Industry Topics

Malecki Law Had First Female-Led IPHC – Is Diversity in the FINRA Space on the Rise?

September 16, 2024 | Malecki Law Team

On Wednesday, September 4, 2024, Malecki Law had their first all-around all-female Initial Pre-Hearing Conference (IPHC). An IPHC is a conference that takes place after arbitrators have been selected and provides a first impression for everyone involved. The participants of the IPHC included a panel of three female arbitrators, two female attorneys representing their female client, a female opposing counsel representing the Respondent firm, a female legal extern of the Claimant’s law office, and a female FINRA staff member who coordinated the call. This IPHC makeup of all women was a first for Malecki Law. This begs some questions – how far has the securities arbitration and litigation field come in fostering a more diverse and inclusive environment, and what steps are being taken to continue to facilitate this growth?

Early traces of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) can be tracked down to the mid-1960s when societal movements and legal transformations began to mold the corporate world. The early 2000s saw DEI becoming a business imperative, as it was not only ethical to recognize its importance but also aided in business success. McKinsey & Company, a multinational strategy and management consulting firm, revealed in its report that companies with higher levels of diversity are more likely to have financial returns above their industry medians. FINRA also stresses the importance of DEI to provide a fair and efficient environment for investors, brokerage firms, and registered representatives. FINRA has stated that it is committed to continuing efforts to cultivate diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity within the industry. Although there exists the need and recognition for diversity within securities arbitration and litigation , has this recognition translated into concrete results?

Currently, FINRA has facilitated efforts to recruit new arbitrators, particularly those from diverse backgrounds to magnify arbitrator diversity. Methods employed by FINRA to achieve its goal include outreach to one hundred minority and women’s organizations, attending conferences where individuals of varied backgrounds attend, and hosting events with diversity-based organizations. According to FINRA’s 2023 Demographic Survey, women make up 45% of joined arbitrators, yet the overall roster of arbitrators consists of 35% women. This portrays a minor increase compared to the overall roster in the 2022 Demographic Survey, which saw 33% of female arbitrators. Further, as of 2023, men made up 53% of arbitrators who have joined and increased to 63% of arbitrators on the overall roster. Moreover, in terms of diversity amongst mediators, according to FINRA’s 2023 Demographic Survey, women made up 33% of the entire mediator roster, only a 4% increase from the previous year. So far, diversity amongst genders in the industry is only inching its way up.

Malecki Law Founder, Jenice L. Malecki, to Speak at PLI’s Securities Arbitration 2024 Conference

September 9, 2024 | Malecki Law Team

On Tuesday, September 12, 2024, Malecki Law’s founder and owner, Jenice L. Malecki, Esq., will be speaking at the Securities Arbitration 2024 event. This conference is organized by the Practicing Law Institute (PLI). Ms. Malecki will be attending it, along with her Associates, Jacqueline Candella and Adam Schreck. The firm will listen to multiple panels consisting of panelists from a wide array of backgrounds, discussing various topics from Recent Developments in FINRA Arbitration and Mediation to Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI) in FINRA Arbitrations. The panelists and speakers are comprised of leaders and arbitrators in Financial Industry Regulation Authority (FINRA) Dispute Resolution, academics, and experienced attorneys who will walk participants through the most recent developments and challenges that propagate the field.

Ms. Malecki will be speaking on the discussion of Ethics – Avoiding the Ethical Mine Fields in the FINRA Forum, alongside the moderator Sandra Grannum and her colleagues Clint A. Corrie, Barry R. Lax, and Madelon Rosenfield. This panel will begin at 11:30 a.m. and will end at 12:30 p.m. and will dive into the ethical considerations for advocates and neutrals. Ms. Malecki is looking forward to helping attendees identify and deal with a variety of ethical issues including tainted evidence, lying witnesses, distressing discoveries during hearings, and disingenuous insinuations. Malecki Law is no stranger to these challenges acquired from their experience in representing investor arbitrations through FINRA generally, elder financial fraud cases specifically, as well as mediations and whistleblower fraud matters. Malecki Law also has extensive experience with intra-industry disputes including defamation claims, compensation claims, and the request to expunge registered representatives’ Form U5 due to defamatory language made publicly available by financial firms, as well as regulatory defense matters such as FINRA 8210 requests, SEC subpoenas, and investigations

Ms. Malecki enjoys presenting on panels and has spoken at many events over the years. She shares her knowledge gained from over thirty years in the securities industry practice and aims to mentor young lawyers. Some of her notable engagements include her appearances as an expert for Wall Street Journal Live, Fox Business News, and ABC’s Eyewitness News.

