Category: FINRA Arbitration

Hanley Law Files FINRA Arbitration Against Morgan Stanley for Sale of Luckin Coffee

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

Hanley Law recently filed a FINRA arbitration claim alleging that Morgan Stanley recommended its customer invest in the Chinese coffee company, Luckin, after Morgan Stanley won the leading role underwriting its public offering.  The Chinese upstart company, Luckin Coffee, grew at rapid speed opening stores faster than Starbuck and doubling its valuation just months after going public.  In April 2020, Luckin admitted that many of its sales had been faked.  The shocking news of the fraudulent sales sent its stock plunging 75% overnight.  Luckin sold vouchers redeemable for tens of millions of cups of coffee to companies that had ties to Luckin’s chairman and controlling shareholder.  The purchases of vouchers helped the company book much higher revenue than actually produced by the company.  Luckin Coffee’s IPO raised $651 million.  In May, after a six-week trading suspension the shares of Luckin further declined.

If you invested in Luckin Coffee at the recommendation of Morgan Stanley contact Hanley Law today.  Hanley Law is currently prosecuting a FINRA arbitration claim against Morgan Stanley as a result of Morgan Stanley’s recommendation to a retired retail customer to invest in Luckin Coffee- a stock that Morgan Stanley underwrote for its initial public offering.

HANLEY LAW

Hanley law represents individual investors nationwide with significant losses in their portfolios, retirement plans or investment accounts.  Hanley Law is dedicated to assisting investors to recover losses suffered by unsuitability, over-concentration, fraud, misrepresentation, self-dealing, unauthorized trades or other wrongful acts, whether intentional or negligent.  Hanley Law represents clients nationwide in cases against the major Wall Street broker-dealers, including Morgan Stanley Smith Barney.

If you have suffered investment losses as a result of your broker’s or brokerage firm’s misconduct, contact Hanley Law to discuss your legal options. Contact Hanley Law at (239)877-4330 or contact us through our Website to arrange a free confidential consultation with an attorney to discuss your experiences with your stock broker which resulted in investment losses.

 

 

Hanley Law Files FINRA Arbitration Against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

Hanley Law recently filed a FINRA arbitration claim alleging that Morgan Stanley (CRD No.: 149777) refused to distribute a deceased client’s IRA directly to her beneficiaries because Morgan Stanley determined that the beneficiary designation for the IRAs was invalid under applicable Treasury rulings.  The trustees to the estate allege that the new account form with the invalid beneficiary designation was prepared by Morgan Stanley and approved by Morgan Stanley’s compliance personnel over a decade earlier.  Claimants further allege that no one at Morgan Stanley raised any objection to the way the new account form was completed regarding the invalid beneficiary designations during the previous 13 years.  Claimants allege that the deceased client relied on Morgan Stanley to manage the funds in her IRA accounts, and also to assure that upon her death the funds would be distributed in accordance to her wishes.

Ultimately, the IRAs were distributed to the Estate because, as a result of the invalid beneficiary designation, the funds were payable to the Estate pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code and applicable Treasury rulings, and the Estate was forced to pay substantial taxes.  Claimants allege that unfortunately, because of the violation of the Internal Revenue Code by Morgan Stanley when completing and approving the client’s Individual Retirement Account Applications, the Estate was forced to pay substantial inheritance taxes.  Claimants allege that it is beyond unconscionable that Morgan Stanley raised the issue with the beneficiary designations on the Individual Retirement Account forms almost immediately upon request for the distribution of the accounts, but had remained silent during the 13 years after the client signed the form.  Claimants allege that Morgan Stanley had a duty to review and correct the Individual Retirement Account forms at the time the client opened her Morgan Stanley IRA accounts, and/or at some point thereafter prior to her death, and they failed to meet their obligation to their client which resulted in needless losses.

BROKER DEALERS MUST ACT IN THE CUSTOMER’S BEST INTERESTS

FINRA’s guidance to its members makes the members obligations to its customers unequivocal:  FINRA members must act in their customer’s best interests; not the best interest of the firm.

