The Meissner firm represents employees of brokerage houses, securities firms and hedge funds. Quite often the cases involve discrimination against employees of the brokerage firm. If a brokerage house fires an employee, after he or she complains about sexual, age or racial discrimination the employee may have a wrongful discharge or retaliation claim. Other times an employee may uncover violations of industry rules or violations of public policy and threatens to complain to regulators or management or actually complains about such violations leading to dismissal and a possible whistle blower claim.

Sometimes a firm may fail to pay a promised bonus or strategically dismiss an employee immediately prior to an expected bonus which may lead to liability. Other times brokerage industry employees may receive NASD, NYSE, SEC or local subpoenas such as Martin Act subpoenas and are unsure how to respond or deal with such investigations. If you are an employee of a securities firm and something like this has happened to you, contact an attorney knowledgeable about the securities industry and about employment law.

Promissory Notes and Incorrect U5 Filings

Often brokerage employees are required to sign promissory notes to their firm in exchange for an advance of funds to attract them to the firm. However, sometimes, firms then take away resources or compensation which forces them to leave or create conditions which in effect force the employee to leave prematurely from their employment. Often times the brokerage firm will pursue the employee to reimburse the firm for the upfront funds paid to the employee.

Sometimes the brokerage firm may file a false U-5 which impacts the future employment of the employee. Such situations require strategic planning which may require the brokerage employee to take the initiative in filing an arbitration if appropriate against the firm or to initiate negotiations with the firm so as to reduce the debt owed and/or negotiate a payment plan.

Reduction of Promissory Note Obligations and Our Unmatched Guarantee To Clients Whose Retention We Accept

The Meissner firm is often retained to represent stock brokers / associated persons who have switched employers and now wish to negotiate a reduced financial obligation and/or payment plan with respect to the remaining financial debt owed to their prior employer. In such circumstances the firm reviews the circumstances under which the employee left the prior firm and the basis upon which they initially joined the prior firm. Often times either they were the subject of some sort of discrimination or were not provided with the support/compensation promised when they were first solicited to join the prior firm. Other times the former firm's actions negatively impacted the advisor's business causing negative financial consequences to the advisor leading to the ultimate departure of the representative.

Under such circumstances  the advisor may have either a basis to actually bring a claim against their prior firm and/or based on legitimate potential counterclaims use the realistic threat of a claim filing as leverage, from which to negotiate a reduced payment obligation  or payment plan. Due to its reputation of screening cases and actually pursuing arbitration matters the Meissner firm has had much success under such circumstances in negotiating hundreds of thousands of dollars in reduced payment obligations and/or payment plans on behalf of representatives. The firm has represented employees of Merrill Lynch, UBS, Morgan Stanley, Ferris Baker Watts, Citigroup Smith Barney, JP Morgan Chase, Banc of America Securities, and many others.

The firm typically is retained on a flat fee basis for such representation which excludes the actual filing or actual representation in an arbitration proceeding. Please contact our firm to learn of our firm's Guarantee to our clients on such Promissory Note retentions.

Civil Rights & Discrimination Claims

Often times the securities industry is the subject of Discrimination issues ranging from sex, age, race and national origin discrimination. The Meissner firm represents industry employees in taking on the major wire houses in seeking justice for their clients. It is unlawful to discriminate based on such protected classes and if you believe that you have been discriminated against based on such factors and you have either been dismissed from your position, laid off for false unsupported "economic" reasons or re-assigned to a dead end position and/or not provided with the resources promised, contact the Meissner firm so that we may review your claim. At times firms may compensate others more for doing the same work and discriminate against minorities. Other times firms may create an environment which is not appropriate for the employee. For example the firm may condone the use of adult establishments and the use and/or distribution of inappropriate material over their computer networks resulting in uncomfortable situations for female employees and others. If you would like the Meissner firm to review your situation in a free consultation please contact us.

Unlike other civil rights/employment discrimination firms we focus on the unique aspects of the securities industry and as with all cases Mr. Meissner utilizes his vast experience and knowledge of the industry, the press and regulatory agencies to obtain maximum compensation for your injustice and provides personal service and regular consultations throughout the stressful process of litigation.

Other Issues

The Meissner firm utilizes its diverse experience and contacts in all appropriate venues to pursue and/or defend its client; including utilizing his contacts with regulators as well as its press contacts to achieve results. The firm coordinates all pressure points, so as to obtain the best results for its clients in seeking compensation for their legitimate claims and defenses. As in the case of a Whistleblower claim which led to a New York State Attorney General investigation as reported in the Wall Street Journal. Other issues which arise include brokerage / hedge fund bonus issues such as when a firm dismisses an employee immediately prior to when they would expect to receive a bonus, so as to avoid having to payout a large bonus to the employee.

