An irreverent Wall Street Blog
by Bill Singer
 
Join BrokeAndBroker blog on Facebook  Follow the BrokeAndBroker blog on Twitter  Connect with BrokeAndBroker on LinkedIn  Join Bill Singer on Google+  Subscribe to RSS Feed

Jesup & Lamont Loses FINRA Arbitration Over Defamation -- What Goes Round, Comes Round?
Written: September 21, 2010

In a FINRA Arbitration Statement of Claim filed in January 2010, Claimant Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp. sought $35,000 in compensatory damages and $10,500 in various fees from Respondent Foley arising from the alleged non-payment of a promissory note.  Respondent generally denied the allegations, asserted various affirmative defenses, and filed a Counterclaim seeking $1,000,000.00 in compensatory damages and an expungement of alleged defamatory statements on his From U4. In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp.,Claimant, versus Aaron Foley, Respondent. (FINRA Arbitration 10-00038 September 7, 2010)

Claimant Starts It But Fails To Finish

Although Claimant Jesup & Lamont initiated the FINRA arbitration, the firm did not appear at the hearing. In June of 2010, FINRA instructed the member firm to cease doing a securities business because of alleged net capital deficiencies. Thereafter, the 133-year-old firm announced massive layoffs.  Respondent Foley did appear.

When Correspondence Is Not A Complaint

Claimant Jesup & Lamont apparently claimed that Jane Fisher, a customer of Respondent Foley, had complained about the broker engaging in an unauthorized transaction and the unauthorized dissemination of confidential account information, all of which purportedly resulted in the customer sustaining a loss of $5,000.00. That information was noted on Respondent's Form U5 and would have required disclosure on his Form U4 and other regulatory filings.  

Respondent Foley testified that customer Jane Fisher's account was supervised by another broker, who suddenly departed from the Claimant's firm and that the account was then transfened to Respondent. In order to protect the assets of Fisher (and with her consent), Respondent sold certain posttions in her account and deposited the proceeds in either a money market account or other conservative investments.

Subsequently, Fisher wrote a letter requesting that the Claimant determine if her account was being property maintained according to her financial goals. As to whether that letter was a mere inquiry or a complaint appears to have been the source of contention between Claimant and Respondent.  Moreover, the substance of the customer's communication also appears to have been disputed. The FINRA Panel determined that Fisher had never expressed any concern or dissatisfaction with the actions of Respondent, and that the letter was not a letter of "complaint" but just a request for information.

Part of a Pattern

Respondent Foley further testified that Claimant  Jesup & Lamont had a reputation of putting false or inaccurate comments on a broker's U4 as a means to prevent the broker from leaving their employment.

Former Jesup & Lamont Branch Manager James Devers testified that he had never received a letter of complaint from Jane Fisher or any other client of Respondent Foley's. Devers also corroborated that Claimant engaged in the tactic of putting erroneous or false statements on a broker's U4 to prevent the broker from leaving. As Respondent Foley's immediate supervisor, Devers only found out about the comments on Foley's U4 with the commencement of this FINRA arbitration. Devers testified that the allegations on Respondent's U4 were false and, in fact, never occurred.

The Panel Rules

The FINRA Arbitration Panel denied Claimant's claims in their entirety.

The Panel unanimously concluded that the alleged customer complaint against Respondent Foley about an unauthorized transaction and the unauthorized dissemination of confidential account information resulting in an alleged loss of $5,000.00 was false and defamatory. Therefore, the Panel recommended full expungement of Respondent's U4 and his Central Registration Depository (CRD) records of all reference to the Fisher customer complaint. 

The Panel further found Claimant liable to and ordered it to pay to Respondent

  • $127,500 in compensatory damages plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum from September 1,2010 until payment of the Award; and
  • $375.00 to reimburse Respondent for the non-refundable portion of the filing fee previously paid to FINRA.

Pursuant to Notice to Members 04-16, Respondent must obtain confirmation from a court of competent jurisdiction before the CRD will execute the expungement directive. Unless specifically waived in writing by FINRA, parties seeking judicial confirmation of an arbitration award containing expungement relief must name FINRA as an additional party and serve FINRA with all appropriate documents.

Bill Singer's Comment:  Broker often contact me about cases similar to the one cited above. Typically, such disputes are "pissing contests" or of the "he-said-she-said" variety. As such, the arbitration hearing takes on the characteristic of one party calling the other a liar, and vice versa.  The ultimate decision tends to depend heavily upon the credibilty of the parties rather than corroborative evidence or testimony.

In Jesup & Lamont v. Foley, we have the odd set of circumstances where the former Branch Manager gave testimony that supported and corroborated the allegations of the registered person. Similarly, the customer letter at issue seems to have spoken for itself by not pointing a finger of "complaint" at Respondent Foley.  What makes this all even more bizarre is that the member firm started the arbitration and then disappeared.  If ever there was truth to the warning about "be careful what you start," this case is it.

In coming months and years it is likely that we will see more cases of this ilk resolved in favor of the registered person.  Why?  Well, among the more obvious reasons is that the Great Recession prompted the termination of many managers -- folks who typically closed ranks with their employer and gave testimony hostile to the former registered person.  These days,  former managers who were down-sized and laid off are not necessarily prepared to toe the good old company line.  Similarly, these disgruntled folks may pry open the locked doors of many a closet, and once-hidden skeletons may come falling out into view.

Consequently, Jesup & Lamont v. Foley should serve as a warning to many FINRA member firms that the times are a changin'.  What goes round, comes round.


