of America Corporation ("BAC") in a merger that was consummated on January 1, 2009. Prior to the merger of ML & Co. into BAC, MLPF&S was a wholly owned subsidiary of ML & Co. At all relevant times, ML & Co. and MLPF&S were separate corporate entities.See Complaint at ¶ 13
Footnote 2: The Court would note that in the claims filed with FINRA, the Defendants have clearly (and arguably intentionally) obfuscated the distinctions between (and the conduct of) MLPFS and ML & Co., referring to both as "Merrill Lynch" without any differentiation. See e.g. Amended Statement of Claim filed in the Matter of Arbitration between Christina Billington v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Case No. 17-01678, attached as Exhibit B to Complaint, Docket No. 1-2 at 6-10 of 38. However, given that pleading tactic, this Court cannot determine if in fact all of the germane allegations in the FINRA Claims only concern actions taken by nonparty ML & Co., not MLPFS.
curated by veteran Wall Street lawyer Bill Singer http://www.rrbdlaw.com/4488/securities-industry-commentator/Merrill Lynch Wins A Round Against Former Employees in FINRA Arbitration (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog)SEC Charges Registered Investment Adviser and Former Chief Operating Officer With Defrauding Client (SEC Release)SEC Charges Former Municipal Officer with Fraud in Connection with Public Pension Funds (SEC Release)Boston Woman Sentenced for $2.7 Million Bank Fraud Scheme (DOJ Release)SEC Staff to Hold Fintech Forum to Discuss Distributed Ledger Technology and Digital AssetsForum To Be Held on May 31 at SEC Headquarters (SEC Release)Court Enforces SEC Subpoenas Ordering Witnesses to Produce Documents and Appear for Testimony (SEC Release)