At the close of the hearing, Claimant requested $1,524,176.00 in compensatory damages.

SIDE BAR: I'm not quite sure what to make of the Decision's reference to the singular "Claimant." Either one of the Claimants had reduced his/her request for compensatory damages to $1,524,176, or, in the alternative, the Decision has a typo in which "Claimant" should have been published as "Claimants."

[C]laimants also requested that upon conclusion of the hearing, the Panel issue an opinion providing the reasons for its award. 

In the Statement of Answer, The Stifel Respondents requested that Claimants' Statement of Claim be denied with prejudice and that the cost of the arbitration be assessed against Claimants. The Stifel Respondents objected to Claimants' request for an explained decision

SIDE BAR: FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes Rule 12904: Awards [Ed: highlighting added]:

(a) All awards shall be in writing and signed by a majority of the arbitrators or as required by applicable law. Such awards may be entered as a judgment in any court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) Unless the applicable law directs otherwise, all awards rendered under the Code are final and are not subject to review or appeal.

(c) The Director will serve the award on each party, or the representative of the party.

(d) The panel shall endeavor to render an award within 30 business days from the date the record is closed.

(e) The award shall contain the following:

(1) The names of the parties;

(2) The name of the parties' representatives, if any;

(3) An acknowledgement by the arbitrators that they have each read the pleadings and other materials filed by the parties;

(4) A summary of the issues, including the type(s) of any security or product, in controversy;

(5) The damages and other relief requested;

(6) The damages and other relief awarded;

(7) A statement of any other issues resolved;

(8) The allocation of forum fees and any other fees allocable by the panel;

(9) The names of the arbitrators;

(10) The dates the claim was filed and the award rendered;

(11) The number and dates of hearing sessions;

(12) The location of the hearings; and

(13) The signatures of the arbitrators.

(f) The award may contain a rationale underlying the award.

(g) Explained Decisions

(1) This paragraph (g) applies only when all parties jointly request an explained decision.

(2) An explained decision is a fact-based award stating the general reason(s) for the arbitrators' decision. Inclusion of legal authorities and damage calculations is not required.

(3) Parties must make any request for an explained decision no later than the time for the prehearing exchange of documents and witness lists under Rule 12514(d).

(4) The chairperson of the panel will be responsible for writing the explained decision.

(5) The chairperson will receive an additional honorarium of $400 for writing the explained decision, as required by this paragraph (g).

(6) This paragraph (g) will not apply to simplified cases decided without a hearing under Rule 12800 or to default cases conducted under Rule 12801.

(h) All awards shall be made publicly available.

(i) Fees and assessments imposed by the arbitrators under the Code shall be paid immediately upon the receipt of the award by the parties. Payment of such fees shall not be deemed ratification of the award by the parties.

(j) All monetary awards shall be paid within 30 days of receipt unless a motion to vacate has been filed with a court of competent jurisdiction. Absent specification to the contrary in the award, when arbitrators order opposing parties to make payments to one another, the monetary awards shall offset, and the party assessed the larger amount shall pay the net difference. An award shall bear interest from the date of the award:

(1) If not paid within 30 days of receipt;

(2) If the award is the subject of a motion to vacate which is denied; or

(3) As specified by the panel in the award.

Interest shall be assessed at the legal rate, if any, then prevailing in the state where the award was rendered, or at a rate set by the arbitrator(s).

1. Respondent Stifel Nicolaus & Co., Inc., is liable for and shall pay to Claimants Michael Stern, Wendy Stern, Paul Levin, and Estate of Gloria Levin, the sum of $1,524,176.00 in compensatory damages. 

2. Claimants' request for an explained decision is denied. 

3. Respondent Kenneth David Blumberg's request for expungement of his CRD records is denied. 

4. Any and all claims for relief not specifically addressed herein, including punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, are denied.

The facts in this matter are largely undisputed. Respondents opened brokerage accounts with Petitioner in 2007, under Petitioner's "Horizon Program ." ECF 1-2 at 4. The Horizon Program is a non-discretionary advisory program, meaning that Petitioner could not enter into a transaction absent Respondents' express direction to do so. Id. Kenneth Blumberg ("Blumberg") was the primary financial advisor assigned to Respondents' accounts. Id. From 2011 through mid-2015, Respondents' accounts experienced significant gains in value. As of June, 2015, the Sterns' accounts had increased by approximately $1,252,015 since 2011, to a total value of $1,552,784. Id. at 4-5. Similarly, the Levins' accounts increased by approximately $1,435,585 over the same time period, to a total value of $1,788,609. Id. at 5. Respondents transferred their accounts away from Petitioner's management in or about June, 2016. Id. Although the value of their accounts had decreased from the peak in 2015, Respondents still left with a combined gain of $1,593,680. Id.

On December 11, 2019, FINRA "re-served" the award with a somewhat modified letter. ECF 38-10. Whereas the October letter included signatures from only two arbitrators, the December letter included signatures from all three arbitrators, along with a dissent from arbitrator Edward Gutman. See id. Nonetheless, FINRA explained that service of the December letter did "not modify any of the information and applicable due dates referenced in FINRA's October 3, 2019 letter." Id. at 2. Petitioner filed its Motion to Vacate the award in this Court on January 2, 2020. ECF 1.

