The New York State Attorney General’s office and the Federal Trade Commission, both of which were responsible for settling a large number of Finra lawsuits, are currently attempting to limit any future changes that may affect the way these settlements work. According to the New York Attorney General, fire suits may only be used in two cases – fraud or securities claims – and only when there has been a determination that a financial institution is liable for the transaction in question.
While many find plaintiffs’ attorneys were more successful in winning their cases in the past than they are today, fighting can still be worth it, especially when a finra lawsuit is able to get more out of a settlement than a broker-dealer would be able to in a typical transaction. While some find plaintiffs’ attorneys have found this to be a good strategy, many other attorneys believe that finra litigation has gone too far. According to an Atlanta-area law firm, fighting may not be worth it at all.
According to an investigation conducted by an Atlanta-area law firm, brokers-dealers won a significant percentage of finra cases in 2006 than they did in 2005. Broker-dealer wins were 29 percent of the time in obtaining cases dismissed against the New York and Washington-based Federal Trade Commission. While the Federal Trade Commission may have its own success rate for dealing with fire cases, it has not always been successful.
In some instances, a broker-dealer could have won a case against the Federal Trade Commission, but chose not to fight. For instance, in one case, the Federal Trade Commission’s representative and attorney general counsel chose not to pursue the case because the finra plaintiff did not want to negotiate with them, or the company. In another instance, the Federal Trade Commission’s representative and attorney general counsel chose to not pursue the case due to a lack of evidence. In both of these cases, the finra plaintiff’s attorney had an opportunity to make the case go their way in court and fight on behalf of their clients.
In all of the cases, the case was settled for a large amount of money that was very important for the finra plaintiff’s attorneys, but that was out of reach for the finra. If the case had gone to court, the finra lawsuit may have been more expensive for their client. This was the case in which the Federal Trade Commission represented the finra plaintiff. in their decision not to pursue the case, because it did not prove that a financial institution was guilty of fraud or a securities violation.
In this case, it was the finra plaintiff’s choice not to fight to represent their case because they did not need to. It is important to note that if you are being represented by a firm litigation attorney, you should be aware that the firm lawsuit procedure is a very difficult process that can take several months or even years before a final decision is made. This means you may not have all of your questions answered or your attorney will not be able to answer your questions.
If you are represented by a lawyer, you may not get all of your questions answered immediately or have them fully understood at the outset of your meeting, so you will have to ask again later. Most finra lawyers will try to answer your questions and give you all of the information you need, but this means that they have to spend a significant amount of time in your office to do so.
When there are no other avenues available to you for a lawsuit settlement, or if you are unsure about whether you can receive a settlement because you do not qualify for a settlement, then the next best thing is to hire a lawyer who is experienced in representing finra cases. A lawyer who specializes in fire litigation is the most likely to get you a good settlement for your case and help you win your case at trial.