Rankles Raised In FINRA Expungement

February 8, 2018

A broker-dealer's customer complains. It happens. Not all such complaints, however, allege misconduct by a stockbroker -- sometimes, customers are unhappy with the slow payment of dividends or interest, or a lousy online interface, or the firm's margin policies. In industry parlance, not every complaint is about "sales practices." In a recent FINRA expungement arbitration, a registered rep seeks to expunge from her industry record what was disclosed as something that looks a lot like a customer complaint about sales practices but for the fact that the employer broker-dealer, the customer, and an independent FINRA arbitrator all seem to agree that no such allegations were ever made.

Case In Point

In a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") Arbitration Statement of Claim filed in May 2017, associated person Claimant March asserted the inaccurate reporting on her Central Registration Depository records ("CRD") of a customer complaint that became FINRA Arbitration #13-02144 against her former firm Triad Advisors, Inc. The FINRA arbitration settled without contribution from March. Claimant March sought $1 in compensatory damages and expungement of all references to the customer complaint/arbitration. In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Kari March, Claimant, vs. Coastal Equities, Inc., Respondent (FINRA Arbitration # 17-01410, January 24, 2018)

Respondent Coastal Equities, which Claimant March joined in July 2014, consented to being named as a Respondent, did not object to Claimant's requested relief, did not contest the requested relief, and did not participate in the expungment hearing.

The customer was notified of the expungement hearing and her counsel advised that she did not oppose the requested relief and she would not attend the hearing.

Award

The sole FINRA Arbitrator hearing the matter denied Claimant's request for $1.00 is compensatory damages.

In recommending expungement, the FINRA Arbitrator found pursuant to Rule 2080 that:

The registered person was not involved in the alleged investment-related sales practice violation, forgery, theft, misappropriation, or conversion of funds.

The FINRA Arbitrator offered this further rationale for her recommendation of expungement:

[C]laimant testified that: (1) Initially, Triad determined that Claimant was not the subject of the complaint filed by the customer and that Triad did not allege that Claimant had engaged in any sales practice violation and, accordingly, Triad made no disclosure on her CRD record of the customer's complaint; (2) Subsequently, in July 2014, after Claimant left Triad and became associated with Respondent, Triad amended Claimant's Form U4 to reflect the customer complaint - although nothing had changed, and there was still no allegation that the Claimant had engaged in any sales practice violation; (3) Triad settled the underlying arbitration case with the customer, without any authorization, knowledge or involvement of Claimant. Thereafter, Triad again updated Claimant's Form U4 to reflect the settlement, although she was not the subject of the customer complaint and there was no allegation that she had been involved in the transaction at issue, and Claimant did not agree to or participate in the settlement; and (4) The terms of the settlement agreement reflect that Triad denied the allegations against it in its entirety and it was made without the admission of the validity of any claim or defense of any party.

Consequently, based on the above referenced evidence and witness testimony, the Arbitrator finds that Claimant was not involved in the alleged investment-related sales practice violation involving the underlying customer because the transaction was processed by Claimant's business partner, and Claimant was only referenced in one sentence of the underlying statement of claim and was not the subject of the underlying claim. Therefore, the claim is false with respect to Claimant as she was not involved with the sales practice violation. The complaint, therefore meets the FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1)(B) standard for expungement.

Bill Singer's Comment

Online FINRA BrokerCheck records as of February 7, 2018, disclose that Claimant March was first registered in 1999 and was registered with Triad Advisors, Inc. from June 2006 to July 2014; and, thereafter, she was registered with Coastal Equities, Inc

Online BrokerCheck records disclose that Triad Advisors, Inc. received a customer complaint on August 21, 2013, in the form of FINRA Arbitration Claim 13-02144 alleging unsuitability and misrepresentation resulting in alleged damages from a "real estate security" of $436,052.12. Triad reported that the matter settled for $227,500 on January 2, 2015, without any financial contribution from Claimant March. Consequently, the customer complaint was received when March was still registered with Triad but settled after she had left the member firm.

Usually I don't give a crap about the $1 demand for compensatory damages but in this case the Arbitrator's denial sort of rankles me. Trust me, I'll get over it and given the exceptional amount of content and context in the Arbitrator's rationale, she shouldn't give my rankleness so much as a second thought. I'm guessing that the FINRA Arbitrator denied the request for $1 in compensatory damages against Respondent Coastal Equities because that member didn't do anything wrong -- this whole mess was prompted by Triad Advisors' disclosures. At work here is the whole legal fiction underpinning Claimant March's lawsuit against her current employer firm Coastal Equities for reasons that make no sense other than for the fact that FINRA's expungement process makes no sense and depends upon the absurdity of requiring a current employer of a current member firm to sue that member firm for claims that essentially arose at a former firm. Yeah, I know, Coastal Equities would need to log on to CRD and file any U4 amendments. And that's the reason to require March to sue her former firm and seek damages? When something doesn't make sense, it's usually because it doesn't make sense. In March's case, not making sense is left behind and we enter the realm of absurd and asinine. Oh my aching rankles!

