Blog by Bill Singer Esq WEEK IN REVIEW

January 11, 2020
Today's featured FINRA Arbitration comes off as a fairly pedestrian affair. She said. They said. The arbitrators dismissed her case after finding that she lacking the standing to sue. Given Claimant's allegations about forgeries, loans, and lines of credit, it seemed as if there was something serious going on; however, the FINRA Arbitration Decision discloses nothing more than a laundry list of allegations and refutations. All of which prompted me to do some digging. What my research revealed is stunning.
It's a new year and guest blogger Aegis Frumento starts us off with his musings about how natural and inevitable "inequality" is. As Frumento observes, in nature, inequality doesn't result in undue hardship, because it is leavened by the countervailing instinct of those who have more to share with those who have less. But that is not capitalism, Frumento admonishes. Capitalism encourages our instincts to trade and to dominate, and discourages our instinct to share. That is not merely a bug. It is capitalism's very essence and what makes it so wildly successful.
Yet again, another dubious bit of silliness finds its way into FINRA's published annals. To be clear, it's not silliness for the associated person Claimant; to the contrary, it's about as critical an issue as there is. The Claimant wants to clear his name. He wants something expunged from his industry record. That being said, we walk into the FINRA Dispute Resolution hearing room (with the Dylanesque pencil in our hand) but we emerge not knowing what the hell is going on. Frankly, there ought to be a law against you coming round.
A former Credit Suisse employee filed a FINRA Arbitration Statement of Claim arguing that he was, in part, fraudulently induced into accepting his job because the firm did not inform him of its intention to eliminate the division where he was to work. Not only did Claimant lose the arbitration but Credit Suisse was awarded nearly $2 million in damages, largely in the form of a promissory note repayment. On appeal to a federal court, Claimant alleges that the FINRA Arbitration Chair had failed to disclose a conflict and that the Panel engaged in biased conduct.
Our publisher Bill Singer loves to spin a good yarn. Some say Bill is one of Wall Street's great raconteurs. Some say he's just a loud-mouth pain in the ass. Frankly, there are those who say he's all of that, but, you know, to each his own, right? In today's blog, Bill regales us with yet another oddball tale from the annals of FINRA's arbitration forum. This time we are asked to consider a dispute involving seven promissory notes amounting to just shy of $800,000. On the Street, they don't give out such big bucks to deadbeats, so the recipient was likely among UBS's top producers. And if the Respondent in today's featured arbitration was sharp enough to earn the underlying loans, then he's probably going to do everything he can to fight his former employer's effort to obtain repayment. Sadly, as much as Bill would love to add his own color to this story, the arbitrators and a federal judge did such a great job penning their decisions that there's not much left for him to do. On the other hand, Bill did add some fun music videos from Jackson Browne, Humble Pie, and the Thompson Twins. Now that's quite the amalgamation!