FINRA Arbitration: Veni, Vidi — but a split Vici in Penson / NWT case

or Register to post new content in the forum

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Mar 18, 2011 5:09 pm

To begin with, the Chairperson dissents from both the majority’s Opinion and its Award.  In setting forth his rationale, the Chairperson sets forth as undisputed that Claimant Carter:

elected to take early retirement at the age of 56 from ExxonMobil; had approximatley $1,008,544 in life savings at that time; sought professional guidance as to the administration of his funds and securities, all of which had been subject to the attention of ExxonMobil; had only passive experience with stocks, bonds and securities ( “Exxon did it all”); attended at least one post-employment seminar conducted by a brokerage firm, but was more taken with the informal presentation of Respondent Holdman (the two men shared parental responsibilities in Little League baseball); accepted Respondent Holdman’s brokerage qualifications;  was advised that the execution of many forms (described by the Chairperson as a “plethora”) was necessary and required by law; surrendered his fortune to Holdman; and told Holdman to lose nothing and buy only conservative investments.