Posts tagged with "Massachusetts"

Connecticut Non-Compete Prohibits Client Solicitation in Investment Services Industry

In Robert J. Reby & Co. v. Byrne, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2115, Mr. Patrick Byrne worked at Robert J. Reby & Co., a financial firm in Danbury, Connecticut, as a registered investment advisor from June 2005 to July 2005.  The company advises high net worth individuals and families in the areas of trusts, wealth management, and taxation.  Mr. Byrne signed an employment contract with Robert J. Reby & Co. wherein it contained a non-compete agreement that stipulated he be prohibited from soliciting the company’s clients or disclosing any of its confidential information in the event of his termination.  Following Mr. Byrne’s short employment with Robert J. Reby & Co. he began to work at Aspetuck Financial Management, LLC, a wealth management firm based in Westport.   Robert J. Reby & Co. alleged that Mr. Byrne solicited its clients for his new firm, Aspetuck, in direct violation of the non-compete agreement.  Mr. Byrne countered that the provisions of the non-compete were unreasonable in the sense that it placed an excessive restraint on his trade and prevented him from pursuing his occupation.

The court held that the non-compete agreement between Mr. Byrne and Robert J. Reby & Co. contained reasonable terms and was enforceable.  It failed to see any merits in Mr. Byrne’s claim that the agreement was too broad and created an insurmountable occupational hardship.  The provisions of the agreement only restricted a very small segment of Mr. Byrne’s occupational activities.  The terms he agreed to only prevented him from soliciting the specific and limited group of people that were clients of Robert J. Reby & Co..  The court held that the covenant was not a pure anti-competitive clause because it did not prevent him from engaging in the investment services industry as a whole.  This limited scope with regard to the prohibition levied upon Mr. Byrne caused the agreement to be reasonable and therefore enforceable.

The court also took time to discuss the public policy behind finding the non-compete agreement enforceable and establishing the legitimacy of the agreement.  Companies, according to the court, have a legitimate interest in protecting their business operations by preventing former employees from exploiting or appropriating the goodwill of its clients that it developed at its own, and not the employees’, expense.

If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment contract, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Keywords: anti-compete, excessive restraint, financial form, goodwill, investment adviser, investment service industry, legitimacy, new firm, occupational hardship, prohibition, pursuing occupation,  former employer, previous employer, job responsibilities, binding, classified information, commercial operations, competing, compete, directly, employer’s interest, indirectly, internet-based, protect, reasonable, restricting disclosures, restricting disclosures, similar products, burden of proof, direct competitor, disclosure of trade secrets, employment contract, enforceability, geographic limitations, headquarters, improper competition, injunction, management responsibilities, non-compete covenant, radius, sales representative, time limitations, unreasonable provisions, attorney, attorneys, employment attorneys, bonus, bonuses, companies, company, connecticut, customary practices, Darien, departing employees, directors, employee, employer, employment law, employment at-will, at-will, legal counsel, executives, New York, Fairfield, Fairfield County, Norwalk, Westport, Weston, Easton, Bridgeport, Stamford, Stratford, severance package, Greenwich, harassment, discrimination, hiring, human resources, job offers, lawyer, lawyers, leaving company, leverage, Maya Murphy, negotiated, negotiating severance packages, negotiation, New Canaan, non-compete, non-competition, non-disparagement, non-solicitation, offer, offer agreement, offer letter, P.C., payroll, position, represent, representation, salary, salaries,  senior management, manager, separation agreement, severance agreements, severance letters, severance package, termination, vacation, vesting, vesting of stock options, law firm, public interest, monopoly, start own business, voluntary, voluntarily left, mediation, burdensome, excessive, geographical, occupation, practice, territorial, violation, restrictive, proprietary knowledge, scope, narrow, broad,

Court Uses Connecticut Law to Supersede Massachusetts Law in Application of Non-Compete Agreement

