Blog by Bill Singer WEEK IN REVIEW

July 30, 2017

Employee Wins Over $1 Million In Fraudulent Inducement Hiring Case

In today's Blog we consider the FINRA arbitration between a former employee, who feels that he was fraudulently induced to accept a job offer, and, the former employer, who wants repayment of the balance of a promissory note. Not particularly unusual facts for an employment dispute. The interesting nuance in this case is that the former employer runs afoul of the arbitrators with perhaps a tad too much gamesmanship when it comes to producing information and documents during Discovery. Although we will likely never know the extent to which the arbitrators may have been angered by the Discovery foot-dragging, the logical inference is that it didn't help the employer. All of which reminds our publisher Bill Singer, Esq. of a number of old Monty Python skits about races. Why does this case remind Bill of Monty Python race skits? Who the hell knows. You ever really understand what goes on in Bill's mind? READ and WATCH

UBS V. Fiore: Let The Games Begin

As reported in the industry press, UBS Financial Services has been embroiled in a high-profile lawsuit against former financial advisors of its Stamford, Connecticut office. UBS Financial Services Inc., Plaintiff, v. Phil G. Fiore Jr, Jeffrey H. Farrar, Louis Gloria, and Thomas M Gahan, Defendants (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, 17-CV-0093). In ruling on UBS' request for injunctive relief, DCCT explained that:

"For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that UBS has shown a likelihood of success on the merits as to Mr. Fiore violating his non-solicitation agreements. The Court also finds that UBS can show neither a likelihood of success on the merits, nor sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation as to the Protocol Defendants, because of the Protocol. As will be explained below, because the Court ultimately finds that UBS will not be able to show irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction and the Court will therefore not grant its motion for a preliminary injunction."

Bond Trader Barred By FINRA Wins Arbitration For Unpaid Wages

Today's Blog is a smorgasbord. Ya got FINRA in its role as a self-regulatory organization. Ya got FINRA in its role as an arbitration forum. We got the arbitration being appealed to a federal district court. We got the arbitration on appeal to a federal circuit court.  At the center of this arbitration, litigation and regulatory buffet is former bond trader, who partially prevailed as the Claimant in his FINRA intra-industry arbitration but, thereafter, found himself barred by FINRA after refusing to cooperate in a regulatory investigation. As the various currents of this story ripple, we find ourselves amid a swirl of questions about what was known, by whom, when.. Did the former bond trader commit perjury when answering questions during his arbitration about FINRA's regulatory investigation -- or did Claimant accurately disclose what he knew when he knew it?  Prepare yourself for a bumpy ride! READ

Grassroots Movement To Revise FINRA Fine And Suspension Of Richard Botkin

I have taken up the cause of military veteran Richard S. Botkin. Based upon my review of Botkin's FINRA AWC settlement, he did not deserve to be fined $15,000 and suspended for four months.  Said sanctions are excessive and unwarranted and should be reduced to fairer dimensions. I speak for Richard Botkin because no one else has and, frankly, no one else seems to care. The lack of response from many of the good folks in the industry and in regulation who I contacted to right this wrong has been disheartening.

I am used to being a lone voice in the wilderness. The lack of a supporting chorus is a testament to the regulated's fear of retaliation by their regulators. If my career has been oriented towards changing one thing on Wall Street, it is to replace the "fear" of regulators with "respect." The windmills stand before me. I persist in tilting at them. Thankfully, this time I am joined in battle by 2017 FINRA Small Firm Governor candidate Stephen A. Kohn. READ Today's Update on this matter

FINRA 2017 Small Firm Governor Election Underway

On August 22, 2017, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") will conduct its annual meeting, at which time the self-regulatory organization will elect one small firm Governor (up to 150 registered representatives) and one large firm Governor (500 or more registered representatives) for a three-year term.  Pursuant to FINRA's rules, member firms may only vote for a nominee from their respective sized firm. A proxy was mailed to each eligible firm's Executive Representative. Proxies may be submitted by "any lawful means," which include telephone, mail, or Internet.  In order to ensure that the voice of FINRA's small firm community is heard, it is critical that you ensure that your firm's proxy is timely submitted by your Executive Representative. 

Bill Singer, Esq., publisher of the Blog. supports Stephen Kohn's candidacy for the 2017 FINRA Small Firm Governor and urges all Blog readers to press their FINRA Small Firm's Executive Representative to cast a proxy in support of Stephen Kohn's candidacy. READ