Results

Our research and testimony frequently result in awards, decisions and orders. See what our experts have been working on.

Displaying 211-220 out of 227 results

Berry et al v Merrill Lynch - $752,000 72(t) Award

In September 2004, an NASD arbitration panel in Indianapolis, IN ordered Merrill Lynch to pay $752,000 including $191,000 in punitive damages to a group of Claimants in a 72(t) case. The Claimants alleged that Merrill Lynch failed to properly train and supervise their brokers and provided brokers with deceptive tools to use when advising clients whether to retire and how aggressive their retirement portfolios should be. Dr. McCann testified on behalf of the Claimants.

Hatch v H&R Block Financial Advisors - $507,937 Churning Award

In September 2004, an NASD arbitration panel in Southfield, MI ordered H&R Block Financial Advisors to pay the Claimant $507,937 in compensatory damages and costs. Dr. McCann testified on behalf of the Claimant that the Claimant's securities portfolio was churned and estimated damages.

Bokan v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. - Suitability $405,000 Award

In March 2004 an NASD Arbitration panel in Boca Raton, FL ordered Merrill Lynch to pay Mr. Bokan compensatory damages of $366,000 plus interest. The panel also awarded Mr. Bokan $39,000 in travel costs and expert witness fees incurred.

District Court Grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in WAXS Class Action

In March 2004, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in what was left of twenty-three class actions against World Access (WAXS). The Court found that WAXS's statements concerning a switch designed for developing markets were not false and misleading. The Court went on to conclude that, in any case, the statements were not material based on an event study performed by Dr. McCann. The Court said that when allegedly false and misleading statements do not cause a statistically significant price increase during the class period, Plaintiffs can not demonstrate materiality of the alleged misrepresentations by looking at an allegedly curative disclosure if those disclosures contained a lot of additional negative information.

Lopez v Merrill Lynch - $6.4 Million Exercise & Hold Award

In February 2004 an NASD arbitration panel in Dallas awarded four Claimants $6.4 Million arising out of claims against Merrill Lynch over the exercise of non-qualified employee stock options by Allegiance Telecom employees.

Wendling v Merrill Lynch - $1.73 Million Exercise & Hold Award

In October 2003 an NASD arbitration panel in Seattle awarded a husband and wife $1.73 Million arising out of claims against Merrill Lynch over the exercise of Ariba non-qualified employee stock options.

Cote v Edward Jones - $90,367 Exercise & Hold Award

In August 2003, an NASD arbitration panel in Dallas, TX ordered Edward Jones to pay Claimant $90,367 including costs and prejudgment interest. Dr. McCann testified that the exercise and hold strategy was deeply flawed and should never have been implemented.

Bauer v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter - $175,000 NYSE Award

In August 2002, an NYSE arbitration panel in Memphis, TN ordered Morgan Stanley Dean Witter to pay Claimant $175,000. Dr. McCann testified for the Claimants.

Millar v Merrill Lynch - $7.74 Million JAMS Award

In July 2002 a JAMS arbitration panel awarded a couple $7.74 Million arising out of claims of breach of contract, negligence and fraud against Merrill Lynch. The panel found that Merrill Lynch breached duties to formulate and implement suitable investment strategies. The panel also found that Merrill Lynch failed to offer and explain hedging strategies suitable to the Claimants' objectives prior to the expiration of a post-IPO lockup. Finally, the panel found that Merrill Lynch's covered call writing was not a suitable strategy for dealing with the Claimants' concentrated position. This award has been mischaracterized as a simple failure to execute a sell order case. We have posted the award so that you can read the panel's conclusions for yourself.

District Court Affirms $7.74 Million Award Against Merrill Lynch

The award in Millar v Merrill Lynch was noteworthy, and not only for its size. The panel decided Merrill Lynch breached a contract to provide suitable investment advice to the Millars. Merrill Lynch appealed the award. The District Court in affirming the award recently made clear that brokerage firms cannot sell themselves as offering world class investment advice, even to customers like the Millars with non-discretionary accounts, and then claim to be only order takers when they deliver negligent or incompetent advice.

227 Results

<
1
...
20
21
22
23
>