For years, firms have been using wrap products to charge an annual fee based upon the value of assets under management regardless of the number of trades, as opposed to fees per trade. In other words, wrap accounts were an effective tool to avoid churning claims because the customer theoretically could trade daily and only

Over the years that I have defended financial advisors and their firms, I have frequently spoken and written about ways to avoid the risk of being sued. I prepared a guidebook a couple of years ago that detailed some common sense approaches to risk avoidance. I have updated that guidebook to take into account new

The SEC recently approved a FINRA proposal that will further restrict who can serve as “public” arbitrators. Under this new formulation, individuals who have worked in the securities industry and lawyers, including those who represent claimants, could not be considered “public” arbitrators for a period of time.

The big change under this new rule, is

FINRA proposed amendments to the organization’s arbitration code would tighten the definition of “public” arbitrator for FINRA arbitration purposes.

In a release, FINRA said the proposed rule changes would provide that a person who worked in the financial industry “for any duration” during his or her career would always be classified as a non-public arbitrators. 

As a result of a couple high profile awards that were overturned because of issues with the arbitrators, FINRA has vetted its pool of arbitrators and has instituted new procedures to review arbitrators. Should you feel any better that this has happened?

Having defended broker-dealers and registered representatives over 16 years, I have, at times,

FINRA recently put into place the highly publicized prohibition of making a settlement contingent upon a registered representative having the subject arbitration expunged from the representatives U-4.  Is this a good thing? 

The claimants’ bar thinks this is a good thing because it will prevent bad apples from having their records cleaned.  This position seems

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California remanded to a California state court a stockbroker’s lawsuit against the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for expungement of certain allegedly harmful disclosures from BrokerCheck. Doe v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth., http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/John_Doe_v_Financial_Industry_Regulatory_Authority_Inc_et_al_Dock.

The court found no exclusive federal question jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s cause of