Finra Panel Orders JP Morgan To Pay Customer More Than $2M

A securities arbitration panel ordered J.P. Morgan Securities to pay a customer more than $2 million, including sanctions, for allegedly failing to adequately respond to the customer’s requests for certain documents.

Michael Hannon, the customer, alleged civil fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and failure to supervise against J.P. Morgan Securities, the retail brokerage unit of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM), according to the award.

The claim, filed in 2009 on behalf of Hannon and a revocable trust in his name, related to the purchase of various securities, including Citigroup (C), ING Groep N.V. (ING), Fannie Mae (FNMA), and Freddie Mac (FMCC), according to the award. Hannon originally sought $3.5 million and other relief.

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel in Richmond, Va., awarded Hannon $1.8 million, plus interest from May 2008. The Finra panel also made an additional–and rare–award of sanctions in the form of $218,000 in legal fees, $25,000 in expert witness fees, and $9,000 in costs, according to the award, dated July 8.

It found that J.P. Morgan and its lawyer, Stephanie Karn of Richmond, Va., allegedly weren’t “wholly forthcoming,” in responding to the customer’s requests for certain emails and other important documents during a phase of the proceedings when parties typically exchange information. The panel had ordered J.P. Morgan to produce the emails and certain correspondence, according to the award.

A J.P. Morgan spokeswoman and Karn declined to immediately comment.

The sanctions against J.P. Morgan are “highly unusual,” says Jonathan Uretsky, a New York-based securities lawyer who represents brokerages. The award may have reflected the panel’s dissatisfaction with the alleged extent of J.P. Morgan’s compliance with its order, he says.

Finra panels that order sanctions don’t typically provide reasons in writing for the basis of the award, says Dale Ledbetter, a securities lawyer in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. who represents investors. “It’s extremely rare, but it should be done in every case where there’s wrongdoing,” he says.

Andrew Park, a lawyer in Richmond, Va. who represented the customer, declined comment.

Source

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 18th, 2010 at 12:12 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.