A federal judge in Arizona dismissed the Ameriprise attempt to a temporary detention order against some former employees who left to join the Financial LPL, writing that the firm's arguments are “insufficient to show success in the merits of the LPL claims”.
The order of US District Judge Susan Brnovich denies America's motion is the latest development in the case that includes the two main firms, which began when Jared Roskelley, Kyle Robertson and Matthew Tyne resigned in late January to join the LPL Financial.
Ameriprise filed a lawsuit a few weeks later, claiming that the Reps had violated the protocol for recruiting the broker with the promotion and support of the LPL. The agreement clarifies that information advisers can get when they change work; Both firms are signatories. LPL replied to that Ameriprise It was “tracking titles” trying to stain the firm and its new employment.
However, according to Brnovich's order, America's allegations fell little, “injecting incorrect uncertainties” into LPL claims that he had not received any information from Ameriprise.
“America's arguments fail to exalt his claims beyond simple speculation,” the command is read.
In her submission, Ameriprise claimed that the three outgoing employees had printed nearly 9,000 documents during a few days with confidential client information, apparently with photos and videos of the Reps leaving America with boxes, client packages and heavy bags, apparently filled with printed documents.
According to the judge's order, the Reps claimed that the printed pages were part of the posts sent to clients in a long practice “preaching their employment with Ameriprise.” They noticed that their branch manager authorized them to do so, even if they were not typical Ameripris practices.
However, reps denied holding any other document, despite the Ameriprise that speculated that the posts were sent so that the reps could “capture” them from customers to avoid protocol requirements.
“But the court cannot conclude that the individual defendants who send their clients, their account information in absentia more than speculation are in violation of the protocol or are not allowed as part of their work with Ameriprise,” Brnovich wrote.
According to Ameriprise, the court's ruling acknowledged that the case was “most appropriate” for the arbitrators of Finra. A strong spokesman said he would “look forward to presenting over the overwhelming evidence” in this case.
“Importantly, we have dominated in some other cases dealing with wild recruitment practices from LPL and its advisers that endanger the intimacy of clients – including a recent Finra arbitration decision in our favor and some federal court decisions,” the spokesman said. “We remain committed to protecting confidential information of clients.”
An LPL spokesman said the firm was “excited” by the decision.
“It is clear from the ruling that the court saw through the unfounded claims brought by America and that their efforts to remove independence from the councilors claiming that the ownership of their books was denied,” they said. “True independence prevailed here; we remain sure there will be in future issues.”
The clash during the leaving the trio is the latest in some lawsuits Ameriprise raised against the LPL, accusing the firm (and former employees) of similar actions.
In one case, Ameriprise accused former Washington Douglas Kenoyer-based employee of violating his contract when he left to join the LPL illegally seeking clients and receiving information to customers. However, Kenoyer called the lawsuit against him “the last Salvo in an economic war”.
As part of America's defense in the lawsuit against the three former employees, she noted that the finished arbitrators recently ruled Ameriprise against Kenoyer and LPL, giving an order when the procedures continue.
In the appearance, the arbitrators claim that Kenoyer was not protocol-protocol because he “pre-pasted with Ameriprise clients, demanded Ameripri advisers, asked the Ameripris advisers to precede the Ameripria clients, and to obtain confidential information that would be allowed to be allowed to protect the protocol, as if they were to be allowed. were allowed by protocol clients. “