Securities Employees
Promissory Notes and Incorrect U5 Filings
Often brokerage firm’s offer prospective employees an advance of funds in order to attract them to the firm in exchange for the signing of a promissory note. However, sometimes, firms then take away resources or compensation or create conditions which in effect force the employee to leave from their employment prematurely. Often times the brokerage firm will then 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, impacting the future employment of the employee. Such situations require strategic planning which may require the brokerage employee to take the initiative by, if appropriate, filing an arbitration claim against the firm or initiating negotiations with the firm so as to reduce the debt owed and/or negotiate a payment plan. The Meissner Firm has successfully represented numerous promissory note matters on behalf of numerous registered representatives. Reduction of Promissory Note Obligations and Our Unmatched Guarantee To Clients Whose Retention We AcceptThe Meissner firm is often retained to represent stock brokers / associated persons who have switched employers for various reasons 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 which representation can be arranged on an hourly basis. Please contact our firm to learn of our firm’s Guarantee to our clients on such Promissory Note retentions. Job Negotiation and Contract ReviewExperienced financial industry attorney and former securities regulator and prosecutor to negotiate, review and revise employment agreements on behalf of Registered Representatives, Traders, Quantitative Analysts, Financial Planners, Investment Bankers, Registered Investment Advisors and others to protect their interests, rather than the firm. Issues such as:
Don’t wait until you leave your current firm and need to transition clients before you retain counsel to negotiated and draft or revise a written agreement with a new employer which will protect your rights years down the road if things do not work out as planned and you wish to change firms or oral promises made about books of business, type of business, assistant help which will be provided, bonus, transition assistance were not kept and have nothing to prove what was represented to you. By having qualified counsel involved with your potential new employer early in negotiations you very well could avoid the need for expensive litigation later. The firm has represented hundred of securities employees across the country and world in negotiating, reviewing and revising agreements in dealings with their future employers, so as to as to avoid any future issues. The Meissner firm handles such matters on either an hourly or reasonable flat fee basis, based on the complexity of the issues involved. By also having had the FINRA employment arbitration experience in relation to such disputes, the firm is aware of the areas that should be covered within such agreements, so as to avoid issues down the road. Civil Rights & Discrimination ClaimsThe Meissner firm represents industry employees in taking on the major wire houses in seeking justice for their clients. Often times the securities industry is the subject of Discrimination issues, ranging from age, race, sex and national origin discrimination. 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. Securities Employee Regulatory Representation and Wells Notice Representation – SEC, FINRA, STATE InvestigationsOften 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. We are certain that the Meissner firm’s regulatory experience, having been a securities regulator for many years, assists in our ability to convince regulators, where appropriate, not to take disciplinary action and if any such action is warranted that it be appropriate and not excessive in relation to the facts. Arbitration DefenseJust 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 FINRA 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! Keeping Brokers Out Of Legal Pinches – Read The Full Article… If you would like the Meissner firm to review your situation in a free consultation please contact us FINREG AND SEC/CFTC WHISTLEBLOWERThe new Whistleblower provision within the recent Dodd-Frank Act provides that whistleblowers that provide original information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the SEC, which leads to the successful enforcement, will be awarded with up to 30% of a total recovery that is greater than $1 Million. The Meissner Firm assists clients on a contingency basis in pursuing whistleblower claims with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodities Futures Exchange Commission (CFTC). As a former regulator and prosecutor, we make sure that your claim is properly processed so that you obtain the recovery that you are entitled to and use resources to encourage and assist the SEC and/or CFTC in pursuing the matter so as to obtain compensation on the whistleblower’s behalf. Boston Globe 12/21/2010 Judge Tells Oppenheimer To Reveal Documents – Meissner Featured Further, the Dodd-Frank Act has created liability when an employer discharges, demotes, suspends, threatens, harasses, directly or indirectly, or in any other manner discriminates against, a whistleblower in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the whistleblower, whether in providing information to the SEC, initiating, testifying in, or assisting in any investigation or judicial or administrative action of the SEC related to such information. If you feel that you have been the victim of discrimination based upon your actions as a whistleblower, the Meissner firm can assist you in pursuing a cause of action against your employer if needed. The Act provides that an individual prevailing in such an action may receive relief in the form of (i) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the individual would have had, but for the discrimination, (ii) 2 times the amount of back pay otherwise owed to you, with interest, AND (iii) compensation for litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Meissner Firm has successfully represented many employees of public companies in whistleblower actions against their employers and former employers prior to the Finreg – Frank-Dodd Act and the new law which provides an entirely new avenue of compensation which the Meissner Firm is assisting whistleblower clients on. If you have information regarding securities law violations by your current or former employer, contact the Meissner firm for a free and entirely confidential consultation. 