Post Summer Transitions: Industry Tip #1 – Beware of the Non-Compete Clause

September 3, 2024 | Adam G. Schreck

As the summer winds down and employees begin contemplating transitions to a new employer, financial professionals must be aware of the rules, procedures, and contracts impacting a potential transition to a new firm. To help keep financial professionals apprised of important considerations when changing employers, Malecki Law, one of New York’s experienced financial services employment law firms, created the Post Summer Transitions blog series. This blog will focus on one of the most important considerations impacting most transitioning employees regardless of the industry: non-competition agreements.

On August 20, 2024, Judge Ada Brown, sitting in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, issued an opinion and order setting aside the Federal Trade Commission’s (the FTC) recently implemented Non-Compete Rule, which was set to effectively outlaw non-competition agreements across the country in early September 2024. Judge Brown’s ruling is sure to impact employees working in nearly every industry and cause the FTC to rethink its approach to curbing unfair methods of competition in the context of employment relationships.

On April 23, 2024, the FTC announced a new, final rule banning most non-competition agreements nationwide. In announcing the new rule, FTC Chair Lina M. Khan explained that “noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism.” Further, the FTC expected the new rule to generate tens of thousands of new patents and thousands of new businesses each year, as well as allow the average employee to earn additional compensation amounting to more than $500 per year. The Non-Compete Rule was slated to take effect on September 4, 2024. If you are a financial professional who is experiencing non-competition issues with a previous employer, you should consult a seasoned Securities Employment lawyer, like the ones at NYC’s Malecki Law.

Malecki Law Obtains Second Favorable Industry Expungement Award In As Many Months

July 29, 2024 | Malecki Law Team

On July 29, 2024, a FINRA Arbitration Panel issued a favorable award to a former registered representative of a broker-dealer represented by Malecki Law, Malecki Law’s second favorable expungement award of the 2024 Summer. The securities industry has increasingly become a “one strike, you’re out” sector, but retaining experienced Expungement Counsel, like Malecki Law, can help financial professionals correct the record when a previous employer misrepresents the circumstances of their employment termination.

Whenever a registered financial professional is terminated or otherwise transitions away from employment with a FINRA member firm, such member firm is obligated to file a Form U5 with FINRA containing mandatory disclosures about such termination or transition. Firms are obligated to file a Form U5 within 30 days after a registered representative is terminated from the firm. The information disclosed on a Form U5 is typically available to the public via BrokerCheck, but registered representatives are seldom given the opportunity to review or comment on Form U5 language before filing. If false or defamatory information is included on a registered representative’s Form U5, the registered representative’s only recourse is to file an arbitration claim for expungement with FINRA.

Malecki Law’s recent expungement award relates to a registered representative who was terminated for allegedly violating a firm’s and FINRA’s outside business activity policy. The registered representative was a dedicated, diligent employee, who routinely went out of their way to do right by their firm. Eventually, the registered representative received an employment offer from a company in the field in which they had always dreamt of working. The registered representative accepted the offer and submitted their resignation to their FINRA member firm, indicating that they were moving to a firm outside of the securities industry. Rather than accept the resignation, the member firm asked the registered representative to remain at the firm for an additional two months to aid in the transition. After receiving approval from their new company, the registered representative agreed to stay at the firm in a limited capacity to help with the transition for a substantial cut in their pay. If false, misleading, or defamatory language has been filed on your Form U5, you should consult a seasoned Securities Arbitration Attorney, like the ones at Malecki Law in New York City, to see if you have a viable expungement claim.

