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

Chase Investment Services showed "colossal lack of foresight and attention"
Written: March 3, 2011

In a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Arbitration Statement of Claim filed in February 2010, Claimants Marta and Robert Toscano initially sought $29,784.05 in damages plus $21,115.47 in interest (subsequently increased by an additional $4,181.70 at the close of the hearing) and attendant costs and fees arising out of their purchase of Unit Investment Trusts (“UITs”) from Respondent Chase Investment Services Corporation (“CISC”). The Claimants alleged, among other causes of action, unsuitability, unauthorized trading, and failure to supervise. In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Marta Toscano and Robert M. Toscano, Claimants vs. Chase Investment Services Corporation and Marshall H. Foster, Respondents (FINRA Arbitration 10-00672, February 17, 2011).

Respondent CISC and Respondent stockbroker Foster generally denied the allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses.

Fasten Your Seatbelts

The sole arbitrator hearing this case begins his explanation of his decision with these ominous words:

I am providing a rationale because during the hearing my focus shifted from the conduct of Mr. Foster to the conduct of CISC. NASD Rule 2310, entitled "Fair dealing with customers", imposes a duty of fair dealing on both the member and the registered representative. I believe that the registered representative - Marshall Foster has met his obligation to the Claimants but that the member - CISC has not.

Broker Exonerated

The FINRA Arbitrator found that Respondent Foster acted in good faith with the Claimants. In discharging Foster of any misconduct in this matter, the Arbitrator reasoned that the stockbroker used his firm's approved application and his recommendations (which he reasonably believed were suitable for and understood by the Claimants) were sanctioned by CISC.

CISC Lambasted

In contrast to exonerating Respondent Foster, the Arbitrator's findings concerning Respondent CISC can only be considered a lambaste, which starts off with this slam:

As to CISC there was a colossal lack of foresight and attention to detail . . . clearly inadequate when it came to making an assessment of the Claimants’ situation . . .

Fiduciary

Preliminarily, the Arbitrator notes that CISC was not paid to manage the Claimants’ account and, as such, the firm would normally not be deemed to be acting in a fiduciary capacity and, accordingly, CISC would not be deemed to have a fiduciary duty to the clients. However, the Arbitrator did not simply end his consideration with whether CISC charged and/or received a fee for account management.  The Arbitrator sought to get to the heart of the matter.  In deeming that CISC was acting in an apparent fiduciary capacity, the Arbitrator found compelling the fact that the firm was “housing itself on the bank floor and taking referrals from the bank personnel."  You got your form. You got your substance. Clearly, this was not an adjudicator merely punching in and going through the motions.

Inadequate UIT Application

Additionally, the Arbitrator found that CISC’s UIT application form was inadequate and failed to elicit sufficient information about the Claimants’ financial situation. The Arbitrator believed that the substandard nature of the form exacerbated CISC's obligations to oversee such transactions and supervise because the form was the only document reviewed by the firm's designated principal. Further, the Arbitrator was mystified as to why the UITs were even placed on CISC’s approved list (upon which Respondent Foster relied when making his recommendation to his clients). While conceding that the UITs “performed as promised,” the arbitrator ultimately dismissed the appropriateness of the product as little more “akin to a ‘wager’ than a long term investment.”

Account Maintenance

Following Respondent Foster’s departure in December 2007 from CISC, the arbitrator slammed CISC’s conduct pertaining to the Claimants’ account as

[S]lip shod. No one looked at the portfolio until the Claimants came in again and then were met with apparently contradictory advice The market was in free fall and prompter more affirmative action on behalf of CISC may have helped the Claimants.

Summing Up

Dramatically – and in the forceful exercise of prerogative rarely seen in FINRA arbitrations – the Arbitrator concluded that given the totality of the facts presented in this case, CISC violated its independent duty to deal fairly with the Claimants. The Arbitrator summed it all up in this succinct explanation:

[T]he ongoing oversight was inadequate given the type of customers that CISC attracted, the manner in which they were attracted, the inadequacy of the account opening forms, the volatility of the market, the type of "approved" investments offered, and the insufficient transition process from one representative to another.

The Arbitrator found CISC solely liable and ordered it to pay to Claimants $39,784.05 in compensatory damages.  Pointedly, the arbitrator declined to award Claimants interest because he concluded that they “should have been more attentive and assertive with respect to their investments.” In keeping with that admonition, the arbitrator also split FINRA’s forum fees evenly among the parties.

Bill Singer's Comment: A breathtaking FINRA Arbitration Decision -- among the best that I have read in some three decades on Wall Street.  Having chaired many arbitration panels and having served as a panelist on even more, I know that the overwhelming majority of arbitrators are dedicated men and women who render a valuable service to the public.  Unfortunately, FINRA does not require a comprehensive Decision in all cases and, as such, we are often left to wonder how cases were decided and why. 

In this case, the sole Arbitrator dissected the evidence. Not only did he refuse to sanction the stockbroker, but the Arbitrator made it clear that Respondent CISC's questionable policies and practices set a cascade of misconduct into play -- and that the stockbroker justifiably relied upon his firm's apparent assurances.  However, the Claimants were not fully exonerated.  To the contrary, the Arbitrator chided the Toscanos for not doing their own due diligence and failing to undertake a minimal level of responsibility for their investments.  In truth, sometimes there is blame enough to be shared between the brokerage firm and its customers.

Kudos on a superb effort. Job well done!


 
[^top^]

Previous Entries
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
April 16, 2014
Here's an interesting cocktail of facts: an IRA, a mother, powers of attorney, and a stockbroker son. Add into that mix questions about whether a $60,... Read On
April 15, 2014
Stockbroker, Compliance, Legal, and Regulatory JobsFor a full listing of current job openings, visit the BrokeAndBroker Employment Page ... Read On
April 14, 2014
Auction Rate Securities are the unwanted gift that keeps on giving. In today's BrokeAndBroker.com Blog, we report about yet another bit of collateral ... Read On
April 12, 2014
Citicorp Loses Bizarre Motion To Compel Class Action ArbitrationApril 11, 2014As part of the terms of his employment, former Citicorp Credit Services,... 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 Knight Test Practice Sale Unfair Competition Signature Judgments Undisclosed Settlement Trainee Fee Trust Laser Side Bar Mattera Female Sales Assistant Kennedy Argentina Judgment Bank Fraud TSSB Trustee Frumento 6th Circuit Proctor 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+