Wedbush denied those allegations and instead charged that Farah was responsible for making bad recommendations to his clients. What’s more, the firm wanted him to pay more than $9 million in settlements and Finra awards already paid by the firm to Farah’s former clients who sued over the mortgage bonds.
Finra’s arbitrators don’t explain the reasoning behind their decisions. Aidikoff noted, however, that Farah got nearly everything he asked for from Finra.
“The panel’s message was pretty clear,” Aidikoff said. “They were very concerned with the way Mr. Farah had been treated by the firm.”
Products and punishment
It’s common for investors to sue brokerages after losing money, but less common for brokers themselves to do so. Edwards, the Houston attorney, said he expects more brokers will follow Farah’s lead, a natural reaction to the changing business of investment management.
Years ago, brokers and brokerages made their money by executing stock trades, and many cases that went to Finra involved brokers or firms who allegedly “churned” their clients’ accounts, executing unnecessary trades to increase commissions.
But Edwards said he sees fewer churning cases today. As the Internet has made stock trading cheaper for individual investors, many firms have had to look elsewhere for commissions. So they’ve been creating and selling new types of investment securities, such as the collateralized mortgage obligations that got Farah and Wedbush in trouble.
“Where they make their money is in developing products,” Edwards said. “And you’re going to find more and more cases where you have products that blow up. I tell people all the time: I’ve become a product liability lawyer.”
Edwards argues that brokers have to rely on their parent firms to analyze exotic investment products, and that such analysis is one of the reasons brokers pay fees to their firms.
Edwards said the Farah case shows brokers can successfully take on their firms if they can show that investment products are marketed as safe but turn out risky.
“That’s what this case proves to me,” he said. “There are instances where brokers are victims as much as the customers. That’s a good story to tell.”
Farah’s case is also noteworthy because Finra arbitrators ordered Wedbush to pay $1.4 million in punitive damages. Such damages have come in less than 5 percent of Finra cases, according to a study published by Cornell University Law School.
Jonathan Schwartz, a Marina del Rey securities lawyer who also works as a Finra arbitrator, said such damages are usually awarded only when there’s been egregious wrongdoing.
“The punitive damages are very interesting,” he said. “You have to have an angry arbitration panel to get that kind of damages. There must have been something Wedbush or their lawyers did, or something that was found out. Some dreadful facts must have come to light.”
For reprint and licensing requests for this article, CLICK HERE.
Stories You May Also Be Interested In
- Wall Street West---Arbitration Makes Flood of Brokerage Claims Unlikely
- Regulators Beat Around Wedbush
- Burned Investors Find No Solace as Lawyers Pass on Low-Money Cases
- Disgrunted Merrill Clients Find Friends at Local Firm
- Bondholders Claim Wedbush Misled Them on Vacaville Project
- Leaders in Law 2018: In-House Counsel Nominees - Charles LaChaussee