February 22, 2012

WHAT IS FINRA ARBITRATION?

Arbitration is a contractual process to resolve disputes between parties in a private forum.  Typically, brokerage firms and customers will enter into a contractual agreement before the customer opens their brokerage account.  Most agreements include a provision which compels the parties to resolve certain disputes through arbitration rather than a judicial proceeding such as a lawsuit in a state or federal court.

The arbitration process is not public and imposes significant restrictions on a parties’ ability to conduct discovery, such as document requests and depositions.  Parties also lose the benefit of procedural and due process mechanisms such as appellate review.

In arbitration, a person or group of person is appointed to serve as the arbitration panel.  The arbitrators hear the arguments and review the evidence of all sides and then decides how the matter should be resolved.  Arbitrators are not required to be attorneys.  Finally, arbitration awards issued by arbitration panels are subject to review by a court only on a very limited basis.

WHAT IS SECURITIES LITIGATION & ARBITRATION?

Securities attorneys and lawyers can practice is a wide variety of areas.

Transactional Securities Attorneys

Certain securities attorneys focus on transactional securities work which includes counseling issuers, underwriters and placement agents in private and public offerings under the Securities Act of 1933; advising on mergers and acquisitions or going private transactions; and preparing regulatory filings required under state and federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sarbanes Oxley and the Dodd-Frank Act.

Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorneys

Other securities laws may focus on securities litigation and arbitration. Securities litigation and arbitration cases are prosecuted and defended by securities attorneys on behalf of various parties including shareholders, private and publicly-traded companies, officers, directors, and senior management,  individuals and institutional investors, stock brokers, brokerage firms, broker-dealers, underwriters, investment banks, pension funds, and hedge funds.

In addition to recouping lost assets, private securities litigation also augments the efforts of federal regulators to pursue wrongdoers and to provide a deterrent to future violations.

Derivative Actions

Derivative actions are lawsuits brought by shareholders on behalf of the company against senior managers and officers.  Generally, the claim is brought where the shareholders believe that the senior managers are breaching their fiduciary duties to the company through malfeasance.  Plaintiffs may seek both injunctive relief (directing the end of the wrongful acts) and may seek compensatory damages to be paid  by the rogue managers directly to the company.

State & Federal Lawsuits

In lawsuits and arbitration, securities lawyers may allege violations of state or federal securities laws and may also allege common law claims including breaches of fiduciary duty or fraud depending on the factual scenarios.  Retaining a securities attorney to initiate a securities lawsuit may be the only means for for a shareholder to recover asset or investment losses caused by corporate fraud or malfeasance.  Such actions may be filed in state or federal court depending upon the type of claims asserted.

Class Actions

In addition to individual lawsuits, securities class actions may be filed on behalf of classes of shareholders who have similar interests and similar claims.  Because of the significant expense in engaging in securities litigation against large, publicly-traded companies, class actions provide means for recovery for shareholders with a small financial stake in the litigation.

Securities class actions are filed by securities attorneys who represent individuals who seek to serve as class representatives.  Class representatives must have claims similar to the other members of the class and must be approved by the court.  If a settlement is achieved between the class representative and the defendants, class members generally have three options:  (1) participate in the settlement for their pro-rata share; (2) opt-out of the settlement (and pursue their claims in separate litigation); (3) participate in the settlement, but object to certain parts of the settlement – such as the allocation of the settlement or object to the amount of attorney’s fees sought by the class attorneys.

Arbitration

Some securities disputes arise in the context of a stock broker/client relationship.  In most circumstances, a customer will enter into an agreement to arbitrate any disputes that arise between him and his broker in connection with his brokerage account.  For example, a dispute may arise when a broker is involved with the solicitation or sale of an unregistered security which leads to a loss of the customer’s investment.  Often the brokerage agreements specify that such disputes will be resolved before FINRA dispute resolution.  Arbitration can differ drastically than litigation in state and federal courts for securities attorney.  For example, there is no jury in FINRA arbitration, there are very limited rules of procedure and discovery and there are very limited grounds to appeal a FINRA arbitration award.

