Representing investors, financial professionals, whistleblowers, witnesses
and commercial clients around THE US and the world since 1999
Recognized in the Industry
Badge - AV Preeminent 2020
Badge - Best Attorneys of America
Super Lawyers
Badge - Badge - Avvo Rating 10.0 Top Attorney
Martindale-Hubbell Client Reviewed
Expertise - Best Employment Lawyers in New York City
Avvo Reviews
NYC Bar Association

Malecki Law is pleased to announce that Ms. Jacqueline Candella has joined Malecki Law as its new associate securities attorney in New York. Ms. Candella is a recent graduate of the New York Law School yet brings with her an impressive background in the securities and financial industry.

Ms. Candella received her Juris Doctor from Ms. Malecki’s Alma Matter New York Law School (NYLS), having also completed an undergraduate degree in Finance from Pace University. Prior to law school, Ms. Candella served as a client associate for Merrill Lynch – Bank of America’s Wealth Management Department, providing risk assessments, financial analysis, research, and account management support for high-net worth investors.

While in law school, Ms. Candella served as an extern in the Enforcement Division of the Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA), where she assisted in the investigation of member firms and associated persons for violations of federal securities laws and industry rules.  She provided a wide range of support functions for FINRA’s enforcement attorneys, including research and drafting on legal issues. Ms. Candella also participated in interviews with registered representatives and worked on Form U4 and U5 registration issues. In a separate internship, Ms. Candella gained relevant law firm and litigation experience, performing significant work on customer arbitrations and mediations through NYLS’s Field Placement office.

Today at 1:00 PM, NYC FINRA arbitration lawyer Jenice L. Malecki, Esq. will be presenting at a year-in-review webinar hosted by the defense firm Bressler, Amery & Ross, entitled A Recap of 2021 Virtual Proceedings 2nd Annual Hearings in Review.  There is still time to attend and register for the event, which is open to securities attorneys and securities industry professionals. Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits are approved for attorneys licensed in New York and Pennsylvania, with reciprocity for New Jersey, Florida, and California.  CLE approval has also been applied for and is pending for credit in North Carolina, Alabama, and Texas.

Other presenters at the event include other securities attorneys, including Richard Berry, Director of Dispute Resolution at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). The event reviews the increase in virtual arbitration hearings throughout 2020 and 2021 owing to the Covid-19 pandemic, providing outcome statistics and the ongoing trend for virtual proceedings in FINRA customer and industry arbitrations. FINRA has long provided technology and support for virtual arbitration hearings primarily via Zoom and many trial attorneys opted for virtual hearings to avoid Covid-related backlog delays and to ensure their clients received a timely hearing.  Practitioners and arbitrators have become so used to using the trial platform that it deserves proper study regarding fair case outcomes if the practice is to continue – for the foreseeable future, virtual proceedings at FINRA appear here to stay.  The webinar will review practice tips, techniques, and resources for conducting effective virtual trials, best practices for presenting evidence, developing a plan for technology failures, and how the experience compares to in-person civil trials.

Ms. Malecki is a regular presenter and panelist at securities industry events.  As a renowned and skilled litigator in both courts and arbitration, Ms. Malecki has been featured regularly in the media and has published numerous articles to advance diversity and financial elder abuse issues within the securities litigation field.  She is known for her nearly thirty-five years of securities industry practice and is the founder and principal of Malecki Law, a FINRA Arbitration Law Firm that has been based in New York City’s financial district for over twenty years. Ms. Malecki is a former board member of FINRA and member of its National Arbitration and Mediation Committee (NAMC).  She is presently the co-chair of the New York State Bar Association’s Securities Arbitration Committee, as well as an adjunct professor in the securities clinic at the New York Law School.

Weighing in on all things financial services, top securities industry lawyer, Jenice L. Malecki, commented on two matters going on at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

First, under fire again, it looks like another FINRA arbitration is poised for potential vacatur because of the conduct of an over-reaching, advocatory-styled arbitrator who would not give a customer their day in court.  A Florida state court is now entertaining a case where the Alabama Securities Commission is seeking to vacate an award that granted expungement of customer complaints from a UBS broker’s record.

Ms. Malecki discussed with Financial Planning Magazine how this is not only bad for the customer, but also bad for the broker.  It taints the proceedings and runs up the bills unnecessarily.  Moreover, this broker will also now have a hotly contested court case on his record when all he did was follow FINRA’s rules.  The broker did not exclude the client, the arbitrator did.  There needs to be  a stronger and better monitored process at FINRA for the sake of all interested parties, as well as stronger monitoring of that process by FINRA – not just letting arbitrators act like self-appointed judges without oversight.  Even the best judges in the world are subject to oversight, but FINRA arbitrators are not.  The scenario presented is not shocking.  It was just a matter of time before something like this happened, and FINRA should have seen this coming for years.

The Public Investors Advocate Bar Association (PIABA) will be welcoming back the organization’s former board member, Jenice Malecki, as a moderator for its Mid-Year Meeting and one-day continuing legal education (CLE) program entitled Getting Grandma’s Nest Egg Back.  The program kicks off on April 21, 2022, from 12 PM to 6 PM, and will be held via Zoom for registered participants.  The CLE program is designed for securities arbitration practitioners, including attorneys, experts, consultants, mediators, educators, but it is also open to the general public.

Ms. Malecki will be moderating the program finale, Strategies and Techniques in Dealing with FINRA Arbitrations Involving Senior Citizens. The panel will feature securities litigator Sandra Grannum from the law firm Faegre Drinker and Professor Christine Lazaro, Director of the Securities Arbitration Clinic at St. John’s University School of Law. The experienced panel of lawyers will delve into strategies and techniques such as client and witness preparation, cross examination of brokers and registered investment advisors (RIAs), tactics commonly employed by defense firms, and what to consider in arbitration when dealing with senior citizen claims specifically.

Financial elder abuse is a topic that is near and dear to Ms. Malecki, who has long been passionate about advocating for retirees who have been taken advantage of or have lost their retirement savings owing to brokerage firms and financial professionals who did not properly manage or supervise their retirement accounts.  For nearly 30 years, Ms. Malecki has successfully brought numerous lawsuits on behalf of seniors and retirees who have lost their financial nest eggs, recovering tens of millions of investment dollars on their behalf.

Next week, the New York State Bar Association’s Securities Arbitration Committee will be hosting a timely conversation on the future of mandatory arbitration.  For the last 35 years, retail investors seeking recovery of stock market investment losses have had no other choice but to arbitrate their disputes at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).  Prior to 1987, investors were able to bring lawsuits in the courts, but that all changed with the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Shearson/American Express v. McMahon, 483 U.S. 1056 (1987).  Moderating this event is Jenice L. Malecki, principal and founder of Malecki Law, and also the Co-Chair of the Securities Arbitration Committee.  She has been on FINRA’s National Arbitration and Mediation Committee, on the board of the Public Investors Advocate Bar Association (PIABA), and is an Adjunct Professor at New York Law School.  Invited speakers to the event include Michael Edmiston, the current president of PIABA, Tracey McNeil, Ombudsman for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Angela Turiano, counsel and principal for Bressler Amery and Ross.

The benefits of arbitration have always been the economy of the process, typically involving less costs and faster recovery times than court. Compared to courts, arbitrations further allow very limited grounds for appeal. Arbitrators also have wider latitude than judges to grant relief to investors based on principles of equity and fairness – i.e., not necessarily having to adhere to legal precedent of earlier court decisions. This is a double-edged sword, however, because the potential downside is that arbitrators, who are under no obligation to explain their awards, have similar latitude to depart from substantive law to the detriment of the investor. The speed and economy of the arbitration process has also come under scrutiny, especially with the Covid-19 backlog of in-person arbitration hearings at FINRA.  The fairness of the process has also long been criticized in terms of the quality of the arbitrators and the “neutral” arbitrator selection process managed by FINRA.

What makes this event particularly timely is the very recent news out of a Georgia state court decision, which overturned and vacated an arbitrator award that denied investor claims in favor of the prevailing firm, Wells Fargo. The court made this rare reversal of an arbitration award because, in the court’s determination, Wells Fargo allegedly had an undisclosed “side agreement” with FINRA to exclude certain arbitrators considered to be “investor friendly.” The court agreed with the investor’s position that this side agreement created a bias against the investor because “[p]ermitting one lawyer to secretly red line the neutral list makes the list anything but neutral, and calls into question the entire fairness of the arbitral forum.” Brian Leggett and Bryson Holdings, LLC vs. Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC et al., File No. 2019CV328949, Superior Court of Georgia, Fulton County (January 25, 2022). The news of this decision has intensified pressure on FINRA to not only investigate the matter, but to possibly reform the arbitration process, something that has long been called for by members of Congress and investor advocate organizations like PIABA.

Yesterday, Malecki Law filed its official response to FINRA’s proposed changes to FINRA Rule 3240, in which FINRA seeks to modify the five current exceptions to the general rule that prohibits any “registered person” with a brokerage firm, from borrowing or lending to their customers. The rule applies to registered persons, which is most typically the account’s stockbroker, but applies to any licensed person with the firm. While FINRA has proposed this rule to “narrow the scope” of certain exceptions to the rule, Malecki Law filed its comment because of concerns that some of the modifications do not go far enough and still leaves room for possible abuse of the customer.

The five existing exceptions that currently permit borrowing or lending arrangements with a customer under Rule 3240 are if the customer is (1) a member of the registered person’s immediate family; (2) if the customer is a financial institution; (3) if the customer is also a registered person with the same firm; (4) if the lending arrangement is based on a personal relationship with the customer such that the arrangement would not exist had the personal relationship not existed in the first place; and (5) if the lending arrangements is based on a business relationship external to the broker-customer relationship.

Malecki Law is in favor of Rule 3240’s general prohibition against borrowing or lending to customers, because, as noted in Malecki Law’s filed comment, “there are thousands of brokers and advisors in America,” and therefore plenty “available to take over the debtor or lender’s investment account until the loan is repaid.” So while we support any proposal that narrows the rule, we believe that the inherent conflicts of interest in allowing such arrangements, even with a narrowed set of exceptions, could be entirely avoided in the first place.

This week, Malecki Law filed its second FINRA arbitration lawsuit against Henley & Company, LLC on behalf of a group of retirees who lost their money in an apparent Ponzi Scheme.  Their arbitration alleges that they were victimized by the brokerage firm’s inadequate supervision over its registered representative, Philip Incorvia, by allowing him to run his alleged Ponzi scheme unchecked out of a Henley branch office.

It is alleged that for nearly fifteen years, Henley failed to supervise Mr. Incorvia as he sold fictitious investments in Jefferson Resources and Vanderbilt Realty out of Henley’s Shoreham, New York office.  The scheme was uncovered when he died in August of 2021.  Investors not only trusted Mr. Incorvia, but their trust was bolstered because Henley’s documents prominently featured a reassuring connection to Jefferson Resources, lending it a sign of legitimacy.  For example, Henley featured Jefferson on much of its correspondence sent to customers, including monthly statements, tax documents, and general letterhead.  Malecki Law filed its first lawsuit on behalf of a retiree in October of 2021, claiming losses of $2.5 million. Since then, more Henley customers have come forward after demanding answers and failing to receive financial restitution from Henley.

The five investors who are part of the second group lawsuit, filed this week, are claiming losses in excess of $900,000, and are all elderly retirees from New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Florida. FINRA has already granted the group expedited status to the proceedings due to their senior age, which should help fast track a recovery. Some of the investors in the group were already delayed in learning about the scheme because it appears Henley failed to notify them of the fraud, which several of its corporate officers named in the lawsuit were believed to have known about for several weeks or months following Mr. Incorvia’s death. In November 2021, it is alleged that Henley further sent out a misleading letter to its customers, suggesting that they could recover their lost investment funds through an insurance policy benefitting Mr. Incorvia’s personal estate. Henley’s letter failed to mention that the investors seeking a recovery against the estate would likely not have legal standing to bring a claim, since the alleged investments were in the names of a companies, not Mr. Incorvia personally. The letter also omitted that Henley had apparently already sought to claim the proceeds of the policy for itself under contractual indemnification and contribution clauses within Henley’s own employment agreements with Mr. Incorvia.

Few would dispute that Cryptocurrency – whether Bitcoin, Ethereum, or the thousands of other smaller coins – is a speculative and risky investment. The volatility alone in these coins was showcased this past weekend, with Bitcoin suddenly plunging over 25% from nearly $57,000 to just over $42,000 per unit. This is mere weeks after Bitcoin had dropped from its all-time high of roughly $69,000 in early November. Needless to say, investing in crypto is not for the faint of heart and certainly not the type of investment you would see in the portfolio of a risk-averse retiree. Yet it is possible that retirees and conservative investors who rely on financial advisors to manage their retirement assets are receiving exposure to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies without even realizing it.

Crypto is a polarizing topic, with some insisting that it is the future, others distrusting it as a Ponzi-type pump and dump, and many more who have no understanding of what it is at all. World governments have traditionally been reluctant to adopt crypto because they see it as a threat to their central banks and control over their fiat currencies, but approaches to regulation vary.  China has outright banned crypto, El Salvador has fully adopted Bitcoin to allow its citizens to shop and pay taxes with, and most other countries (including the United States) are still figuring out how to regulate it.

Financial institutions have been even slower at the notion of adoption because the nature of blockchain transactions poses a threat to the “middleman” place of these institutions in brokering everyday global transactions. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has been famously on record for nearly a decade, repeatedly calling Bitcoin “worthless,” “fool’s gold,” and a “fraud.” Yet now it is becoming commonplace for retailers to accept certain cryptocurrencies as payment directly from their customers, with no more hassle than it is to process a credit card or any other electronic payment.

Jenice L. Malecki, Esq., founder of the New York City securities law firm Malecki Law, is scheduled to speak this Friday November 19th at the American Bar Association’s Women in Litigation Joint CLE Conference. The conference is scheduled November 17-19, 2021 at the Boston Park Plaza in Boston, Massachusetts.  The conference highlights leading women litigators in a number of legal areas, with Ms. Malecki invited to speak on FINRA expungement matters, defamation lawsuits, and wrongful terminations relating to employment arbitrations litigated in FINRA’s dispute resolution forum.

For the last thirty years, Ms. Malecki has been an industry trailblazer as a leading female litigator in securities matters, having represented throughout her career a cross section of retail investors, brokerage firms, and employees within the securities industry. The breadth of Ms. Malecki’s experience and success is atypical in the legal profession, and particularly in securities litigation, because the field has been traditionally male dominated. She is an adjunct securities law professor at the New York Law School and has published scholarly works on women’s issues in the law, amongst numerous other securities-related topics.  Earlier this year, Ms. Malecki authored a paper published in the Public Investors Advocate Bar Association (PIABA) Bar Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, entitled Minorities and Women in the Securities Industry:  The Disproportionate Impact of Securities Fraud Exploitation.  Ms. Malecki was also a panelist at last year’s PIABA Annual Meeting and Securities Law Seminar where she spoke on the issue of Women Lawyers, Arbitrators, and Expert Witnesses.

Ms. Malecki is an ex-vice president of PIABA and sat on the advisory board for FINRA’s National Arbitration and Mediation Committee.  She was recently appointed in September of this year as co-chair of the New York State Bar Association’s (NYSBA) Commercial & Federal Litigation Section’s Securities Arbitration Committee.  The committee recognizes Ms. Malecki’s experience in the securities arena with the goal of promoting healthy industry relationships between litigators, administrative bodies, and the courts.

While the lack of a regulatory framework certainly makes it harder to recover fraudulent cryptocurrency losses than for traditional securities, falling victim to a cryptocurrency scam when investing through a broker or large firm regulated by FINRA or the SEC makes it easier.

This coming January, a federal court in New York’s Southern District is scheduled to sentence former Wells Fargo broker James Seijas up to twenty years in prison for his alleged role in facilitating a $30 million-plus Ponzi scheme.  Meanwhile, Seijas’ former firm, Wells Fargo Advisors, has been named in a Florida civil lawsuit brought by 73 affected investors who allege that the firm failed to supervise Mr. Seijas and failed to investigate his business dealings in Q3I LP, a cryptocurrency hedge fund that Mr. Seijas partly owned.  The fund was falsely marketed to investors with inflated returns from a cryptocurrency in which the investor money solicited was never even invested in.  While approximately $10 million was invested, most of the remainder was allegedly spent elsewhere on lavish cars, yachts, jewelry, and real estate, including a multi-million-dollar Florida home purchased by Mr. Seijas.

As is often the case when Ponzi schemes collapse, the investor money is typically already spent.  Fortunately in Ponzi cases that involve large financial firms like Wells Fargo, investors still have legal recourse to sue the employing firms, which have a duty under the securities laws to supervise the activities of their registered employees not only within the firm, but also to disclose and supervise their business activity conducted outside of and away from the firm.  According to Mr. Seijas’ BrokerCheck Report, Wells Fargo had not even disclosed Seijas’ outside business activity at Q3I to FINRA, which the plaintiffs in the civil action claim would have uncovered the scheme had Wells Fargo investigated or “done any minimal compliance review.”

Contact Information