UPDATE: Stockbroker Barred For Abusive Conduct Deemed Threat to Public and Industry

This is an UPDATE of "Stockbroker Barred For Abusive Conduct Deemed Threat to Public and Industry" (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog, March 30, 2017)

After 36 years on Wall Street, I'd like to say that I've seen it all; however,  I'm wise enough to know that every day will bring something new. During my career prosecuting and defending the biz, I've handled cases involving fistfights, throwing of heavy objects, office feuds, office vendettas, nastygrams, obscene emails, racist and sexist notes left around the office, and an inventive range of comments about someone's mother and lack of good looks. The supply of such nonsense seems endless. The lengths to which some folks will go to get even or get back are immeasurable. Unfortunately, what initially strikes us as entertaining may prove frightening. What initially horrifies us may, at times, mellow into something sad, if not pathetic. In that spirit, let's consider today's featured regulatory case.

5. According to the Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration (Form U5) filed by Blackbook on April 21, 2014, Gadelkareem "was terminated for repeatedly engaging in unprofessional conduct in workplace, including without limitation, threatening and abusive interaction with female employees."

The Commencement of Gadelkareem's Abusive and Threatening Communications

6. In retaliation for his termination, Gadelkareem sent a series of offensive emails and made phone calls in which he disparaged, threatened and harassed Blackbook, its President, F.O., and a registered representative who worked at Blackbook named D.H.

7 Two days after his termination from Blackbook, on Wednesday, April 9, 2014, Gadelkareem left an obscene and highly insulting voicemail message for D.H.

8. The next day, on Thursday, April 10,2014, Gadelkareem sent three emails from his personal AOL account to R.W., who was one of Blackbook's owners. The emails to R.W. made accusations about DH including unauthorized trading, involvement in fraudulent deals and engaging in sexual relations with an office employee. 

9. On Friday, April 11, 2014, the Firm notified Gadelkareem by email that it intended to sue Gadelkareem for libel and that Blackbook would be withholding his unpaid commissions as security against the claims that it intended to assert against him.

10. In response, on Saturday, April 12, and Sunday April 13, 2014, Gadelkareem sent several additional harassing emails and left three harassing voicemails for D.H.

Gadelkareem's Threatening and Abusive Communications During His Association with a Member Firm

11. On Wednesday, April 16, 2014, Gadelkareem became associated with another FINRA member firm. The same day, he sent an email to a FINRA examiner claiming that he and his clients were being "abused by Blackbook" and alleging that the Firm was wrongfully holding his paycheck and his personal belongs.

12. Later that afternoon, the FINRA examiner responded by email and asked to speak with Gadelkareem the following day regarding his claims.

13. In an attempt to intimidate Blackbook and force a settlement, on the evening of April 16, 2014, Gadelkareem forwarded his exchange with FINRA's examiner separately to D.H. and R.W. with the following threats demanding that Blackbook pay him his commissions and return his property:

To D.H.:  "Settlement . . . , my money 100 % pay out and my stuff or I will

keep going !!!! [sic]"

"Every small thing, my phone charger, my calculator . . . Every thing . . .[sic]"

To R.W.: Settlement, Or you want me to continue . . ."

14. Later that day,, Blackbook again demanded in writing that Gadelkareem stop defaming Blackbook and harassing its employees. 

15. On Friday, April 18,2014, Gadelkareem emailed Blackbook stating that he had filed a complaint against Blackbook with the police and reported the Firm to FINRA, and threatening to report the Firm to the New York Attorney General. In the same email, Gadelkareem then offered to drop all charges that he made with the police and FINRA if Blackbook paid him all his commissions and returned his property. That same day, via email, Blackbook rejected the proposal.

16. On about April 22, 2014, Gadelkareem learned that Blackbook had reported on his Form U5 that he was terminated for harassing female employees.

17. In retaliation, on the morning of April 23, 2014, Gadelkareem sent an email to D.H. purporting to forward an email from a FINRA examiner named Steven McMellon (who does not actually exist), in which the examiner states, among other things, that D.H. is going to be arrested.

18. Later that morning on April 23 , Gadelkareem sent another broker at Blackbook rd text messages suggesting that the FBI was "coming after" D.H.

19. In reality, there was no examiner at FINRA named Steven McMellon and the April 23, 2014 email was fabricated using a real FINRA investigator's signature block and contact information.

OHO Decision

[A]lthough Gadelkareem has no prior disciplinary history with FINRA, he has repeatedly been discharged or asked to resign by industry employers for a number of reasons, including but not limited to "failure to follow management instructions," charging excessive commissions, unauthorized trading, and he was formally reprimanded by an employer for "aggressive behavior in soliciting potential clients."

Bill Singer's Comment: Not to be too snarky here but, well, you know, maybe just to be a bit snarky, what exactly is the point of noting the fact that Gadelkareem had a repeat history of discharge or asked-to-resign? I mean, after all, it didn't seem to bother any of the 19 or so firms that employed him: The majority of which likely knew (or should have known) of his tempestuous employment history. And while we're on this point of nobody caring, FINRA isn't exactly on the moral high ground either. After all, if the regulator is perturbed about someone with such a history, why hasn't the organization drafted a rule to respond to such an issue? Are we told that Gadelkareem had "no prior disciplinary history" as a flippant defense for FINRA's tolerance of such individuals in its community? What steps, if any, did FINRA take when it became aware that member firms were hiring folks who exhibited "aggressive behavior in soliciting potential clients?"

