{"id":4435,"date":"2007-05-30T12:11:08","date_gmt":"2007-05-30T12:11:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com\/2007\/05\/disputes_with_former_brokerage"},"modified":"2021-09-20T15:41:29","modified_gmt":"2021-09-20T20:41:29","slug":"disputes-with-former-brokerage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/disputes-with-former-brokerage\/","title":{"rendered":"Disputes With Former Brokerage Firms and Brokers Must be Arbitrated"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\tIn two related decisions the a New York U.S. Bankruptcy Court determined that a failed broker-dealer must arbitrate (under the NASD Code of Arbitration) its differences with a former registered representative and the firm that hired him — even though the defunct firm is no longer is an NASD member — and that an arbitration agreement is even enforced when the party seeking recovery is in bankruptcy. <\/p>\n

According court records, in 2000, M. Carleton Boothe went to work for NASD member firm Continental Broker-Dealer Corp. and received $300,000 he was to repay if he left the firm within five years other than through death or disability. Boothe resigned in 2004 and joined Gunnallen Financial Inc. Continental soon closed and was expelled from the securities industry. <\/p>\n

After Continental was then thrown into bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court trustee for Continental sought to recover the unpaid balance of the note from Boothe and to obtain damages from Gunnallen Financial for claims including “raiding” its brokers and stealing its clients. Boothe and Gunnallen then sought to enforce certain arbitration agreements to move these actions from bankruptcy court to NASD arbitration. The bankrultcy court agreed. <\/p>\n

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

In two related decisions the a New York U.S. Bankruptcy Court determined that a failed broker-dealer must arbitrate (under the NASD Code of Arbitration) its differences with a former registered representative and the firm that hired him — even though the defunct firm is no longer is an NASD member — and that an arbitration […]<\/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":[3798,3741],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4435","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arbitration","category-securities-fraud"],"yoast_head":"\nDisputes With Former Brokerage Firms and Brokers Must be Arbitrated — Investor Lawyers Blog — May 30, 2007<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In two related decisions the a New York U.S. Bankruptcy Court determined that a failed broker-dealer must arbitrate (under the NASD Code of Arbitration) — May 30, 2007\" \/>\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\/disputes-with-former-brokerage\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Disputes With Former Brokerage Firms and Brokers Must be Arbitrated — Investor Lawyers Blog — May 30, 2007\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"In two related decisions the a New York U.S. Bankruptcy Court determined that a failed broker-dealer must arbitrate (under the NASD Code of Arbitration) — May 30, 2007\" \/>\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=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Disputes With Former Brokerage Firms and Brokers Must be Arbitrated — Investor Lawyers Blog — May 30, 2007","description":"In two related decisions the a New York U.S. Bankruptcy Court determined that a failed broker-dealer must arbitrate (under the NASD Code of Arbitration) — May 30, 2007","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\/disputes-with-former-brokerage\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Disputes With Former Brokerage Firms and Brokers Must be Arbitrated — Investor Lawyers Blog — May 30, 2007","twitter_description":"In two related decisions the a New York U.S. Bankruptcy Court determined that a failed broker-dealer must arbitrate (under the NASD Code of Arbitration) — May 30, 2007","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/disputes-with-former-brokerage\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/disputes-with-former-brokerage\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"Disputes With Former Brokerage Firms and Brokers Must be Arbitrated","datePublished":"2007-05-30T12:11:08+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-20T20:41:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/disputes-with-former-brokerage\/"},"wordCount":603,"articleSection":["Arbitration","Securities Fraud"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/disputes-with-former-brokerage\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/disputes-with-former-brokerage\/","name":"Disputes With Former Brokerage Firms and Brokers Must be Arbitrated — Investor Lawyers Blog — May 30, 2007","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-30T12:11:08+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-20T20:41:29+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"In two related decisions the a New York U.S. Bankruptcy Court determined that a failed broker-dealer must arbitrate (under the NASD Code of Arbitration) — May 30, 2007","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/disputes-with-former-brokerage\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/disputes-with-former-brokerage\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/disputes-with-former-brokerage\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Disputes With Former Brokerage Firms and Brokers Must be Arbitrated"}]},{"@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-19x","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4435","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=4435"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4435\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20048,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4435\/revisions\/20048"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4435"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}