Securities Litigation

Investor Claims Against Brokerage Firms

When investors open an account with a brokerage firm, they often sign an agreement that includes a clause requiring any disputes to be resolved through arbitration rather than in court. This means that instead of filing a lawsuit, the investor must bring their claim before a panel of arbitrators who act as neutral decision-makers. Claims against a securities brokerage firm are typically asserted through arbitration due to the prevalence of arbitration agreements in brokerage contracts.

Arbitration offers several advantages for resolving securities disputes. Firstly, it is generally faster and more cost-effective than litigation in court. The arbitration process is designed to be less formal and complex, allowing for a streamlined resolution of the dispute. Additionally, the parties have more control over the process, including the selection of arbitrators and the scheduling of hearings.

Another benefit of arbitration is its confidentiality. Unlike court proceedings, arbitration hearings are typically not open to the public, maintaining the privacy of the parties involved. This can be advantageous for investors who wish to keep their financial matters private or avoid negative publicity.

Furthermore, arbitration decisions are generally final and binding, meaning that they cannot be appealed except in limited circumstances. This provides a degree of certainty and finality to the resolution of the dispute.

It is important to note that while arbitration is the usual forum for asserting claims against brokerage firms, it may not be the exclusive option. In certain situations, investors may have the ability to pursue their claims in court, such as when arbitration agreements are found to be unenforceable or when specific legal exceptions apply.

Overall, arbitration offers investors an efficient and effective means of resolving claims against securities brokerage firms, allowing for a fair and impartial adjudication of disputes outside of the traditional court system.

Investors involved in securities arbitration can make various claims depending on the circumstances of their case. Here are some common claims that investors may assert during securities arbitration:

1. Fraud: Investors may claim that they were deceived or misled by fraudulent statements or omissions made by the brokerage firm, financial advisor, or company whose securities they invested in.
2. Negligence: Investors may argue that the brokerage firm or financial advisor failed to exercise reasonable care, diligence, or skill in handling their investment account or providing suitable investment advice.
3. Breach of fiduciary duty: Investors may allege that the brokerage firm or financial advisor breached their fiduciary duty by acting in their own best interest instead of prioritizing the investor's interests.
4. Unsuitability: Investors may claim that the recommended investment was unsuitable for their specific investment objectives, risk tolerance, financial situation, or other relevant factors.
5. Churning: Investors may assert that the brokerage firm or financial advisor engaged in excessive trading or churned their account to generate excessive commissions or fees without regard for the investor's best interests.
6. Unauthorized trading: Investors may argue that the brokerage firm or financial advisor made trades in their account without obtaining proper authorization or approval.
7. Failure to execute trades: Investors may claim that the brokerage firm failed to properly execute their trades or fulfill their obligations related to trade execution.
   Misrepresentation or omission: Investors may contend that material information was misrepresented or omitted, leading them to make investment decisions based on inaccurate or incomplete information.
8. Violation of securities laws or regulations: Investors may allege that the brokerage firm or financial advisor violated applicable securities laws, rules, or regulations in connection with their investment activities.

It's important to note that the specific claims made by investors in securities arbitration will depend on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. The above list provides a general overview of common claims but is not exhaustive.

Schedule a Consultation

SEC Claims and Defenses

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is an independent agency of the United States federal government. Its primary mandate is to protect investors, maintain fair and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. The SEC achieves these objectives by enforcing federal securities laws, regulating securities markets, and overseeing various market participants, including companies, brokers, investment advisers, and exchanges.
The SEC has the authority to investigate and take legal action against companies and individuals for violations of securities laws. Some of the legal claims that the SEC may make against the companies and individuals it regulates include:

