Skip navigation

Wells Fargo / Wachovia Wins And Loses Against Former Employee

or Register to post new content in the forum



  • 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.
Aug 25, 2010 11:59 am

By FINRA Arbitration Statement of Claim filed January 20, 2010, Claimant Wells Fargo, represented by Michael S. Colombo of StreetWide Asset Recovery Group, Inc., sought to recover from Respondent Joseph Morgan

$14,090.05 representing the unpaid balance due on a promissory note, $4,227.01 in collection costs, and $1,475.00 in FINRA filing fees.

Respondent Morgan represented himself without legal counsel (pro se) and filed a Counterclaim for $16,126.22 in commissions owed. In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC f/k/a Wachovia Securities LLC, Claimant, versus Joseph Morgan, Respondent (FINRA Arbitration 10-00284, August 19, 2010).

Read about the surprising outcome of this case and Bill Singer's extensive analysis of this arbitration and similar collection cases brought against former Wall Street employees:




Regulatory lawyer Bill Singer has analyzed and posted the latest crop of FINRA disciplinary cases

Some three decades on Wall Street and you can only imagine all the regulatory cases that I've come across -- which is why this is all the more amazing. Quite possibly, this is the most staggering number of allegations of violations that I've ever seen. READ HERE at happens if you sell shares of a security to public investors using a private placement memorandum that omitted a convicted felon’s association with the issuer, which is a material factREAD HERE  at know that old line about asking someone up to your apartment to see your etchings? Well, did you hear the one about the broker who got barred because of his lithographs?  
READ HERE at  You think that I'm tough on the SEC or FINRA?  Well, consider this slam from a recent federal appeals court:

This case involves wealthy and sophisticated customers who were under no press of time to decide whether to invest; customers who invested specifically in furtherance of a desire to speculate; and a broker who did not profit from his wrongdoing and who has been fined and suspended for his violations. There is nothing in the SEC’s decision to indicate why, in these circumstances, awards of restitution are appropriate under Principle 5. Indeed, the SEC’s decision is incomprehensible insofar as it attempts to amplify any meaningful causal connection between Siegel’s putative bad acts and the Downers’ and Landrys’ losses. And the SEC has cited no precedent, and we have found none, supporting restitution in a case of this sort. The SEC’s judgment is fatally flawed for two reasons: First, the SEC’s judgment is not supported by reasoned decisionmaking. Second, the SEC cites to no controlling precedent that includes reasoned decisionmaking supporting restitution under Principle 5 in a case of this sort. We therefore vacate the restitution order.


Talk about things getting testy on Wall Street.  Consider all these innovative approaches to not exactly taking various industry examinations in accordance with the rules.  READ HERE at