Broker-Dealer

Our firm represents brokerage firms and their employees in litigation and arbitration related to the securities industry.  Mennemeier, Glassman & Stroud has far-reaching experience in resolving customer disputes and employment claims.  We also represent brokers and securities broker-dealers in investigations conducted by government agencies and self-regulatory organizations.  Additionally, the firm provides counseling to our clients on regulatory compliance and sales practice issues.  

One of the things that distinguishes Mennemeier, Glassman & Stroud is the extent to which our lawyers, through our arbitration hearing experience, have real trial experience. Over the last ten years, the firm has taken over 30 cases to an award after hearing. 

• Stahl v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, defended brokerage firm and its registered representative against claims arising out of $5 million loss that claimant allegedly suffered following her failure to hedge a 110,000 share position in Cisco stock that she had acquired by exercising employee stock options.  NASD arbitration hearing lasted 12 days.
• A.G. Edwards & Co. v. Stifel Nicolaus & Co., successfully represented several former A.G. Edwards employees who left Edwards to join Stifel Nicolaus following Wachovia Securities’ acquisition of Edwards, in federal court, state court, and arbitration proceedings.
• Bartolemei v. Smith Barney Inc., defended brokerage firm against selling away claims brought by seventeen sets of claimants, alleging that the firm was liable for losses resulting from real estate investments that occurred away from the firm.  Pacific Stock Exchange arbitration hearing lasted 26 days.
• Bierce v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, represented brokerage house and individual respondent in NASD arbitration against allegation of elder abuse in connection with purchase of variable annuities.
• Kingswood v. Button, represented institutional client in state court action on claims of fraud and conversion brought on behalf of large number of investors on behalf of more than 80 individuals as to a private placement investment.
• Haley v. MLCC, represented mortgage lender on state court allegations of deceptive collection practices.
• Ryan v. Shearson Lehman Hutton Holding Inc., represented brokerage firm in litigation brought by pool of investors alleging misrepresentation in sale and marketing of limited partnerships.
• Betchart v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., represented brokerage firm in NASD arbitration on claims of misrepresentation as to sale of securities.
• Telahun v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, successfully defended brokerage house and individual respondents in NASD arbitration hearing against allegations related to options trading and failure to hedge concentrated stock position. Later, successfully represented brokerage house in state court action to confirm dismissal of claim.
• Don v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, successfully defended brokerage house and individual respondents in NASD arbitration against claim that customer was wrongfully blocked from accessing joint account during divorce proceeding.
• Worden v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, successfully defended brokerage house and individual respondent in NASD arbitration against claim that broker made unsuitable recommendations to an elderly client regarding purchase of mutual funds.
• South Bay Urology v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, successfully defended brokerage house in NASD arbitration against claims of unsuitable investments in professional’s retirement and pension plan accounts.
• Merrill Lynch v. Hartwell Construction Co., defending Merrill Lynch against allegations concerning handling of checks.
• 
  

Primary Contact:

Eric J. Glassman

glassman@mgslaw.com

Tel: (916) 551-2585