Insights
The Current State of the Crypto Industry
June 19, 2023
Wilson Elser’s Securities Practice comprises attorneys with extensive experience handling the claims that arise in the securities and financial services industries, including regulatory inquiries and enforcement actions, customer disputes and intra-industry disputes.
Our team includes attorneys who have worked at FINRA and its predecessor, NASD. Indeed, we are routinely retained by FINRA as outside counsel. Others have worked for the Department of Justice; large and small broker-dealers; and as outside counsel to broker-dealers, registered representatives and financial advisers. In addition, we have team members in the financial and regulatory centers of New York and Washington, D.C., and in key hot spots such as Florida, California, Illinois and Texas, all of whom collaborate with other Wilson Elser lawyers in 44 states.
We understand our clients’ businesses, the laws and regulations governing their businesses, and the rules of the many forums in which their disputes are resolved. We regularly represent clients in state and federal courts, at FINRA Dispute Resolution, and before the various regulatory and governmental organizations with jurisdiction over securities-related disputes. We also understand the challenges confronting our clients, which have been intensified by unprecedented regulatory oversight and erratic economic conditions.
We have extensive experience across the many disputes that arise in the financial sector, including regulatory matters and customer and industry disputes.
We regularly collaborate with colleagues whose practices focus on ERISA, insurance and employment law, and thus can offer a holistic and seamless approach to problem-solving, dispute resolution and litigation.
The Wilson Elser team has handled all manner of customer dispute litigation at FINRA Dispute Resolution and in federal and state courts across the United States. We can quickly assess and evaluate claims and determine the best and most cost-effective litigation strategy. We have successfully represented claims involving traditional allegations of churning, unauthorized trading, overconcentration and unsuitable recommendations as well as more complex claims arising out of the sale of novel or complex products, Ponzi schemes and failed tax shelters. We know the laws and have worked with the players, including regulators, the plaintiffs’ bar, arbitrators, experts and other defense counsel. Thus, we are well positioned to resolve disputes. Our clients include small, mid-size and large national broker-dealers; investment advisers; and individual registered representatives – and we make each a priority.
We have experience with enforcement proceedings from virtually every angle. Indeed, our team includes former regulatory and government attorneys who have brought enforcement proceedings, as well as seasoned in-house counsel and defense counsel who have defended firms and individuals that found themselves in the crosshairs of regulators and prosecutors. Our experience allows us to effectively communicate with regulators and prosecutors and to determine when to negotiate and when to fight. We have successfully represented clients during federal grand jury investigations, FINRA investigations, SEC investigations and proceedings before state regulators. While we strive to resolve every inquiry without the need for formal action, our team members are, at their core, experienced trial attorneys who can and have successfully tried matters to conclusion when necessary.
In addition to representing clients during disputes, we regularly advise them on compliance issues and risk management issues in their own businesses. We have worked with clients to contain the risks inherent in their businesses by helping them evaluate their supervisory procedures, hiring procedures and product review processes.
Among other things, we advise clients on:
|
|
Wilson Elser’s attorneys draw on their considerable experience to assist clients in planning and executing internal investigations related to potential violations in securities, banking and other laws, as well as breaches of fiduciary duty. With deep knowledge of industry practices and relevant governing statutes, rules and regulations, our attorneys are proactive in helping to resolve suspected problems and make appropriate disclosures to regulators when warranted. We manage our clients’ sensitive internal investigations and, when requested, assist in dealing with the press and the public. In close collaboration with in-house counsel, Wilson Elser conducts investigations for major full-service and discount brokerage firms, investment advisers, boards of directors, audit committees and corporate management.
Wilson Elser’s Securities Practice has helped the firm’s clients successfully navigate all manner of industry disputes, including disputes between broker-dealers and between broker-dealers and registered representatives. We have successfully litigated a wide range of these disputes, including matters involving:
|
|
Our understanding of the securities industry, the Protocol and the unique rules that apply in FINRA arbitrations enables us to effectively and aggressively represent our clients in matters involving registered persons. We also have an in-depth understanding of the state and federal laws that affect employment matters and collaborate, when necessary, with our colleagues in the firm’s Employment & Labor Practice to get the best results for our clients. In addition, we actively pursue alternative dispute resolution and mediation as appropriate.
