Advisors at the center of the continued legal battle between Ameriprise and Financial LPL are asking a federal court to stand lawsuit while the arbitration Finra continues.
Ten councilors in the heart of the arbitration procedures of the America of America who left that firm for LPL argued in a motion this week that they were not a party to an agreement between the two companies that allowed their personal equipment to be checked for client information evidence (the names of the councilors were edited in the document).
“The intruders have been captured between two corporate behemoths engaged in a massive and multid-ranking recruitment battle,” the move said. “Unfortunately, as a result, they risk occupying their intimacy and violating their rights.”
However, Ameriprise argued that the councilors were “completely misconceptional” of the forensic review of their equipment, with a spokesman arguing that it was made to protect the client's data.
“These councilors should seek LPL for their placement in this situation because of their illegal recruitment practices,” a US spokesman said.
The motion is the latest development in a legal fight between the two firms. Ameriprise continues to submit the order for the restriction order for the attempt to prevent councilors from joining LPL allegedly seeking former clients. Meanwhile, the LPL has claimed that Ameriprise is filming the frivolous lawsuit and “following the titles”.
Clash between firms It was more heated last month When the LPL argued Ameriprise had “immersed in a new low” by sending “misleading” notifications of data violations to intimidate LPL customers.
Ameriprise replied That the firm had to send letters for client data violations, whose information was allegedly exposed by former American councilors to be transferred to LPL.
In this constant lawsuit, Ameriprise accused the councilors who left the firm of holding personal information of clients illegally for personal equipment when they joined the LPL. In a court order, the two firms agreed to hold a “forensic -legal examiner” to investigate the request, including the equipment of potentially seeking advisers.
According to the latest motion, this left those nameless advisers caught in the fire, as they had not agreed on such a search. They claimed that they had not received any customer information they were not allowed, and received that information with America's consent.
“In other words, Ameriprise and LPL agreed – without notifying the councilors or providing them with any form of saying – that the personal properties of the councilors would be subject to a forensic review and information that advisers claim that they have a legal right to possess,” read in motion.
Moreover, the councilors noted that Ameriprise only followed the arbitration against them after the court order forced to analyze their personal equipment. The councilors believed that Ameriprise wanted to obtain information through that search for the next arbitration process.
“Councilors are not only required to deliver their personal property and accuse an invasion of their intimacy, but also to essentially allow the reinforcement of an arbitration process (including intervention and free and free arbitration),” read in motion.
According to a memorandum from a lawyer representing the councilors, Ameriprise opposed the advisors' motion to intervene, while the LPL did not oppose the appearance. LPL refused to comment before publication.
According to American spokesman Ali Mueller, the LPL agreed to the order to request the advisers' phones and has “the contractual obligation to force the councilors to respect”.
“The LPL knew completely well that the personal equipment of the councilors would be subject to forensic review when agreed on the order,” she said.