 
[^top^]

Previous Entries
April 24, 2014
Few financial products have proven as controversial as Real Estate Investment Trusts, and few REITS have grabbed their share of negative headlines as ... Read On
April 24, 2014
Virtual currency, electronic money, cryptocurrency: Whatever the name, it's in the news but not necessarily in a good way. When I start getting an inc... Read On
April 23, 2014
Wall Street may be the place where trillions of dollars exchange hands, but it's not the place where a registered person should simply ask a customer ... Read On
April 22, 2014
Stockbroker, Compliance, Legal, and Regulatory JobsEmployment Page BrokeAndBroker.com Jobs#brokeandbroker #billsinger #wallstreetjobs&n... Read On
April 21, 2014
I fully appreciate that FINRA has a legitimate concern about industry personnel impersonating customers. I also understand why it is appropriate in th... Read On
April 19, 2014
Will This Tax Season Lien On You?April 18, 2014We just made it through another tax season. The good news is that you filed and are fully paid up -- or... Read On
April 18, 2014
We just made it through another tax season. The good news is that you filed and are fully paid up -- or, the bad news is that you didn't file or you h... Read On
April 17, 2014
In this digital age there are still folks who physically cut-and-paste. How quaint. Of course, quaint or not, when you start using the terms "cut-and-... Read On
BrokeAndBroker.com Job Search
Related Topics
Tag Cloud
Internet FINRA Bear Stearns Bloomberg SEC NASD NYSE Money Laundering Due Diligence Waiver Forbes China Chepucavage Broy Woody Allen Madoff NAC NPR Marketplace Stanford UBS Ketchum Antitrust NASDAQ RRBDLAW Schapiro Bill Singer BrokerAndBroker USERRA Brokeandbroker.com Morgan Keegan Arbitration BrokeAndBroker.com Khuzami BrokeAndBroker Aleynikov Goldman Sachs brokeandbroker Promissory Note U4 Bill SInger EFL CFTC Huffington Post Flash Crash arbitration RBC RRBDLAW.com Ponzi Affinity Fraud Wachovia Raymond James BrokeandBroker.com Expungement Fraud Securities Fraud Outside Business Activity Registered Rep Magazine FOREX BrokerAndBroker.com FBI Banc of America Pro Se Supreme Court Morgan Stanley Smith Barney E*Trade Margin email Galleon Penson U5 Defamation Protocol Wells Fargo Punitive Damages Citigroup Merrill Lynch ARS Employee Forgivable Loan Street Legal Morgan Stanley AWC Fidelity Bankruptcy Broke And Broker HFT David Sobel Day Trading Ameriprise Commissions Spouse Schwab CRD Kenneth Starr IRS CNBC Complaint ATM Skimming Hacking Phishing Malware Naskovets Poteroba Koval Lincoln Financial Selling Away Outside Business Activities Rakoff 2nd Circuit Second Circuit IRA 401k Forgery Tax RRBDlaw.com Email Netschi Moore Whistleblower Street Sweeper Tran Bharara Facebook Online Severance Bonus Eligibility Rule TD Ameritrade Hedge Fund SAC 1099 Smith Barney Lehman Brothers IC3 Scottrade Lehman JPMorgan Chase Hertz Insider Trading Bank of America Elles Bribe Auction Rate Securities Raiding Spam Edward Jones Medicare Diabetes Dow Schumer Walter Bid Rigging Real Estate Discrimination Wall Street Statutory Disqualification Form U4 Form U5 Indictment Boyland DOJ Corruption bill singer FTC Do Not Call FINRA Arbitration Costa Rica Settlement LIBOR Varney Plea Rule 8210 RRBDlaw Appeal Fowler LPL Johnson US Airways Reg D MSSB Vault Loan SunTrust Discovery Employment Rosenthal Recruiting Lawyer Trading Platform JP Morgan Employment Tuesday Wrongful Termination Bank Guarantee WaMu Solicitation REIT Martin Credit Cards Away Account Credit Repair PN Advisor Placement Group Forex Mortgage Private Placement Moon Merrill Anderson Exam Lee Borrowing Tax Lien Conversion Oppenheimer Wedbush Felony Misdemeanor Expenses ING Lien OTR Estate Jobs Florida Credit Card Elderly Flash Drive Annuity FNMA BrokeAndBroke TIC DWI Promissory Notes Suitability Will POA Power of Attorney Casino NSF MF Global Counterfeit Preet Bharara Corzine Hacker Prison NASAA Aguilar FCPA Identity Theft Gold Dell Bar Injunction Bank Deutsche Bank God HSBC Private Placements Eric Stein Wire Fraud CCO Joshua Brown Backstage Wall Street Obstruction of Justice Retaliation Variable Annuity Outside Account Options Telephone Wine Social Media ADA Pacifico Non-Prosecution Agreement Confirm Tax Fraud Retirement OBA Equity Indexed Annuities EIA MetLife Continuing Education Impersonation Annuities BBVA Business Expenses OIP ETF JOBS Act Mail Fraud Parking Variable Annuities Signatures BitTorrent Wire Transfer Wire Crowdfunding Nasdaq Away Accounts WSP Laptop Dodd Frank Checks PST Solicited Unsolicited Congress SRO Wife Discretion Non-Solicitation Restaurant Commodities Private Securities Transaction Offer of Settlement employment jobs Great Recession Chase Investment Services Barclays Willful Apple Time And Price T&P Husband Letter of Authorization LOA Sexism Knight Test Practice Sale Unfair Competition Signature Judgments Undisclosed Settlement Trainee Fee Trust Laser Side Bar Mattera Female Sales Assistant Kennedy Sexist Argentina Judgment Bank Fraud TSSB Trustee Frumento 6th Circuit Proctor Class Action Beneficiary NYAG Schneiderman Gallagher White Compromise Website Supervision Piwowar Tax Liens signature VA
 
Email Bill Singer Connect with Bill Singer on Facebook Follow Bill Singer on Twitter Link up with Bill Singer on LinkedIn Join Bill Singer on Google+