COVID-19 Update: How we are serving and protecting our clients.

Published on:

On May 7, 2019, two former Credit Suisse investment advisers represented by Lax & Neville LLP won a $6.68 million FINRA arbitration award against Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC for unpaid deferred compensation and violations of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”).  This is the fourth FINRA Award against Credit Suisse for unpaid deferred compensation.

The claimants, Joseph Todd Lerner and Anna Sarai Winderbaum, were advisers in the New York branch of Credit Suisse’s US private banking division (“PBUSA”) and were terminated when Credit Suisse closed PBUSA.  Credit Suisse took the position, as it has with hundreds of its former investment advisers, that Ms. Winderbaum and Mr. Lerner voluntarily resigned and forfeited their deferred compensation.  A three member FINRA Arbitration Panel determined that Credit Suisse terminated Ms. Winderbaum and Mr. Lerner without cause, breached their employment agreements by cancelling their deferred compensation and violated the NYLL.    The FINRA Panel was chaired by a law professor and expert in labor and employment law.

The FINRA Panel awarded Ms. Winderbaum and Mr. Lerner compensatory damages totaling $2,787,344, which included 100% of their deferred compensation awards, 2015 deferred compensation, and severance.  Having concluded that the cancellation of deferred compensation violated the NYLL, the FINRA Panel awarded statutorily mandated interest, attorneys’ fees and liquidated damages equal to 100% of the unpaid compensation.  See NYLL § 198(1-a).  The FINRA Panel ordered Credit Suisse to pay 100% of the FINRA forum fees, totaling $50,250.00, and recommended expungement of Mr. Lerner and Ms. Winderbaum’s Form U-5, the termination notice a broker-dealer is required to file with FINRA.  As with hundreds of their colleagues, Credit Suisse falsely reported that Mr. Lerner and Ms. Winderbaum’s “Reason for Termination” was “Voluntary,” i.e. that they voluntarily resigned.  The FINRA Panel recommended that the “Reason for Termination” be changed to “terminated without cause.”   The FINRA Panel also denied Credit Suisse’s counterclaims.  To view this Award, visit 17-00057.

Published on:

On November 6, 2018, Nicolas Finn, a former Credit Suisse investment adviser represented by Lax & Neville LLP, won a FINRA arbitration award against Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC for unpaid deferred compensation. On November 27, 2018, Credit Suisse petitioned the New York Supreme Court (Commercial Division) to vacate the Finn Award on grounds of arbitrator misconduct and manifest disregard of the law. See Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Nicholas B. Finn, CV 655870/2018. The Honorable Judge Jennifer Schecter, by order dated April 24, 2019, denied the Petition to Vacate in its entirety and entered judgment for Mr. Finn.

Credit Suisse is currently being sued by dozens of its former investment advisers in connection with the 2015 closure of its US private bank. Four FINRA Panels have issued awards thus far, all of them finding Credit Suisse terminated its advisers without cause and ordering it to pay deferred compensation. This is the first time a court has heard Credit Suisse’s defenses to the Credit Suisse Deferred Compensation Arbitrations.

Credit Suisse contended that the Finn Panel acted in manifest disregard of the law on two issues. First, Credit Suisse argued that Mr. Finn resigned as a matter of law when he left Credit Suisse on November 23, 2015, a month after Credit Suisse announced it was closing its private bank. Under the terms of Credit Suisse’s contracts with its investment advisers, deferred compensation is cancelled immediately upon voluntary resignation but vests immediately upon termination without cause. The evidence at arbitration overwhelmingly established that Credit Suisse both structured the closure of the private bank and deliberately concealed and misrepresented material information in order to mischaracterize its advisers as having “resigned” after they were given no option but to leave Credit Suisse. It then cancelled more than 95% of its advisers’ deferred compensation, amounting to almost $200 million. The Finn Panel rejected Credit Suisse’s argument that Mr. Finn resigned voluntarily and ordered expungement of “Voluntary” termination from his Form U-5. The Panel recommended that the Form U-5 be amended to state that the reason for termination was “Termination Without Cause.”

Published on:

On November 6, 2018, a former Credit Suisse investment adviser represented by Lax & Neville LLP, a leading securities and employment law firm, won a FINRA arbitration award against Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC for unpaid deferred compensation.  This is the second FINRA Award against Credit Suisse for unpaid deferred compensation. 