In Custard Insurance Adjusters v. Nardi, 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1003, Mr. Robert Nardi worked at Allied Adjustment Services’ Orange, CT office beginning in September 1982 as the vice president of marketing, overseeing the adjustment of claims for insurance companies and self-insurers.  The company had Mr. Nardi sign non-compete and confidentiality agreements as a term of his employment.  The agreements established that he could not solicit or accept claims within a fifty-mile radius of Allied’s Orange office for a period of two years following his termination.  The agreements further specified that the names and contact information of Allied’s clients were the company’s confidential property.  The choice of law provision stated that Massachusetts law would be controlling (Allied had its headquarters in Massachusetts).  On September 1, 1997, Allied sold its business and all its assets, including its non-compete agreements, to Custard Insurance Adjusters.  Mr. Nardi became increasingly worried about future employment at Custard when the company restructured its compensation format, allegedly decreasing his annual income by 25%.  At this point, Mr. Nardi began to inquire about employment at other companies and in particular contacted Mr. John Markle, the president of Mark Adjustment, with whom he had a previous professional history.  He also arranged meetings between Mr. Markle and four other current Custard employees to discuss switching companies.  While the companies are competitors in the insurance industry, Mark’s business was restricted to the New England region while Custard operated nationally.  Custard terminated Mr. Nardi and asked the court to enforce the non-compete agreement.

The court first sought to tackle the issue of the choice of law provision since it designated Massachusetts law as controlling but this lawsuit was brought in Connecticut state court.  The court asserted its authority over the issue and case because it could not ascertain any “difference between the courts of Connecticut and Massachusetts in their interpretation of the common law tort breach of fiduciary obligation brought against a former officer of a corporation”.  The court emphasized that above all else, the legal issue at hand was that of contractual obligations and a company’s business operations.  It asserted its authority in this respect by stating it believed “that the Massachusetts courts interpret the tort of tortious interference with contractual and business relationships the same way our [Connecticut’s] courts do”.  Additionally, the court cited that the application of Massachusetts law would undermine Connecticut’s policy to afford legal effect to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) and Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), two-state statutes used by Custard to sue Mr. Nardi.

Next, the court addressed the enforceability of the non-compete agreement signed by Mr. Nardi and Allied.  Mr. Nardi contended that the provisions of the agreement were only binding upon the signatory parties (himself and Allied) and that Custard lacked the authority to enforce its provisions.  He asked the court to deny Custard’s request to enforce the non-compete because it was “based on trust and confidence” between the signatory parties and “was thus not assignable”.  The court rejected this train of thought because the non-compete explicitly contained an assignability clause and it held that the non-compete covenant was properly and legally transferred to Custard under Massachusetts law.

Mr. Nardi based a substantial portion of his defense on the claim that Custard violated, and therefore invalidated, the agreement when it modified his compensation format.  He alleged that he was the victim of unjustified reductions in his professional responsibilities and compensation following Custard’s acquisition of Allied in 1997.  Mr. Nardi however was still an executive at the new company despite a reduction in rank and he himself had expressed excitement about becoming an executive at a national, instead of a regional, company.

The court ultimately found the non-compete to be valid and enforceable, therefore granting Custard’s request for injunctive relief.  It assessed the facts of the case and Mr. Nardi’s current position to amend the time restriction of the agreement, however.  Taking into account that he was starting a family and had a young child in conjunction with estimates that the full restrictions could amount to a 60-70% loss of business for Mr. Nardi, the court reduced the time limitation from two years to six months.  The court concluded that while the provisions were reasonable at face value, they could have unforeseen consequences that would have severely impaired Mr. Nardi’s ability to make a living in order to provide for his family.

If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Over 200 Massachusetts Children Abused While in State Custody

State officials found evidence supporting 249 allegations of physical and sexual abuse or poor care involving children in state-monitored settings last year.

The numbers were included in the Office of the Child Advocate’s 2013 report obtained by the Boston Herald (http://bit.ly/18XtUup ).

Thirty percent of the allegations were in foster care; 29 percent were in treatment programs; 19 percent in day cares; 18 percent from schools; and 4 percent from “others.”

State child welfare officials say the total number of abuse and neglect reports in out-of-home settings has remained steady in recent years.

But Sara Bartosz, an attorney for the advocacy group Children’s Rights, points out that the number of children in foster care is down.

A Department of Children and Families spokeswoman says the state works hard to protect all children.

From Boston Herald.

Continue Reading

Federal Court Confirms FINRA Arbitration Award that Refuses to Classify a Forgivable Loan as Employee Compensation Subject to the Wage Act

Federal Court Confirms FINRA Arbitration Award that Refuses to Classify a Forgivable Loan as Employee Compensation Subject to the Wage Act

Pauline Sheedy v. Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., 2011 WL 5519909 (D. Mass. Nov. 14, 2011)

In a recent Massachusetts case, Pauline Sheedy (“Sheedy”), a former managing director at Lehman Brothers, Inc., filed an action in state court seeking to vacate a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) arbitration award entered in favor of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“LBHI”). LBHI removed the case from state to federal court, and filed a motion to dismiss Sheedy’s complaint, confirm the FINRA arbitration award and award “collection expenses.” The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed LBHI’s motion.

