ARBchek - Arbitrator Research Base

1. Shih v. Firstrade Securities FINRA ID #25-02830 (San Francisco, CA, 2026-06-03) – An Arbitrator explains in detail why he has decided to deny a customer's case finding that she failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to the monetary relief she requested. This case involves a market-wide trading error that occurred on 9/29/25 when Wolfspeed Inc. (the stock in dispute in this case) emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy and its old common stock was to be cancelled and replaced with new shares (New Wolfspeed).

2. Patel v. LPL Financial FINRA ID #25-01034 (Portland, ME, 2026-06-01) – Despite denying Respondent broker-dealer's Motion for Directed Verdict (Motion to Dismiss), a Panel still decides to deny Claimant's case after finding that she failed to sustain her burden of proof with respect to each allegation asserted in this matter.

3. Dose v. Wells Fargo FINRA ID #25-02191 (Omaha, NE, 2026-06-03) – An Arbitrator grants, without prejudice, Respondent broker-dealer's Pre-Hearing Motion to Dismiss pursuant to FINRA Rule 13206 (Six-year Eligibility Rule for Industry Disputes) Claimant registered representative's request for reformation of alleged defamatory information from appearing on his Form U5 record after finding that the Form U5 at issue in this case was filed more than 24 years prior to the filing of his Statement of Claim and is therefore ineligible for arbitration.

4. Cullina v. Fidelity Brokerage FINRA ID #25-02837 (Providence, RI, 2026-06-01) – An Arbitrator explains why she has decided to deny Claimant's case after determining that Respondent broker-dealer had a contractual right to restrict and close his securities account and notified him of said actions almost a month prior to doing so.