The claimant, Nicholas Finn, was an adviser in Credit Suisse’s New York US private banking division (“PBUSA”) and was terminated when Credit Suisse closed PBUSA.  Credit Suisse took the position, as it has with hundreds of other former investment advisers, that Mr. Finn voluntarily resigned and forfeited his deferred compensation.  A three arbitrator panel determined that Credit Suisse terminated Mr. Finn without cause and awarded him all of his compensatory damages in the amount of $975,530, which included all of his deferred compensation awards valued as of November 23, 2015, the day he left Credit Suisse, and his 2015 deferred compensation.  The Panel ordered Credit Suisse to pay 100% of the FINRA forum fees, totaling $27,300, and recommended expungement of Mr. Finn’s Form U-5, the termination notice a broker-dealer is required to file with FINRA.  As with Mr. Finn’s colleagues, Credit Suisse falsely reported that Mr. Finn’s “Reason for Termination” was “Voluntary,” i.e. that Mr. Finn resigned.  The Panel recommended that the “Reason for Termination” be changed to “terminated without cause.”   The Panel also denied Credit Suisse’s counterclaims.  To view this Award, Nicholas Finn v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, FINRA Case No. 17-01277 

Credit Suisse raised a mitigation defense based upon compensation Mr. Finn received or may receive from his current employer, UBS Financial Services Inc.  Like the Panel in Brian Chilton v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, FINRA Case No. 16-03065, the Finn Panel  rejected Credit Suisse’s mitigation defense when it awarded Mr. Finn all of his Credit Suisse deferred compensation.

Published on:

On October 10, 2018, a former Credit Suisse investment adviser represented by Lax & Neville LLP, a leading securities and employment law firm, won a FINRA arbitration award against Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC for unpaid deferred compensation.  The claimant, Brian Chilton, was an adviser in Credit Suisse’s US private banking division (“PBUSA”) and was terminated when Credit Suisse closed PBUSA.  As it did with hundreds of his colleagues, Credit Suisse took the position that Mr. Chilton voluntarily resigned and forfeited his deferred compensation.  A highly sophisticated and experienced three arbitrator panel determined that Credit Suisse terminated Mr. Chilton without cause and awarded him all of his deferred compensation, consisting of 39,980 shares of Credit Suisse AG valued as of the date of his termination at $585,307.20.  The Panel ordered Credit Suisse to pay interest of $131,694.12, attorneys’ fees of $146,326.80, and 100% of the FINRA forum fees, totaling $69,750.00.  The Panel also recommended expungement of Mr. Chilton’s Form U-5, the termination notice a broker-dealer is required to file with FINRA.  Credit Suisse had falsely reported that Mr. Chilton’s “Reason for Termination” was “Voluntary,” i.e. that Mr. Chilton resigned.  The Panel recommended that the “Reason for Termination” be changed to “terminated without cause.”  To view this Award, Brian Chilton v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, FINRA Case No. 16-03065.

Credit Suisse announced it was closing PBUSA on October 20, 2015.  Dozens of its former advisers have subsequently filed FINRA Arbitration claims for their unpaid deferred compensation.  The claims are based upon unambiguous language in Credit Suisse’s contracts providing that deferred compensation awards vest immediately upon termination without cause.  In a transparent attempt to evade its deferred compensation liabilities, which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars, Credit Suisse deliberately mischaracterized its advisers’ terminations as voluntary resignations, notwithstanding that it had announced it was closing PBUSA, told its employees, including the advisers, to find someplace else to work and told its clients to close their accounts.  In its Form U-5 filings, Credit Suisse misrepresented to its regulator that the advisers had voluntarily resigned.

The Chilton Panel was the first to reach a decision on this issue and found that Mr. Chilton’s Form U-5 filing was false and should be changed to termination without cause.  Under the unambiguous terms of Credit Suisse’s contracts, Mr. Chilton was therefore entitled to his deferred compensation.

Published on:

On April 6, 2016, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued its final rule expanding the “investment advice fiduciary” definition under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).  The rule, which is effective April 10, 2017, has already had significant impact on the wealth management business and advisers should be particularly aware of changes to recruitment and compensation.

The rule modifies the Best Interest Contract Exemption (“BIC”), under which the DOL permits financial advisers and their firms to engage in otherwise prohibited transactions.  When the rule was issued last year, many firms were concerned that the revised BIC would create unacceptable liability risk on commission-based retirement accounts and prohibit back-end performance-based incentives altogether.  The DOL has now confirmed that the back-end incentives, such as bonuses for meeting asset or sales targets, will no longer be exempted under the BIC.

