The parties to an arbitration should each be able to select one arbitrator; the two arbitrators should select the third arbitrator; all of the arbitrators should have at least 10 years experience dealing with the matters under contention; the arbitrators should stay within the four corners of the documents; their decisions should conform to the law and, where they do not, the parties should be free to pursue legal remedies in a court of law and the losing party should pay all of the prevailing parties legal costs and expenses in connection with the context. This is fair and balanced and would discourage vexatious litigation, presently encouraged because arbitration has become increasingly expensive and the outcomes increasingly arbitrary, undermining the credibility of FINRA.
A
Anonymous
8 years ago
There should be no time limit on requesting expungement son past events as many advisors were told there was nothing they could do about disclosures even when thy were incorrectly entered by their firms
L
Laimutis Prascus
8 years ago
this rule change is grossly unfair to advisors who have been victimized by unscrupulous Broker Dealers.
K
kim soukup
8 years ago
As a victim of false charges I have seen first hand how the system has damaged my reputation within my community but also with the investing public which is not in the publics best interest. It should not be made more difficult to remove false charges from our records.
T
Todd R Allen
8 years ago
Please do not pass these unfair rules.
B
Barrick A Smart
8 years ago
A proposal that makes it more difficult, more expensive and, after a short period, removes the opportunity to correctly reflect the record seems to me to be anathema to the mission of FINRA. Truth has always been, and should always remain FINRA's mission. The proposal puts restrictions on truth. Hard to believe.
R
Robert R Kneisley
8 years ago
We have tried since 2003 to get the case expunged.
T
Thomas Morgan
8 years ago
I believe this will cause undue business and financial harm as well as harm to my personal reputation.
D
Drew Gay
8 years ago
If a dispute is found to be meritless/baseless then why should it be reported on my BrokerCheck and my CRD? Why should I have to pay to have it removed when I am not at fault?
K
Karen E Martin
8 years ago
I have 1 claim where the customer didn't mean it to be a complaint, he was just trying to reach me. He told the firms attorneys that he had no issue with me or the investment. He was just trying to reach me. He was traveling internationally for his job & we had different time zones. Chase chose to file it on my Finra record, even though it wasn't actually a complaint at all. It would be much better to have it removed.
M
Michael Bessette
8 years ago
FINRA's proposed rules should not be passed. The proposed rules unfairly restrict brokers' ability to expunge meritless claims, which ultimately have detrimental impacts on their business. Imposing a one-year limitation period and a unanimous vote is completely unjust, and will result in more brokers' records being tarnished by frivolous claims. DO NOT PASS THESE RULES FINRA.
R
Ricardo G Lugo
8 years ago
I totally agree
P
Peggy Anderson
8 years ago
I strongly oppose this proposed regulation.
A
Anonymous
8 years ago
I strongly oppose this proposed regulation. I think it's very unfair for reps.
S
Stanley J Keyes
8 years ago
Removing the opportunity for meritless and incorrect filings of client complaints takes away my legal right to my day in court.
S
Steven T Faticone
8 years ago
A representative should have the same rights as anyone else in the social justice system. If a complaint has been found to be without merit, it should be wiped from a representative's record. END OF STORY. We shouldn't have to pay $10,000 to clear our name of a superfluous, or inaccurate complaint. FINRA's policy move to take away even this EXPENSIVE option is pure idiocy. None of these rules will protect the retail investor from the next Bear Market.
J
John C Riley
8 years ago
After 35 years in the business I have had ONE complaint against me. The claim was without merit and my firm settled with the client yet I am branded
R
Ronald a hoffman
8 years ago
I oppose this rule vehemently because it removes my right to have merit less claims from my file. Please see the error of your ways in this rule and restore my rights.
L
Louis Scherschel
8 years ago
Under the pretenses of protecting the investing public and providing efficient means to resolve disputes within the securities industry, FINRA has unfortunately become an organization geared more toward monetarily enriching itself and doing continuous harm to ethical and honest broker/dealers, firms and financial advisors. FINRA does so by having created a regulatory system and dispute process that creates a completely partial and imbalanced method which allows any client or prospect to make completely false allegations which are made immediately available to the general public through the CRD public disclosure system. However, FINRA does not permit the advisors to publicly present factual information similarly immediately to rebut the false allegations on the CRD system such as they allow for the clients, thus causing immediate imbalanced damage to an advisor or firm's reputation. Or if they do, they string the process along for many months and years causing significant material damage to an advisor's practice and means of living in addition to years of lost relationships and damages to the advisor. Through its actions and proposed new additional regulations, FINRA currently seeks to further this imbalance and, as an organization, has essentially become complicit in helping unethical attorneys and clients who are committing illegal or unethical acts to, for all practical purposes, extort an advisor or firm simply by allowing such attorneys or clients to immediately file completely false allegations with no substantiation. Unethical attorneys or clients know how to game the FINRA system, due to its presently and significantly imbalanced flaws, and simply make the false charge knowing that FINRA will gladly enable a settlement process to assess fees for itself while the fraudulent attorneys or clients can quickly walk away with easy money from a firm or advisor even when the firm and advisor have been compliant and done nothing wrong. At present, advisors and firms
J
Jack Lee Kaplan
8 years ago
There are merit less disclosures in my FINRA broker check. At the time, my firm paid two clients, one in arbitration and the other as a settlement, for product failure, and I was not held liable. These items occurred many years ago, and I would appreciate expungement.
