Site
search Web search
Search this site or the
web powered by FreeFind
Better Business Bureau does nothing to resolve issue
Chronology of Court Case Against TD Ameritrade
Chronology of FINRA Arbitration Case Against TD Ameritrade
Click
here to add this page to your favorites folder!
Click
here to link to us.
Laurent J. LaBrie v. TDAmeritrade 
FINRA Claim 11-03725
SECOND DISCOVERY REQUEST
In this document, you will notice that the Claimant goes after TD Ameritrade for refusing to grant him documents that are necessary for him to present his case. These are documents that FINRA requires that brokerages produce in their List 1 of discoverable documents. Some of these documents, like the information about who was on the other side of the trade, are promised to all customers on the bottom of TD Ameritrade's trade confirmations which read, "The name of the other party or broker in the transaction, the date, the time of execution, source and amount of remuneration will be furnished upon request."
But, the Respondents already know that they have received everything they have asked for from the arbitrator Douglas E. McLaren in the first hearing while the Claimant received none of his requests. Thus, the arbitrator has emboldened them to be uncooperative and to break FINRA rules. The question is, will their strategy work or will the arbitrator enforce FINRA List 1?
February 6, 2012
Laurent J. La Brie FINRA Arbitration
v.
Toronto Dominion Ameritrade Arbitration No. 11-03725
TO: TD Ameritrade
4211 South 102th Street
Omaha, NE 68127
FROM: Laurent J. La Brie
5 Pleasant Ridge Drive #205
Owings Mills, MD 21117
Dear Ms. Mason:
I am writing to request additional information that was omitted in your responses to Claimant’s Discovery Requests. Reference is made to FINRA Rules 12503 and 12505, which provides that the parties shall endeavour to resolve discovery disputes prior to seeking assistance from the Arbitrator(s). Below, I address each of the discovery responses which we believe were not responsive, and the reasons we think they were not completely responsive. I also request information that we think you are required to provide.
Request 2: Claimant has requested the written confirmations for Claimant’s purchase of the UDR Puts with a strike price of $25 made on or about October 27, 2008, the exercise of the Puts on or about January 16, 2009, the short of UDR at the same time, and the covering of the short position on or about March 17, 2009.
Response 2: Respondent has indicated that the responsive documents can be found in Exhibit 5, titled “UDR Trade Confirmations October of 2008 – January of 2009.” Claimant does not find these documents in that Exhibit. Please resend.
Request 3: Claimant has requested documentation from the clearing company or other source that shows who sold the UDR Puts Claimant purchased on or about October 27, 2008. Respondent has refused to produce this documentation on the grounds that it is “irrelevant.”
Response 3. This documentation is not irrelevant. A contract was written between Claimant and the seller of the option and it was brokered by Respondent through the clearing company. The requested document will indicate the name of the seller of the option who received the money from the sale and who would have received the benefit of not having to complete the purchase of the shares if the option had not been exercised.
Request 4: Claimant has requested documentation from the clearing company or other source that shows who bought the shares Claimant sold short on or about January 16, 2009, and the source of the money that was placed in Claimant’s account when the transaction was made.
Response 4: Respondent has refused to produce these documents asserting they are irrelevant. This documentation is not irrelevant. The option contract was exercised as the Respondent admitted to Claimant on 3/27/2009 and 4/3/2009 (See Respondent's Discovery item “Salesforce Call Notes.pdf”.) Documentation from the Respondent shows a short of stock. The buyer suffered a loss by the Claimant's covering the short position until the Respondent reversed the trades. Claimant is entitled to copies of all documentation reflecting the beneficiary of the Respondent's actions.
Request 5: Claimant requested transaction records of any other client (including the last four numbers of their account numbers) that, during any time in the month of January, 2009, in their TD Ameritrade account, bought or sold UDR January Puts or Calls with any strike price, regardless of whether the transaction records show that the option was exercised or that it was permitted to expire.
Response 5: Claimant objects to the refusal of the Respondent to produce these documents on grounds of relevance. Said documents will show Respondent's treatment of other clients with regards to this option. This information is relevant or may likely lead to relevant information.
Request 8: Claimant requested documentation Respondent has received from a third party (other than TDA's logs already provided), such as a telephone company, which shows the efforts made by Respondent to contact Claimant at the phone numbers provided by Claimant to Respondent regarding the trades of Claimant’s UDR options, selling short the stock and covering the short. Claimant’s also requested that Respondent include in its response a copy of the telephone recording of the employee dialing and the response on the other side of the telephone line.
Response 8: Respondent objected to this request, asserting that it required Respondent prepare a document. Claimant is not requesting a document “tailored and/or created for the purpose of discovery”, nor would such a document be acceptable to Claimant. Claimant is requesting, and is entitled to receive, any and all documents in Respondent’s possession, custody or control that is responsive to this request.
