Arbitrator Due Diligence

  • The smartest and fastest way to search arbitrators.
  • ARBchek distills nearly 55,000 Awards into Summary charts.
  • Award summaries display 20+ information fields for easy analysis.
  • Awards Plus feature offers relevant content beyond the Award.
Create Account View Demo Videos
New Award Brief
View these summaries of just-released Awards, hot off the press, as well as some selected Awards of interest.

UPDATE: ARBchek UA 2026-01 SELECTED AWARDS OF INTEREST

1. Boustead Securities v. Pono Capital FINRA ID #25-01407 (Los Angeles, CA, 2025-12-09) – In this Rule 13801 default judgment case, a broker-dealer is awarded over $2.6 million in damages from an inactive, terminated FINRA member firm relating to its breach of contract claim. Please Note** Claimant's causes of action were originally alleged against Respondent broker-dealer in FINRA Arbitration Case Number 24-00936.

2. Thatcher v. Merrill Lynch FINRA ID #25-00690 (Los Angeles, CA, 2025-12-17) – A broker loses his request for expungement of two customer complaints from his CRD record with prejudice after the authorized representative of the state securities regulator for California opposed said relief. Also, the Panel's decision to award expungement relief was not unanimous as one Arbitrator found that Claimant failed to file his case within the time specified in Rule 13805 of the Code.

3. Toler v. Edward Jones FINRA ID #25-01157 (St. Louis, MO, 2025-12-08) – An Arbitrator grants Respondent broker-dealer's Pre-Hearing Motion to Dismiss pursuant to FINRA Rule 13206(a) (Six-year Eligibility Rule for Industry Disputes) and denies Claimant's request for reformation of his Form U5 record finding that the event or occurrence giving rise to the filing took place more than six years prior to the submission of the current arbitration.

4. Baskin v. UBS Financial FINRA ID #19-02094 (Nashville, TN, 2025-12-23) – A customer (individually and as trustee of the Baskin Investment Trust) alleging that a delay occurred with respect to the liquidation of its assets and seeking $7.5 million in damages loses his case against Respondents. However, one Arbitrator disagreed from the majority and would have awarded the customer nearly $3.8 million in damages relating to the delay in the sale of the assets and the unsuitability of the investment. Respondent broker loses his request for expungement of this matter from his CRD record with prejudice.

  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
Previous Next