On October 27, the Department issued a FAQ regarding the new rule.  Question 12 addressed recruitment incentives:

Published on:

On March 7, 2016, Lax & Neville LLP, together with a number of other concerned law firms, submitted a letter to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) urging it to take action in light of Credit Suisse’s repeated violations.  In particular, the letter sought to address Credit Suisse’s current Employment Dispute Resolution Program (EDRP), which prevents employees from exercising their right to resolve disputes through FINRA arbitrations.  A second letter was sent to FINRA on July 19, 2016.

On July 22, 2016, FINRA released a Regulatory Notice addressing “Forum Selection Provisions Involving Customers, Associated Persons and Member Firms.”  Therein, FINRA stated that it “considers actions by member firms that require associated persons to waive their right under the Industry Code to arbitration of disputes at FINRA in a predispute agreement as a violation of FINRA Rule 13200 and as conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade and a violation of FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade).”  FINRA further noted, “a member firm cannot use an existing non-compliant agreement as a basis to deny an associated person the right to FINRA arbitration as specified in FINRA rules, without violating FINRA rules.”   Accordingly, FINRA has determined that the EDRP, which Credit Suisse has insisted its employees follow, violates FINRA rules and cannot be relied upon in resolving disputes with Credit Suisse.

The Regulatory Notice further noted that FINRA has a statutory obligation to enforce compliance by member firms and warned that “[m]ember firms with provisions in predispute agreements that do not comply with FINRA rules may be subject to disciplinary action.” Specifically, “FINRA may sanction its members or associated persons for violating any of its rules by ‘expulsion, suspension, limitation of activities, functions, and operations, fine,  ensure, being suspended or barred from being associated with a member, or any other fitting sanction.’”  In light of this, FINRA recommends that member firms review their predispute agreements to ensure compliance.

Published on:

On April 29, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed an Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 4C of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 203(k) of The Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Rule 102(e) of The Commission’s Rules of Practice, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and A Cease-and-Desist Order (the “Order”) against Santos, Postal & Company, P.C. (“Santos, Postal & Co.”), an accounting firm, and Joseph A. Scolaro, CPA (“Scolaro”), a Santos, Postal & Co. partner since 2004 (collectively the “Respondents”).  The Order involves improper examinations by Santos, Postal & Co. of its clients’ funds, of which it had custody.  Further, Santos, Postal & Co. and Scolaro filed two (2) Forms ADV-E with materially false statements relating to the examinations.  Santos, Postal & Co. has been registered with the SEC’s Public Company Accounting Oversight Board since 2010, and Scolaro regularly conducted public accounting services before the SEC.

The Respondents’ improper examinations relate to the misappropriation of client funds by SFX Financial Advisory Management Enterprises, Inc.’s (“SFX”) Vice President, Brian J. Ourand (“Ourand”).  SFX first engaged Santos, Postal & Co. to perform its examinations in 2004 and continued to engage them until 2012 when SFX withdrew its registration with the SEC.

Santos, Postal & Co. is a certified public accounting and management consulting firm based in Rockville, Maryland, that provides accounting, tax, and auditing services.  Scolaro was one of five partners and owned 25% of Santos, Postal & Co.  He was the only engagement partner for services for SFX.

Published on:

On June 29, 2015, Mark F. Leone (“Leone”) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (“AWC”) to settle allegations made by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”).  Currently, Leone is registered with Cambridge Investment Research, Inc.; however, FINRA alleged that while Leone was registered with Morgan Stanley, he exercised discretion in customer accounts without written authorization to do so.  To settle the FINRA allegations, Leone submitted to censure, a fine of $5,000 and suspension for fifteen (15) business days.  A copy of the FINRA AWC is available here.

Specifically, FINRA alleged that on March 10, 2014, Leone, effected five (5) discretionary transactions on customer accounts without first obtaining written authorization from the customers, or having the accounts accepted as discretionary at Morgan Stanley.  According to Leone’s BrokerCheck Report, on April 3, 2014, Morgan Stanley terminated Leone for allegations regarding discretionary trading without written authorization.  In response to those allegations, Leone stated, “five clients owned a stock and had a gain in the stock.  The market was about to close and I was going out of town.  I quickly entered sell orders to close the positions in the account. This generated a bunching report to Morgan Stanley.”

Bunching, or aggregating multiple executions into a single tape report, is prohibited under FINRA Rules Rules 6282(f), 6380A(f) and 6380B(h).  Similarly, NASD Conduct Rule 2510(b), FINRA Rule 2010, and Morgan Stanley firm policies all prohibit registered representatives from exercising discretionary control over customer accounts without written authorization from that customer and firm approval.  FINRA alleged that Leone lacked any authorization to make transactions in these customer accounts outside of one account where he was given insufficient verbal authorization.  As such, Leone violated NASD Conduct Rule 2510(b) and FINRA Rule 2010.

