April 2, 2022
In a recent federal lawsuit, we got a deceased mother, her two sons, the deceased mom's daughter (which makes her the the two sons' sister -- duh), and we got the daughter's husband, who, as you likely figured out is the deceased mother's son-in-law and, okay, sure, the sons' brother-in-law. Making matters worse, the daughter is now deceased.
In a recent FINRA Arbitration Award, it seemed that the Arbitrator meant to award $75,000 but inadvertently wrote out $75. Or not. Frankly, it's still not clear as to whether the Arbitrator meant to award $75 or $75,000. In today's featured blog, we come across a recent FINRA Arbitration Award in which a former brokerage employee proved his defamation claims against his former employer. The arbitrators awarded the former employee six figures via compensatory and punitive damages. Unfortunately, we're left to make sense of the bill presented to that victorious Claimant for thousands of dollars in hearing session fees.
After a guilty verdict is rendered in a criminal trial, the convicted defendant often battles on via appeals and appeals and appeals. For some, it's about delaying the inevitable incarceration and fines; for others, it's a belief that the law was not followed. More often than not, after years of argument, the guilty verdict is affirmed. In a recent case, a defendant was convicted in 2018 of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud but was still pursuing his appeals in 2022. My guess is that we will still be talking about this case in 2023.
Is there a right to have legal counsel appointed in a civil court case? Interesting question and one that often elicits the wrong answer. In today's blog we come across the plight of a public customer Claimant who filed an arbitration claim against a FINRA member firm. Except the firm says she's not a customer and can't compel them to arbitrate. Where did the firm make that argument? In federal court. Which means that the Claimant now has to deal with both her FINRA arbitration and a federal court case. But she's representing herself pro se in the pending court matter, and, she asks the Court for help. Will she get it?
They would like you to believe that there is some super-duper, state-of-the-art regulatory oversight keeping an eye on Wall Street. In case you were wondering, there ain't no such vigilance. The industry sure as hell doesn't want it. The regulators sure seem more interested in self-serving publicity and the appearance of regulation rather than the substance. In the end, the regulation of Wall Street is more about what the public investor is willing to believe. Frankly, don't believe too much. If you pull the curtain back, there's no mighty wizard.