The Internet is awash with articles about “bad brokers” with clean U-4s, and “rouge brokers” obtaining expungements of valid customer complaints. Indeed, studies have been published ostensibly demonstrating that state regulators poses more valuable information on their system than what appears on FINRA’s public Broker-Check data base. In sum, there is a consensus that too many complaints are being expunged. But whether that consensus is based on fact is subject to debate.
Regardless, FINRA has repeatedly responded to the hue and cry by making it increasingly difficult for a financial adviser to obtain an expungement of a customer complaint published on his or her professional record. But amidst all of this anguish and gnashing of teeth, a politically incorrect truth has been left in the shadows. I feel compelled to share it with you. Here it is: some customer complaints are baseless. There; I said it.
Another often-overlooked fact is that FA’s are able to go straight to a court of law, rather than a FINRA arbitration, to obtain an expungement. Almost exactly one year ago, FINRA issued new guidance to its arbitrators raising ever higher the procedural bars for a panel to recommend expungement. Should a FA surmount the procedural hurdles and slim avenues to success, the FA still has to go to court to get the Award confirmed. And, in that state court action, he or she still needs to name FINRA as a party so that they can show up and oppose the FINRA arbitrator’s recommendation.
But FINRA Rule 2080 actually reads as follows:
2080. Obtaining an Order of Expungement of Customer Dispute Information from the Central Registration Depository (CRD) System
(a) Members or associated persons seeking to expunge information from the CRD system arising from disputes with customers must obtain an order from a court of competent jurisdiction directing such expungement or confirming an arbitration award containing expungement relief.
(b) Members or associated persons petitioning a court for expungement relief or seeking judicial confirmation of an arbitration award containing expungement relief must name FINRA as an additional party and serve FINRA with all appropriate documents unless this requirement is waived pursuant to subparagraph (1) or (2) below.
(1) Upon request, FINRA may waive the obligation to name FINRA as a party if FINRA determines that the expungement relief is based on affirmative judicial or arbitral findings that:
(A) the claim, allegation or information is factually impossible or clearly erroneous;
(B) the registered person was not involved in the alleged investment-related sales practice violation, forgery, theft, misappropriation or conversion of funds; or
(C) the claim, allegation or information is false.
(2) If the expungement relief is based on judicial or arbitral findings other than those described above, FINRA, in its sole discretion and under extraordinary circumstances, also may waive the obligation to name FINRA as a party if it determines that:
(A) the expungement relief and accompanying findings on which it is based are meritorious; and
(B) the expungement would have no material adverse effect on investor protection, the integrity of the CRD system or regulatory requirements.
(c) For purposes of this Rule, the terms “sales practice violation,” “investment-related,” and “involved” shall have the meanings set forth in the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (“Form U4″) in effect at the time of issuance of the subject expungement order.
It seems as if very few have read the actual rule. I recently read an attorney blog that makes no mention of the direct-to-court avenue whatsoever! Well, our attorneys are very familiar with both the state court and arbitration options and procedures.
There is actually some case law out there on a financial adviser’s right to go to court to seek an expungement. In Lickiss v. FINRA, 208 Cal.App. 4th 1125 (2012), the California Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s dismissal of the FA’s petition. In fact, it held that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting itself to the criteria set forth in Rule 2080(b), rather than employing the court’s broad equitable power and discretion. The Court of Appeals stated in part:
FINRA has established BrokerCheck, an online application through which the public may obtain information on the background, business practices and conduct of FINRA member firms and their representatives. Through BrokerCheck, FINRA releases to the public certain information maintained on the CRD, thereby enabling investors to make informed decisions about individuals and firms with which they may wish to conduct business. This data includes historic customer complaints and information about investment-related, consumer-initiated litigation or arbitration….
The issues surrounding Lickiss’s sale of CET stock occurred more than 20 years ago, and the one regulatory matter against him resolved 15 years ago in 1997. Since then, his record has been clear, yet Lickiss attested that he suffers professional and financial hardship relating to the prior sale of CET stock because current and potential clients increasingly use the Internet to obtain his BrokerCheck history.
Lickiss petitioned for expungement of his CRD records, asserting that the superior court had jurisdiction “pursuant to (1) FINRA Rule 2080(a); [and] (2) the Court’s equitable and inherent powers to effectuate expungements.”…
FINRA removed the action to federal court. Upon Lickiss’s motion, the federal district court remanded the matter back to the state superior court, ruling that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case because there is no statute, rule or regulation imposing a duty on FINRA to expunge….
Had Lickiss merely petitioned the court for expungement relief under rule 2080, without also invoking the court’s equitable powers, that might be the end of the matter. However, Lickiss explicitly invoked those powers….
Equity aims to do right and accomplish justice. (Hirshfield v. Schwartz (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 749, 770.)…
The equitable powers of a court are not curbed by rigid rules of law, and thus wide play is reserved to the court’s conscience in formulating its decrees…
This basic principle of equity jurisprudence means that in any given context in which the court is prevailed upon to exercise its equitable powers, it should weigh the competing equities bearing on the issue at hand and then grant or deny relief based on the overall balance of these equities…
The choice of a very narrow, rigid legal rule to assess the legal sufficiency of Lickiss’s petition—a choice that closed off all avenues to the court’s conscience in formulating a decree and disregarded basic principles of equity—was nothing short of an end run around equity…
This is not, as FINRA contends, merely a request for a remedy. Rule 2080(a) essentially recognizes the right of members and associated persons to seek expungement of information from the CRD system by obtaining an order from a court of competent jurisdiction directing such expungement.
See also Lickiss v. FINRA, Fed.Sec. L. Rep. P.96, 345 (2011). Compare Updegrove v. Betancourt, 2016 WL 3442762 (2016).
If you are a FA who has a U-4 scarred by one or more clearly erroneous customer complaints, we would be happy to evaluate your prospects for success in seeking an expungement in state court or arbitration. Your chances of erasing an unfair or unfounded complaint in a court of law at a reasonable cost might be better than you think.