Published on:

On June 29, 2015, Jeffrey D. Daggett (“Daggett”) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (“AWC”) to settle allegations made by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”)  The FINRA AWC alleged that Daggett, while registered with Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC made numerous unsuitable recommendations of exchange traded products to his customers in violation of FINRA rules.  To settle the FINRA allegations, Daggett submitted to censure, a fine of $20,000 and a suspension for four (4) months.  A copy of the FINRA AWC is available here.

Specifically, FINRA alleged that from March 2010 through September 2011, Daggett recommended and traded in a volatile and speculative exchange traded note (“ETN”), an inverse triple leveraged exchange traded fund (“ETF”), and a triple leveraged ETF in customer accounts that were inconsistent with the customer’s investment objectives of moderate growth and income.  The ETN was tied to long positions in futures contracts on the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index, and stated in the prospectus that it was intended for short-term trading and may not be appropriate for intermediate or long-term investment time horizons.  Similarly, the ETF prospectuses also stated that they were intended for short-term trading.  Nevertheless, the ETN and ETF positions were held in the customer account for periods ranging from one (1) month, to two (2) years.  FINRA alleged that Daggett lacked a reasonable basis for believing that the ETN and ETF purchases were suitable for his customer, and as such, violated NASD Conduct Rules 2310 and IM-2310-2, as well as FINRA Rule 2010.

ETFs, ETNs and other exchange traded products are very popular among investment advisers who seek to expose their customers to a particular index or sector of the economy.  However, these complex products and the trading strategies utilizing them are difficult for retail investors to fully grasp, and therefore, understand the risk accompanying them.  Many investment advisers utilize intraday trading strategies regarding these products, including complex hedging strategies whereby they hedge them against futures contracts regarding the basket of underlying securities or contracts that the ETF tracks.  Additionally, many of these products have a “resetting” function that makes them unsuitable for many investors as part of a buy-and-hold strategy.  Recently, we covered the Securities and Exchange Commission’s request for public comment on ETFs and ETNs.

Published on:

On June 26, 2015, Lax & Neville LLP, a leading national securities arbitration law firm, won a FINRA arbitration award on behalf of two retail investors (the “Retail Investors”), through Ontonimo (OMO) Limited (“Ontonimo”), against BNP Paribas Securities Corp. (“BNPP”) for the sale and marketing of an unsuitable security to the Retail Investors.  A highly sophisticated and experienced three (3) person Arbitration Panel rendered the arbitration award after a ninety-five (95) day arbitration hearing (186 hearing sessions), which is the longest customer FINRA arbitration hearing in the last twenty (20) years and the second longest ever.  The Arbitration Panel awarded the Retail Investors, through Ontonimo, $16.1 million in compensatory damages, inclusive of interest.  This award of compensatory damages represents 100% of the net out-of-pocket loss plus interest and is one of the largest FINRA arbitration awards of compensatory damages in a customer dispute.  Significantly, in addition to that relief, after winning six (6) Motions For Sanctions and five (5) Motions To Compel, the Arbitration Panel awarded $500,000 in sanctions for attorneys’ fees for BNPP’s failure to comply with the Arbitration Panel’s various discovery orders.  This is the largest amount of sanctions awarded in a customer FINRA Arbitration in at least the last ten (10) years.  To view this Award, Ontonimo (OMO) Limited vs. BNP Paribas Securities Corp. – FINRA Case No. 10-04744, click here.

The single investment at issue was a Resetable Strike Equity Option Transaction, which is a highly speculative and leveraged derivative call option.  BNPP recommended that the Retail Investors invest approximately $14.3 million, which is more than 60% of their investable assets, into this one unsuitable security.  Because BNPP had a policy that prohibited the sale of this product to retail customers, BNPP required the Retail Investors to form a corporate entity, Ontonimo, through which the Retail Investors would purchase the investment in order to circumvent BNPP’s own compliance rules.  Further, BNPP required one of the Retail Investors to become a so-called “investment advisor” for Ontonimo by mandating that he execute a sham investment advisory agreement, even though he had no prior professional financial services experience and no securities licenses.  In less than one and one-half years, the Resetable Strike Equity Option Transaction became worthless and the Retail Investors lost their entire $14.3 million investment.  The Retail Investors paid BNPP in excess of $2.3 million in fees and costs for this investment.  BNPP further retained approximately $700,000 of the value of the Resetable Strike Equity Option Transaction after its expiration.

The Arbitration Panel’s message was clear:  The Retail Investors should never have been marketed and sold this unsuitable security.

Contact Information