FINRA Tosses Raymond James Arbitration Case

http://www.brokeandbroker.com/index.php?a=blog&id=430

In Financial Industry Arbitration Authority (FINRA) arbitrations, as with many things in life, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes you are humiliated.  I think a fair reading of  In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., Claimant, versus Robert Mayfield, Respondent (FINRA Arbitration 09-06892, May 24, 2010) would put Claimant Raymond James' case in that humiliation category of things.

Regrettably, the facts of this case are a bit blurry.  In this member firm versus associated person dispute, Claimant Raymond James filed its Complaint  on December 10, 2009.  Claimant sought $19,354.03 in damages pursuant to causes of action for indemnification and reimbursement, and breach of contract. 

That’s about as straightforward as this case will get. 

What were the salient facts in Raymond James’ case against Mayfield? What was Claimant seeking indemnification for? What was Claimant seeking reimbursement for? What breach of contract occurred?  I have absolutely no idea.

The FINRA decision states that the parties signed a “Sales Agreement” on July 30, 2001. Then things get a tad puzzling.  Apparently, there was an underlying action by the name of Roy Lee Hanna et al. v. Raymond James, et al. that may have been filed in 2004 and may have been settled.  What does that Hanna case have to do with this one? We are not told. Why is that Hanna case called an “underlying action?” Again, that's unclear.

What we do know is that William J. Petzel, the sole FINRA Arbitrator who heard this case, was not enthralled with Claimant Raymond James’ case.  For starters, Arbitrator Petzel’s says that “Claimant’s brief is remarkable for its lack of dates.”  In terms of dramatic foreshadowing, that ain't good news for Claimant. Moreover, the Arbitrator notes that he can only discern dated references to the 2001 execution of the Sales Agreement and to some generally referenced events in 2003, the more recent year involved a request by someone for indemnification of $5,765.69 for something.  Pointedly, the Arbitrator concludes that “One must assume that the lack of dates is intentional.”  Ouch!

TO READ THE CONCLUSION OF THIS ARTICLE, VISIT

http://www.brokeandbroker.com/index.php?a=blog&id=430