This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Securities
Fraud
Professional Malpractice

David A. Castillo v. Southwest Securities Inc.

Published: Sep. 6, 2008 | Result Date: Mar. 1, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 07-01145 Arbitration –  $0

Court

Arbitration Forum


Attorneys

Claimant

Cary S. Lapidus
(Law Offices of Cary S. Lapidus)


Respondent

Will S. Montgomery


Facts

The claimant asserted that the respondent filed untrue and fraudulent information regarding the claimant's Form U-5. The claimant's allegations were in relation to the claimant's former work with respondent. The respondent rejected the claims of unlawful conduct established in claimant's statement of claim and alleged a variety of affirmative defenses.

Damages

The claimant demanded expungement or modification of the Form U-5 as well as costs. The respondent demanded dismissal of the claimant's statement of claim completely.

Result

The panel concluded that the claimant was in not in breach of relevant statues, laws, regulations, ethical or business policies and that the respondent's claims included in the claimant's Form U-5 were untrue. The panel suggested expungement of the "Reason for Termination and Explanation" within section 3 of the Form U-5, and replaced with "Other." Further, the discussion should read, "Disagreement as to a policy on trading." The Panel also suggested expungement of Internal Review DRP on the Form U-5, replacing Internal Review Disclosure Question 7B in the Form U-5 with "No." Lastly, claimant must also receive confirmation from the court prior to the execution of an expungement directive by the CRD.

Other Information

On Nov. 30, 2007, respondent sought summary judgment. On Jan. 30, 2008, claimant opposed the motion. On Feb. 4, respondent asked the panel to rule on its motion at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing. During this hearing, respondent withdrew its summary judgment motion. On Feb. 21, respondent sought to dismiss the action. On Feb. 26, claimant opposed the motion to dismiss. On Feb. 28, respondent filed a motion in support. After oral arguments, the panel denied the motion to dismiss. ARBITRATORS: Harry Endsley, Susan Alexander, James Riewerts. COMPLAINT FILED: April 9, 2007.


#107875

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390