Edward Jones made a big deal about employee Emilio Lira's allegedly untimely disclosure of a Summary Judgment. As the prevailing party in the lawsuit, however, Jones knew all about the judgment. Yeah, I know, there are in-house rules and FINRA rules. Things have to be timely disclosed. Of course, there's also common sense and the folks in human resources. Well, okay, maybe there isn't much common sense left on Wall Street these days. Notably, after much back-and-forth, Lira did submit the demanded report. Pointedly, it didn't matter.
FINRA arbitrations often involve the old "he-said-she-said." That's to be expected because at the core of many disputes are two very different versions of the same event. After the FINRA arbitration hearing concludes and the arbitrators pen their Award, we expect some explanation as to what was found and why -- and a brief explanation as to how a given award was calculated. In reality, more often than not, FINRA's published Arbitration Awards are lacking. Lacking in facts. Lacking in content. Lacking in context. Lacking in anything amounting to a satisfactory explanation. See today's featured public customer arbitration for an example.
It would have been an easy bit of adjudication by a FINRA arbitrator to find that a now-barred rep was the bad guy, that he victimized his clients and his employer, and, in the end, hell no, it's just not fair for his employer brokerage firm to be burdened with having to foot the bill for a fine caused by the former rep's misconduct. The arbitrator did not opt for that easy decision; and, as a result, the industry is on notice that there are consequences to a failure to supervise -- as in it could jeopardize indemnification claims.