RRBDLAW and BrokeAndBroker are under new ownership. We are working hard to reimagine this service and still bring hard-hitting industry commentary, but with new contributors. Legacy content is still available, however, If you are looking for how to contact Bill Singer, he is no longer affiliated with either service, due to his decision to retire from these websites. Please check back or subscribe to our mailing list to be notified of our relaunch! Thank you for your patience!
Why would someone go to all the trouble of suing someone else but then ghost the trial? Mind you, there may be some fair explanations, such as the Plaintiff is dead, or the Claimant is home sick, or there was an emergency. Then again, sometimes folks just decide to stay home and the hell with going to court. In a recent FINRA Arbitration, about four years after a public customer sued her brokerage firm, her lawyer showed up at the hearing but his client, well, not so much.
Case in Point(less)
In a FINRA Arbitration Statement of Claim filed in June 2019, public customer Claimant Forman alleged breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; and negligent supervision. Claimant sought $55,000 in compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, and fees.
In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Dawn Forman, Claimant, v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc, Respondent (FINRA Arbitration Award 19-01544) https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/aao_documents/19-01544.pdf
A Taxing Matter
As to the nature of Claimant Forman's claims, the FINRA Arbitration Award states in part that:
[T]he causes of action relate to Claimant’s allegation that Respondent gave improper advice regarding taxability of transactions, distributions and withdrawals from Claimant’s Individual Retirement Accounts which caused Claimant to be audited by the Internal Revenue Service and receive a large tax bill with penalties.
Respondent Charles Schwab generally denied the allegations and asserted affirmative defenses.
(Dis)Appearing Act
Without further ado, let me step aside and allow the sole FINRA Arbitrator's own words explain what did and/or didn't happen with the Forman v. Charles Schwab FINRA Arbitration:
On May 18, 2023, the evidentiary hearing in this matter was to commence. Claimant’s counsel, Respondent’s counsel and the Arbitrator appeared, however, Claimant did not appear. The Arbitrator entered an order that tentatively rescheduled the evidentiary hearing and required counsel for Claimant to advise Respondent’s counsel as to whether or not Claimant had an emergency that would explain her failure to appear. Claimant’s counsel timely filed a notice that Claimant did not have such an emergency. Claimant failed to appear and offers no justification for same. Claimant has failed to present any evidence to support her claims.
At the evidentiary hearing on June 5, 2023, counsel for Claimant conceded Claimant had no justification for her failure to appear and did not object to the entry of an award in favor of Respondent.
Not surprisingly given the no-show by Claimant, the Arbitrator assessed against Claimant Forman:
$1,800 in Postponement Fees,
$1,200 in Last-Minute Cancellation Fees, and
$1,800 in Hearing Session Fees.
Bill Singer's Comment
The sole FINRA Arbitrator dismissed Claimant Forman's claims with prejudice. Why? Well, it seems that Claimant had filed her FINRA Arbitration against Schwab in June 2019, several months before the first appearance of the Covid Pandemic. Did Covid play any part in the fact that it was only in May 2023 when FINRA scheduled the evidentiary hearing? I have no idea. And the FINRA Award ain't sayin'. The parties showed up at the May 2023 hearing with the notable exception of Claimant Forman. According to Claimant's own lawyer, there was no emergency that explained her Claimant's non-appearance; and no justification for her non-appearance was offered to the Arbitrator. In keeping with Claimant's non-appearance at the evidentiary hearing, no evidence proving her claims was presented. You can only imagine the bemused faces of all the folks gathered around the arbitration table as they gazed upon Claimant's empty seat and were presented with her lawyer's shrug. At the subsequent June 5th hearing, Claimant's counsel did not object to the dismissal of his client's claims with prejudice of the claims. Pretty much another shrug. I'm guessing that there were a number of puzzled folks sitting in the FINRA hearing room wondering just what the hell had happened. Maybe that prompted a round of shrugs?
As the Buffalo Springfield tune "For What It's Worth" so famously mused: There's something happening here; what it is ain't exactly clear.
