<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>UPDATE: 2026-11 AWARDS</title>
    <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss</link>
    <description>Powered by ARBChek</description>
    <copyright>2026 Securities Arbitration Commentator, Inc. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:19:27 -0400</pubDate>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Fife v. Primerica Brokerage, FINRA ID #26-00220 (Little Rock, AR, 2026-06-05)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-26-00220</link>
      <description>In this small claims arbitration, a customer alleging that she is entitled to a portion of the money held in a joint account which she had with her former husband loses her case.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Shih v. Firstrade Securities, FINRA ID #25-02830 (San Francisco, CA, 2026-06-03)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-25-02830</link>
      <description>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).</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Barfoot v. JP Morgan, FINRA ID #25-02175 (Denver, CO, 2026-06-02)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-25-02175</link>
      <description>A Panel grants a broker's request for expungement of one customer complaint from appearing on his Form U5 record but unanimously denies, with prejudice, his request for expungement of a second complaint.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Wise v. Merrill Lynch, FINRA ID #25-02417 (Washington, DC, 2026-06-03)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-25-02417</link>
      <description>A Panel unanimously grants a broker's request for expungement of a complaint from her CRD record despite the objection of the customer involved.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Valdes v. Robinhood Financial, FINRA ID #26-00231 (Boca Raton, FL, 2026-06-04)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-26-00231</link>
      <description>In this small claims arbitration, a customer alleging that he is owed a refund as a result of unaccounted funds after Respondent broker-dealer breached its fiduciary duty when it withheld federal taxes from his securities account loses his case.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Smith v. Osaic Wealth, FINRA ID #25-01266 (Chicago, IL, 2026-05-28)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-25-01266</link>
      <description>Registered Rep loses, with prejudice, his request for expungement of a customer complaint from appearing on his CRD record by unanimous decision of the Panel.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Childers v. Charles Schwab, FINRA ID #26-00177 (Chicago, IL, 2026-06-04)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-26-00177</link>
      <description>In this small claims arbitration, an investor alleging that he suffered financial harm when Respondent broker-dealer failed to properly execute or display a pre-market sell order of 60 contracts of IWM 261 puts loses his case.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Wells Fargo v. Barrett, FINRA ID #25-02283 (Boston, MA, 2026-05-26)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-25-02283</link>
      <description>A non-appearing registered representative is held liable for the amounts due and owing under three Promissory Note Agreements he signed as part of his employment with Claimant broker-dealer.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Patel v. LPL Financial, FINRA ID #25-01034 (Portland, ME, 2026-06-01)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-25-01034</link>
      <description>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.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Larson v. Arete Wealth, FINRA ID #24-00957 (St. Louis, MO, 2026-05-29)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-24-00957</link>
      <description>In this Consolidated Selling Away case, two brokers and Respondent broker-dealer resolve all claims and Counterclaims (as well as their respective requests for monetary damages) in this matter and said brokers lose their requests for reformation of their respective Form U5 records.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Frail v. Truist Securities, FINRA ID #25-01393 (Charlotte, NC, 2026-05-27)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-25-01393</link>
      <description>Claimant broker prevails on his deferred compensation claim and is awarded over $656,000 in compensatory damages as well as reformation of his Form U5 record.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Dose v. Wells Fargo, FINRA ID #25-02191 (Omaha, NE, 2026-06-03)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-25-02191</link>
      <description>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 her 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 her Statement of Claim and is therefore ineligible for arbitration.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Lebedeva v. Interactive Brokers, FINRA ID #26-00124 (New York, NY, 2026-06-05)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-26-00124</link>
      <description>In this small claims arbitration, a customer alleging that Respondent broker-dealer's agent is contractually at fault due to bad fills relating to the slippage of SPX options trades loses her case.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>McGillen v. Morgan Stanley, FINRA ID #25-00629 (New York, NY, 2026-06-03)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-25-00629</link>
      <description>An Arbitrator grants Claimant broker's request for reformation of the Termination Explanation contained in Section 3 of her Form U5 record.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Vermillion v. Key Investment, FINRA ID #25-01158 (Portland, OR, 2026-05-28)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-25-01158</link>
      <description>Registered Rep loses his request for reformation of alleged defamatory information from appearing on his Form U5 record.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Carrano v. Merrill Lynch, FINRA ID #25-02200 (Portland, OR, 2026-06-04)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-25-02200</link>
      <description>A broker is granted his request for expungement of a customer complaint from appearing on his CRD record after the Panel found said complaint to be factually impossible under FINRA Rule 2080.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Cullina v. Fidelity Brokerage, FINRA ID #25-02837 (Providence, RI, 2026-06-01)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-25-02837</link>
      <description>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.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Stifel Nicolaus v. Cunningham, FINRA ID #26-00307 (Memphis, TN, 2026-06-03)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-26-00307</link>
      <description>A non-appearing registered representative is held liable for the amounts due and owing pursuant to a Promissory Note Agreement he signed as part of his employment with Claimant broker-dealer.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Hughes v. E*Trade from Morgan Stanley, FINRA ID #25-01797 (Dallas, TX, 2026-05-27)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-25-01797</link>
      <description>In this small claims arbitration, an investor alleging that Respondent broker-dealer is in breach of contract due to an execution error with respect to his investment in ULTI options loses his case.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>
        <value>Nelson v. LPL Financial, FINRA ID #25-01121 (Salt Lake City, UT, 2026-06-01)</value>
      </title>
      <link>https://www.arbchek.com/updatearbchek.html?utm_source=organic&amp;utm_medium=rss#ua-25-01121</link>
      <description>Broker loses his request for reformation of alleged defamatory information from appearing on his Form U5 record.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
