Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini analyzed a case in which Plaintiffs, attempting to overcome an earlier dismissal of their claims, alleged a conspiracy between an email archiving vendor and FINRA in support of their claims that data relied upon in a FINRA disciplinary action had been tampered with and was unreliable. The court found the conspiracy allegations speculative, conclusory and without the required factual support, and dismissed the case as to the email vendor. As to FINRA, the court found that the alleged conspiracy was merely a new theory of liability, based on the same facts alleged in the prior litigation, and was barred here under principles of claim preclusion.
Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator (SLC). The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication.
North vs. Smarsh, Inc. & FINRA, No. 16-1922 (D. D.C., 8/22/17)
*A conclusory allegation of conspiracy cannot establish personal jurisdiction over an alleged conspirator who has no other contacts with the jurisdiction.
**When there has been a final judgment on the merits in one case, the doctrine of claim preclusion prevents a party from litigating, in a second action, issues that were or could have been raised in the prior action.
In 2012, Plaintiffs North and Pompeo were the subjects of FINRA disciplinary actions. Without admitting or denying FINRA's findings, Pompeo entered into an AWC stating that he sent false and misleading emails to investors in a private...
