Archive for April, 2019
Andrew Whiteman Assists Securities Law Clinics with Amicus Brief Filingby Andrew Whiteman
Andrew Whiteman Assists Securities Law Clinics with Amicus Brief Filing
On April 19, 2019, Andrew Whiteman filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on behalf of three law school law clinics: University of Miami School of Law Investor Rights Clinic, Elizabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University Investor Rights Clinic, and St. Johns University School of Law Securities Arbitration Clinic (the “Clinics”).
An amicus curiae brief, also known as a “friend of the court brief,” is filed in an appellate court by a non-party to the dispute who has an interest in the outcome of the court’s disposition. The Clinics filed their brief in support of the appeal by the plaintiff-appellants, Rohit Saroop, Preya Saroop, and George Sofis (“Plaintiffs”). The Plaintiffs won their FINRA arbitration case. However, the arbitration decision was vacated by a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Plaintiffs then appealed the case to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The case involves the following facts. In January 2017, an arbitration panel appointed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) rendered an arbitration award in favor of Plaintiffs against the defendant, Interactive Brokers LLC (“Interactive”). Interactive filed a motion in the District Court to vacate the arbitration award. The Plaintiffs moved to confirm it. The District Judge remanded the arbitration decision back to the panel of arbitrators for clarification of the basis for their award in favor of the Plaintiffs. After the remand, the panel issued a slightly modified version of their initial award in January 2018, again in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Upon review of the modified award, the District Court granted Interactive’s motion to vacate the award and remanded the arbitration case to a new panel of FINRA arbitrators for reconsideration of Interactive’s counterclaims against the Plaintiffs. The District Judge decided to vacate the award after finding that arbitrators based their award against Interactive solely on the ground that Interactive violated a FINRA conduct rule, Rule 4210. The Court ruled that the arbitrators’ decision constituted “manifest disregard of the law” because the law is clear that there is no private right of action to enforce FINRA conduct rules, the panel knew of and understood the law on this point, they found the law to be applicable to the case, and they ignored it.
The Clinics’ amicus brief makes several points. FINRA’s arbitration rules do not require the claimant to specify any cause of action or legal theory in a statement of claim. FINRA arbitration rules do not require the arbitrators to specify any cause of action or legal theory in an award. Under established legal precedent, the arbitrators did not manifestly disregard the law, and the District Court erred in its finding concerning the arbitrators’ rationale for the award.
This is an important case for several reasons. First and foremost, the judicial power to review of arbitration decisions is extremely limited. Judicial review of arbitration decisions has been described as “severely circumscribed” and “among the narrowest known at law.” Apex Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. U.S. Supply Co., 152 F.3d 188, 193 (4th Cir. 1998). The Fourth Circuit has stated that “a court sits to determine only whether the arbitrator did his job – not whether he did it well, correct, or reasonably, but simply whether he did it.” Wachovia Securities, LLC v. Brand, 671 F.3d 472, 478 (4th Cir. 2012). In this case, the District Court’s finding that the arbitrators’ decision was based solely on a violation of a FINRA rule is highly questionable. The Court’s analysis of the “manifest disregard” standard seems deeply flawed. It rests in part on the premise that the case law is clear that an arbitration award cannot be based on a violation of a FINRA rule. The Court cited numerous cases that have held that a FINRA Rule may constitute evidence of the broker-dealer’s duty of care to his customer, but held that those cases were inapplicable because “it was apparent on the face of the arbitrator’s decision that a violation of FINRA Rule 4210” was the sole basis for liability. Finally, the Court’s ruling that the arbitrators knew the law, understood it, knew the law was controlling, and disregarded it is based on what was in Interactive’s arbitration brief. This finding is problematical because the Plaintiffs’ submission to the panel contested Interactive’s argument and cited contrary authority.
This case provides the Fourth Circuit to provide additional guidance on the scope of judicial review of arbitration decisions.
A copy of the District Court’s opinion is here.
A copy of the Clinics’ amicus brief is here.
It is expected that the Fourth Circuit will rule on the case within six to nine months.
© Andrew Whiteman 2019
The lawyers at Whiteman Law Firm have been handling securities matters for over 30 years. Please contact us for more information.
Judge Allows North Carolina GenX Class Action to Proceedby Andrew Whiteman
In a ruling filed on April 19, 2019, Judge James C. Dever III ruled that the plaintiffs may proceed with their class action lawsuit against E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) and The Chemours Company FC, LLC (“Chemours”). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that DuPont and Chemours discharged toxic chemicals, including GenX, from their Fayetteville Works plant into the Cape Fear River and surrounding air, soil, and groundwater. On March 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint. In the recent ruling, the Court granted the defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to proceed on their claims of negligence, gross negligence, private nuisance, and trespass to real property. The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims of negligence per se, public nuisance, and unjust enrichment. The Court also granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relieve concerning medical monitoring, but allowed plaintiffs to proceed on their claims for damages for future medical expenses.