What really set me off was the FINRA Arbitrator's finding that:

(1) Initially, Triad determined that Claimant was not the subject of the complaint filed by the customer and that Triad did not allege that Claimant had engaged in any sales practice violation and, accordingly, Triad made no disclosure on her CRD record of the customer's complaint . . .

Okay, so, March is still at Triad and the broker-dealer determined that she was NOT the subject of the customer complaint and that NO sales practices allegations had been made against her. Great!  Except, once March leaves Triad, the Arbitrator then found that:

(2) Subsequently, in July 2014, after Claimant left Triad and became associated with Respondent, Triad amended Claimant's Form U4 to reflect the customer complaint - although nothing had changed, and there was still no allegation that the Claimant had engaged in any sales practice violation;

My rankles get inflamed and spread when Triad's initial non-disclosure is inexplicably followed by  a disclosure that seems to oddly coincide with March's departure. All of which prompts me to wonder why Triad felt the spirit move and opted to amend the former employees industry records:
  • Was it retaliation for the March's departure?
  • Was it a pang of regulatory conscience?
  • Was the revision made in an abundance of good or bad faith? 
My rankles then move to the bursting point when I read that:

(3) Triad settled the underlying arbitration case with the customer, without any authorization, knowledge or involvement of Claimant. Thereafter, Triad again updated Claimant's Form U4 to reflect the settlement, although she was not the subject of the customer complaint and there was no allegation that she had been involved in the transaction at issue, and Claimant did not agree to or participate in the settlement . . .

Oh, how I wish that the FINRA Arbitration Decision had addressed all that odd timing involving the first and second updates to March's industry records. Oh, how I wish the FINRA Arbitrator gave us some inkling as to whether she found that Triad had acted in good or bad faith, or if the member firm reluctantly followed what I sincerely believed were its regulatory and compliance obligations.

The March v. Triad Advisors FINRA Arbitration Decision does NOT disclose the basis on which Triad thought it appropriate to twice amend March's CRD/U4 to disclose the customer complaint. Missing from the presentation of facts in this case is any lawyer's opinion on which Triad may have relied when posting the disputed disclosures on March's CRD/U4. If, in fact, Triad secured such a legal opinion or even generated an in-house memo in which the reasons for amending March's industry records were set forth, I would give Triad -- or any similarly situated FINRA member firm -- the benefit of any doubt as to erring on the side of regulatory and compliance caution. In the absence of such an opinion of counsel or in-house memo, I would normally urge FINRA Arbitrators to award damages and a Claimant's legal fees.

An interesting question prompted by March v. Coastal Equities, Inc. is whether  the customer even filed a "reportable" complaint for FINRA regulatory purposes. Consider these FINRA regulatory rules:

FINRA Rule 4513: Records of Written Customer Complaints

(a) Each member shall keep and preserve in each office of supervisory jurisdiction either a separate file of all written customer complaints that relate to that office (including complaints that relate to activities supervised from that office) and action taken by the member, if any, or a separate record of such complaints and a clear reference to the files in that office containing the correspondence connected with such complaints. Rather than keep and preserve the customer complaint records required under this Rule at the office of supervisory jurisdiction, the member may choose to make them promptly available at that office, upon request of FINRA. Customer complaint records shall be preserved for a period of at least four years.


(b) For purposes of this Rule, "customer complaint" means any grievance by a customer or any person authorized to act on behalf of the customer involving the activities of the member or a person associated with the member in connection with the solicitation or execution of any transaction or the disposition of securities or funds of that customer.


FINRA Rule 4530. Reporting Requirements

(a) Each member shall promptly report to FINRA, but in any event not later than 30 calendar days, after the member knows or should have known of the existence of any of the following:

(1) the member or an associated person of the member:
. . .
(B) is the subject of any written customer complaint involving allegations of theft or misappropriation of funds or securities or of forgery;
. . .
(G) is a defendant or respondent in any securities- or commodities-related civil litigation or arbitration, is a defendant or respondent in any financial-related insurance civil litigation or arbitration, or is the subject of any claim for damages by a customer, broker or dealer that relates to the provision of financial services or relates to a financial transaction, and such civil litigation, arbitration or claim for damages has been disposed of by judgment, award or settlement for an amount exceeding $15,000. However, when the member is the defendant or respondent or is the subject of any claim for damages by a customer, broker or dealer, then the reporting to FINRA shall be required only when such judgment, award or settlement is for an amount exceeding $25,000; or . . .
. . .

(e) Nothing contained in this Rule shall eliminate, reduce or otherwise abrogate the responsibilities of a member or person associated with a member to promptly disclose required information on the Forms BD, U4 or U5, as applicable, to make any other required filings or to respond to FINRA with respect to any customer complaint, examination or inquiry. In addition, members are required to comply with the reporting obligations under paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of this Rule, regardless of whether the information is reported or disclosed pursuant to any other rule or requirement, including the requirements of the Form BD. However, a member need not report: (1) an event otherwise required to be reported under paragraph (a)(1) of this Rule if the member discloses the event on the Form U4, consistent with the requirements of that form, and indicates, in such manner and format that FINRA may require, that such disclosure satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this Rule, as applicable; or (2) an event otherwise required to be reported under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this Rule if the member discloses the event on the Form U5, consistent with the requirements of that form.