It is well-settled that a “broker’s recommendations must be consistent with his customer’s best interests” and are “not suitable merely because the customer acquiesces in [them].” Dane S. Faber, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49216, 2004 SEC LEXIS 277, at *23-24 (February 10, 2004); see also Dep’t of Enforcement v. Bendetsen, No. C01020025, 2004 NASD Discip. LEXIS 13, at *12 (NAC August 9, 2004) (“[A] broker’s recommendations must serve his client’s best interests and the test for whether a broker’s recommendations are suitable is not whether the client acquiesced in them, but whether the broker’s recommendations were consistent with the client’s financial situation and needs”).  In the instant FINRA Arbitration claim, Claimants allege that Morgan Stanley failed to act in the best interest of their client, and because of this failure, Claimant’s estate was damaged when it was forced to pay substantial federal and state estate taxes.

HANLEY LAW

Hanley law represents individual investors nationwide with significant losses in their portfolios, retirement plans or investment accounts.  Hanley Law is dedicated to assisting investors to recover losses suffered by unsuitability, over-concentration, fraud, misrepresentation, self-dealing, unauthorized trades or other wrongful acts, whether intentional or negligent.  Hanley Law represents clients nationwide in cases against the major Wall Street broker dealers, including Morgan Stanley Smith Barney.

If you have suffered investment losses as a result of your broker’s or brokerage firm’s misconduct, contact Hanley Law to discuss your legal options. Contact Hanley Law at (239)649-0050 or contact us through our Website to arrange a free confidential consultation with an attorney to discuss your experiences with your stock broker which resulted in investment losses.

Hanley Law Files FINRA Arbitration Involving broker Ronald Radner Former Registered Representative at the Delray Beach Florida Branch of Edward Jones

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

Hanley Law recently filed a FINRA arbitration claim alleging that Ronald Radner a broker formerly registered with Edward Jones solicited an elderly client into transferring his investment portfolio to his care after Radner hosted a “free lunch” seminar at a local deli.  The client alleges that Ronald Radner convinced him to surrender his American National annuity and to allow Ronald Radner to manage the funds from the surrendered annuity.  The client alleges that Ronald Radner convinced him that he could earn a greater rate of return on the funds, and therefore would be able to provide him with additional growth and income through retirement.

The client alleges that because of the recommendation of Ronald Radner and Edward Jones he incurred a large surrender charge, and also lost his substantial death benefit of nearly $400,000 when Mr. Radner surrendered his American National Annuity.  Furthermore, the client alleges that he incurred a large tax consequence because of Ronald Radner’s and Edward Jones’ recommendation that he surrender his American National annuity.  Additionally, the client alleges that he lost significant principal on the investments Ronald Radner purchased with his annuity proceeds.

The Boynton Beach, Florida retiree client alleges that Edward Jones violated industry rules, including but not limited to FINRA’s customer suitability standard (Rule 2310) as well as FINRA rules 3010 and 2110. The client further alleges that Edward Jones violated its duty of care and was negligent and that Edward Jones breached the contract it entered into with its client. The client alleges that Edward Jones also breached the fiduciary duty that a securities firm and its employees/agents owe to their clients.  The client alleges that Edward Jones’ misconduct constitutes common law fraud.  Moreover, the client alleges that the accounts at issue were handled negligently and Edward Jones was negligent in their hiring, retention, and supervision of their employees.

According to FINRA’s Brokercheck, Ronald Radner was registered with the securities industry for 9 years, and was registered with the following firm(s) and has multiple customer complaints:

Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.
CRD 6694
Delray Beach, FL
3/29/2019 – present

Edward Jones
CRD 250
Delray Beach, FL
9/30/2011 – 4/1/2019

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney
CRD 149777
Delray Beach, FL
10/4/2010 – 9/7/2011

HANLEY LAW

Hanley law represents individual investors nationwide with significant losses in their portfolios, retirement plans or investment accounts.  Hanley Law is dedicated to assisting investors to recover losses suffered by unsuitability, over-concentration, fraud, misrepresentation, self-dealing, unauthorized trades or other wrongful acts, whether intentional or negligent.  Hanley Law represents clients nationwide in cases against the major Wall Street broker dealers, including Edward Jones.

If you have suffered investment losses as a result of your broker’s or brokerage firm’s misconduct, contact Hanley Law to discuss your legal options. Contact Hanley Law at (239)649-0050 or contact us through our Website to arrange a free confidential consultation with an attorney to discuss your experiences with your stock broker which resulted in investment losses.