The underlying dispute in this case involves LBHI’s efforts to collect the unpaid principal balance, plus interest and fees, for a forgivable loan that was extended to Sheedy when she began her employment with Lehman Brothers, Inc. Sheedy alleged that her compensation package included a “one-time incentive signing bonus” of $1 million; however, Lehman’s offer letter characterized the $1 million payment a loan to be forgiven in five equal installments of $200,000 on the first through fifth anniversary of her employment start date. The offer letter further stated that if Sheedy separated from Lehman Brothers, Inc. for “any reason” prior to full forgiveness of the loan, she would be required to repay the remaining principal balance, plus interest accrued through her separation date. In 2008, Lehman Brothers, Inc. was forced to file for bankruptcy protection and ceased doing business in Massachusetts. As a result, Sheedy was separated from Lehman Brothers, Inc. in September 2008, approximately two months prior to the second anniversary of her employment start date. During the marshaling of assets for the bankruptcy estate, Lehman Brothers, Inc. assigned Sheedy’s promissory note for the loan to LBHI.

LBHI initiated FINRA arbitration proceedings against Sheedy, claiming the principal balance due of $800,000, plus interest and fees. A single FINRA arbitrator was appointed to hear the case. In June 2011, the arbitrator entered an award ordering Sheedy to repay LBHI the outstanding balance of $800,000, plus interest and attorneys’ fees.
After the arbitration award, Sheedy filed an action in Massachusetts state court to vacate the FINRA arbitration award pursuant to the state Uniform Arbitration Act for Commercial Disputes. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 251, §§ 1-19. LBHI timely removed the case from state to federal court. Sheedy sought vacatur on two grounds: (1) that the arbitrator exceeded her authority because the award requires her to “forfeit earned compensation” in violation of the Massachusetts Weekly Wage Act (“Wage Act”), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148; and (2) that the award violated the Massachusetts public policy prohibiting the unlawful restraint of trade and competition.

Both the Massachusetts Uniform Arbitration Act for Commercial Disputes and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provide statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award where an arbitrator exceeds his authority. Compare Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 251, §§ 12(a)(3) with 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3). Sheedy argued that the FINRA arbitrator exceeded her authority by issuing an award that required Sheedy to forfeit earned compensation in violation of the Wage Act. The Wage Act defines the requirements for payment of employee wages and commissions, and prohibits the use of “special contract…or other means” to create exemptions from these requirements. Citing Massachusetts case law, Sheedy argued that the provisions of the Wage Act cover any payment that an employer is obligated to pay an employee; therefore, once she signed Lehman’s offer letter and Lehman was bound to make the $1 million payment to her, that payment became a nondiscretionary deed subject to the Wage Act. The court disagreed with this characterization of the payment. The court determined that the accepted offer clearly made forgiveness of the full amount of the loan contingent upon completing five years of employment at Lehman Brothers, Inc.; therefore, the portion of the payment which remained outstanding at the time of Sheedy’s termination was never “earned” within the meaning of the Wage Act. The court denied vacatur on the grounds that the arbitrator exceeded her authority because the award was not in violation of the Wage Act.

An arbitration award may also be challenged by reference to a “well-defined and dominant” public policy. United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 28, 43 (1987). Arbitrators may not award relief that offends public policy or requires a result contrary to statutory provisions. Plymouth–Carver Reg’l Sch. Dist. v. J. Farmer & Co., 553 N.E.2d 1284 (1985). Sheedy argued that the FINRA arbitration award should be vacated because forfeiture of the payment is an unlawful penalty to punish her if she chose to leave Lehman and freely compete in the market place. The court determined that the structure of the forgivable loan in the offer letter was not equivalent to a non-compete agreement that restricted an employee’s ability to work in the same field within a given geographic area. Therefore, the arbitration award did not violate the state public policy against unlawful restraint of trade and competition and the court denied vacatur on these grounds.

The court allowed LBHI’s motion to dismiss Sheedy’s complaint, confirm the arbitration decision and award collection expenses. The court gave LBHI fourteen days from the date of its order to submit a request for attorneys’ fees and a proposed form of judgment.

