In support, the plaintiff argued that remote proceedings would be cumbersome and procedurally irregular because the claimants are from Argentina and would require an interpreter, and there are dozens of witnesses and hundreds of documents that would have to be shared remotely. The plaintiff claimed that FINRA breached its Code of Arbitration Procedure and the uniform submission agreement, denied him due process, and sought injunctive relief to stop the remote hearing. The plaintiff noted his objection at a pre-trial hearing and in a letter in late July. Two days later the panel ordered the hearing to be conducted via FINRA’s virtual hearing services on its original date of Aug. 17, 2020 in Boca Raton, Florida, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, FINRA notified the parties that the in-person hearing was canceled and would either be rescheduled or held via ZOOM or telephone conference by joint agreement or panel order. The arbitration hearing was originally scheduled to begin Aug. The parties signed a FINRA uniform submission agreement stating that “in the event a hearing is necessary, such hearing shall be held at a time and place as may be designated by the Director of FINRA…” and that “the arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure.” In February 2019, the plaintiff’s former clients filed a statement of claim against the plaintiff and his firm seeking damages of $2.765 million, loan interest, dividends, and lost appreciation related to alleged losses in their brokerage account.
The Northern District of Illinois recently denied a broker’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) seeking to stop a scheduled remote arbitration hearing.Ī copy of the opinion in Legaspy v.
0 kommentar(er)