This Complaint alleged Respondent Blumberg et al "violated their fiduciary duties and defrauded Claimants by purchasing excessive and unsuitable investments in their accounts by deceiving Claimants by misrepresenting and/or omitting material facts concerning their accounts and the transactions executed in them. These actions were taken with knowledge, evil motive, ill will and fraudulent intent necessary." 

These accusation were based on the principle brokers who concentrate their client's investments in a few thinly traded holdings of one asset class and in one or two industries, as Respondents clearly did in this case, subject their clients to "catastrophic losses and thus, the broker to liability." 

A 5-day hearing was conducted to show Respondents purchased excessive and unsuitable investments in Claimants' accounts. violated their fiduciary duties, and defrauded Claimants by purchasing excessive and unsuitable investments in their accounts concentrated in individual technology and biotech/healthcare securities, in the biotech/healthcare and technology sectors; deceiving Claimants by misrepresenting and/or omitting material facts concerning their accounts and the transactions executed in them, taken with "knowledge, evil motive, ill will and fraudulent intent necessary." 

Yet, the majority panel decision found no finding on these allegations or financial losses attributed to these claims. Rather, the financial recovery to Claimant was based solely upon a violation of Restatement Second Section 209 "if the trustee fails to sell trust property which is his duty to sell (because, e.g., the trust so directs or diversification so required, )the beneficiary can charge him with the amount he would have received by timely sale. 

The majority of the panel (Catherine Bocskor and John Coker) found the evidence showed a Complainant (Stern) had directed Respondent Blumberg to sell one of the holdings in his portfolio and he did not in violation of his duty to sell under Restatement Second Section 209, and awarded Complainants damages based on the difference in value between the value at the time of the "order" to sell and the value at the time of sale. They made no finding nor was there evidence of "catastrophic losses" for which the broker was liable. 

Rather, the 5-day hearing resulted in a decision and award of damages based solely on a finding that Blumberg failed to sell a portfolio holding upon the investor's order. 

While the evidence did reveal Complainant, Stern conferred with Blumberg about selling one of the holdings in his portfolio, that Blumberg counseled against selling referencing Warren Buffet's investment philosophy; yet the evidence failed to produce evidence Stern "ordered or directed" Blumberg to sell. 

That the evidence Blumberg did not refuse to sell upon an order to sell, and the majority's conclusion may have been defective, may be validated by the evidence of what happened or didn't happen next. True, Blumberg didn't sell but had the customer ordered or directed him to sell as the majority found and he did not sell, there was no explanation why a day later, a week later or at any time had there been no sale. Stern would have not called him and questioned why a sale had not been consummated or reiterated an order to sell. So, while the Restatement may be clear as to a broker's duty, the facts must show a violation and they did not. 

In addition, I found no basis in law or fact that Complainants whose claim is based on "unsuitability" is entitled to what the majority described as "lost profits" from an "unsuitable over concentrated investment portfolio," especially inconsistent with their recurring claims Blumberg subjected them to "catastrophic" losses, "astronomical risk," 

Yet, while the Complaint alleged unsuitability, the portfolio earned as profit. Thus, the majority opinion was not based on placing the Complainants in an unsuitable portfolio as alleged, rather, it was the broker's failure to sell the alleged "unsuitable" portfolio at its highest point of profit. A finding unsupported by the evidence produced in a 5 days hearing. . . .

Petitioner filed a Complaint and Petition to Vacate an award issued by a FINRA arbitration panel. ECF 1. On March 31, 2020, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Petition. See ECF 41, ECF 42. As a result, Respondents opposed the Motion to Vacate, ECF 43, and Petitioner filed a Reply in further support of the Motion, ECF 44.

As the parties are well aware, judicial review of arbitration awards "is among the narrowest known at law because to allow full scrutiny of such awards would frustrate the purpose of having arbitration at all." Apex Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. U.S. Supply Co., 142 F.3d 188, 193 (4th Cir. 1998). Permissible grounds for vacating an award "include those circumstances where an award fails to draw its essence from the contract, or the award evidences a manifest disregard of the law." Patten v. Signatore Ins. Agency, Inc., 441 F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir. 2006). 

However, "when the arbitrators do not give their reasons, it is nearly impossible for the court to determine whether they acted in disregard of the law." O.R. Sec., Inc. v. Prof'l Planning Ass'n, Inc., 857 F.2d 742, 747 (11th Cir. 1988). Here, because the panel did not provide an "explained decision" for its arbitration award, the Court does not currently have a viable method to conduct even a limited review of the merits of the decision. 

In these circumstances, courts have, at times, remanded a matter to the arbitration panel, seeking further explanation for its decision. See, e.g., Interactive Brokers, LLC v. Saroop, 279 F. Supp. 3d 699 (E.D. Va. 2017) (declining to rule on a motion to vacate in order to remand to arbitration panel for clarification of award); see also Cannelton Indus., Inc. v. Dist. 17, Un. Mine Workers of Am., 951 F.2d 591, 594 (4th Cir. 1991). 

Accordingly, the Court requests that each party file a supplement stating its position on whether remand to the arbitration panel would be appropriate in these circumstances. The supplement should be filed on or before August 7, 2020.