UBS has again learned that courts have little interest in overturning multimillion awards handed down by industry arbitration panels.<\/p>\n
Processing Content<\/p>\n
UBS went down to defeat Thursday in its request for the vacation or reduction of a $95.3 million penalty handed down in March 2025<\/a> over one of its broker’s investment recommendations. A three-member panel overseen by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority hit UBS with that unusually large award after finding that an advisor named Andrew Burish had inappropriately recommended his clients short Tesla stock, or bet the shares would fall in value.<\/p>\n In the order<\/a>, Stephanie M. Rose, chief judge for federal court in the Southern District of Iowa, found that UBS had “failed to demonstrate that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority or so imperfectly executed its powers as to act contrary to public policy.”<\/p>\n Rose added: “In the absence of any statutory authority to modify or vacate, the Court must confirm the award.”\u00a0<\/p>\n A UBS spokesperson said the firm “is disappointed by the court’s decision, which we respectfully disagree with.”<\/p>\n Unhappy with FINRA arbitration? Now’s the time to recommend fixes<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n Stifel, UBS cases show courts’ reluctance to second-guess arbitration awards<\/p>\n UBS’ defeat follows closely on two other similarly rejected longshot attempts to get large arbitration awards overturned. In March, Stifel failed in its requested vacation of a landmark $132.5 million penalty<\/a> stemming from recommendations from a now barred broker named Chuck Roberts. Stifel has since said it plans to reach a settlement over the award, the largest ever handed down to retail investors in a FINRA arbitration.<\/p>\n Just over a week before that, UBS was defeated in a separate overturn attempt <\/a>aimed at a $1 million arbitration award in June over its firing of a broker named Randy Anderson nearly five years earlier. The judges in all these cases have noted that courts are usually very reluctant to second-guess decisions made by arbitration panels.<\/p>\n In the latest UBS ruling, Judge Rose noted that, “The Federal Arbitration Act ‘establishes a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements.’ \u2026 Consistent with that policy, a court’s ‘scope of review of the arbitration award itself is among the narrowest known to the law.'”<\/p>\n