 

Hanley Law Files FINRA Arbitration Involving broker William “Bill” Collins Registered Representative of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

Hanley Law recently filed a FINRA arbitration claim alleging that William “Bill” Collins a broker with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney mislead his retired client into believing that he was not charging her any commissions or fees because he was managing her account as a favor to her. Meanwhile, the client alleges that Bill Collins recommended and purchased unsuitable investments in her accounts, improperly increased her lines of credit and acted negligently when handling her account. The retired client residing in Naples, Florida trusted Bill Collins implicitly to her detriment. The retired investor client alleges that Bill Collins redeemed a treasury note in her IRA account and used the proceeds to by speculative and high-risk investments without authorization. The client also alleges that Bill Collins sold suitable and low risk equities in her account and used the proceeds to buy speculative and high-risk equities without her authorization which lead her to suffer devastating principal losses. Specifically, the client alleges that Bill Collins purchased the Chinese coffee company Luckin in her accounts and that shortly after his purchase of Luckin Coffee, the stock’s trading halted on reports of fraud. The company is facing various class action lawsuits and bankruptcy is looming. The investor client’s large investment in Luckin Coffee is now essentially worthless. Lastly, the investor client alleges that when the market became increasingly volatile in March 2020 due to growing concerns of the coronavirus, Bill Collins refused her requests to provide her financial guidance or to discuss her concerns over her line of credit and her diminishing account value.

The Naples, Florida retiree alleges that Morgan Stanley violated industry rules, including but not limited to FINRA’s customer suitability standard (Rule 2310) as well as FINRA rules 3010 and 2110. The client further alleges that Morgan Stanley violated its duty of care and was negligent and that Morgan Stanley breached the contract it entered into with its client. The retired client alleges that Morgan Stanley also breached the fiduciary duty that a securities firm and its employees/agents owe to their clients. The client alleges that Morgan Stanley’s misconduct constitutes common law fraud and that Morgan Stanley violated Florida Statute § 517. Moreover, the client alleges that the accounts at issue were handled negligently and Morgan Stanley was negligent in their hiring, retention, and supervision of their employees.

According to FINRA’s Brokercheck, William “Bill” Collins was registered with the securities industry for 23 years, was registered with the following firm(s) and has multiple customer complaints:

Morgan Stanley
CRD 149777
34901 Woodward Ave.
Suite 300
Birmingham, MI 48009
5/28/2010 to present

Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC
CRD 19616
Troy, MI
01/01/2008 – 06/01/2010

A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.
CRD 4
Troy, MI
09/16/1996 – 01/03/2008

HANLEY LAW

Hanley law represents individual investors nationwide with significant losses in their portfolios, retirement plans or investment accounts. Hanley Law is dedicated to assisting investors to recover losses suffered by unsuitability, over-concentration, fraud, misrepresentation, self-dealing, unauthorized trades or other wrongful acts, whether intentional or negligent. Hanley Law represents clients nationwide in cases against the major Wall Street broker dealers, including Morgan Stanley Smith Barney.

If you have suffered investment losses as a result of your broker’s or brokerage firm’s misconduct, contact Hanley Law to discuss your legal options. Contact Hanley Law at (239)649-0050 or contact us through our Website to arrange a free confidential consultation with an attorney to discuss your experiences with your stock broker which resulted in investment losses.

Dismissal of a Counterclaim is an Appropriate Sanction for Flagrant Discovery Abuse

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

Simons vs. Fox, No. 17-1012 (7th Cir., February 1, 2018)

This appeal addresses the propriety of sanctions against a litigant for discovery abuses. In a highly contested dispute between the ex-CEO of a trading firm and its founder, the founder and defendant, asks the appellate court to vacate the dismissal of his counterclaim as a sanction for his discovery abuse. Simons sued Fox for firing him for uncovering Fox’s alleged violations of corporate and securities laws. Fox then countersued Simons for defamation. Throughout the acrimonious litigation, Fox asserted that Simons lied in order to destroy Fox’s companies. Rather than prove that assertion with evidence, Fox obstructed Simons’s discovery. This led to sanctions and ultimately the dismissal of Fox’s counterclaim. Fox appeals the orders leading up to the dismissal.

