Tr?id=566623520170033&ev=PageView&noscript=1

Three Former J.P. Morgan Advisors Prevail In $3 Million Transition Dispute

Posted on June 20th, 2022 at 3:28 PM
Three Former J.P. Morgan Advisors Prevail In $3 Million Transition Dispute

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law:

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel has denied J.P. Morgan’s claims against three former advisors who allegedly had violated their non-solicitation agreements while transferring to a new firm. 

J.P. Morgan was seeking nearly $3 million in damages against the former advisors. 

The Chicago-based arbitrators ruled in favor of the advisors after 10 hearing sessions, and J.P. Morgan was ordered to cover the $14,625 bill for the dispute. 

Eccleston Law LLC represents investors and financial advisors nationwide in securities, employment, regulatory and disciplinary matters.

 
 

Tags: eccleston law, jp morgan, finra

Return to Archive

TESTIMONIALS

Previous
Next
Quotes Bigger

If you are being bothered by the Regulators, call Eccleston Law, you won't regret it.

Rick R.

LATEST NEWS AND ARTICLES

1788198557 Law
August 31, 2026
FINRA Suspends Two Former Brokers Over $8 Million Private Securities Transactions

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has suspended two former brokers in Yorba Linda, California, for 10 months and fined each $10,000 over allegations that they participated in the sale of approximately $8 million in promissory notes issued by a private equity fund without their firm's approval, according to AdvisorHub.

1787947445 Law
August 28, 2026
SEC Accuses Goliath Ventures of $425 Million Crypto Investment Ponzi Scheme

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a civil complaint against Goliath Ventures Inc.

1787852053 Law
August 27, 2026
United Capital Revives Lawsuit Against Osaic

According to AdvisorHub, United Capital Financial Advisors has revived its lawsuit against independent broker-dealer Osaic by filing an amended complaint that reframes the dispute around the alleged misuse of confidential information obtained during Osaic's unsuccessful effort to acquire the firm.