Blog by Bill Singer Esq WEEK IN REVIEW

March 12, 2022
An angry E*TRADE customer filed a FINRA Arbitration alleging that he was entitled to 750 post-split shares of Tesla because the brokerage firm somehow misplaced 150 pre-split shares. In response, E*TRADE's "margin director testified that its trading system will not allow negative sells . . . " Okay, that's nice, but just because a system is programmed to not allow something to happen doesn't mean that an occasional glitch doesn't thwart the best of intentions. How did the case turn out? We get a decision but not enough explanation as to why -- see what you think.
As best we can tell, one associated person sold her business to another via a 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement. After said sale, it looks like all hell broke loose between the seller and the buyer. Then the lawsuit was filed. Then the millions and millions in damages were piled on. In keeping with most FINRA arbitrations, we never quite learn exactly what went wrong and who did what to whom and why -- regardless, it's all a burning wreck on the side of the road and it's tough to drive by without looking.
In today's blog we come across the plight of an employee who believes that he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for seeking leave to care for his newborn. The employee says that his termination violated the Family and Medical Leave Act and his civil rights. In response, the employer argues that business had turned sour, a trader needed to be fired, and, sadly, the new father was chosen for termination solely based upon sound business reasons. After the axe fell, the former employee sued for nearly $3 million in damages.