Supreme Court Strips Securities and Exchange Commission of Its “Home-Field” Advantage

July 8, 2024 | Adam G. Schreck

In a major blow to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Supreme Court ruled in SEC v. Jarkesy that defendants against whom the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud are entitled to jury trials under the Seventh Amendment, rather than adjudication through the SEC’s “in-house” administrative law judges. While only time will tell just how impactful the Jarkesy decision will be, this ruling has the potential to dramatically reshape the SEC’s enforcement efforts as we know them today.

Following the Great Recession in 2008, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dobb-Frank), which authorized the SEC to impose civil penalties on defendants through in-house proceedings before administrative law judges or even SEC Commissioners themselves. With this built-in advantage, the SEC’s “win-rate,” as well as its ability to force defendants into unfavorable settlements, rose considerably. In essence, the SEC was authorized to serve as “judge,” “jury,” and “executioner.” If you are the target of an SEC civil action, you should consult an experienced SEC Defense Attorney, like the ones at Malecki Law.

The Jarkesy decision stripped the SEC of this “multi-role” position and relegated the SEC’s civil actions back into federal court, where the SEC was forced to fight its battles for much of its history. In or around 2010, the SEC began investigating Geroge Jarkesy, Jr. (Jarkesy) and his firm, Patriot28, LLC (Patriot28), for suspected securities fraud in connection to two investment funds that Jarkesy managed. The SEC’s enforcement action alleged that Jarkesy and Patriot28 defrauded investors through various misrepresentations and omissions. The case was initially adjudicated by an administrative law judge who submitted an initial decision in 2014. In 2020, the SEC issued its final order against Jarkesy and Patriot28, levying a $300,000 civil penalty against the defendants, disgorging profits earned by Patriot28 and barring Jarkesy from the securities industry.

Defamatory Form U5 Language Deters Investment Firms from Hiring Registered Representatives – Malecki Law Obtained a Favorable Award

June 21, 2024 | Malecki Law Team

The securities industry has become known for its “one strike and you’re out” mentality around Form U4 and U5 “marks” resulting from termination and customer complaints. FINRA Rule 4111 makes firms report employee U4/U5 “mark” statistics firmwide and formerly “explainable” situations are now acting like bars to employment in the industry. Unfortunately, this means that even good, honest registered representatives can face prejudice purely because of erroneous documentation, or defamatory language, particularly from former employers. If you are a registered representative that has faced unnecessary hardship because of false documentation or defamatory language from an employer, you should contact a securities law attorney, like the lawyers at Malecki Law in New York, to review your case.

The Form U5 is a form that contains mandatory disclosures, which discloses why a registered representative leaves an investment firm. The Form U5 is available to prospective firm employers, and certain U5 disclosures must also be posted on BrokerCheck, which is publicly available. Investment firm employers generally review the Form U5 of prospective employees meticulously, especially the “Reason for Termination” section. Language used by a former employer in this section, however minor, may have a significant impact on the future employer’s hiring decision. There have been 195 defamatory FINRA cases in 2023; 104 of which, were Form U5-based disputes.

Malecki Law recently obtained a favorable FINRA arbitration award in an intra-industry matter, O’Keefe v. UBS Financial Services, Inc. Malecki Law’s attorneys Jacqueline Candella, and Adam Schreck represented Claimant registered representative O’Keefe. Associates Candella and Schreck tried the case at an in-person hearing in New York City. O’Keefe requested that his Form U5 be amended to reflect his voluntary termination from his previous employer, and to expunge the false and misleading “Termination Explanation.” The Chairperson granted Claimant’s request, explaining that the expungement was, “based on the incorrect and defamatory nature of the information,” written on the Form U5. If you were faced with a similar Form U5 issue, you should consult with FINRA experts, like the lawyers at Malecki Law in New York.