 

ATTORNEYS AT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION INVESTIGATING TRADING PRACTICES

According to Reuters, attorneys at the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) have reportedly begun making requests for information concerning proprietary algorithmic trading data as part of its authority to examine financial firms for compliance with federal regulations according to officials and outside lawyers.  Reuters reports that “the unusual requests for algo code and other computerized trading strategies really ramped up this year and have targeted stock-trading firms such as broker dealers and hedge funds.”

FINRA REVISES DISCOVERY GUIDE FOR CUSTOMER ARBITRATIONS

For claims filed on or after May 16, 2011, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., (“FINRA”) has revised its Discovery Guide to provide additional guidance to parties and arbitration panels and FINRA reorganizes the Document Production Lists.

In Notice to Members 11-17 or NTM 11-17, FINRA articulates additional guidance concerning objections based on cost/burden, the consideration of firm business model and customer claims, requests for additional documents, confidentiality and privilege. FINRA also notes that it is replacing the current 14 Document Production Lists with 2 lists of presumptively discoverable documents in every customer case. See the new lists HERE.

FINRA’S NATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL REVERSES HEARING PANEL’S FINDING OF FAILURE TO SUPERVISE

On Maarch 3, 2010, FINRA’s National Adjudicatory Counsel entered a decision reversing a Hearing Panel’s finding that the CEO and institutional sales desk manager for a broker-dealer failed to reasonably supervise an institutional sales trader. The NAC noted among other things that:

“It is clear to us that Market Regulation’s claims and the Extended Hearing Panel majority’s findings that [respondents] failed as supervisors are informed and colored in this case by their faulty views of [the sales trader's] conduct and a tenuous ‘industry standard’ that they claim limited the ‘profits’ he could garner for [the broker-dealer] from his trading.”

In the Matter of Department of Market Regulation v. Leighton and Pasternak, Complaint No. CLG050021 (NAC Mar. 3, 2010).

CITIGROUP FINED $1.5M OVER SUPERVISION ISSUES

On May 26, 2010, FINRA announced “that it has imposed a monetary sanction of $1.5 million against Citigroup Global Markets Inc. for supervisory violations relating to its handling of trust funds belonging to cemeteries in Michigan and Tennessee.” According to FINRA, “over a period of more than two years, Citigroup failed to reasonably supervise the handling of these accounts by inadequately responding to a succession of ‘red flags’ – failures that permitted the scheme to continue undetected until October 2006.” Among the “red flags” were “unusual transfers of cemetery trust funds to accounts opened in the names of third parties.”

See the Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) here.

BROKER DEALER ENTERS INTO AWC CONCERNING EMAIL RETENTION

On May 11, 2010, Piper Jaffray & Co. (the “Firm”) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) for violation relating to the Firm’s retention of emails. The Firm was fined $700,000 for its failure to retain 4.3 million emails from November 2002 to December 2008. FINRA noted among other things that “Piper Jaffray failed to disclose that it was not making complete production of its emails due to intermittent problems with its systems – potentially preventing production of crucial evidence of improper conduct by the firm and its employees.”

In a press release, FINRA further stated:

“FINRA discovered Piper Jaffray’s continuing email retention deficiencies when its investigators requested all emails sent or received by a former firm employee suspected of misconduct. The firm provided a CD-ROM purportedly containing all of the employee’s emails, on both his firm and Bloomberg email accounts. When reviewing the CD-ROM’s contents, however, FINRA discovered that one particular email was not produced that investigators had already obtained in hard copy form – an email whose contents sparked an internal investigation that led to the employee’s termination, and formed the basis for a FINRA enforcement action against the employee. Only after further inquiries about that missing email did the firm finally inform FINRA of the intermittent email retention and retrieval issues it had been experiencing firmwide since the November 2002 action.”