Should you have any questions relating to FINRA, arbitration or employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County, Connecticut at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

Court Enters 10 Year Alimony Award in Wilton Divorce

In Brush v. Brush, Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. FA104019594S (Dec. 15, 2011, Shay, J.), the plaintiff wife and the defendant husband were married for approximately 21 years, and were the parents of two minor children. During the divorce, the children- ages ten and fifteen- resided in the marital home in Wilton, Connecticut pursuant to a bird nesting arrangement which the parties agreed upon as part of a parenting plan.

At the time of the divorce, the wife was 47 years old, and suffered from various medical conditions, from chronic Lyme Disease to depression and anxiety. She held a Bachelor of Science degree in Fashion Design and Resource Management, and prior to the parties’ marriage, worked in the clothing industry in Connecticut, New York, Maine and Massachusetts. The Court found that the wife was a very talented designer and seamstress who at one point during the marriage developed and fabricated her own line of children’s clothing. After two years, however, the wife closed her business when it became apparent that it would not be profitable. At the time of the divorce, she was a full-time homemaker.

The husband was 46 years old, and held a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology as well as a Masters degree in Industrial and Labor Relations. He described his health as “good,” although he told the court that he took medication for a hereditary thyroid condition as well as for high blood pressure. He also suffered from occasional stress, but indicated that none of the conditions adversely affected his ability to work. The Court noted that the husband worked for a variety of corporations in Kansas, Texas, Ohio and New York. At the time of the divorce proceedings, he was Chief Human Resources Officer and his annual base salary was $242,000.00 plus an annual bonus, an automobile allowance, and certain non-cash benefits including stock options.

With respect to the cause of the breakdown of the marriage, the parties cited various factors including different parenting styles, lack of intimacy, loss of interest in each other, personality conflicts and different approaches to personal finances. The Court ultimately found that both parties contributed to the breakdown of their relationship. Regarding finances, the Court found that the husband’s net income was $4,403.00 per week, and the wife had no income.

With respect to support, the Court ordered that commencing the first day of the first month following the husband’s vacation of the marital home, but no later than March 1, 2012, and monthly thereafter, the husband shall pay to the wife 35% of his gross cash compensation from employment as and for unallocated, periodic alimony and child support, until the death of either party, the remarriage of the wife, the entry into a civil union by the wife, or December 31, 2022, whichever shall sooner occur. The Court designated the term of alimony as non-modifiable, and granted the wife a safe harbor up to $40,000 per year. However, the Court also capped the wife’s alimony at 35% of the husband’s income up to $400,000 per year.

Should you have any questions relating to alimony or divorce proceedings, please feel free to contact Michael D. DeMeola, Esq. by telephone at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at mdemeola@mayalaw.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
Our family law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with divorce, matrimonial, and family law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best divorce attorneys and family attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut divorce or New York divorce today.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to a divorce law attorney about a divorce or familial matter, please don’t hesitate to call our office at (203) 221-3100. We offer free divorce consultation as well as free consultation on all other familial matters. Divorce in CT and divorce in NYC is difficult, but education is power. Call our family law office in CT today.

Keywords: divorce attorney ct, divorce attorneys in ct, divorce attorneys ct, divorce attorney Connecticut, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce attorney, divorce attorneys NYC, ct lawyers, Connecticut family attorney, divorce lawyer in ct, free divorce consultation, free consultation family law, divorce in ct, free consultation family law, Connecticut divorce lawyer, divorce attorney for men, divorce attorney for women, free divorce attorney, divorce lawyers in ct, ct divorce laws, ct divorce attorney, family law firm, divorce attorney Fairfield, attorneys in Connecticut, family law office, ct divorce mediation, best divorce attorney in ct, lawyers in ct, uncontested divorce, divorce lawyer nyc, Connecticut divorce laws, best divorce attorney, divorce attorney Hartford, new haven divorce attorney, divorce, lawyer, attorney, law firm ct, law office, legal advice in ct, ct divorce attorneys, family attorney, domestic violence rights, Connecticut, marital property rights, CT divorce mediation, legal separation Connecticut, child custody laws, child support litigation, contested, uncontested, annulments, alimony, mediator, spouse, spousal support law, asset division, visitation right, premarital agreements, prenup, prenuptial agreement, prenup NY, restraining orders, appeals, custody modifications, legal separation CT, prenup in CT, custody in CT, filing divorce in CT, filing, lawyers, attorneys, family law in CT, family in NY, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce law NY, matrimonial law CT, custody NY, child custody CT, property division in CT, dissolution of marriage in CT, marriage, divorce NY, New York divorce, visitation in CT, visitation rights in CT, post marital agreements, divorce law firm CT, divorce law firm NY