Wilson Elser’s Securities Practice comprises attorneys with extensive experience handling the claims that arise in the securities and financial services industries, including regulatory inquiries and enforcement actions, customer disputes and intra-industry disputes.
Our team includes attorneys who have worked at FINRA and its predecessor, NASD. Indeed, we are routinely retained by FINRA as outside counsel. Others have worked for the Department of Justice; large and small broker-dealers; and as outside counsel to broker-dealers, registered representatives and financial advisers. In addition, we have team members in the financial and regulatory centers of New York and Washington, D.C., and in key hot spots such as Florida, California, Illinois and Texas, all of whom collaborate with other Wilson Elser lawyers in 44 states.
We understand our clients’ businesses, the laws and regulations governing their businesses, and the rules of the many forums in which their disputes are resolved. We regularly represent clients in state and federal courts, at FINRA Dispute Resolution, and before the various regulatory and governmental organizations with jurisdiction over securities-related disputes. We also understand the challenges confronting our clients, which have been intensified by unprecedented regulatory oversight and erratic economic conditions.
We have extensive experience across the many disputes that arise in the financial sector, including regulatory matters and customer and industry disputes.
Washington, D.C. partners Ryan Duffy and Kathleen Warin and associate Nate Lefko obtained summary judgment in the District of Columbia Superior Court on behalf of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). The plaintiff sought to expunge decades-old customer complaints from his registration records and requested wide-ranging equitable relief, including equitable expungement, declaratory judgment, and a permanent injunction. The Wilson Elser team successfully demonstrated that the doctrine of laches barred all the plaintiff’s claims. In granting summary judgment, the Superior Court found that the plaintiff delayed in bringing his claims and material evidence had been lost, which resulted in prejudice to FINRA.
Ryan M. Duffy, Kathleen H. Warin and Nathan Lefko
The St. Louis, Missouri, team of Daniel Tranen (Partner), Julia Wilke (Of Counsel) and Jennifer Boston (Associate) represented a security company client accused to failing to search a psych patient who brought a gun into the hospital emergency department and pointed it at two nurses while they tried to get him to change into hospital scrubs. The nurse plaintiffs argued that the mere fact that he had the gun demonstrated a lapse in security's need to control weapons coming into the emergency department. We convinced the jury that for patients in the treatment area of the emergency department – based on internal hospital policies and the post orders for our client – all searches had to be initiated by hospital staff, and there was no evidence that hospital staff initiated a search. Moreover, the procedures for searches had the search take place after the patient was in hospital scrubs and therefore this particular patient was not yet supposed to be searched under this key policy. Meanwhile, neither nurse plaintiff had requested a search before the gun was discovered, therefore, it was not our client’s fault that the patient had not yet been searched when he revealed the gun to the plaintiff nurses. The plaintiffs requested a verdict of $1 million with both nurses claiming significant PTSD symptoms and damages as a result of the incident. The jury returned a unanimous defense verdict after about an hour (you only need 9 of 12 jurors to reach a verdict in Missouri).
Daniel E. Tranen and Jennifer Boston
John Benford (Of Counsel-Orlando) obtained a favorable jury verdict at trial in a lawsuit brought by three major shareholders/investors of the client, a technology company. The plaintiffs attempted to prove at trial that the client violated their rights as shareholders in preferred stock, including their right to redeem the stock at certain prices. Defense was challenged by evidence offered by plaintiffs that they lost several million dollars on the stock at issue and related investments during the stock market crash of 2008. However, John presented evidence to the jury relating to, among other things, plaintiffs’ failure to act reasonably and engaging in conduct inconsistent with their claims. During closing arguments, the plaintiffs requested that the jury award them $2,760,000. After approximately two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of only $336,000 – about 12 percent of what they asked the jury to award them. The plaintiffs’ original demand prior to trial was $3,864,000.
John Y. Benford