1. Fraud: The SEC can bring charges against companies or individuals who engage in fraudulent activities related to the sale or trading of securities. This includes misrepresentation or omission of material facts, insider trading, Ponzi schemes, or accounting fraud.
2. Insider Trading: The SEC enforces laws against trading securities based on material non-public information. Insider trading refers to the buying or selling of securities by individuals who have access to such non-public information, which gives them an unfair advantage.
3. Market Manipulation: The SEC can take action against individuals or entities that manipulate the securities markets for personal gain. This may involve spreading false information, creating artificial demand or supply, or engaging in practices that distort market prices.
4. Violation of Securities Registration Requirements: The SEC requires certain securities to be registered before being offered to the public. If companies or individuals fail to comply with these registration requirements, the SEC may take legal action.
5. Breach of Fiduciary Duty: The SEC can pursue claims against investment advisers or brokers who breach their fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their clients. This includes cases where conflicts of interest are not properly disclosed or when unsuitable investment advice is provided.
6. Failure to File Required Reports: Companies are required to file periodic reports with the SEC, providing financial and other information to ensure transparency and protect investors. Failure to file these reports or providing false or misleading information can lead to enforcement actions.
7. Violation of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Laws: The SEC plays a role in enforcing AML regulations to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. Failure to implement appropriate AML controls or knowingly facilitating illegal activities can result in SEC enforcement actions.
8. Offering Fraud: The SEC can take action against companies or individuals who engage in fraudulent schemes related to securities offerings, such as offering fictitious or unregistered securities, or making false statements to investors.

It's important to note that this is not an exhaustive list, and the specific legal claims pursued by the SEC may vary based on the circumstances and evidence of each case.

When facing claims brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), companies and individuals have the opportunity to present various defenses. Here are some general defenses that may be applicable to the claims mentioned: Lack of Intent: The defendant may argue that they did not have the intent to commit fraud, engage in insider trading, market manipulation, or any other prohibited activity. Lack of intent can be a defense when the alleged misconduct was unintentional or resulted from an honest mistake. Lack of Materiality: The defendant can claim that the misrepresentation or omission of facts was not material, meaning it would not have significantly impacted a reasonable investor's decision-making process. The materiality of information is a key element in establishing securities violations.

1. Lack of Knowledge: In cases involving insider trading or violations of securities registration requirements, the defendant may assert that they were unaware of the material non-public information or the requirement to register the securities, respectively.
2. Good Faith Reliance: If the defendant can demonstrate that they reasonably relied on information provided by others, such as auditors, legal advisors, or experts, they may argue that they acted in good faith and should not be held liable for the alleged misconduct.
3. Statute of Limitations: The defendant may assert that the SEC's claim is time-barred due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations sets a time limit within which legal actions must be initiated, and if that time limit has passed, the claim may be barred.
4. Compliance with AML Programs: In cases involving AML violations, the defendant can argue that they had appropriate anti-money laundering controls and programs in place and that any alleged failure to detect illegal activities was not due to their negligence or intentional misconduct.
5. Procedural Defenses: Defendants can raise various procedural defenses, such as challenging the SEC's jurisdiction, arguing that the SEC failed to meet the burden of proof, or alleging violations of due process during the investigation or enforcement process.

It's important to note that the availability and success of these defenses may depend on the specific circumstances and evidence presented in each case. Consultation with legal counsel is crucial to determine the most appropriate defenses based on the facts and applicable laws.

Schedule a Consultation

FINRA Claims and Defenses

FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) is a self-regulatory organization that oversees and regulates brokerage firms and registered stockbrokers in the United States. When FINRA identifies misconduct by stockbrokers, it can bring disciplinary actions against them. These actions are based on specific rules and regulations established by FINRA. Here are some common types of claims that FINRA may bring against stockbrokers, along with the associated rules used for disciplinary actions:

