The Korzik Respondents gave testimonies under oath at the expungement hearing supporting their request for expungement. Claimant Raphael Benabou appeared at the hearing but gave no testimony under oath. Though Claimants made a very lengthy submission on the merits, they provided no affidavits. Respondents provided affidavits in support of their contentions, which the Arbitrator found persuasive. One of their key points was that Claimants made money on their account. At the hearing, Claimant Raphael Benabou conceded that he suffered no economic damage as a result of the conduct he was complaining about and that he did not object to the expungement.The Arbitrator concluded that Claimants' statements lacked credibility and found their claims baseless.
According to the sole FINRA Arbitrator, the Claimants' "statements lacked credibility" and, as such, the Arbitrator found their claims to be "baseless." As far as characterizations go, "baseless" is about as negative a conclusion as any trier-of-fact can make. Further, in contrast to "baseless," the Arbitrator found the Korziks' testimony and evidence to be "persuasive." On top of that, the Korziks testified under oath, whereas Claimants did not testify. Finally, it's tough to overlook this somewhat jarring concession that "Claimant Raphael Benabou conceded that he suffered no economic damage as a result of the conduct he was complaining about . . ." Of course, I'm still puzzled by the allegation on BrokerCheck that the "RESPONDENTS ENGAGED IN AUTHORIZED TRADING." Omigod, how terrible!CLAIMANTS CLAIMED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS BREACHED THEIR FIDUCIARY DUTY RELATED TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CLAIMANTS' ACCOUNTS BETWEEN 2011 THROUGH 2018, ALLEGING THAT CLAIMANTS ACCOUNTS WERE NOT APPROPRIATELY DIVERSIFIED, THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE NOT APPROPRIATELY MONITORED, AND THAT ONE OR BOTH OF THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS ENGAGED IN AUTHORIZED [sic] TRADING