FINRA Arbitration Awards and Litigation Results

The majority of arbitrated cases are settled amicably between claimant and respondent under confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. In fact, most of the best cases end in settlement. Over the years Ms. Malecki has recovered tens of millions of dollars for clients, including multi-million dollar settlements in several categories: securities arbitration and litigations, employment arbitrations, business disputes, and tax shelter fraud cases. This success further extends to more public proceedings, in which arbitrator rulings have been published within the archives of FINRA’s Arbitration Awards.

JENICE L. MALECKI, ESQ. Representing the Claimant in Investment Arbitrations

Here are some arbitrated results in cases that did not settle:

$1,150,000.00: Rodney Beck (deceased), Rodney R. Beck Living Trust d 12-05-04, Stacey Beck, and Stacey Beck Living Trust dtd 12-05-94, Claimants vs. Investacorp, Inc., Investacorp Advisory Services, and William C. Artmann, Respondents; 12/4/07.
Claimant, a former professional baseball player, alleged breach of oral and written contracts, violation of industry rules, respondent superior and failure to supervise, negligence and negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary duty, and common law and statutory misrepresentation and fraud. Claimants' allegations involved investments in various mutual funds, variable annuities and variable life insurance policies.

$805,110.00: Duckkyu Chang, Kee Chang, et al. (Claimant) vs. McGinn, Smith & Co., Inc., Timothy M. McGinn, David Smith, et al (Respondents); 12/31/09. Claimants asserted the following causes of action: unsuitable investments, negligence, negligent supervision, breach of contract, violations of industry rules, failure to diversify, respondent superior, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, misrepresentations, and omissions. The causes of action relate to private placement products, notes, and trusts.

$475,375.00: Joseph and Tomas Sollitto, Claimants vs. Global Capital Securities, Corp., Respondent; 12/23/03. Claimants alleged fraud, misrepresentation, omission, unsuitable investment recommendations, negligence, negligent supervision, respondeat superior and breach of fiduciary duty and constructive trust. Claimants’ claims involved stocks.

$467,000.00: Robert Ferrucci (Claimant) vs. McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel Securities, Inc., and Laurence T. Tulenko (Respondents); 9/14/06. Award was confirmed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County. Respondents appealed the decision, resulting in This landmark case (67 A.D.3d 405, 889 N.Y.S.2d 134) which issued into law the determination that, if a case is properly pled, FINRA Arbitrators can even in New York state award attorneys fees to a Claimant in their final resolution.

$152,494.90: Bart Delgado Sabal (Claimant) vs. Sky Capital, LLC and Michael Passaro (Respondents); 6/26/07. Claimant asserted the following causes of action: fraud, misrepresentations, breach of contract, violation of industry rules including unsuitability , margin violations, churning, failure to diversify, negligence and negligent supervision, respondent superior and failure to supervise, violation of the Securities & Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78 et seq., and common law breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and constructive trust.

$132,315: David Kast & K.P.M., Inc. (Claimants) vs. Greenway Capital Corporation / Dominick DeLorenzo / Barry Morton Ferrari / Joseph M. Guccione / Fred Luthy (Respondents); 6/26/98. Claimants alleged that, in or about August 1995, when they opened accounts with Greenway through broker/registered representative DeLorenzo, he never inquired as to Claimants investment objectives or experience. Claimants also alleged that, in or about the early fall of 1995, DeLorenzo refused to execute a sell order of stocks in which Greenway was the market maker. Claimants further alleged that, after this incident, they opened an account with Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. ("Dean Witter") and requested that DeLorenzo transfer their accounts. Claimant asserted that, on October 26, 1995, DeLorenzo coerced him to sign a letter which rescinded his transfer request. Claimants also asserted that, on two additional occasions, they again requested that their accounts be transferred. Claimants further asserted that Respondents forged or falsified Kast's signature or redated his letter of October 26, 1995 in an attempt to rescind Claimants' second and third transfer requests. Claimants contended that, on November 11, 1995, DeLorenzo and Greenway engaged in unauthorized trading in Claimants' accounts. Claimants also contended that, upon notification of these unauthorized trades in-their accounts, they immediately contacted the Compliance Department of Greenway to initiate an investigation. Claimants also contended that, through their actions, Greenway, DeLorenzo and Ferrari engaged in manipulative and deceptive devices or contrivances, common law fraud, common law breach of contract, common law recklessness in failing to follow instructions, common law negligence hi failing to follow instructions, and fraudulent conversion, as well as failure to supervise.

$94,328.10: Alexandre Bibitchev, (Claimant) vs. LCP Capital Corp., Mario Romano, Dylan P. Jovine, John Kawas, Gregor Ricca, Michael DaCorta. Michael Coulombre, Mark Barry Mazzer, Charles S. Stoffers, Mark Berg, Brandt J. Mandia, Kevin Brody, Anthony Alliotta, Peter Ungaro, Vincent Maritato, Mark George and Salvatore A. Martorano (Respondents); 7/31/01 Claimant asserted the following causes of action: violations of federal securities laws; failure to supervise; respondeat superior; fraud; breach of fiduciary duty; breach of contract; control person liability; and negligence.