1. Fraudulent Misrepresentation or Omission (Rule 2020): FINRA may bring claims against stockbrokers who engage in fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions when dealing with customers. Rule 2020 prohibits members from making false statements or material omissions in connection with securities transactions.
2. Unsuitable Recommendations (Rule 2111): Stockbrokers have a duty to recommend investments that are suitable for their customers based on their financial situation, investment objectives, and risk tolerance. Rule 2111 requires members to have a reasonable basis for believing that a recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for the customer.
3. Excessive Trading (Churning) (Rule 2111): Churning refers to the excessive trading of securities in a customer's account, primarily for the purpose of generating commissions. It is considered an abusive practice. Rule 2111 prohibits stockbrokers from engaging in excessive trading and requires them to have a reasonable basis for recommending the frequency of transactions.
4. Unauthorized Trading (Rule 2010): Stockbrokers must obtain proper authorization from customers before executing trades in their accounts. Unauthorized trading occurs when a broker makes trades without the customer's consent. Rule 2010 sets forth the overarching principle of high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade, which encompasses the requirement of obtaining customer authorization.
5. Failure to Supervise (Rule 3110): Brokerage firms have a responsibility to adequately supervise the activities of their stockbrokers. If a brokerage firm fails to establish and maintain a supervisory system to detect and prevent misconduct by its brokers, FINRA may bring a claim based on Rule 3110, which outlines the requirements for supervision and establishes the obligation to implement a reasonable supervisory system.
6. Failure to Disclose Material Information (Rule 2210): Stockbrokers and their firms must provide customers with accurate and balanced information regarding investments. Rule 2210 sets standards for communications with the public and requires fair and balanced disclosure of material facts about investments, including risks and benefits.

These are just a few examples of the types of claims that FINRA can bring against stockbrokers. It's important to note that the specific rules and regulations enforced by FINRA are extensive, and disciplinary actions can vary depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

When facing claims made by FINRA, stockbrokers may employ various defenses to challenge or mitigate the allegations. Here are some defenses that may be raised:

1. Lack of Intent: Stockbrokers may argue that any misrepresentation or omission was not made with fraudulent intent. They might claim that any false statements were made inadvertently or without knowledge of their falsity.
2. Reasonable Reliance: Stockbrokers may contend that the customers themselves should have exercised due diligence and not solely relied on the broker's recommendations or statements. They may argue that customers had access to relevant information and should have conducted their own analysis.
3. Suitability Assessment: Stockbrokers may assert that they conducted a reasonable suitability assessment based on the information provided by the customer. They may argue that the recommended transactions or investment strategies were suitable based on the customer's financial situation, objectives, and risk tolerance, even if the investment ultimately resulted in losses.
4. Lack of Excessive Trading: If accused of excessive trading or churning, stockbrokers may argue that the trading activity was necessary and appropriate based on the customer's investment goals and market conditions. They might present evidence to demonstrate that the frequency of trades was in line with the customer's investment strategy.
5. Customer Authorization: Stockbrokers may defend against claims of unauthorized trading by providing evidence that they had obtained proper authorization from the customer, either explicitly or implicitly. They may present signed documents or other records showing that the customer had consented to the trades.
6. Supervisory Systems: Brokerage firms may argue that they had adequate supervisory systems in place to detect and prevent misconduct by their brokers. They may demonstrate that they implemented appropriate procedures, training, and monitoring systems to fulfill their supervisory obligations as required by Rule 3110.
   
7. Materiality of Information: Stockbrokers may contend that the information they failed to disclose was not material or that the customer had access to the information through alternative sources. They might argue that the non-disclosed information would not have influenced the customer's investment decisions.
   
   It's important to note that the specific defenses available will depend on the circumstances of each case. Stockbrokers facing FINRA claims should consult with experienced securities attorneys to develop an appropriate defense strategy tailored to their situation.
   
   

Schedule a Consultation

TSSB Claims and Defenses

The Texas State Securities Board (TSSB) is an agency responsible for the regulation and oversight of securities in the state of Texas. Its primary mission is to protect investors and promote the integrity of the securities market in Texas. The TSSB achieves these objectives by enforcing the Texas Securities Act and other applicable laws, as well as by providing education and outreach programs.

