Posts Tagged ‘brokers’

Merrill Lynch Defrauded Stockbroker Employees out of Deferred Compensation – Over 10 Million Awarded

June 1st, 2012

$10.2 awarded to former ML brokers; More lawsuits to follow

Two former Merrill Lynch (ML) stockbrokers have been awarded a total of $10.2 million by a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel in their suit against the firm for deferred compensation fraud.

Rubbish Art - Bank of America Merrill Lynch London

In a written report, the panel found ML guilty of breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and “intentional misconduct” in its handling of deferred compensation settlements.

The FINRA panel awarded Tamara Smolchek $4.3 million in compensatory damages plus $3.5 million in punitive damages. Meri Ramazio was awarded $875,000 in compensation for her losses and an additional $1.5 million in damages.

ML is appealing the decision.

More lawsuits in the offing

Approximately 3,000 stockbrokers left ML after the company was acquired by Bank of America in November 2008.  Not a single broker received vesting rights—despite ML’s deferred-compensation policy, which states that employees who leave the company for “good reason” are eligible for rights to the money in their tax-deferred accounts.

Needless to say, many more former ML brokers are now seeking compensation through the court system.

If you are a broker who was denied deferred compensation by Bank of America/ Merrill Lynch, contact the securities fraud attorney Daniel Carlson at Carlson Law today for a free consultation 619-544-9300.

Carlson Law Firm Website http://www.securities-fraud-attorney-san-diego.com/

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Negligent Misrepresentation | Comments (0)

FINRA REACTS TO SEC CHARGES THAT IT MISHANDLED DOCUMENTS

December 7th, 2011
Seal of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commi...

Image via Wikipedia

According to the October 11 issue of Investment News, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a complaint against the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), alleging that requested staff meeting minutes were altered by a FINRA director before they were delivered to the SEC in August 2008. The alterations, according to the SEC, rendered the meeting notes incorrect and incomplete.

Although FINRA currently serves as a self-regulatory organization (SRO) for stockbrokers, it has recently aspired to assuming that role for financial advisors, too. Given the SEC’s complaint, however, those aspirations are in jeopardy.

Ironically, it was FINRA, not the SEC, that first brought the problem of the tampered documents to light. After reporting the problem to the SEC, FINRA appointed a new director in its Kansas office where the tampering occurred. The SRO has also updated its protocols for the handling of documents and instituted extensive ethics training for its employees.

But for the SEC, these measures aren’t enough. The commission has ordered that FINRA hire an independent consultant to review the SRO’s training and in-house procedures, and to make recommendations for improvement. The goal? Ensuring that in future the SEC consistently receives reliable and accurate paperwork from FINRA.

Within 30 days of receiving the consultant’s findings and recommendations, FINRA’s board must either implement the suggestions for improvement or protest them. Alternatives to any recommendations that FINRA finds impractical or cumbersome must then be determined and agreed upon by both the board and the consulting agent.

In settling the charges made against it by the SEC, FINRA is neither denying nor admitting them. As an SRO that ensures the compliance of brokers with SEC regulations, however, FINRA recognizes that its own employees must comply with any and all requests made by the SEC.

At Carlson Law, our securities fraud attorneys represent those who have suffered financial loss due to stockbroker misconduct. To learn more about issues in finance today that may affect your wellbeing, check out other blogs at Carlson Law.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Securities Law, Uncategorized | Comments (0)