Claimant Wells Fargo sought an award against Respondent Johnson in the amount of $934,761.37, plus interest, costs, and attorneys' fees; and a permanent injunction:The causes of action related to Claimant's allegation that, after the conclusion of Johnson's employment with Claimant, Johnson breached contractual agreements which included binding confidentiality and non-solicitation covenants. Claimant also sought enforcement and repayment of two Promissory Notes ("Notes") which became due and owing upon the conclusion of Johnson's employment with Claimant.
violation of the Michigan Elliot Larson Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) MCL 37.2201 et seq. - discrimination based on sex; violation of the Michigan Elliot Larson Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCL 37.2201, et seq. - sex harassment; violation of the Michigan Elliot Larson Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCL 37.2201, et seq. - discrimination based on retaliation; retaliation in violation of public policy; violation of FINRA standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade; unfair competition; wrongful discharge; unjust enrichment; and defamation. The causes of action related to Johnson's allegation that she was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for reporting sex harassment and discrimination. In addition, Johnson asserted a claim seeking expungement or modification of the Form U5 filed by Claimant, as part of registration records maintained by the Central Registration Depository ("CRD").
The Panel notes that during the pendency of this matter, Johnson, after prior notice, failed to appear at scheduled pre-hearing conferences on December 3, 2019, September 9, 2020, September 16, 2020, January 26, 2021, December 2, 2021, and July 28, 2022. The Panel further notes that Johnson was represented on and off by at least three attorneys.After consideration of the parties' motions and the multiple failures of Johnson to appear, produce, comply, and otherwise participate in this matter, herein, the Panel grants Claimant's request for a decision on the papers and denies Johnson's request for reinstatement of the Counterclaim.
Discharged following concerns regarding suitability of recommendations to certain clients and instances where FA did not complete a trade approval worksheet.
filed a claim with human resources for being unfairly targeted. Once I dropped the claim, I was terminated.
If you are sued for failure to repay a balance on a promissory note, there is almost always a so-called "settlement premium" offer that is made by the creditor. Almost always as in not always -- so, you may be one of the few debtors for whom the full bill is demanded even during settlement discussions. Beyond obtaining some settlement premium, the other advantage of not proceeding to full-fledged litigation replete with opening statements, direct and cross examinations, motions, closing statements, briefs, and expert witness fees, is that you won't incur the charges attached to all those aspects of litigation. Similarly, if you settle before trial, you reduce your own lawyer's billable hours, and, you minimize the billable hours run up by your adversary. Some lawyers can bill 25 or more hours each day. So, factor into your willingness to go to the mat to clear your name or make a point, the ensuing costs and fees associated with pursuing your rights in arbitration and/or court. In Ameriprise v. Silverman, Silverman found out, there was a hefty cost to filing an Answer in the FINRA Arbitration and his Counterclaim; and then fighting the Arbitration Award in federal court; and then in pursuing malpractice claims in state court. If you want to stand on principle -- and many folks do, and that's their right -- don't be shocked if you find that the cost of principle these days may include a bill for your adversary's attorneys' fee, costs, and other fees.
Finally, the FINRA Arbitration Award asserted that Johnson was "represented on and off by at least three attorneys." That's a somewhat pregnant observation. How much of the on-and-off lawyering contributed to the various non-responses and non-appearances cited disapprovingly by the arbitrators? What role did the Covid pandemic play in engendering the on-and-off roles of legal counsel, or, in the alternative, in Johnson's ability to participate in her own defense and prosecution of her Counterclaim?