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. Correcting CRD / FINRA BrokerCheck Information – New ProceduresPublished Reports on July 13, 2010 from FINRA indicated that while FINRA is significantly expanding the information that is available to the general public on registered representatives, it also is formalizing a process which may make it easier and significantly more affordable for registered representatives and former registered representatives to correct mis-information contained on FINRA’s BrokerCheck. Previously representatives were required to go through a lengthy and costly hearing and court confirmation process, however, it would appear there will be a new and more affordable alternative of making a submission to FINRA with supporting documentation and request that FINRA launch an investigation which could lead to the clearing of the information from FINRA BrokerCheck. Martin Act SubpoenaThe New York State Attorney General’s Office is solely responsible for enforcing the civil portion of the Martin Act. The Martin Act is powerful tool that can be utilized by the Attorney General’s office to investigate and prosecute either civilly or criminally frauds in relation to securities in New York State. The Act provides for broad based subpoena power permitting Assistant Attorney Generals to subpoena documents as well as individuals to testify at the Attorney General’s office. District Attorneys may also use such Act as a basis to file criminal charges against a person or entity and have done so with more frequency in the recent past. However, unlike the Attorney General District Attorney’s do not have the power to issue civil Martin Act subpoenas as they can only subpoena witnesses to testify or bring documents before a Grand Jury. In a Grand Jury, unless there is a waiver of immunity, such witnesses in a State Grand Jury are provided with automatic immunity from prosecution regarding the incident they testify about. However, a Martin Act subpoena requires witnesses to either provide documents or appear in the Attorney General’s office to be interviewed without any Grand Jury. Any witness may if they choose take the Fifth Amendment if called as a witness under the Act, but such assertion of one’s Fifth Amendment rights must be carefully weighed against providing testimony which may deter a civil or criminal prosecution. Occasionally the Attorney General may permit a local district attorney to engage and coordinate with its office so as to benefit from the civil and what appears to be informal use of the Martin Act. Due to the dual civil and criminal aspects under the Martin Act the Attorney General may commence an investigation under such Act and provide the appearance of it being a civil investigation which may simply lead to fines or injunctions, when in reality the evidence collected may be used by the Criminal Division of the Attorney General’s office to present evidence to a Grand Jury and criminally prosecute its targets based on the collection of evidence conducted under the Martin Act. Also if the Attorney General uncovers any other criminal activity during the course of a Martin Act investigation such permits that office to prosecute those crimes even if unrelated to the Act itself, when under normal circumstances the Attorney General’s criminal jurisdiction is very limited outside of the Martin Act. A extreme example of this came about when Mr. Meissner was in charge of a matter within the Attorney General’s office which led to the successful prosecution of a Statutory Rape charge along with Martin Act violations when it was revealed that a Money Manager, who besides defrauding various fashion models of their funds, also had sexual relations with one when she was only fifteen years of age. The famous New York Daily News front page headline “Beauties and the Beasts” resulted from such prosecution. When anyone receives a Martin Act subpoena duces tecum (for documents) or as subpoena ad testificandum, the witness should consult with an experienced attorney who is familiar with the Martin Act and those offices, so as properly respond to such inquiries. Poor planning and advice usually lead to irreversible consequences for the subject of such investigation. As Mr. Meissner has spent years in the Attorney General’s office personally leading Martin Act investigations, both civil and criminal, he is completely familiar with how to respond to such investigations and to advise both companies and individuals in dealing with the Attorney General’s office, so as to avoid adverse consequences. In his years as a senior prosecutor with the Attorney General’s Office Mr. Meissner successfully pursued many well publicized cases including money managers who defrauded numerous models of the Elite Modeling agency, Brokerage firms who manipulated stocks causing millions in losses to investors including a member of the Gambino family, currency traders who altered internal bank records to cover millions in losses so as to maintain their employment and bonuses, a mutual fund company who worked with short sellers to coordinate trades and manipulate stocks, as well as many other financial frauds. If you or your company received a Martin Act subpoena and are unsure how to respond or where to find experienced counsel to assist you this is the place. Rather than seeking the typical criminal defense attorney, most of whom rarely if ever encountered the Martin Act, it is essential that the recipient of a subpoena immediately seek out experienced counsel specific to the Martin Act. The Martin Act is a complicated quasi criminal and civil statute requiring counsel who is has the years of experience and knowledge to properly advise you. The “behind the scenes” knowledge of the Attorney General’s office and the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is invaluable in properly protecting the firm’s client’s rights and limit and reduce the likelihood of adverse consequences. |