Despite FINRA’s Increased Fines in 2023, the Number of FINRA’s Disciplinary Actions Continued Their Downward Trend

May 17, 2024 | Adam G. Schreck

In March 2024, Evershed Sutherland (US) LLP released its annual report (the Report) detailing disciplinary and enforcement actions initiated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) during the 2023 year. The Report outlines how FINRA seemingly stepped up its investigatory efforts in 2023, levying $89 million in fines against member firms and associated persons. Comparatively, FINRA reported just $54.5 million in fines during 2022, representing an increase of over 60%. Over a quarter of the fines handed out by FINRA last year can be attributed to the $24 million fine received by Bank of America Securities, Inc. for engaging in “spoofing” and related supervisory failures.

Despite FINRA’s bolstered fine revenue in 2023, FINRA ordered member firms to pay far less restitution to investors compared to past years. In 2023, FINRA ordered just $7 million in restitution compared to $21 million ordered in 2022, representing a 66% decrease. On December 6, 2023, FINRA announced sanctions against four firms, including M1 Finance LLC, Open to the Public Investing, Inc., SoFi Securities LLC, and SogoTrade, Inc., totaling over $2.6 million, which included $1 million in restitution paid to retail customers. Notably, this was the only million-dollar restitution ordered by FINRA in 2023, a stark decline from 2021 when FINRA handed out ten of such orders. If you are a financial professional who received an 8210 Request from FINRA, you should consult an experienced Securities Industry Regulatory Defense law firm, like Malecki Law in New York, to help navigate you through the process.

FINRA’s increased fine totals in 2023 were surprisingly achieved through comparatively fewer disciplinary actions. 2021 currently represents the high-water mark of FINRA disciplinary actions in recent years, totaling 569 actions. In 2023, FINRA initiated just 453 enforcement and disciplinary actions. This was the fewest number of disciplinary actions initiated by FINRA in the preceding decade and a stark contrast to FINRA’s disciplinary efforts between 2014 and 2017 when FINRA brought over one thousand disciplinary actions annually. The considerable drop-off in FINRA disciplinary actions since 2017 seems to coincide with Robert Cook taking over as FINRA’s President and Chief Executive Officer. Cook joined FINRA in August 2016 with a primary goal of taking “a fresh look at” FINRA’s enforcement program. If you are a stockbroker or financial advisor who is concerned with the language on your Form U5, you should consult a knowledgeable FINRA Expungement Attorney, like the attorneys at Malecki Law, to determine whether you can bring an action to have the concerning language removed from your Central Registration Depository (CRD).

AI, Oh My – SEC Announces First Ever “AI Washing” Enforcement Actions

May 9, 2024 | Adam G. Schreck

On March 18, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) announced that it had settled charges against two registered investment advisers (RIAs) related to false and misleading representations about each RIA’s alleged use of artificial intelligence (AI) in effecting financial services, conduct which the SEC coined as “AI Washing.” In total, the SEC collected $400,000 in civil penalties from the firms, with Delphia (USA) Inc. (Delphia) agreeing to pay $225,000 and Global Predictions Inc. (Global Predictions) agreeing to pay $175,000. As AI increasingly takes over the mainstream in the coming years, investors must remain attentive to the representations RIAs and broker-dealers make about utilizing AI in the financial services they offer to public investors.

Delphia is primarily in the business of offering robo-advisory services to retail investors. “Robo-advisors” are typically algorithm driven platforms that offer investors automated investment advice based on data provided to the platform by the investor with very little, if any, human interaction. In touting its robo-advisory services to the public, Delphia represented that investor data was actively utilized to “train” and “power” its proprietary algorithms that was capable of making investment predictions up to “two years into the future.” In reality, the SEC found that Delphia never successfully implemented its investor data-driven algorithms and misrepresented its AI capabilities to the public. Notably, Delphia was also investigated by the SEC for identical conduct in 2021. If you are being investigated by the SEC, you need skilled Regulatory Lawyers in New York, like Malecki Law, to get you through the investigation.