Continue Reading

Court Finds that FINRA Arbitrators Did Not Exceed Their Authority

Court Finds that FINRA Arbitrators Did Not Exceed Their Authority

Augusto H. Andrade, Jr., and Maria A. Andrade v. Michael Ewanouski and Wachovia Securities, LLC. 962 N.E.2d 245 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)

In a recent case before the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Augusto and Maria Andrade (“the Andrades”) appealed a trial court judgment confirming a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) arbitration award in favor of Michael Ewanouski (“Ewanouski”) and Wachovia Securities, LLC (“Wachovia”). The appellate court affirmed the lower court ruling.

In 2000, the Andrades opened an investment account with Ewanouski, who was a registered representative and branch manager at a company that was later acquired by Wachovia. The Andrades’ client profile contained several critical errors, including the type of investment sought. Therefore, their funds were placed in investments with an above average degree of risk, performed poorly and lost money. In 2007, the Andrades filed a Statement of Claims with FINRA against both Ewanouski and Wachovia. During the arbitration, the arbitration panel found that many of the claims were barred because of lack of jurisdiction. In accordance with FINRA Rule 12206(a), claims are ineligible for FINRA arbitration if six years have elapsed from the occurrence or event that gave rise to the claim. Therefore, the arbitration panel determined that claims arising from activities prior to June 1, 2001 were ineligible for arbitration. The FINRA arbitration panel rendered its decision in April 2010. The Andrades prevailed on two claims, and the remaining claims were dismissed by the arbitration panel.

In their appeal, the Andrades stated that the trial judge erred in failing to strike the arbitrators’ finding that certain dismissed claims were ineligible for arbitration or, in the alternative, that the trial judge erred in not vacating the arbitration award. The Andrades grounded their appeal on the basis that the arbitration panel recorded its findings on matters ineligible for arbitration and, therefore, exceeded its authority in its interpretation of the FINRA rules governing time limits for the submission of claims and for the dismissal of claims. The Andrades also allege in their appeal that they should be permitted to pursue the claims that are ineligible for arbitration in court.

Both the Massachusetts General Laws and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provide very narrow statutory grounds for judicial review of arbitration awards. Compare Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 251, §§ 12(a) with 9 U.S.C. § 10(a). The Andrades made no claims that the arbitration decision was tainted by fraud or other procedural irregularity, which could potentially provide grounds for vacatur under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 251, §§ 12(a)(1), 12(a)(4)-(5). Whether an arbitration panel exceeded its authority first depends on what matters were properly before him for consideration. Local 589, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 392 Mass. 407, 412 (1984). The appellate court determined that, by bringing ineligible claims before the arbitration panel, the Andrades gave the arbitration panel the power to discuss their dismissal of those matters. Pursuant to FINRA Rule 12206(a), the arbitration panel “will resolve any questions regarding the eligibility of a claim under this rule.” Additionally, FINRA Rule 12904(e) requires the arbitration award to contain “a statement of issues resolved.” The arbitration panel’s statements in the arbitration award were in direct response to the Andrades’ argument that the statute of limitations should be tolled on their claims. The arbitration award stated that fraudulent activity or bad faith is required for tolling to apply, and that the panel found that Ewanouski had not engaged in either conduct. The arbitration award also contained its conclusions that tolling did not apply and that the Andrades’ claims based on events or occurrences prior to June 1, 2001 were ineligible for FINRA arbitration. The appellate court determined that the arbitrators did not exceed the scope of their authority by including this explanation in the arbitration award. Therefore, the trial judge appropriately denied the Andrades’ claims.

The Massachusetts Uniform Arbitration Act provides limited exceptions under which a court may modify or correct an arbitration award. Mass. Gen. Laws. Ch. 251 § 13(a)(2). A court may only modify or correct an award if “the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted.” This provision is substantially similar to the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 11(b). The appellate court determined that this exception was not applicable in the instant case because the contested matter was properly before the arbitrators.

Although the appellate court affirmed the lower court decision to confirm the FINRA arbitration award in favor of Ewanouski and Wachovia, its opinion reiterated the Andrades’ existing right to file suit in court on the claims that the arbitration panel clearly stated were ineligible for arbitration. FINRA Rule 12206(b) specifically states that dismissal of claims from FINRA arbitration “does not prohibit a party from pursuing the claim in court.”

