{"id":1220,"date":"2013-03-28T11:08:04","date_gmt":"2013-03-28T11:08:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com\/2013\/03\/investors_are_not_raymond_jame"},"modified":"2022-03-10T16:33:34","modified_gmt":"2022-03-10T22:33:34","slug":"investors-are-not-raymond-jame","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/investors-are-not-raymond-jame\/","title":{"rendered":"Investors are Not Raymond James Financial Customers for FINRA Arbitration Purposes, Rules 4th Circuit"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\tThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that, for purposes of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration<\/a>, investors who lost the investment they made on stock they purchased from a lawyer connected to a Raymond James Financial Services (RJF) Inc.<\/a> broker are not the brokerage firm’s client. The appeals court said that the investors dealings with the broker-dealer were “too remote.”<\/p>\n

Tax lawyer David Affeldt had been recruited by an Inofin Inc. executive to recommend to investors that they buy securities from the company. That employee happened to be the college roommate of then-Morgan Stanley (MS) <\/a>representative Kevin Keough, who also informally acted in a sales capacity for Inofin.<\/p>\n

Because of his employment with the financial firm at the time, Keough had Inofin pay his compensation for the referrals to his wife instead of to him. He and Affeldt, however, agreed to equally share these referral fees-an agreement that continued even after Keough went to work with Raymond James.<\/p>\n

Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that, for purposes of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration, investors who lost the investment they made on stock they purchased from a lawyer connected to a Raymond James Financial Services (RJF) Inc. broker are not the brokerage firm’s client. The appeals court said that the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3752,3739,3758],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1220","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-financial-firms","category-finra","category-raymond-james"],"yoast_head":"\nInvestors are Not Raymond James Financial Customers for FINRA Arbitration Purposes, Rules 4th Circuit — Investor Lawyers Blog — March 28, 2013<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that, for purposes of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration, investors who lost — March 28, 2013\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/investors-are-not-raymond-jame\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Investors are Not Raymond James Financial Customers for FINRA Arbitration Purposes, Rules 4th Circuit — Investor Lawyers Blog — March 28, 2013\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that, for purposes of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration, investors who lost — March 28, 2013\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Investors are Not Raymond James Financial Customers for FINRA Arbitration Purposes, Rules 4th Circuit — Investor Lawyers Blog — March 28, 2013","description":"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that, for purposes of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration, investors who lost — March 28, 2013","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/investors-are-not-raymond-jame\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Investors are Not Raymond James Financial Customers for FINRA Arbitration Purposes, Rules 4th Circuit — Investor Lawyers Blog — March 28, 2013","twitter_description":"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that, for purposes of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration, investors who lost — March 28, 2013","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/investors-are-not-raymond-jame\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/investors-are-not-raymond-jame\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"Investors are Not Raymond James Financial Customers for FINRA Arbitration Purposes, Rules 4th Circuit","datePublished":"2013-03-28T11:08:04+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-10T22:33:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/investors-are-not-raymond-jame\/"},"wordCount":347,"articleSection":["Financial Firms","FINRA","Raymond James"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/investors-are-not-raymond-jame\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/investors-are-not-raymond-jame\/","name":"Investors are Not Raymond James Financial Customers for FINRA Arbitration Purposes, Rules 4th Circuit — Investor Lawyers Blog — March 28, 2013","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2013-03-28T11:08:04+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-10T22:33:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that, for purposes of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration, investors who lost — March 28, 2013","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/investors-are-not-raymond-jame\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/investors-are-not-raymond-jame\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/investors-are-not-raymond-jame\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Investors are Not Raymond James Financial Customers for FINRA Arbitration Purposes, Rules 4th Circuit"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/","name":"Investor Lawyers Blog","description":"Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys \u2014 Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431","name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-jG","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1220","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1220"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1220\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23286,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1220\/revisions\/23286"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1220"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1220"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1220"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}