"Sorry you are dissatisfied with the outcome of this case" - FINRA to J.P. Morgan's Attorney

NEW YORK - Sept. 9, 2015 - PRLog -- FINRA Dispute Resolution Arbitration Number 13-03642

Associated Person v. Member

Attorneys Brittany Weiner, Steven Fingerhut and Vincent Imbesi of Imbesi Law P.C., represented Claimant, a former employee of Respondent.

Attorneys Lawrence Sandak and David Reid of Proskauer Rose LLP represented Respondent J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC ("J.P. Morgan").

-----------------------------
Attorney Brittany Weiner, a partner of the law firm Imbesi Law P.C., represented the victorious former FINRA associated person that filed a claim for arbitration with FINRA.  After a five-day hearing, a FINRA arbitration panel issued an award recommending sections of Claimant’s Form U5 be expunged.  The award recommended that the answer to Question 7(F)(2) on Claimant’s Form U5 be changed from “yes” to “no” and that Claimant’s Termination Disclosure Page be deleted in its entirety.

In her Statement of Claim, Claimant alleged that J.P. Morgan falsely accused her of misconduct which resulted in the termination of her license registration with FINRA.  According to Claimant’s attorneys, J.P. Morgan refused to resolve the claim even after Claimant offered to not demand any monetary compensation ($0) and only requested amended words on her Form U5.

In addition to the recommended changes on Claimant’s Form U5, the arbitration panel assessed 100% of the hearing session fees to J.P. Morgan, totaling $13,200.00.  J.P. Morgan was also mandated to pay $8,550 in member fees. The total amount equaled $21,750.00.

“The fact that J.P. Morgan refused to resolve the claim even after Claimant offered to accept no money, just a change of wording, was a huge mistake by J.P. Morgan, which most likely resulted in payment of legal fees and FINRA arbitration costs that could have been avoided,” Mr. Imbesi commented.

After the arbitration panel issued the written award, Lawrence Sandak, legal counsel for J.P. Morgan, issued a letter to the Regional Director of FINRA demanding the panel change its expungement determination.  In his letter, dated August 26, 2015, Mr. Sandak set forth his version of the testimony that occurred during the hearing to support his demand.

Mr. Sandak concluded his letter by requesting the Regional Director take all steps necessary to modify the panel’s expungement award and “to more fairly allocate fees and costs between the parties.”

FINRA RULE 13905

J.P. Morgan’s submission after an award was issued is subject to FINRA Rule 13905.  Rule 13905 indicates parties may not submit documents to arbitrators that have closed as case unless:

         (1) as ordered by a court;

         (2) at the request of any party within 10 days of service of an award or notice that a matter has been closed, for typographical or computational errors, or mistakes in the description of any person or property referred to in the award; or

         (3) if all parties agree and submit documents within 10 days of (1) service of an award or (2) notice that a matter has been closed.

Rule 13905(b) requires parties that make a request after a case is closed to send the request to the Director that “must include the basis relied on under this rule for the request.”

FINRA DENIES J.P. MORGAN’S REQUEST

FINRA responded to Mr. Sandak’s request on September 3, 2015 by written correspondence.  The response explained to Mr. Sandak that the arbitrators heard testimony on five (5) separate days and the panel issued a recommendation to modify certain section of Claimant’s Form U5.

The letter informed Mr. Sandak, “I understand you are unhappy with the panel’s decision to recommend the modification of Claimant’s Form U5.  However, as a neutral administrator, FINRA does not have any input into the outcome of arbitrations.”   FINRA’s letter represented that, “FINRA and its staff have no authority to modify or overturn an arbitration panel’s determinations. “

The letter concludes, “I am sorry you are dissatisfied with the outcome of this case.”

“It appears J.P. Morgan was not happy with the panel’s decision and attempted to have it changed pursuant to FINRA Rule 13905, but failed to sufficiently allege a basis to alter the award,” said Mr. Imbesi.  He concluded, “Since Claimant attempted to change her Form U5 before even filing an arbitration claim and during the hearing, I can understand why J.P. Morgan is not happy with the outcome – it could have saved money by resolving the issue quickly and fairly.”

Brittany Weiner, a partner of Imbesi Law P.C., represents both customers and brokers in FINRA arbitration, including issues involving expungement of inaccurate information maintained in the CRD and on Form U5s. In some jurisdictions, this press release could be deemed as Attorney Advertising.  Prior results to not guarantee future success.