Judge Dever’s order may be found here.
For a news story concerning the ruling and comments by lead attorney Ted Leopold, click here.
A status conference in the cases is scheduled for April 25, 2019.
Whiteman Law Firm, along with several other firms, is representing plaintiffs in class action lawsuits against DuPont and Chemours for environmental contamination of the air and water in southeastern North Carolina. In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants discharged toxic chemicals from their chemical production facility near Fayetteville, North Carolina into the surrounding air and water. The plant produces chemicals that are used to make non-stick coatings for cookware and other consumer products. Plaintiffs alleged that DuPont and Chemours knew that this family of chemicals is dangerous, but nevertheless dumped these chemicals into the air and water to avoid the expense of taking appropriate safety precautions while misleading regulators about the nature of their discharges.
Please contact us for more information.
FINRA Requires Brokerage Firms to Communicate with Customers when a Broker Leaves the Firmby Andrew Whiteman
Ask questions if your broker leaves his firm.
According to new regulatory guidance from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, known as FINRA, member firms are required to do the following:
- In the event of a registered representative’s departure, the member firm should promptly and clearly communicate to affected customers how their accounts will continue to be serviced; and
- The firm should provide customers with timely and complete answers when the customer asks questions about a departing registered representative
The new requirements are spelled in Notice to Members 19-10, which was issued on April 5, 2019. The purpose of the new guidance is to ensure that customers can make a timely and informed choice about where to maintain their assets when their registered representative leaves a firm. Customers should not experience any interruption in service as a result of a representative’s departure. Member firms should have policies and procedures in place to assure that customers serviced by a departing registered representative will continue to be serviced, including how and to whom the customer may direct questions and trade instructions and the identity of the representative to whom the customer will be assigned at the member firm.
NTM 19-10 also states that the member firm should “communicate clearly, without obfuscation, when asked questions” by customers about the departing registered representative. Provided the departed representative has consented to disclosure of his or her contact information to customers, the firm must provide the departed representative’s contact information, such as phone number, e-mail address, or mailing address. All information provided by the member firm about the departing representative must be “fair, balanced and not misleading.”
Thus, under NTM 19-10, a member firm (1) must immediately notify customers that their representative has departed and assign a new representative to the customers, (2) may not attempt to hinder or delay customers’ efforts to contact their former registered representative by refusing to provide his contact information when authorized to disclose it, and (3) must provide fair, balanced, and not misleading answers to all customer questions resulting from the representative’s departure.
New ERISA Disability Claim Regulations – Part 9by Andrew Whiteman
New ERISA Disability Claim Regulations – Part 9
On April 1, 2018, a new disability claim regulation came into effect. The regulation was promulgated by the United States Department of Labor (referred to herein as “DOL”) under the authority of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and applies to all employee benefit plans that provide disability benefits.
This is the last in a series of nine blog posts that will summarize important features of the new regulation. The new regulation amended existing regulation in the following eight areas:
- Conflicts of interest involving claims adjudicators and medical and vocational consultants.
- Additional disclosures required with denial notices.
- Disclosure of plan criteria.
- Requires notifications to be made in a “culturally and linguistically-appropriate manner.”
- Disclosure of new evidence and new rationales prior to denial on review.
- Disclosure of contractual limitations period deadline.
- Enhanced remedy for a plan’s violation of the regulation.
- Expansion of the definition of “adverse benefit determination.”
This post will address the new regulation’s expansion of the term “adverse benefit decision.”
I. Summary of the Changes to the 503 Regulation
H. The Term “Adverse Benefit Determination” Expanded
Section 503-1(m)(4) expands the definition of “adverse benefit determination” to include a decision to rescind disability coverage with respect to a beneficiary or participant, whether or not, in connection with the rescission there is an adverse effect on any particular benefit at that time. “Rescission” includes a cancellation or discontinuance of coverage that has a retroactive effect, except for one that is attributable to a failure to timely pay required premiums or contributions.
© Andrew Whiteman 2019
Whiteman Law Firm specializes in cases involving claims for disability insurance and other employee benefits. These cases typically involve application of a federal law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, known by the acronym ERISA, and are usually resolved through the benefit plan’s appeal process or federal court. We have helped hundreds of individuals with their claims for short-term and long-term disability insurance benefits.
Contact us for more information about our ERISA disability benefits practice.