An irreverent Wall Street Blog
Mom, Sister-In-Law, Two Brothers, and Stock Proceeds
May 6, 2016
In celebration of this Sunday's Mother's Day, the BrokeAndBroker.com
Blog presents a recent FINRA arbitration involving a maternal matter.
Among the cast of characters are a mother, her two sons, and a sister-in-law;
and, just to make things interesting, let's toss in the proceeds from the
redemption of mom's stock. Nothing like
a chunk of change disputed among siblings to set off a round of internecine
warfare.
Case In
Point
In a Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") Arbitration Statement of Claim filed
in September 2015, Claimant Schirtzinger, representing himself pro se, asserted
negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and
misrepresentations/non-disclosures in connection with the issuance of a check
to his mother by Respondent Putnam. Claimant sought unspecified damages, fees,
and costs. In the Matter of the FINRA Arbitration Between Joseph M.
Schirtzinger, Claimant, vs. Putnam Retail Management Limited
Partnership, Respondent (FINRA Arbitration
15-02272, May 3, 2016).
Respondent Putnam generally
denied the allegations and asserted various affirmative
defenses.
Mom, Brother, and
Sister-in-Law
I could try - I mean, you know,
I could give it one helluva shot but, frankly, I don't think anything that I
could say by way of characterizing Claimant's claims could do any better than
the synopsis offered in the FINRA Arbitration Decision:
The causes of action related to Claimant's allegation that Putnam Investors Services, Inc. ("Putnam") issued a check to Claimant's mother due to a request for redemption of stock by Claimant's brother and sister-in-law. Claimant alleged that the check was deposited into a bank account registered in the name of Claimant's mother and Claimant's brother, who was the power of attorney for their mother. Claimant asserted that his brother then wrongfully withdrew the funds.
Motion to
Dismiss
After having conducted a hearing
on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, the FINRA Arbitration
Panel granted the motion. In setting forth their rationale, the arbitrators
explained that:
Bill Singer's Comment1. Claimant pleaded no facts to constitute his having been or currently being a customer of Respondent, or having been or being the legal representative of a customer of Respondent;2. Claimant pleaded no facts indicating that Respondent was associated with the account(s), security(ies), or conduct at issue within the meaning of applicable FINRA Rules; and3. Claimant pleaded no facts indicating that FINRA has jurisdiction over the dispute within the meaning of applicable FINRA Rules, or that the claim is subject to arbitration under FINRA's Code of Arbitration.
Just because
Claimant didn't prove
that:
- he was a customer of Respondent Putnam:
- he was the legal representative of the mother;
- there was any connection between the accounts/securities/conduct at issue and the Respondent; and
- FINRA had jurisdiction over the dispute,
Tie your Mother
down
Tie your Mother down
Take your little brother
swimmin'
With a brick (that's all
right)