As a result of disputes arising from his employment and repayment of two promissory notes, in March 2009, Claimant Peter Chiang asserted various claims against his former employer Respondent UBS. Claimant sought expungement of a defamatory statement from his Form U5; an Order rendering the two promissory notes null and void; and punitive damages, costs, and expenses. In the Matter of the Arbitration between Peter Chiang, Claimant, versus, UBS Financial Services, Inc., Respondent (FINRA Arbitration 09-01560, August 20, 2010).
In February 2010, the parties reached a confidential settlement, and on July 30, 2010, they submitted to the FINRA Arbitrator a Joint Request for Expungement of Claimant's Form U5.
Following an August 5, 2010, FINRA hearing, the Arbitrator found that registered person Chiang had acted promptly and appropriately in response to his client's (Harold Feder's) requested liquidation instructions. Pointedly, the Arbitrator determined that any delay in carrying out the client's liquidation request was not the result of any action or lack thereof by Claimant Chiang, and, as such, Claimant was not involved in the alleged investment-related sales practice violation.
Accordingly, the Arbitrator recommended the expungement from Claimant's Central Registration Depository (CRD) records of all reference to the customer complaint recevied on October 22, 2008, alleging that the customer's accounts were not liquidated in a timely manner despite the customer's instruction to do so. It is contemplated that Claimant will comply with FINRA's expungement rules by obtaining confirmation of the ordered expungement from a court of competent jurisdiction before CRD will execute the deletion, and that FINRA will be named as an additional party in the court action and will be served with all appropriate documents.
[I] sort of smiled when I read the musty musings of the Chamber's writer, who exalts the power of the individual to solve his or her own problems. Of course, individual solutions aren't necessarily doing that well these days with the Great Recession and all, but, hey, you can't blame some fuddy duddy from the '50s for not getting all the fine points correct. (And before you all send me all those nastygrams, I was born in the early, very early, '50s). Still, it's hard not to smile, if not laugh, at the awkward suggestion all those years ago by the Chamber that the issue of equal pay is somehow related to "choosing the right place to work and choosing the right partner at home."
Ultimately, equal pay would seem to be a matter of fairplay, which I always thought was the bedrock of America's capitalism. An honest day's work for an honest day's pay. What the Chamber of Commerce didn't quite seem to understand is that sometimes the "choice" to work at home or work part-time or on a flex schedule is not a voluntary option but one that is forced upon women. If we value families, then why is the economic burden of raising them always pressed upon women at the cost of fair pay and career opportunities? Whatever happened to the concept of shared sacrifice?Read Bill Singer's Entire Huffington Post Article at:
Regulatory lawyer Bill Singer has analyzed and posted the latest crop of FINRA disciplinary cases
This case involves wealthy and sophisticated customers who were under no press of time to decide whether to invest; customers who invested specifically in furtherance of a desire to speculate; and a broker who did not profit from his wrongdoing and who has been fined and suspended for his violations. There is nothing in the SEC's decision to indicate why, in these circumstances, awards of restitution are appropriate under Principle 5. Indeed, the SEC's decision is incomprehensible insofar as it attempts to amplify any meaningful causal connection between Siegel's putative bad acts and the Downers' and Landrys' losses. And the SEC has cited no precedent, and we have found none, supporting restitution in a case of this sort. The SEC's judgment is fatally flawed for two reasons: First, the SEC's judgment is not supported by reasoned decisionmaking. Second, the SEC cites to no controlling precedent that includes reasoned decisionmaking supporting restitution under Principle 5 in a case of this sort. We therefore vacate the restitution order.