As with far too many rules that bedevil virtually every regulated industry, we find that the definition of what constitutes a reportable "complaint" requires us to first figure out just what constitutes a "grievance," which is not defined in the FINRA Rulebook.

Communication or Complaint?

FINRA member firm compliance departments uniformly characterize far too many "communications" from customers as involving a "complaint," when, in fact, the communication is merely an inquiry or comment. Further, not every customer complaint necessarily rises to the level of an event requiring disclosure; for example, a complaint that a stockbroker was rude on the telephone or that the firm's online platform is not user-friendly would not (absent more) require a regulatory disclosure.

Oral or Written?

A peculiar quirk of FINRA's rules is that the self-regulator's reporting requirements require the prompt reporting of "any written complaint" but do not similarly address the mere "oral complaint. " Additionally, FINRA's reporting requirement limits the reporting of "any written customer complaint" to those "involving allegations of theft or misappropriation of funds or securities or forgery."

Form U4

As if any normal human being would not, by now, be crumbling under the weight of FINRA's rules and their lack of meaningful guidance, you have to add to that pressing weight the need to discern between the obligations imposed upon a FINRA member firm to report events to the self-regulatory organization and the separate disclosure obligations of the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer ("Form U4"). Notably, under the Form U4 heading "Customer Complaint/Arbitration/Civil Litigation Disclosure," we find, in part, the following:

14I. (1) Have you ever been named as a respondent/defendant in an investment-related, consumer-initiated arbitration or civil litigation which alleged that you were involved in one or more sales practice violations and which:

(a) is still pending, or;
(b) resulted in an arbitration award or civil judgment against you, regardless of amount, or;
(c) was settled, prior to 05/18/2009, for an amount of $10,000 or more, or;
(d) was settled, on or after 05/18/2009, for an amount of $15,000 or more?

(2) Have you ever been the subject of an investment-related, consumer-initiated (written or oral) complaint, which alleged that you were involved in one or more sales practice violations, and which:

(a) was settled, prior to 05/18/2009, for an amount of $10,000 or more, or;
(b) was settled, on or after 05/18/2009, for an amount of $15,000 or more?

(3) Within the past twenty four (24) months, have you been the subject of an investment-related, consumer-initiated, written complaint, not otherwise reported under question 14I(2) above, which:

(a) alleged that you were involved in one or more sales practice violations and contained a claim for compensatory damages of $5,000 or more (if no damage amount is alleged, the complaint must be reported unless the firm has made a good faith determination that the damages from the alleged conduct would be less than $5,000), or;
(b) alleged that you were involved in forgery, theft, misappropriation or conversion of funds or securities?

Answer questions (4) and (5) below only for arbitration claims or civil litigation filed on or after 05/18/2009.

(4) Have you ever been the subject of an investment-related, consumer-initiated arbitration claim or civil litigation which alleged that you were involved in one or more sales practice violations, and which:
(a) was settled for an amount of $15,000 or more, or;
(b) resulted in an arbitration award or civil judgment against any named respondent(s)/defendant(s), regardless of amount?

(5) Within the past twenty four (24) months, have you been the subject of an investment-related,consumer-initiated arbitration claim or civil litigation not otherwise reported under question 14I(4)above, which:
(a) alleged that you were involved in one or more sales practice violations and contained a claim for compensatory damages of $5,000 or more (if no damage amount is alleged, the arbitration claim or civil litigation must be reported unless the firm has made a good faith determination that the damages from
the alleged conduct would be less than $5,000), or;
(b) alleged that you were involved in forgery, theft, misappropriation or conversion of funds or securities?

Ah yes, the regulatory minefield for the unwary:

FINRA Rule 4530(a)(1)(B) requires prompt reporting when an associated person is "the subject of any written customer complaint involving allegations of theft or misappropriation of funds or securities or of forgery."

Form U4, Item 14I (2) requires reporting of both written and oral investment-related, consumer-initiated complaints alleging a sales practice violation that settled for $15,000 or more.

To add to the confusion, Item 14I(3) on the U4 requires the reporting of only written investment-related, consumer initiated complaints made within the past 24-months alleging at least $5,000 in compensatory damages; but if no monetary amount is alleged, "the complaint must be reported unless the firm has made a good faith determination that the damages from the alleged conduct would be less than $5,000." On the other hand, if that same 24-month-complaint merely alleged that "you were involved in forgery, theft, misappropriation or conversion of funds or securities," then it has to be disclosed regardless of the dollars alleged.

Also READ:



  • FINRA Rule 2080: Obtaining Customer Dispute Expungement
  • FINRA Rule 2081: Prohibited Conditions Relating to Expungement of Customer Dispute
  • FINRA Rules 12805 and 13805: Expunging Customer-Dispute Information Under Rule 2080

READ the BrokeAndBroker.com Blog Expungement Archive