JUDGE RAKOFF DISMISSES CASE AGAINST FINRA OVER MERGER OF NASD AND NYSE

On March 1, 2010, District Judge Rakoff issued an opinion in two federal cases concerning alleged misrepresentations in the solicitation of NASD shareholder votes necessary for the consolidation of the NASD and NYSE and formation of FINRA. In both cases, the defendants filed motions to dismiss arguing, among other things, that they were entitled to absolute immunity. In his opinion, Judge Rakoff agreed with the defendants stating:

Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 , 15 U. S .C. §§ 78a-7800 , the United States Securities and Exchange Commission is authorized to delegate certain regulatory functions to SROs, which are therefore considered ‘quasi-governmental’ bodies…. As a result , SROs and their offi cers are absolutely immune from private damages suits challenging official conduct performed within the scope of their regulatory functions.

Judge Rakoff concluded that “[i]t is patent that the consolidation that transferred NASD’s and NYSE’s regulatory powers to the resulting FINRA is, on its face, an exercise of the SROs’ delegated regulatory functions and thus entitled to absolute immunity.”

Standard Investment Chartered v. NASD, No. 07 Civ. 2014 (JSR) and Benchmark Financial Services, No. 08 Civ. 11193 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2010).

WHAT IS A FINRA LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE WAIVER & CONSENT (AWC)

A Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent is a mechanism provided under the FINRA Rule 9216 to permit the Department of Enforcement or Department of Market Regulation to resolve aa controversy between the Department and a member or associated person over a violation of of any rule, regulation or staturory provision, including the federal securities laws and the regulations promulgated thereunder, which FINRA has jurisidiction to enforce. See also FINRA Rule 9211.

Subsection (a) of FINRA Rule 9216 states in part as follows:

(1) Notwithstanding Rule 9211, if the Department of Enforcement or the Department of Market Regulation has reason to believe a violation has occurred and the member or associated person does not dispute the violation, the Department of Enforcement or the Department of Market Regulation may prepare and request that the member or associated person execute a letter accepting a finding of violation, consenting to the imposition of sanctions, and agreeing to waive such member’s or associated person’s right to a hearing before a Hearing Panel or, if applicable, an Extended Hearing Panel, and any right of appeal to the National Adjudicatory Council, the SEC, and the courts, or to otherwise challenge the validity of the letter, if the letter is accepted. The letter shall describe the act or practice engaged in or omitted, the rule, regulation, or statutory provision violated, and the sanction or sanctions to be imposed. Unless the letter states otherwise, the effective date of any sanction(s) imposed will be a date to be determined by FINRA staff.

In addition, a member or associated person who executes an AWC waives certain rights:

(2)(A) If a member or person associated with a member submits an executed letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent, by the submission such member or person associated with a member also waives:
(i) any right of such member or person associated with a member to claim bias or prejudgment of the General Counsel, the National Adjudicatory Council, or any member of the National Adjudicatory Council, in connection with such person’s or body’s participation in discussions regarding the terms and conditions of the letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent, or other consideration of the letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent, including acceptance or rejection of such letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent; and
(ii) any right of such member or person associated with a member to claim that a person violated the ex parte prohibitions of Rule 9143 or the separation of functions prohibitions of Rule 9144, in connection with such person’s or body’s participation in discussions regarding the terms and conditions of the letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent, or other consideration of the letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent, including acceptance or rejection of such letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent.
(B) If a letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent is rejected, the member or associated person shall be bound by the waivers made under paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(A) for conduct by persons or bodies occurring during the period beginning on the date the letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent was executed and submitted and ending upon the rejection of the letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent.

FINRA Rule 9126 (2).

FINRA INVESTOR EDUCATION FOUNDATION ANNOUNCES GRANTS FOR LAW SCHOOL CLINICS

On January 28, 2010, FINRA Education Foundation announced grants to create law school clinics at Florida International University, Howard University, Pepperdine University, and Suffolk University to provide legal assistance to “underserved investors involved in securities disputes.” These grants are intended to “help fill the gap in legal representation for investors with small claims who do not have the financial resources to obtain legal counsel.”