What is Securities Arbitration?
Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution in which the parties agree on a neutral third party, usually a panel of 1 to 3 people, to hear the evidence and decide the case. The decision of the arbitrator is usually final and binding.
What is FINRA?
The Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms operating in the United States, overseeing about 4,700 brokerage firms, 167,000 branch offices and 635,000 registered securities representatives. FINRA not only regulates and enforces the securities laws; it administers the largest dispute resolution forum for investors, registered securities representatives and securities firms. FINRA performs most securities arbitration claims.
What is the difference between arbitration and litigation?
The main difference between arbitration and litigation is that in arbitration a neutral panel of 1 to 3 arbitrators hears and decides the case instead of a judge or jury. Arbitration is private, while litigation takes place in a public courtroom. Discovery and evidentiary rules are more limited in arbitration than in litigation. Unlike court litigation where appeal of a verdict is possible, the arbitration decision is usually binding with no appeal possible. Securities arbitration historically has been favored over trial litigation because it is more efficient and less costly.
What broker actions cause investors to seek securities arbitration attorneys for recourse?
Common securities arbitration and litigation grounds include claims of suitability, fraudulent omissions and representations, breach of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty, unauthorized trading, churning and negligence.
Do I have a valid case?
The only way to determine if you have a valid case for securities arbitration or litigation is to consult with a securities lawyer. Securities arbitration attorneys of Napoli Bern Ripka LLP are experienced in these types of cases and knowledgeable about current financial markets and state, federal and FINRA securities laws. Call for a free consultation with our securities arbitration attorneys today to determine you legal options.
Securities Lawsuits
The securities litigation and arbitration department at Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP investigates hundreds of securities and corporate related claims every year. NBR’s practice focuses on securities litigation and arbitration, whistle blower complaints, consumer fraud, employment related securities matters. Our substantial experience in the securities area is crucial in assisting our clients to navigate the industry’s numerous regulatory entities and laws to obtain the results you want.
The attorney’s in this department specialize in rooting out all kinds of financial industry and corporate abuses including fraud, conflicts of interest, and broker negligence. Widely known and highly respected, the law firm of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP and its securities arbitration attorneys have handled hundreds of securities cases and recovered millions of dollars in settlements and awards for victims of fraud and misconduct.
Cases and Settlements of Note
Securities Lawsuits & Settlements
- Client v. McGinn Smith & Co. The firm represented a retail customer of a registered broker-dealer in a fraud and self-dealing case. Following a three-day arbitration, a panel of three arbitrators found McGinn Smith guilty of self-dealing and awarded our client his full out of pocket losses.
- Client v. Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. The firm represented a retail customer who purchased Morgan Keegan’s bond funds from third party broker-dealer. The Client alleged that Morgan Keegan misled investors and their brokers concerning the funds holdings. After intense litigation, the chair rejected Morgan Keegan’s argument that those who relied on the firm’s representations contained in the prospectus and other materials disseminated by the firm did not have standing to hold the firm liable in FINRA and awarded the Client her full loss.
- Client v. UBS Financial Services Inc. The firm represented a retail customer in the inappropriate purchase of a private placement that defaulted on its debt. The Client argued that the purchase of the private placement violated the Investment Advisor Act of 1940’s “Qualified Purchaser” provision that was designed to protect consumers from investing in speculative investments. The panel awarded the Client restitution with interest.
- Platovsky v. City of New York. The trial court’s order was affirmed in favor of our client, a litigation financial services company, finding that an arbitration clause in a litigation financing contract was effective against the contracting litigant despite collateral claims that the matter should remain in Supreme Court because the contracting litigant claimed that his trial attorney had been dismissed for cause.
Attorney Advertising: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website is for informational purposes only, does not constitute legal advice and may not reflect the most current legal developments. Use of this website does not create an attorney-client relationship, only a written contract between the parties can establish an attorney-client relationship. Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik LLP and all contributing authors expressly disclaim all liability to any person with respect to the contents of this website. Imagery used on this website utilizes fictionalized events or scenes with participation of models. For complete details, read our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
(888) 529 4669