The TSSB has the authority to investigate and take legal action against companies and individuals operating in Texas who violate state securities laws. Some of the legal claims that the TSSB may make against these entities and individuals include:

1. Fraudulent Practices: The TSSB can bring claims against companies or individuals engaged in fraudulent activities related to the sale or trading of securities. This includes misrepresentations or omissions of material facts, Ponzi schemes, misleading statements, or deceptive practices.
2. Unregistered Securities: The TSSB enforces laws requiring certain securities offerings to be registered in Texas before being sold to investors. If companies or individuals fail to comply with these registration requirements, the TSSB may take legal action.
3. Sales of Unqualified Securities: The TSSB can pursue claims against companies or individuals that offer or sell securities that have not been qualified by the TSSB, meaning they do not meet the necessary standards or requirements.
4. Investment Adviser Violations: The TSSB regulates investment advisers operating in Texas. It can take action against investment advisers who engage in misconduct, such as providing false or misleading information to clients, operating without appropriate licenses, or breaching fiduciary duties.
5. Broker-Dealer Violations: The TSSB can bring claims against broker-dealers who engage in improper practices, including unauthorized trading, churning, failure to execute trades properly, or engaging in fraudulent activities.
6. Registration Violations: The TSSB can take legal action against companies or individuals who fail to register as securities dealers or agents when required by Texas law.
7. Promoter Violations: The TSSB can pursue claims against promoters who engage in activities that violate securities laws, such as making false statements, engaging in manipulative practices, or promoting fraudulent investment schemes.
8. Securities-related Criminal Violations: The TSSB may refer cases involving criminal violations of securities laws to the appropriate law enforcement agencies for prosecution.

These are some general examples of legal claims that the Texas State Securities Board may make against companies and individuals. The specific claims pursued by the TSSB will depend on the circumstances of each case and the violations of Texas securities laws involved.

When facing claims made by the Texas State Securities Board (TSSB), companies and individuals have the opportunity to raise defenses to mitigate or defend against these claims. Here are some general defenses that may be applicable to the claims mentioned:

1. Lack of Intent or Knowledge: Defendants can argue that they did not have the intent to engage in fraudulent practices, sell unregistered or unqualified securities, or commit any violations. They may claim that any misrepresentations or omissions were unintentional or resulted from a lack of knowledge.
2. Lack of Materiality: Defendants may assert that the alleged misrepresentations or omissions of facts were not material, meaning they would not have significantly influenced an investor's decision-making process.
3. Reliance on Professional Advice: If the defendant relied on professional advice, such as legal or accounting counsel, they may argue that they acted in good faith and followed the advice provided. This defense may apply to claims related to investment adviser violations, broker-dealer violations, or registration violations.
4. Exemption or Exclusion: Defendants can assert that they fall within an exemption or exclusion under Texas securities laws, thereby negating the requirement for registration or compliance with certain regulations.
5. Procedural Defenses: Defendants can raise procedural defenses, such as challenging the TSSB's jurisdiction, alleging violations of due process during the investigation or enforcement process, or asserting that the TSSB failed to meet its burden of proof.
6. Lack of Scienter: Defendants may argue that they did not have the requisite scienter, or knowledge of wrongdoing, necessary to establish certain claims. This defense can be relevant to fraud-related allegations.
7. Truth as a Defense: In cases where the alleged misconduct is based on false statements or misleading information, defendants may argue that the statements made were true or that they had a reasonable basis for believing in their accuracy.
8. Statute of Limitations: Defendants can assert that the TSSB's claim is time-barred due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. If the claim is not filed within the specified time frame, the defense may argue that the TSSB is precluded from pursuing legal action.
    

It's important to note that the availability and success of these defenses may vary depending on the specific circumstances of each case, the evidence presented, and the applicable laws and regulations. Consulting with legal counsel is crucial to determine the most appropriate defenses based on the facts and circumstances involved.

Schedule a Consultation