In his short tenure at Blackbook Capital, Gadelkareem was a problematic employee and "very disruptive in the office." He was "constantly getting into arguments" with co-workers. For instance, about a week after a company holiday party he approached a branch manager from another office and, referring to the branch manager's longtime girlfriend, asked "[h]ow much do you pay the XXXXX that you brought to the Christmas party?" Gadelkareem was "uncontrollable in the office" to a point where his disputes and confrontations with other employees became "just too much."

F. Gadelkareem's Medical Condition
Gadelkareem presented the testimony of his psychiatrist in defense of his actions. Gadelkareem claimed that there was a "toxic" work environment at Blackbook Capital that he described as a "circus." He asserted that the environment led him to become "irritated" as a result of his psychiatric condition. His condition was explained by his psychiatrist. 

The doctor reviewed Gadelkareem's history of bipolar disorder, including bouts of "hyperactivity, hyperindulgence, . . . irritable, agitated states, impulsive behaviors, . . . along with frequent arguments, altercations with those around him at times at his workplace, . . . grandiose thinking with inflated self-esteem and rapid speech. The psychiatrist further acknowledged Gadelkareem's "history of violent aggressive behavior," his ''ten-plus arrests for domestic violence," and his "physical and verbal altercations with coworkers and people in stores which have resulted in police being called. The psychiatrist indicated that since he began treatment  Gadelkareem showed improved ability to maintain control over his behavior. 

But the psychiatrist acknowledged that he was not treating Gadelkareem during April 2014, the period now at issue, and cannot attest to his mental state at that time. Medical records indicate that Gadelkareem's first effort to obtain treatment in more than ten years was on November 25, 2014 -- 14 days after Enforcement advised him of its intent to recommend that this disciplinary action be brought against him.
The psychiatrist also acknowledged that Gadelkareem had a history of not taking medication necessary to treat his disorder and missing treatment appointments. The psychiatrist recounted that Gadelkareem was "skeptical about psychiatric medications" and his treatment. Treatments notwithstanding, "psychiatric conditions are usually chronic conditions with remissions and exacerbations. And symptoms can vary from time to time. As the condition worsens, the degree and level of intensity of symptoms can . . . include thought disorder, perceptual disorder, including hallucinations, including paranoia, delusions and things of that sort."

As fascinating and riveting as the details of Gadelkareem's conduct are, I would simply urge you to click on the OHO Decision link to get as granular a degree of detail as you wish. I can assure you that the time you invest will be rewarded with some jaw-dropping revelations. Moving on from the underlying facts, it does not appear that Gadelkareem did himself that much of a service by acting as his own lawyer, as noted in the OHO Decision [Ed: footnotes omitted]:

Acting as his own representative in this matter, Gadelkareem falsified subpoenas and served the fictitious subpoenas on witnesses he sought to enlist to his defense, including his psychiatrist who ultimately provided medical testimony. When asked why he fabricated subpoenas after being told in writing -- twice -- by Enforcement that there was no subpoena power in this matter and being told by the Hearing Officer at a pre-hearing conference that he was required to obtain the voluntary appearance of his witnesses, Gadelkareem testified that he ''took a second opinion" from another attorney he knew and falsified the subpoenas anyway.

. . .

Footnote 76: Tr. 606 (Gadelkareem testimony). At the hearing, Gadelkareem repeatedly and inappropriately interjected during the testimony of witnesses, e.g., Tr. 203,263,269,283, 359-60, argued with witnesses, see Tr. 362 ("You're a damn liar."), made inappropriate throat-slashing gestures at a witness, Tr. 59, made disparaging remarks toward Enforcement, Tr. 377,514, and continually disrupted the proceedings.

Having found Gadelkareem guilty as charged, the OHO Panel ordered him to pay $5,649.78 in costs and Barred him from associating with any FINRA member firm in any capacity. In offering its rationale for the Bar, the OHO Hearing Panel explained that:

After weighing the evidence and considering all applicable factors, we conclude that Gadelkareem poses a potential threat to the investing public and to FINRA member firms in any circumstance where his personal preferences or self-interest might not coincide with the interests of clients or employers. For these reasons, and in order to effectuate the remedial purposes of the Sanction Guidelines, protect the public interest, improve overall business standards in the securities industry, and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, the only appropriate sanction is a bar from association with any FINRA member firm in any capacity.

NAC Decision

(a) No member or person associated with a member shall:

(1) coordinate the prices (including quotations), trades or trade reports of such member with any other member or person associated with a member, or any other person;

(2) direct or request another member to alter a price (including a quotation); or

(3) engage, directly or indirectly, in any conduct that threatens, harasses, coerces, intimidates or otherwise attempts improperly to influence another member, a person associated with a member, or any other person.

