In a substantial legal development, a court affirmed the validity of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) Six-Year Eligibility Rule in the Strickland v. Calton & Associates case. The sparkle of this confirmation is bound to ripple across the legal fraternities not just in the U.S., but globally.
The undercurrent of this case, FINRA Case #22-02233 – Strickland v. Calton & Associates, was a host of varied assertions made by the claimant. The bouquet of charges included breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, as well as negligent misrepresentation. All of these were erected in relation to her purchases of American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. (HTI) and American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust II, Inc. (HTII). Notably, the Statement of Claim was filed on September 29, 2022.
Given the global status FINRA enjoys and its pivotal role in oversight of broker-dealers, the confirmation of its Six-Year Eligibility Rule is significant for the legal community. It is crucial to note that this rule essentially imposes a six-year time limit for investors to file arbitration claims, offering a protective blanket to brokers and firms alike against age-old grievances.
While it is evident that the claimant was not successful in this case, it paints a clearer landscape regarding the jurisdictional barrier that FINRA’s rule can create. It not only defends broker-dealers from potential lawsuits leapfrogging over the time limit, but also provides a solid point of reference for future claimants. Equipped with this insight, legal professionals across the globe can engage in sound strategic planning, sharpening their understanding and approach towards suits pertaining to financial matters.