Request 9: Claimant has requested any policy or other written directive given by Respondent to Respondent’s employees/brokers during the period of October 27, 2007 to January 16, 2010, stating the instructions to brokers regarding an “in the money” option transaction, notification of clients about options issues and pending expirations, as well as those specifically regarding the UDR options.
Response 9: Respondent has objected on grounds of relevant. Claimant insists on the production of all responsive documents.
Request 10: Claimant has requested any policy or other written directive given by Respondent to Respondent’s employees/brokers that was in force during the period of October 27, 2007 to January 16, 2010, stating what research should be done and what information should be given a client when he/she calls regarding changes to the symbol for an option as well as those policy or directive specifically regarding the UDR options.
Response 10: Respondent has objected on grounds of relevance. Claimant insists on the production of all responsive documents.
Request 11: Claimant has requested all written communication and other documents created prior to March 17, 2009, of how Respondent informed Claimant that the UDR short position was only in “book entry form” or of any different status than Claimant’s other shorts, and therefore any less complete, viable, or dependable than any other short position Claimant took in Claimant’s account, including the EIHI short position that appeared identically in the same February 2009 statement from TD Ameritrade, yet was not reversed by TD Ameritrade.
Response 11: Respondent has objected on grounds of relevance. Claimant insists on the production of all responsive documents.
Request 13: Claimant requests all written communication to customers dated prior to March 17, 2009, that explains the period of no trading volume at which time Respondent stops giving current prices (e.g. over one trading day, over one week).
Response 13: Respondent has objected on grounds of relevance. Claimant insists on the production of all responsive documents.
Request 14: Claimant requests all written communication explaining to customers how Respondent defines a “book entry” transaction or the difference between that and any other short transaction. Claimant has requested that Respondent’s response include any communication made specifically to Claimant outlining the risks of book entry transactions, including date and time of such communication.
Response 14: Respondent has objected on grounds of relevance. Claimant insists on the production of all responsive documents.
Request 15: Claimant has requested documentation reflecting Respondent’s written communication explaining to customers what OCC memos are, how to receive them, and who a customer should contact at Respondent to discuss them.
Response 15: Respondent has objected on grounds of relevance. Claimant insists on the production of all responsive documents.
Request 18: Claimant revises this request to now request the following; please provide any documentation relating to correspondence with the compliance department, and any reprimand, discipline, or additional training given to persons in response to:
such persons giving Claimant information that Claimant’s account was not displaying a value on Claimant’s UDR Puts simply because “there's no volume on it so nobody's traded it” ,
the failure to notify Claimant of the OCC memo on the option and/or
the failure to notify Claimant of the changes to UDR options as was recommended by the January 16, 2009, OCC Memo #25370,
Response 18: Claimant revises the request to remove the word “misinformation.” This requested information is relevant and Claimant insists that it be produced.
Request 19: Claimant has requested those portions of Respondent’s internal reports, analysis or memorandums that (a) concern “associated persons” for Claimants accounts or Claimant’s account or the transactions at issue; and (b) were generated during the period of October 27, 2007, to January 16, 2010, and discussed alleged improper behaviour in the branch against other individuals involving unjust enrichment, removing funds without a client's authorization, misrepresenting or failing to disclose material facts concerning an investment, or failure to exercise an option that was in the money.
Response 19: Respondent has refused to respond on the grounds the request seeks irrelevant information. This information is relevant and Claimant insists on its production.
Request 20: Claimant has requested all documents relating to all investigations, charges, or findings by any regulator (state, federal or self-regulatory organization) and the firm/associated persons' responses to such investigations, charges, or findings for the associated persons' alleged improper behavior involving unjust enrichment, removing funds without a client's authorization, misrepresenting or failing to disclose material facts concerning an investment, or failure to exercise an option that was in the money.
Response 20: Respondent has objected on grounds of relevance. Claimant insists that Respondent produce these documents.
Request 21: Claimant has requested those portions of examination reports or similar reports following an examination or an inspection conducted by a state or federal agency or a self-regulatory organization that focused on the Associated Person(s) of Respondent for Claimant’s account or the transaction(s) at issue or that discussed alleged improper behavior in the branch against other individuals involving unjust enrichment, removing funds without a client's authorization, misrepresenting or failing to disclose material facts concerning an investment, or failure to exercise an option that was in the money.
Response 21: Respondent has objected on grounds of relevance. Claimant insists that Respondent produce these documents.
Sincerely yours,
Andrew Jiranek
Better Business Bureau does nothing to resolve issue
Chronology of Court Case Against TD Ameritrade
Chronology of FINRA Arbitration Case Against TD Ameritrade
See stories of TDAmeritrade misappropriating funds from other investors:
© 2009-2014