Fox repeatedly refused Simons’s discovery requests, he refused to produce documents he possessed or controlled, and he was an uncooperative deponent. The district court judge directed the production of documents in at least three separate orders, yet Fox declined to produce discovery. The judge sanctioned Fox and he refused to pay the monetary sanction. Fox was then held in contempt of court and ordered to pay a fine for everyday he remained in contempt. Fox refused to pay the fine for contempt. After Fox asserted that he lacked funds to pay any fines, the judge entered an alternative sanction of dismissing his counterclaim as the sanction for Fox’s obstruction. The court found that when presented with the dismissal of claims as a sanction, “we weigh not only the straw that finally broke the camel’s back, but all the straws that the recalcitrant party piled on over the course of the lawsuit.” Domanus, 742 F.3d at 301 (quoting e360 Insight, Inc. v. Spamhaus Project, 658 F.3d 637, 643 (7th Cir. 2011)).

Similarly, the circuit court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error by allowing Simons to voluntarily dismiss the claims against Fox after Fox’s counterclaim was dismissed. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) allows a Plaintiff to dismiss claims voluntarily at any time “on terms the court considers proper.” The court reasoned that at the time of dismissal, Fox was in contempt of court, and he showed no prospect of respecting his long-ignored discovery obligations. Therefore, Fox cannot show prejudice from the judge allowing Simons to dismiss his claims voluntarily to end the case. Finally, Fox contended that the district judge was biased and should have disqualified himself. The court found that judicial rulings, even those that “are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to” a party, do not constitute a valid basis for disqualification except in the “rarest circumstances” in which “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism” makes fair judgement impossible. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). The circuit court found that Fox presented no persuasive reason to disturb the district judge’s fair and patient approach to managing the case and affirmed the decision.

Second Circuit Rejects Manifest Disregard of Law as a Basis for Vacating Arbitration Award Against Wells Fargo Advisors

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

Pfeffer v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, et al., No. 17-1819-cv (2d. Cir. Feb. 15, 2018)

A FINRA arbitration panel dismissed Claimant Pfeffer’s state law claims arising from Wells Fargo Advisors failure to follower her late husband’s instructions to transfer all assets from a trust naming his children as beneficiaries to a trust naming her as the beneficiary. Pfeffer testified that her now deceased husband requested the transfer because the Pfeffers became concerned about the management of the accounts. The Wells Fargo broker testified that he did not transfer the assets because he was worried that Mr. Pfeffer was not competent and was being unduly influenced by Mrs. Pfeffer. After receiving two letters from physicians confirming that Mr. Pfeffer was not capable of making financial decisions, Wells Fargo froze both trust accounts. After a five-and-a-half-day hearing, during which both parties presented testimony and other evidence, the Panel denied Mrs. Pfeffer’s claim.

Mrs. Pfeffer filed a complaint challenging the arbitration award and Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the complaint and confirm the award. The district court confirmed the award and this appeal followed. On appeal, Mrs. Pfeffer argued that the award was procured by undue means, evident partiality, and misconduct because the Panel was intimidated by defense counsel and refused to consider relevant evidence. Pfeffer alleged that the Panel exhibited manifest disregard for the law and facts.

Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a district court may vacate an arbitration award if: (1) the award was procured by “corruption, fraud, or undue means”; (2) the arbitrators exhibited “evident partiality” or “corruption”; (3) the arbitrators were guilty of “misconduct” such as “refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy” or “any other misbehavior” that prejudiced the rights of any party; or (4) the arbitrators “exceeded their powers.” 9 U.S.C. § 10(a); see also AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 350 (2011). The court reasoned that the second circuit does not recognize manifest disregard of the evidence as a proper grounds for vacating an arbitration panel’s award, and will only find a manifest disregard for the law where there is no colorable justification for a panel’s conclusion. Wallace v. Buttar, 378 F.3d 182, 193 (2d Cir. 2004).

The court held that Mrs. Pfeffer failed to meet her “very high” burden to demonstrate that vacatur was appropriate. Id. at 103. The court found that the transcript of the arbitration reveals no suggestion that the award was produced by undue means, evident partiality, or misconduct. Mrs. Pfeffer’s allegations that the Panel failed to abate defense counsel’s abrasive manner and that it was intimidated by him are belied by the record. The court found that contrary to Mrs. Pfeffer’s allegations, the transcript of the proceedings shows that the Panel considered her evidence, understood the issues underlying her claims, and afforded her latitude because she was pro se. Therefore, the court found no support for the conclusion that the panel had manifestly disregarded the law and affirmed the lower court’s decision confirming the award.