The parties to an arbitration should each be able to select one arbitrator; the two arbitrators should select the third arbitrator; all of the arbitrators should have at least 10 years experience dealing with the matters under contention; the arbitrators should stay within the four corners of the documents; their decisions should conform to the law and, where they do not, the parties should be free to pursue legal remedies in a court of law and the losing party should pay all of the prevailing parties legal costs and expenses in connection with the context. This is fair and balanced and would discourage vexatious litigation, presently encouraged because arbitration has become increasingly expensive and the outcomes increasingly arbitrary, undermining the credibility of FINRA.
There should be no time limit on requesting expungement son past events as many advisors were told there was nothing they could do about disclosures even when thy were incorrectly entered by their firms
this rule change is grossly unfair to advisors who have been victimized by unscrupulous Broker Dealers.
As a victim of false charges I have seen first hand how the system has damaged my reputation within my community but also with the investing public which is not in the publics best interest. It should not be made more difficult to remove false charges from our records.
Please do not pass these unfair rules.
A proposal that makes it more difficult, more expensive and, after a short period, removes the opportunity to correctly reflect the record seems to me to be anathema to the mission of FINRA. Truth has always been, and should always remain FINRA's mission. The proposal puts restrictions on truth. Hard to believe.
We have tried since 2003 to get the case expunged.
I believe this will cause undue business and financial harm as well as harm to my personal reputation.
If a dispute is found to be meritless/baseless then why should it be reported on my BrokerCheck and my CRD? Why should I have to pay to have it removed when I am not at fault?
I have 1 claim where the customer didn't mean it to be a complaint, he was just trying to reach me. He told the firms attorneys that he had no issue with me or the investment. He was just trying to reach me. He was traveling internationally for his job & we had different time zones. Chase chose to file it on my Finra record, even though it wasn't actually a complaint at all. It would be much better to have it removed.
FINRA's proposed rules should not be passed. The proposed rules unfairly restrict brokers' ability to expunge meritless claims, which ultimately have detrimental impacts on their business. Imposing a one-year limitation period and a unanimous vote is completely unjust, and will result in more brokers' records being tarnished by frivolous claims. DO NOT PASS THESE RULES FINRA.
I totally agree
I strongly oppose this proposed regulation.
I strongly oppose this proposed regulation. I think it's very unfair for reps.
Removing the opportunity for meritless and incorrect filings of client complaints takes away my legal right to my day in court.
A representative should have the same rights as anyone else in the social justice system. If a complaint has been found to be without merit, it should be wiped from a representative's record. END OF STORY. We shouldn't have to pay $10,000 to clear our name of a superfluous, or inaccurate complaint. FINRA's policy move to take away even this EXPENSIVE option is pure idiocy. None of these rules will protect the retail investor from the next Bear Market.
After 35 years in the business I have had ONE complaint against me. The claim was without merit and my firm settled with the client yet I am branded
I oppose this rule vehemently because it removes my right to have merit less claims from my file. Please see the error of your ways in this rule and restore my rights.
Under the pretenses of protecting the investing public and providing efficient means to resolve disputes within the securities industry, FINRA has unfortunately become an organization geared more toward monetarily enriching itself and doing continuous harm to ethical and honest broker/dealers, firms and financial advisors. FINRA does so by having created a regulatory system and dispute process that creates a completely partial and imbalanced method which allows any client or prospect to make completely false allegations which are made immediately available to the general public through the CRD public disclosure system. However, FINRA does not permit the advisors to publicly present factual information similarly immediately to rebut the false allegations on the CRD system such as they allow for the clients, thus causing immediate imbalanced damage to an advisor or firm's reputation. Or if they do, they string the process along for many months and years causing significant material damage to an advisor's practice and means of living in addition to years of lost relationships and damages to the advisor. Through its actions and proposed new additional regulations, FINRA currently seeks to further this imbalance and, as an organization, has essentially become complicit in helping unethical attorneys and clients who are committing illegal or unethical acts to, for all practical purposes, extort an advisor or firm simply by allowing such attorneys or clients to immediately file completely false allegations with no substantiation. Unethical attorneys or clients know how to game the FINRA system, due to its presently and significantly imbalanced flaws, and simply make the false charge knowing that FINRA will gladly enable a settlement process to assess fees for itself while the fraudulent attorneys or clients can quickly walk away with easy money from a firm or advisor even when the firm and advisor have been compliant and done nothing wrong. At present, advisors and firms
There are merit less disclosures in my FINRA broker check. At the time, my firm paid two clients, one in arbitration and the other as a settlement, for product failure, and I was not held liable. These items occurred many years ago, and I would appreciate expungement.