July 17, 2019
In
retrospect, Puerto Rico bonds were a bad investment. All of which
explains the legions of devastated investors who have sued and
continued to sue any moving target that might offer some recompense for their
losses. In many cases, investors lost everything and were left destitute.
Frankly, far too many Wall Street participants knew that they were pushing
garbage, knew that the debt was beyond repayment, and should have known that
the powder keg was going to explode -- none of which stopped anyone from
pushing the paper on the unwary. Hard to imagine a more compelling set of
circumstances suggesting fraud. Thus we arrive at the underlying dispute in
today's featured FINRA customer arbitration.
Case In Point
In a FINRA Statement of Claim filed in July 2017 and as
amended thereafter, public customer Claimants asserted breaches of fiduciary
duty, contract, and third-party-beneficiary contract; negligence; negligent
supervision; fraud; violation of Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission; violation of the
Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act; and violation of the Puerto Rico
Uniform Securities Act. The causes of action purportedly arose in connection
with Claimants' investments in Puerto Rico bonds and closed-end bond funds, and
a securities-backed loan. At the close of the FINRA Arbitration Hearing,
Claimants sought at least $2,739,792.00, plus $515,624.00 in attorneys' fees
and $10,959,168.00 in punitive damages. In the Matter of the
Arbitration Between Isabel Litovich-Quintana and Jose A. Torres, Claimants, v.
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC d/b/a Morgan Stanley, Respondent
(FINRA Arbitration Decision 17-01908 / July 16,
2019)
http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/aao_documents/17-01908.pdf
Respondent Morgan Stanley generally denied the
allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses.
Motion for Discovery
Sanctions
As set forth in pertinent part in the FINRA Arbitration
Decision:
During the evidentiary hearings, Claimants made an oral
Motion for Discovery Sanctions against Respondent. Respondent opposed the
Motion. The Panel held any ruling on the Motion for Discovery Sanctions in
abeyance until the conclusion of the evidentiary hearings. After the hearings
concluded, the Panel issued an Order on April 30, 2019, instructing the parties
to file briefs on the Motion for Discovery Sanctions. Both parties filed briefs
on or about May 31, 2019. In its Motion for Discovery Sanctions post-hearing
brief, Claimants argued that Respondent failed to produce critical documents
responsive to Claimants' discovery request and thereby concealed documents
relevant to the central issues in the matter. In its opposition to the Motion
for Discovery Sanctions post-hearing brief, Respondent argued, among
other things, that it complied with all discovery obligations and did not
engage in any conduct warranting sanctions. . .
.
SIDE BAR: FINRA Arbitration Code Rules for
Imposing Sanctions
FINRA Code of Arbitration
Procedure for Customer Disputes Rule 12212:
Sanctions
(a) The panel
may sanction a party for failure to comply with any provision in the Code, or
any order of the panel or single arbitrator authorized to act on behalf of the
panel.
Unless
prohibited by applicable law, sanctions may include, but are not limited
to:
- Assessing monetary penalties payable to one or more
parties;
- Precluding a party from presenting
evidence;
- Making an adverse inference against a
party;
- Assessing postponement and/or forum fees;
and
- Assessing attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses.
(b)
The panel may initiate a disciplinary referral at the conclusion of an
arbitration.
(c) The panel may dismiss a claim,
defense or arbitration with prejudice as a sanction for material and
intentional failure to comply with an order of the panel if prior warnings or
sanctions have proven
ineffective.
FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure
for Customer Disputes Rule 12511: Discovery
Sanctions
(a) Failure to cooperate in the
exchange of documents and information as required under the Code may result in
sanctions. The panel may issue sanctions against any party in accordance with
Rule 12212(a)
for:
- Failing to comply with the discovery
provisions of the Code, unless the panel determines that there is substantial
justification for the failure to comply;
or
- Frivolously
objecting to the production of requested documents or
information.
(b) The panel may dismiss a claim,
defense or proceeding with prejudice in accordance with Rule 12212(c) for
intentional and material failure to comply with a discovery order of the panel
if prior warnings or sanctions have proven
ineffective.