$80,750: Susan Joan Mitchell vs. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc. and Merrill Lynch; 7/19/07. Claimant, a public customer, alleges unsuitability, misrepresentation, negligence, and negligent supervision, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty with respect to investments in various equity mutual funds.

$79,658.53: Mark and Bertha Kapetanakis (Claimants) v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., Rittenhouse Financial Services, Inc., and Douglas Lee Chin (Respondents); 5/2/06. Claimants asserted the following causes of action: breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; misrepresentations; omissions of fact; failure to supervise; negligence, and suitability. The causes of action relate to investment in Merrill Lynch's mutual funds and fees generated from a fee based account.

$73,281.43: Josephine Pignato (Claimant) vs. Capital One Investments Services Corp. f/k/a NorthFork Investment Services LLC (Respondent); 11/3/10. Claimant asserted the following causes of action: breach of contract, unsuitability, over concentration, breach of commercial honor and good faith, respondeat superior, failure to supervise, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and misrepresentation. The causes of action relate to the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund.

$50,000: MK & MK Corporation, (Claimant) vs. KSH Investment Group, Inc., Paul Dorfman, and Harvey Kohn, (Respondents); 8/12/02. Claimant asserted the following causes of action: federal securities laws violations; misrepresentations; unauthorized trading; margin violations; market manipulation; control person liability; respondeat superior; omissions; failure to supervise; common law fraud; affinity fraud; churning; unsuitability; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; and breach of contract. Claimant's claim involved a variety of stocks.

$48,000.00: Jane Lee and Chang-Kang Lee, (Claimants) vs. Avalon Partners, Inc., Vincent Au, Samuel J. Agosta, Peter Bull, and Bradley G. Treichler, (Respondents); 5/22/02 Claimant asserted the following causes of action: misrepresentations; unauthorized trading; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duties; control person liability; fraud; negligence; failure to supervise; and common law fraud. Claimants' claim involved the stock and/or options of America Online, Unisys, Value America, Informix, Inprise, and Mattel Inc.

$40,142.50: Sami G. Naber and Wafa S. Naber, (Claimants) vs. Goldman, Lass Securities, Barry Sheldon Lass, and Rimon S. Dahdal, (Respondents); 4/9/02 Claimants asserted the following causes of action: federal securities law violations; misrepresentations; margin violations; control person liability; failure to supervise; respondeat superior; common law fraud; churning; suitability; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; and breach of contract. Claimants' claim involved the stocks of Just for Feet and Sonus Network, as well as other unspecified securities.

$40,000.00: John Rathgeb (Claimant) vs. Joseph Stevens & Co., Inc., Steven Fisher, Anthony DeBenedictis and Ronald Goldfine (Respondents); 4/2/07. A portion of this claim was settled with certain parties before going to arbitration. Claimant asserted the following causes of action: fraud, misrepresentations, breach of contract, unauthorized transactions, violations of duties imposed by the Martin Act and NASD Manual, margin violations, failure to diversify, negligence and negligent supervision, respondeat superior and failure to supervise, violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, and churning. The causes of action relate to unspecified securities.

$14,194: Qlga Bezprozvannaya and Sofia Shevel, JTWROS (Claimants) vs. Robert Thomas Securities, Inc., Timur Yakhin, Barren Chase Securities, and Dean Vernoia (Respondents); 6/2/99. Claimants alleged that, in October, 1994, Yakhin cold-called Shevel and Claimants' agent, Maria Ivenitsky ("Ivenitsky") to solicit their business and convinced them to invest at Baron Chase, promising them a low-risk, conservative investment strategy. Claimants alleged that, from November, 1994 through April, 1995, Yakhin engaged in unauthorized trading and deliberate transition into risky investments, without their knowledge and in contravention to their repeated requests for low-risk investments. Claimants further maintained that they did not know that Yakhin had deceived them into signing margin and/or option agreements since he claimed that their required signatures were mere formalities.

EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION

$125,000: Michael M. Kownacki v. Morgan Stanley DW Inc; 6/04/07. Claimant, a former employee of Member firm Respondent, alleged wrongful termination, failure to pay compensation for business generated by Claimant and failure to pay severance benefits for termination of employment.

$80,600: Janeice Hunt-Schmidt, (Claimant) vs. David Lerner and David Lerner Associates, Inc. (Respondents); 7/11/02. Claimant asserted the following causes of action: pregnancy and gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, as amended in 1978; violation of the Family Medical Leave Act; violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act; violation of Article 15 of the New York Executive, Civil Rights and Human Rights Law; violation of New York Workers' Compensation Law; breach of implied contract; implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and promissory estoppel; intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; prima facie tort; and defamation.

Expungement: Gregg D. Templeton vs. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.; 2/01/08. Registered Representative Claimant against his former employer alleging defamation by maliciously amending Claimant's U-4 form, breach of contract, constructive discharge, breach of fiduciary duty, interference with economic relations and breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Claimant ‘s record was ultimately expunged.

$47, 223,13 Counterclaim Award and Expungement: Wachovia Securities, LLC (Claimant) vs. Haran Brucker (Respondent); 8/19/08. Claimant asserted the following causes of action: nonpayment of promissory note. In his Counterclaims, Respondent asserted the following causes of action: defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, interference with economic relations, and breach of express and implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and conversion. He was awarded an expungement and his actual attorney’s fees.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.