On or about November 26, 2013, Claimant filed a Motion to Strike Answer. Claimant asserted that Respondent attempted to suborn perjury, committed witness tampering, and performed actions to unlawfully suppress evidence and witness testimony by filing court proceedings to intimidate Claimant and attempting to buy a witness's testimony. Respondent denied Claimant's accusations and argued that Claimant's Motion was based on lies and misrepresentations. Respondents further stated that due to failures in their roles, Claimant and another of Respondent COR Clearing's former most senior compliance, risk and legal officers almost caused Respondent COR Clearing to be shut down by regulators. Claimant replied that statements in Respondents' Opposition to the Motion prove that Respondents attempted to buy a witness's testimony and that Respondents attempts to smear Claimant's professional reputation are inappropriate and should be sanctioned accordingly by the Panel.
SIDE BAR: In case you missed it all, here's a recap of the blow by blow. Claimant jabbed with a sharp accusation of perjury, followed by a peppering of witness tampering, and then with a roundhouse of unlawfully suppressing evidence and testimony. Respondent bobbed and weaved and counter-punched with upper-cuts of lies and misrepresentations and landed a kidney punch in the form of charges that the clearing firm's senior compliance, risk and legal officers failed to do their jobs and almost forced regulators to shut the firm down. After taking a standing count, Claimant fought back with punches of attempts to buy testimony and dastardly efforts to smear the firm's reputation.
On or about January 13, 2014, Respondent Sugarman filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting that controlling law mandates that he is not to be held personally liable in this arbitration as he was not a party to any alleged employment contract and did not publish the allegedly defamatory information on Claimant's CRD Form U5. Claimant responded that the Panel could not dismiss Claimant's claims against Respondent Sugarman prior to Claimant's case-in-chief under Rule 13504(a) of the Code for industry disputes, as Respondent Sugarman was involved with the conduct at issue. Respondent Sugarman replied that Claimant concedes that he had no claim for breach of contract against Respondent Sugarman, that Respondent Sugarman has no individual liability for wrongful termination, and that Respondent Sugarman did not publish the CRD Form U5 information.
On or about April 17, 2014, Respondents filed a Motion to Strike Claim. In the Motion, Respondents asserted that Claimant misrepresented his attorney-client relationship with a witness to forestall the discovery process and requested that the Panel dismiss Claimant's claims as a sanction. Claimant responded that he had no relationship to the independent witness, except that the legal advice he received from that witness, which constituted an attorney-client relationship, was not discoverable. Respondents replied that Claimant secretly withheld documents and emails and deceived the Panel members when he advised them that all documents had been produced.
On or about July 1, 2014, Respondents filed a Motion to Exclude and requested that the Panel exclude emails which they alleged were secretly and improperly acquired by Claimant Claimant responded that the emails had previously been produced and the contents of the emails were not privileged. At the outset of the evidentiary hearings, the Panel heard the parties' oral arguments and denied Respondents' Motion.
At the close of Claimant's case-in-chief, Respondents filed with the Panel a written Motion to Dismiss in which they asserted that there was not enough evidence to support a finding of liability on Claimant's claim for defamation against Respondents. Respondents further stated that Claimant failed to present the requisite evidence to establish his case as it related to the breach of contract and wrongful termination claims. Claimant denied the allegations asserted by Respondents in their Motion.