July 16, 2015
Few issues cause more friction between public
customers and brokerage firms than margin disputes. By now, we have grown
accustomed to customers yelling and
screaming in outrage over an allegedly unjustified sell-out. Today's BrokeAndBroker.com Blog has the shoe on the other foot with the customer being sued
over an unpaid margin debit. Now don't get me wrong, it's not especially
unusual for a firm to sue a customer over margin; but in the arbitration presented here, the brokerage firm is
not in the role of the Claimant.
Case In Point
In a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA")
Arbitration Statement of Claim filed in December 2014, three associated persons
alleged that public customer Wijk had failed to repay a debit balance that
purportedly arose after he had traded an unspecified stock on margin and,
thereafter, failed to repay the ensuing debit balance. Claimants sought
$25,338.70 in compensatory damages plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
In the Matter of the FINRA Arbitration Between Steven Scott
Baldassarra, Joseph Benjamin Baldassarra, and Carl Joseph Smith,
Claimants, vs. Pieter Van Wijk, Respondent
(FINRA Arbitration 14-03768, July 10,
2015).
Online FINRA
BrokerCheck records as of July 16, 2015, disclose that the three Claimants are currently registered with Newbridge Securities. The FINRA Arbitration Decision indicates that the FINRA membership surcharge of $750 was paid
by Newbridge Securities Corporation. Claimants were apparently represented by "Carl Joseph
Smith, President, CJS Financial Corp., Coral Springs, Florida" but there is no
indication that he is a lawyer.
Repondent Wijk did not file an appearance and was apparently not
represented by a lawyer.
Award
The
sole FINRA arbitrator found Respondent Wijk liable and ordered him to pay to
Claimants $25,388.70 in compensatory damages; and a further $600 reimbursement
for FINRA filing fees.
Bill Singer's Comment
No . . . you're right . . . not a particularly complicated or
interesting case. It's a basic they-said-he-didn't-answer case; however, there
were a few aspects of this matter that did catch my
eye.
For starters, I have frequently mused in the
BrokeAndBroker.com Blog as to why we don't see more FINRA arbitrations brought
by member firms and registered representatives against public customers,
particularly for defamation or non-payment. In this case, we have three
individuals suing a non-paying public customer. Oddly, there is no FINRA member
firm on the Claimant-side of the caption. I am, as such, curious as to the legal theory
underpinning the Statement of Claim (which is not available online at FINRA's
Arbitration website). Assuming that the public customer had an unpaid margin
balance, that would typically be owed to the member firm. How did these
individuals wind up suing for a debit typically carried on a firm's books? A possible answer is that they were docked for the
debit or took an assignment of same, and then sued on their own behalf. One odd
issue here is why member firm Newbridge Securities paid the FINRA member firm surcharge
for the arbitration but didn't join as a Claimant -- or, to take the pondering
a bit further, why Newbridge Securities wasn't the only
Claimant.
Another aspect about this case that is worth
noting is that the public customer lost and now owes the full amount for which
he was sued. Of course, winning the award and collecting are two very different
challenges.
Margin liquidations are a common source of customer
complaints. Many customer beliefs about
how margin calls are supposed to be made do not accurately reflect legal and
regulatory requirements. Let me briefly
try to clarify some misconceptions.
Generally,when
the equity in a margin account is deficient according to the maintenance levels
in effect, your brokerage firm can sell securities in your account without your
prior consent, agreement or authorization. Frankly, if you re-read your Margin
Agreement, you will likely see buried among the thousands of words
that you agreed to that circumstance as a condition precedent to opening that
account. If the equity in your account falls below the legally proscribed
margin maintenance requirements or the brokerage firm's "house"
maintenance requirements, the firm can, without prior notice to you, sell the securities
in your account to cover the margin deficiency. While many brokerage firms will
send courtesy notices to clients prior to undertaking such margin liquidations,
those notices are not legally required. If, however, you have negotiated a
specific margin agreement that imposes different terms, that would be a
different situation -- good luck trying to extract such concessions from most
brokerage firms.
Similarly, many
customers believe that they are entitled to an extension of time on a margin
call if they simply ask for one. While an extension of time to meet initial
margin requirements may be available to customers under certain conditions, a
customer is not legally entitled to an extension nor is a brokerage firm
obligated to grant one. What if the
forced sale doesn't raise enough cash? You
may be responsible for any resulting deficiency.
You Can Lose Your Money Fast and
With No Notice.
If your account falls below the firm's
maintenance requirement, your firm generally will make a margin call to ask you
to deposit more cash or securities into your account. If you are unable to meet
the margin call, your firm will sell your securities to increase the equity in
your account up to or above the firm's maintenance requirement.
However, your broker may not be required
to make a margin call or otherwise tell you that your account has fallen below
the firm's maintenance requirement. Your broker may be able to sell your
securities at any time without consulting you first. under most margin
agreements, even if your firm offers to give you time to increase the equity in
your account, it can sell your securities without waiting for you to meet the
margin call.