Should you have any questions relating to FINRA, arbitration or employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County, Connecticut at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

State Court Cannot Vacate a FINRA Arbitration Award FINRA to Expunge Negative Information from a Broker’s Complaint History

State Court Cannot Vacate a FINRA Arbitration Award FINRA to Expunge Negative Information from a Broker’s Complaint History

Thomas F. Nee, Jr. v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 29 Mass.L.Rptr. 437 (2012).

In a recent case before Massachusetts state court, Thomas F. Nee, Jr., (“Nee”) filed a complaint against the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) seeking an order that all references to a claim lodged against him by customers of the brokerage firm where he worked and the FINRA arbitration award in favor of these customers be expunged from the FINRA Central Registration Depository (“CRD”) database. FINRA filed a motion to dismiss Nee’s complaint on failure to state a claim upon which the court can grant relief. The court allowed FINRA’s motion.

The underlying dispute in this case arose in 2003 when customers of the brokerage firm that employed Nee asserted claims against him, two other employees and the brokerage firm. The customers alleged that their investments had been mismanaged and sought compensatory damages. Nee and the other respondents contested the customers’ claims, requested that these claims be dismissed, and also requested that the claims be expunged from their regulatory records. The National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”), the predecessor of FINRA, convened an evidentiary hearing before a panel of three arbitrators. In January 2005, the panel issued its decision, holding that Nee, one of his colleagues and the brokerage firm were jointly and severally liable to the claimants for compensatory damages in the amount of $187,628. With respect to Nee’s other colleague, the arbitration panel recommended expungement of all references to the claim and the arbitration from his CRD, but noted that he must obtain confirmation of the expungement from a court of competent jurisdiction. Nee took no action to challenge the arbitration award until he filed the instant complaint in July 2011.

In his complaint, Nee asked the court to order FINRA to expunge any reference to the customers’ claim and the arbitration award from his CRD. He complained that the arbitration award did not explain the reasons for the panel’s decision and that the arbitration panel erred in finding him liable to the claimants because, among other things, he had no direct dealings with them.

FINRA Rule 2080 addresses expungement of negative information from the CRD, which is the FINRA database used by brokerage firms, investors, and regulators to assess the complaint history concerning a broker or investment advisor. According to this rule, “persons seeking to expunge information from the CRD system arising from disputes with customers must obtain an order from a court of competent jurisdiction directing such expungement or confirming an arbitration award containing expungement relief.” The court disagreed that FINRA Rule 2080 gave it jurisdiction over FINRA and the authority to vacate the 2005 arbitration award. Construing the rule as such would conflict with the statutory requirement that arbitration awards be confirmed unless a prompt motion to vacate is filed with the court. Previous Massachusetts state court decisions granting expungement orders to brokers were based on actions filed under the section of Massachusetts general laws, G.L. c. 251, § 11 to confirm an arbitration award recommending expungement. The Massachusetts statute is analogous to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provision, 9 U.S.C. § 9; therefore, precedents in federal district court and other states have reached the same conclusion.

FINRA Rule 2080 does not provide claimants with a substantive right to override the finality of arbitration decisions. Matters fully litigated in arbitration are subject to the same res judicata effect as if they had been litigated in a court of competent jurisdiction or before an administrative agency. When arbitration affords opportunity for presentation of evidence and argument substantially similar in form and scope to judicial proceedings, the arbitration award should have the same effect as a court judgment. Bailey v. Metropolitan Property & Liab. Ins. Co., 24 Mass.App.Ct. at 36–37, quoting from Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 84 comment c. Nee asked the arbitration panel to find that he was not liable to the claimants and to order expungement, but the panel ruled against him on both requests. His current complaint asks the court to reconsider the expungement issue that was expressly resolved by the panel. Because that matter was “deemed arbitrable and [was] in fact arbitrated,” it cannot be collaterally attacked in a new complaint. TLC Construction Corp. v. A. Anthony Tappe & Associates, Inc., 48 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 4 (1999).

Massachusetts state law establishes a short 30-day window for filing a petition to vacate an arbitration award in order to accord such awards finality in a timely fashion, G.L. c. 251, § 12(b). Nee filed his complaint over six years after the arbitration award that denied his request for expungement. Therefore, the complaint was not properly before the court.

The court allowed FINRA’s motion to dismiss Nee’s complaint seeking an expungement order on the basis that the court has no authority to overrule the arbitration panel award denying expungement and that a motion to vacate the award was not filed in a timely fashion.

Should you have any questions relating to FINRA or arbitration issues, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County, Connecticut at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading