NY firms win absolute immunity for U-5s By Dan Jamieson
March 29, 2007 The New York Court of Appeals today ruled that brokerage firms have absolute legal immunity from defamation suits arising from what they write on U-5 termination forms.

The case was widely watched among industry lawyers, and is a major victory for brokerage firms, which have long complained about the threat of suits from registered representatives.

In a 4-to-2 decision, the state's highest court said that the “U-5's compulsory nature and its role in the NASD's quasi-judicial process, together with the protection of public interests, lead us to conclude that [U-5] statements ... should be subject to an absolute privilege.”

The court compared filing a U-5 to making a complaint about a lawyer to a grievance committee. New York courts have found that confidential complaints about lawyers are absolutely privileged.

But in a dissent, judge Eugene Pigott said “statements made on a Form U-5 are not intended to be part of any court proceeding” and that U-5 information is “widely disseminated.”

Because of the “serious potential damage to an employee's reputation and business prospects ... the [U-5] is amply protected by a qualified ... privilege,” Mr. Pigott said.

The case was Chaskie J. Rosenberg v. MetLife Inc.

Calls to Mr. Rosenberg's attorney, Maurice Heller, of Heller Horowitz & Feit, P.C. in New York, and Steve Obus, a partner at Proskauer Rose LLP in New York, who represented MetLife, were not immediately returned.

---------------------------------------------------------

This is total BS...Firms can say whatever they want and we have no recourse.