The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho denied a motion by UBS Financial Services Inc. (UBS) to vacate an arbitration award to one of its former advisors, Financial Advisor reports.
The decision upholds an order from a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel that UBS must pay $1 million to Boise-based Randy S. Anderson over his wrongful termination claim. UBS had filed in federal court in an effort to vacate the award.
Anderson, who had worked with UBS since 2012, claimed he was wrongly fired in 2020 and then defamed by the company, and also alleged that he had been the victim of age discrimination.
In its U5 termination notice, UBS said Anderson had made sell and buy orders without a client’s knowledge. He allegedly suggested in an email that the trades be made, but only after the orders had already been executed. UBS claimed he executed two sell orders totaling $190,000 on January 14, 2020 and executed four buy orders totaling $289,657 two days later.
The firm also said Anderson did not relay to the company an email of displeasure that the client had sent about the trades being put through without her knowledge.
Anderson countered that he had in fact discussed the trades with the client and made them after trying unsuccessfully to reach the client for final approval. He said he had taken the action to help the client avoid additional fees, adding that UBS’ outside counsel had told the client the trades were in their best interest.
In June 2025, two of the three FINRA arbitrators ruled in Anderson’s favor with the $1 million award. Anderson had sought nearly $4.4 million in damages. The majority also ordered that the termination notice that appeared on his BrokerCheck record be replaced with a more favorable description of the circumstances surrounding his departure.
“Claimant raised serious questions about the termination process including a prolonged time to terminate, the severity of the offense, potential disparate treatment of Claimant as compared to others at Respondent’s firm, and potential financial motivations for termination,” the majority wrote.
The two arbitrators added that UBS “failed to present competent evidence of the actual reason for termination.” Though the termination was based on unauthorized trading, the firm “conducted an investigation for which it claimed it waived privilege but then produced only redacted documents in material respects,” the panel said.
“Most troublingly, (UBS) informed the Panel and (Anderson) that a specific individual made the termination decision and that such individual would be testifying at the hearing. At the hearing, it became clear that the individual had long disagreed with the termination decision and only ‘agreed’ with it and executed after being informed of the decision actually made by more senior members of management, none of which were present at the hearing,” according to the arbitrators, who added that UBS did not produce any documents explaining the decision to terminate Anderson.
The panel said Anderson tried repeatedly to get UBS to provide discovery in good faith under FINRA rules as required. “In light of the lack of competent testimony to the termination decision and lack of transparency in the document exchange of documents and evidence, along with the serious questions raised above about the termination process, a majority of the Panel concluded that the termination was wrongful,” the award stated.
FINRA ordered that the reason for his termination should be changed on Anderson’s BrokerCheck page: “Discharged for violating firm policy of obtaining verbal authority at time of trade and failure to timely report customer complaint within two days with mitigating circumstances,” adding that the “client previously agreed to the trades in principle” and that the timing of trades was “intended to prevent the account converting to a brokerage account, which would have resulted in commissions.” It added that the “firm concluded [the] trades were in client’s best interest, [that the] client ratified the trades, [that the] advisor made no profit, and [the] advisor had [a] clean, multiple-decade record.”
Anderson also said on the BrokerCheck response page that the trades were in the client’s best interest “to avoid the client being charged additional fees.” He asserted that he did not financially benefit from the trades and that he was terminated more out of fear that he was being constantly courted by other firms and would take clients. He moved to Stifel Nicolaus at the end of 2020.
With regards to the age discrimination complaint, FINRA stated that Anderson “was above 60 years and the termination was disproportionately severe.”
In upholding the award, the federal court emphasized the high standard required to vacate arbitration awards and found that UBS failed to meet that burden.
UBS declined to comment on the matter and Anderson had not responded to a press inquiry at the time of publication.
Hyman Cotter routinely represents financial advisors and other registered representatives who were wrongfully terminated by their firm. Our attorneys take a thoughtful approach to clients’ cases by first trying to work with the terminating firm concerning the Form U5 disclosure. When necessary, our attorneys are prepared to file wrongful termination and defamation claims. We are prepared to assist when the circumstances surrounding your termination are wrongful. Contact Hyman Cotter at (833) 665-0784 or through our online contact form for a free consultation.