Global Predictions offers retail investors non-discretionary investment advice, namely portfolio allocation recommendations, through its proprietary investment application PortfolioPilot and the use of proprietary algorithms. Global Predictions represented to the public that it was the “first regulated AI financial advisor” and that it actively utilized AI capabilities in the services offered to investors. After its investigation, the SEC determined that Global Predictions made false and misleading representations on its Form ADV, press releases, website, social media accounts, and paid testimonials about the company’s AI capabilities which Global Predictions was unable to substantiate. The SEC also determined that Global Predictions violated the SEC’s Amended Marketing Rule and failed to implement policies and procedures related to achieve compliance with the same. If you have made investment decisions based on AI-related misrepresentations made to you by your investment adviser or stockbroker, you should consult an experienced, AI-Securities Fraud Attorney, like the ones at New York’s Malecki Law.

NYSBA’s Current State of Crypto Cases Panel

April 16, 2024 | Jacqueline Candella

On Wednesday, April 17, 2024, Malecki Law’s Jenice L. Malecki, Esq., will participate in a virtual panel organized by the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA). This is a joint effort by the NYSBA’s Commercial and Federal Litigation Section’s Securities Arbitration Committee and the Dispute Resolution Sections’ Securities Disputes Committee. Ms. Malecki will speak alongside her colleagues in the industry, Howard Fischer, and Joe Wojciechowski. If you incurred investment losses due to crypto-based products, you need to consult with a Crypto-Based Investment attorney in New York, like the lawyers at Malecki law.

The panel is called “The Current State of Crypto Cases: What Theories Are Being Developed to Support claims Relating to Crypto Losses?” It will begin at 12:00 p.m. EST and end at 1:00 p.m. EST. The panel will focus on liability related to crypto recommendations and broker-dealers. It is free to attend, please click here to register.

Ms. Malecki is looking forward to discussing her first-hand experiences with broker-dealer liability as it relates to crypto-based investment recommendations. Malecki Law has recently settled with a large crypto-based broker-dealer, where Ms. Malecki had the opportunity to learn more about broker-dealer liability in the context of crypto losses. Further, Ms. Malecki enjoys speaking on panels and sharing information with other lawyers in the industry, in an effort to protect investors like yourself. Did your broker recommend that you invest in crypto-based investments? Were those investment recommendations in your best interest? You should reach out to a Crypto-Based Investment law firm, like Malecki Law in New York.

Slow Progress for Women in the Financial Services Industry

November 27, 2023 | Malecki Law Team

In recent years, discussions about the gender pay gap have risen to the surface in a litany of industries and in just about every corner of the country. For far too long, women have earned less than their male counterparts, despite having the same, or better, job titles, backgrounds, and experience levels. In his article for Investment News, titled “’Murky disparity’ stalls progress,” Bruce Kelly explored the issue of gender pay disparities specifically as it relates to women working in the financial services industry.

According to the article, women only make up about 20% of financial advisors nationwide, and only about a third of the seats on the boards of S&P 500 companies are held by women. Jenice Malecki, the female founder of the New York-based securities law firm, Malecki Law, was quoted in the article, stating there are still plenty of pay disparities between employees of different genders at various firms. Ms. Malecki explained that she still gets contacted by women regarding their struggle with the glass ceiling they encounter in their employment and pay discrepancies. She added that, while some improvements have been made regarding pay disparities at the largest firms, those issues remain at firms that have smaller offices in various parts of the country. Smaller firms and satellite offices for larger firms generally operate with less oversight and supervision than their larger counterparts, allowing gender pay disparities to persist. If you are a female financial service professional and have suffered from unfair treatment at the hands of your employer, you should consult an experienced securities law attorney, like the ones at Malecki Law.

Another added layer to the pay disparity dilemma is the issue of transparency. Because of the lack of transparency, employees are unaware whether they are getting compensated equally as their peers. Few employees take the risk of complaining about this issue for various reasons, such as fear of retaliation or the loss of their job, so the lack of transparency remains, leading to the natural result of unequal pay. As Ms. Malecki explained in the article, many employees are not willing to challenge this unequal system, and as a result, numerous concealed disparities persist.