This includes, but is not limited to, any attempt to influence another member or person associated with a member to adjust or maintain a price or quotation, whether displayed on any facility operated by FINRA or otherwise, or refusals to trade or other conduct that retaliates against or discourages the competitive activities of another market maker or market participant . . .

The NAC Panel read Rule 5240 as regulating "price manipulation and anticompetitive behavior, which supports that it is meant to prohibit intimidating and harassing conduct in connection with pricing." As such the NAC Panel declined to extend the ambit of the rule to cover Gadelkareem's conduct, which did not involve pricing. The NAC also provided a thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of Gadelkareem's presentation of a medical condition as a mitigating factor in his conduct. The NAC Decision states:

B. Gadelkareem's Claimed Medical Condition Is Not Mitigating

Gadelkareem presented evidence of his medical condition and his doctor testified at the hearing. On appeal, he argues that his condition and the fact that he is now under the care ofa doctor is mitigating. Gadelkareem's argument is unavailing. A medical condition can mitigate a sanction where the respondent has presented evidence that it interfered with his ability to comply with FINRA rules. See Paul David Pack, 51 S.E.C. 1279,1283 (1994) (allowing mitigation where the respondent introduced uncontroverted medical evidence that respondent's misconduct was the result ofhis medical condition, including clinical depression and a chronic sleep disorder); DBCC v. Nelson, Complaint No. C9A920030, 1996 NASD Discip. LEXIS 17, at *9, 15 (NASD NBCC Mar. 8, 1996) (finding mitigating circumstances where the respondent failed to respond to FINRA's information requests, and respondent was hospitalized or bedridden with chronic fatigue syndrome). In general, however, medical problems do not mitigate violations ofFINRA rules and proving mitigation based on a medical condition is a difficult burden to overcome. See Dep 7 of Enforcement v. Saad, Complaint No. 2006006705601R, 2015 FINRA Discip. LEXIS 49, at *9-11 (FINRA NAC Mar. 16, 2015), aff'd Exchange Act Release No. 76118, 2015 SEC LEXIS 4176, at *1 (Oct. 8, 2015). Gadelkareem has not met this burden here.

Significantly, Gadelkareem's doctor testified that he was not treating Gadelkareem

during the relevant period and could not attest to his condition at the time. Accordingly, there is no evidence of Gadelkareem's inability to comply with FINRA rules at the time of his misconduct due to medical reasons. To the contrary, rather than mitigate his misconduct, the evidence presented by Gadelkareem's doctor further supports that he is not fit to serve as a securities industry professional and should be barred. The doctor testified that Gadelkareem has a history of missing appointments and not taking his medication. Further undermining Gadelkareem's claim that we should consider his medical condition as mitigating is his conduct during the hearing, which included aggressive and disruptive behavior and the submission of falsified evidence at a time when he claims his condition was being treated. 14

Footnote 14: For these same reasons, we agree that, to the extent Gadelkareem's seeking medical treatment can be considered a "subsequent corrective measure," it is not sufficiently mitigating to overcome the myriad aggravating factors. See Guidelines, at 6 (Principal Considerations, No. 3).

We have no confidence in Gadelkareem's future ability to control his behavior, and we believe he poses a danger to the industry and the investing public. For these reasons, the sanction of a bar is appropriately remedial.

Bill Singer's Comment

(i) the likelihood that the moving party will eventually succeed on the merits of the appeal; (ii) the likelihood that the moving party will suffer irreparable harm without a stay; (iii) the likelihood that another party will suffer substantial harm as a result of a stay; and (iv) a stay's impact on the public interest.

Similarly unpersuasive is Gadelkareem's claim that he acted "with ethical intentions." FINRA does not dispute that Gadelkareem believed he had been mistreated by Blackbook, or that he may have been entitled to the commissions and personal effects he sought. But that cannot in any way excuse the methods he employed.

engaged in a series of dishonest acts- impersonating a police officer, fabricating the McMellon email, and adopting the Alperovich alias. He engaged in those acts as part of his harassing and threatening campaign against Blackbook designed to extract commissions he believed he was owed. Gadelkareem's harassing, threatening, and deceitful conduct violates Rule 2010, even if the conduct did not involve his professional responsibilities as a broker or harm investors or markets, because his attempts to extract commissions were unethical and such unethical misconduct is "actionable" under the rule. ¹⁹

= = =

FOOTNOTE 19: James A. Goetz, Exchange Act Release No. 39796, 1998 WL 130849, at *3 (Mar. 25, 1998) (rejecting applicant's claim that his conduct was not actionable because it had "nothing to do with his functions as a securities salesman"); see also Henry E. Vail, Exchange Act Release No. 35872, 1995 WL 380152, at *3 (June 20, 1995) (finding violation of just and equitable principles of trade based on respondent's misappropriation of funds from political club unaffiliated with his securities firm while club treasurer), aff'd, 101 F.3d 37 (5th Cir. 1996)

• Blackbook
• Gadelkareem
• Rule 2010
• Bishop Rosen
• First Liberty
• OHO
• NAC
• Abusive
• Threats
• Medical Condition
• Racist
• Sexist
• Commissions
• Unpaid Commissions
• U5
• Rule 5240