Contact the New York office of Stuart D. Meissner LLC.

           Often times a registered representative / stock broker may be the subject of a regulatory investigation requiring representation with respect to depositions, subpoena responses, record requests or Wells Notices. Either FINRA, the SEC, CFTC or other state or federal regulatory body may request their presence or production of documents in relation to an investigation. The Meissner firm has significant experience dealing with such representation which often involves focusing on the employee’s best interest, rather than their employer brokerage firm.

Many brokerage employees do not realize that often times conflicts arise within such investigations and that an attorney who is being paid directly by the brokerage firm so as to represent the employee during such investigation likely may have a conflict which should at a minimum be fully disclosed and possibly should cause the attorney to withdraw from such representation. Unfortunately, not all attorneys do so, as they focusing on the best interest of the brokerage firm rather than the employee. An employee who ignores such potential conflicts simply because the firm is paying for such representation is likely doing more harm than good for their own interests and in the long run will cost the employee significantly more than any retention of private attorney, in the form of attempting to reverse any damage done by an attorney who did not have that employee’s best interest as their focus.

Ideally if an employer is willing to pay for legal representation, an employee should insist that the employee select who the attorney will be, that the employee is the party who signs the retainer agreement with the attorney and it is the employee who in fact pays the attorney, while at the same time the employer may separate and apart from the retainer agree to reimburse the employee for such legal expenses. Such arrangement, maintains the relationship solely between the attorney and the employee, as the attorney is not being paid by the brokerage firm and the brokerage firm did not locate nor retain the attorney.  The Meissner firm has been engaged in such fashion and has found such arrangement to be in the best interest of all employees who require legal representation.

            A recent example of the firm’s record of success was in 2009 when the firm represented a large producer within a major wall street investment bank who was the subject of regulatory inquires by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), enforcement arm. After being retained directly by the employee the Meissner firm represented the employee in several on the record depositions before FINRA regarding customer sales practice issues /complaints.

The firm also responded to several document requests from FINRA regarding the same issues. FINRA then issued what is known as a “Well Notice” to the client on June 11, 2009.  The Wells Notice stated that FINRA had made a preliminary determination to take disciplinary action against our client. The Wells Notice raised several concerns related to FINRA Conduct Rule 2310 (Suitability) and FINRA Conduct Rule 2110 (A catch all provision asserting a violation of the Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) involving Unit Investment Trusts, mutual funds, and other securities. After thorough research, both with respect to legal issues involved, the evidence presented, as well as a review of years of prior enforcement proceedings, the Meissner firm drafted and submitted on July 22, 2009 a detailed twenty page Wells submission opposing the recommendation of disciplinary action against its client. The first page of such Opposition submission can be seen here.  On September 9, 2009, after having reviewed our submission, we were notified by FINRA that it had decided to reverse course and Not recommend the commencement of disciplinary action against our client, which letter can be seen here - Sept 9, 2009 FINRA Letter Reversing its Prior Wells Notice Decision). Most securities practitioners know that it is rare for any regulatory body to reverse course in response to a Wells Notice submission of counsel and both we and our client were very pleased with the results of our hard work in assisting our client in avoiding any unwarranted disciplinary action.  Such is just one example of the firm’s careful tailored attention and hard work paying off for its clients.

Just as the Meissner firm aggressively represents investors it on occasion selectively defends individual brokers who are wrongfully named in arbitrations. An example of such representation was highlighted in the Agarwal award where the firm was retained to defend a wrongfully named individual broker against a claim seeking over $600,000. Although the owners of the firm were the subject of criminal prosecution for securities violations, the Meissner firm was successful in distinguishing between its young client and the owners of the firm. As a result of a carefully planned and executed defense by the Meissner firm representing a New York broker in Omaha Nebraska against a local Claimant and an Omaha Nebraska Panel, the firm utilized the resources of a handwriting expert in its unique defense in successfully defending and completely vindicating its Client.

As a result, the Panel of three distinguished Omaha attorneys dismissed the case on the spot at the hearing, which is unheard of in NASD arbitration, and in its written award also held the Claimant liable for $2,500 of attorney’s fees and $2,500 in discovery sanctions payable to the firm's client, in effect turning the tables on the Claimant. The Panel further recommended expungement of the Claim against the broker and ordered the Claimant to pay all the hearing session fees of $6,000.

See The Above Award Where the Meissner firm Represented a Broker!