FINRA Elder-Abuse Rule to Take Effect Next Month

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

A new FINRA regulation taking effect on February 5, 2018 is designed to prevent financial exploitation of seniors and will result in what could be challenging conversations between brokers and older clients.  The rule requires that brokers make a reasonable effort to identify a trusted person who can be contacted if the broker is concerned that the client is suffering from diminished mental capacity or is the target of a scam. The request for a trusted contact must be made at account openings for new clients and during account updates with existing clients. The regulation also provides brokers with liability protection if they place a hold on disbursements from an account because they think their clients could be harmed.

HANLEY LAW

Hanley law represents individual investors nationwide with significant losses in their portfolios, retirement plans or investment accounts.  The firm is dedicated to assisting investors to recover losses suffered by unsuitability, over-concentration, fraud, misrepresentation, self-dealing, unauthorized trades or other wrongful acts, whether intentional or negligent.  The firm handles cases against the major Wall Street broker dealers.

Let Hanley Law work for you. Call (239) 649-0050 or contact the firm through our Website to arrange a free confidential consultation with an attorney to discuss your experiences with your stock broker which resulted in investment losses.

FINRA Lawyers can help protect investments

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

When someone has made financial investments in the form of securities, it is possible that their investments won’t result in the profit they anticipate. This can happen for a number of reasons, including changes in the industry you’ve invested in, but it can also be the result of broker misconduct. If you feel that your investments failed as the result of actions made by your broker, it’s important to find reliable a FINRA lawyer to help you with your case. There may have been misconduct on the part of your broker or brokerage firm which caused your investments to fail, and it’s important to explore all of these possibilities when determining the cause of your financial losses. FINRA is the regulatory organization which oversees the financial industry, including securities investments. A security is an investment which is made by individuals or businesses with the anticipation of a return in profit. Because these types of investments can be a good way to ensure a comfortable future for yourself and your family, investing has become a more common practice. FINRA exists to protect the market’s integrity and provide investors quick and effective regulation should they run into trouble. FINRA isn’t part of the government, but are authorized by congress to protect American investors in Florida and nationwide. Of course every investor assumes they are trading in a fair financial market, and FINRA’s regulatory efforts make this true the majority of the time.

However, there are predatory practices employed by brokers which can lead to losses on your end. If you find yourself in this situation, it’s likely that you have already agreed to solve any disputes through arbitration. When entering into arbitration for financial disputes there are many guidelines and procedures which have strict deadlines and must be followed accordingly. Failure to properly fill out paperwork, provide documentation, respond to motions, etc. can all invalidate your claim, resulting in potentially huge losses on your end. A qualified FINRA lawyer in Florida will help you navigate the many facets of securities arbitration and make sure that your claim is not only handled according to all of FINRA’s procedures, but handled in a way which ensures the best possible outcome for investors.

The Hanley Law are experienced FINRA lawyers who help investors in Naples, Fort Myers, Sarasota, Tampa, greater Florida and nationwide settle their FINRA related disputes or arbitration. To have your case evaluated for free by experienced FINRA lawyers, contact The Hanley Law.

What is Securities Arbitration?

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

Securities Arbitration is the process, which takes place following a dispute with a broker or dealer. Prior to arbitration, the investor has determined that the broker engaged in some form of wrongdoing, or otherwise negligent action that resulted in a loss. Depending on the amount of the claim, the investor may or may not have to appear before an arbitrator or group of arbitrators. Arbitration is an alternative to settling in court and is often the preferred method of dispute resolution because it is typically faster and less expensive.

While typically a contract between a firm and investor is what provides ground for arbitration, the absence of a contractual agreement does not mean that the dispute cannot be settled through arbitration. If the broker or firm is registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, they are bound to FINRAs procedural guidelines, which include the duty to participate in arbitration when a conflict arises.

Arbitration is NOT an investor complaint. If you want to make FINRA aware of any suspicious activity then you should file an investor complaint. Arbitration is similar to a court case, with formal proceedings but for the reasons stated above is a simpler and quicker alternative to litigation. If a claim is under $50,000 then the dispute can be settled through what is known as “Simplified Arbitration”. In this scenario, parties provide case materials, which are reviewed by an arbitrator; this does not require parties to appear in person. For cases involving larger sums, arbitration takes place in-person and is reviewed by a panel of up to 3 arbitrators.