Award
The FINRA Arbitration Panel found Respondent Morgan
Stanley liable and ordered the firm to pay to Claimants $261,420.63 in
compensatory damages with interest. FINRA and/or the Panel assessed the
following fees:
Claimants (joint and several): $2,000
Initial Claim Filing Fee; $200 discovery-related motion fees; $32,900 in
hearing session fees
Respondent Morgan Stanley: $3,025
Member Surcharge; $6,175 Member Process Fee; $200 discovery-related
motion fees; $33,350 in hearing session
fees
Oh, and one other thing -- almost forgot -- the FINRA
Arbitration Panel imposed upon Respondent Morgan Stanley a $3,000,000 monetary
sanction (in accordance with Rules 12212 and 12511 of the Code of Arbitration
Procedure).
Yeah. $3 million. In monetary
sanctions.
No -- that's not a typo. Again: $3 million in
sanctions!
So, you might be wondering, what the hell did
Morgan Stanley do (or not do) to warrant getting slammed with $3 million in
sanctions. Gee, no wonder I like
you, you've got an inquiring mind. As set forth in part in the FINRA Arbitration
Decision:
During the course of the evidentiary
hearing, the Panel was made aware of Respondent's alleged failure to comply
with a discovery request Order, which was granted pre-hearing by the prior
Chairperson with respect to the production of documents related to the
termination of a key employee of Respondent. After hearing oral argument on the
issue by both parties, the full Panel issued the same Order as was previously
issued by the prior Chairperson for production of "all" related documents by midnight.
The Panel noted that the prior Chairperson's Order did not limit itself to
"pre-termination" or "post-termination" documents when it stated "all."
Respondent did not send the requested documents to Claimants' counsel by
midnight, nor did Respondent's counsel provide opposing counsel with the
courtesy of an email by midnight explaining why "all" the ordered documents
were not being produced. The evidentiary hearing was delayed, for a second
time, to permit both parties to provide oral argument on the "settlement
privilege" which Respondent's counsel alleged applied to the documents that
Respondent was withholding and proposing to have the Panel review "in camera."
The Panel again ordered the withheld documents to be handed to Claimants'
counsel, and not to the Panel for in camera review. The Panel took note of the
extreme prejudice Respondent's failure of compliance caused Claimants' counsel
in preparing their case and asserting their claims without the withheld documents
which the Panel deemed were highly relevant to the dispute in question, the
central figure of which was the terminated employee whose related documents
were being withheld. Claimants' counsel repeatedly requested that Respondent be
assessed monetary sanctions for its failure of compliance with the Panel's
Orders. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the Panel ordered both
parties to submit post-hearing briefs on the issue of the sanctions requested
by Claimants against Respondent.
The Panel noted that Rule 12506(b)(2)
of the Code related to parties' obligation to "act in good faith when complying
with subparagraph (1) of this rule. ‘Good faith' means that a party must use
its best efforts to produce all documents required or agreed to be produced. If
a document cannot be produced in the required time, a party must establish a
reasonable timeframe to produce the document." The Panel also took note of Rule
12212 of the Code related to sanctions: "(a) The panel may sanction a party for
failure to comply with any provision in the Code, or any order of the panel or
single arbitrator authorized to act on behalf of the panel. Unless prohibited
by applicable law, sanctions may include, but are not limited
to:
- Assessing monetary penalties payable
to one or more parties; . .
."
In accordance with the
above, after due deliberation and upon consideration of the negative effect
that Respondent's noncompliance with the Panel's Orders had on its efforts to
achieve a fair arbitration hearing, the Panel hereby orders Respondent to pay
monetary sanctions to Claimants in the amount of $3,000,000.00. .
. .
Bill Singer's
Comment
One
goddamn rousing round of applause for Chairperson/Public Arbitrator Jill
Pilgrim, Public Arbitrator Constance P. Barr, and Public Arbitrator Irlanda
Ruiz! It's about time that three FINRA arbitrators finally stood up
against FINRA's Large Member Firms when they jerk public customers around for
the sport of it. As this Panel so eloquently made the
case:
[T]he Panel took note of the extreme
prejudice Respondent's failure of compliance caused Claimants' counsel in
preparing their case and asserting their claims without the withheld documents
which the Panel deemed were highly relevant to the dispute in question, the
central figure of which was the terminated employee whose related documents
were being withheld. . .
.
One of the great advantages of being an old fart such as
I am is that I have a loooong and often unforgiving memory.
Yeah, I've heard all the assurances from NASD and FINRA about how they were/are
fair regulators and how they don't have two sets of rulebooks (one for the
Large Firms and another for the Small Firms and industry's associated
persons). I've read the endless hypocrisy about how Wall Street's
self-regulation is unbiased, unconflicted, and will be applied evenly to all
comers. So, let's see how FINRA-the-regulator responds to the intentional and
wrongful withholding of "highly relevant" documents by one of its
largest member firms in a mandatory FINRA customer arbitration.
You may say that I'm being harsh. After all, games always
get played during Discovery. Fair point -- I'll give you that one. You may say
that Morgan Stanley doesn't have a history of violating arbitration Discovery
rules and, at worst, today's case is likely a one-off, aberrant example of when
lawyers get just a tad out of control. No -- I'm not going to give you that
one. What I am going to do is dredge up a bit of FINRA regulatory history and throw
it in the self-regulator's
face: "
Morgan
Stanley to Pay $12.5 Million to Resolve FINRA Charges that it Failed to Provide
Documents to Arbitration Claimants, Regulators" (FINRA News
Release / September 27, 2007). FINRA entered into a settlement with Morgan
Stanley to resolve charges that its former affiliate Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.
had " failed on numerous occasions to provide emails to claimants in
arbitration proceedings as well as to regulators . . ." Further, the
settlement resolved:
additional charges relating to the firm's failure to
provide required supervisory materials to numerous arbitration claimants. The
settlement announced today is the first of its kind - in that it provides for
distribution of $9.5 million to two groups of customers who had arbitration
claims against the firm. FINRA estimates that several thousand customers may be
eligible to receive payments. FINRA also imposed a $3 million fine on the firm
for its failure to provide pre-9/11 emails and updates to a supervisory
manual.
In addition to hitting Morgan Stanley with $12.5 million
in sanctions, FINRA trumpeted this:
Also
as part of the settlement announced today, Morgan Stanley is required - again,
at its own expense - to retain an independent consultant acceptable to FINRA to
review the firm's procedures for complying with discovery requirements in
arbitration proceedings relating to the firm's retail brokerage operations. The
firm will be required to implement the independent consultant's recommendations
for improving those procedures, or alternative improvements acceptable to the
independent
consultant.
Some 12 years later in 2019, it just doesn't seem that
Morgan Stanley is following the independent consultant's recommendations for
"complying with discovery requirements in arbitration proceedings relating
to the firm's retail brokerage operations . . ." Of course, you know, I'm
sure that Morgan Stanley will argue that I'm raising old news via an outdated
FINRA settlement. I'm sure that Morgan Stanley will point out that the FINRA
Press Release conceded that the 2007 settlement involved merely a "former"
affiliate. Similarly, I'm sure that FINRA would just as soon forget this
victory lap that was run by its "former" Chief of
Enforcement:
"The integrity of our process demands that brokerage
firms comply with their obligations to search diligently for, and provide in a
timely way, information and documents required in arbitration proceedings and
regulatory investigations," said Susan Merrill, FINRA Executive Vice
President and Chief of Enforcement. "The action announced today
underscores FINRA's commitment to ensuring that firms live up to those
obligations. We are particularly pleased that this unique settlement directs
the bulk of the monetary sanction to the customers in arbitrations, to remedy
MSDW's discovery
failures."
As
far as I'm concerned: blah, blah, blah,
blah.