To initiate an arbitration, the investor must submit what is known as a “Statement of Claim”. The statement of claim must be articulate and while there is no standardized format, following the format of a suit in court is effective. The statement of claim should include all the pertinent information that the arbitrator(s) need to make an intelligent decision. This included the nature of the dispute, any background information, dates, types of securities at hand, names of the parties involved, the kind of transactions that took place and the damages sought.

Following the statement of claim, the respondents must answer to the allegations. This must also be detailed and simple denial will not suffice. At this point in time the respondent can file a counter-claim against the investor or a 3rd party involved. Once the submission of facts from either side is received by FINRA, a hearing location is chosen. Before the hearing is a discover period, where documentation is provided and exchanged amongst parties involved and FINRA officials. This stage is a window of opportunity for the assertive attorney as it is the opportunity to obtain any and all relevant information from the other party prior to the hearing. Often, the persistence of a dedicated attorney during the prehearing discovery phase can result in a favorable verdict for their client.

The hearing itself is scheduled in advance and follows a similar format to a case in court. Witnesses are interviewed, cross-examined and evidence is produced. A series of questions are asked and there are multiple stages before the process is concluded. The arbitrators will determine what awards are served usually within 30 days of the last hearing. The award will include the basic facts of the dispute but does not have to provide justification or rationale behind the actual dollar amount awarded. The opportunity to appeal a decision exists on the state and federal level but it is rarely ever successful.

The Hanley Law is a Naples, Florida based firm who have an extensive track record of successfully securing awards for their clients. The arbitration process is complex and difficult to navigate without the guidance and advocacy that skilled attorneys can provide. Hanley Law offers a free case evaluation to determine the best course of action for you.

Florida FINRA Litigation

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

FINRA is the financial institution which regulates securities and the financial market. FINRA attorneys focus their practice on niche areas of FINRA law, whether they are defending brokers against regulatory inquiries, working on arbitration claims involving both investors & brokers, or defending investors against predatory broker practices. Most, if not every, brokerage firm requires potential investors to agree to resolve any disputes through FINRA arbitration. This is usually outlined in the opening documents, and states specifically that any issues will be settled through FINRA dispute resolution. Legal professionals with experience representing both investors & brokers before FINRA arbitrators should be familiar with all procedures, the forum & arbitrators. With their experience and knowledge, the first step to take if you have an issue with an investment should be to contact an accomplished FINRA attorney. They know how to properly prosecute cases on the behalf of both brokers and investors.

If you are an investor, they are many ways that you might feel you’ve been wronged by a broker or financial institution. You might believe that an investment made was unsuitable to your investment portfolio, or that an investment was made based on misleading or even fraudulent statements made by your broker. You might feel that your portfolio was over-concentrated in one industry or area, which resulted in your investments not being profitable or worthwhile. Even more concerning, you might feel your account was subjected to unauthorized trading, or churning (excessive trading to increase broker commissions). However you might feel that your investments have been mishandled, it’s important to consult with an attorney experienced in FINRA litigation to evaluate your case and determine any legal discourse necessary.

Most investment issues are resolved through securities arbitration, and as stated earlier, many brokers outline this requirement in their opening documents. Securities arbitration has become the most popular means of resolving broker-dealer conflicts in Florida and nationwide, largely due to a Supreme Court decision in 1987, and has long been used as it provides a quick and inexpensive alternative to arbitrating through the courts. After beginning the arbitration process, there are many different factors which need to be determined and decided upon by all involved parties, including arbitrator panel composition, hearing locations, and other details related to the arbitration process. While cases typically take between 1 year and 14 months to resolve, the process can be delayed or expedited depending on the complexity of the issue or the discovery timeline.

In Orlando and Florida, there are strict deadlines and regulations related to securities arbitration that can elude an inexperienced individual. If you are concerned about your investments it’s important to consult an experienced attorney who understands all FINRA litigation and arbitration requirements as they relate to Florida. Contact the Hanley Law to have your case evaluated for free and determine the legal validity and potential outcomes of your unique situation.