Case Number 1:
     A major Northern California company sought to downsize by offering their employees early retirement packages.  Financial advisors were allowed access to the company premises to give presentations and meet with prospective retirees. Dozens of retirees alleged that they were convinced by these advisors to take early retirement, and/or cash out their pensions, and turn those monies over to the advisors to invest.  The pension funds were invested into variable annuities.  The retirees lost most of their retirement money.

Result: Over 40 cases handled by Ms. Steuer in conjunction with her former employer were resolved by confidential settlements

Case Number 2:

     Wells Fargo Advisors sued one of its former financial advisors for $77,000.00 that was due on an unpaid promissory note.  The financial advisor counter-sued for wrongful termination and defamation on his Form U-5.

Result: A FINRA arbitration panel denied Wells Fargo Advisors' claim in its entirety and awarded the financial advisor $800,000.00 in damages plus $125,000.00 in attorneys fees on his counter-claims.  The panel also ordred the defamatory comment to be expunged from the financial advisor's Form U-5.

Case Number 3:

     A financial advisor placed all of the investment assets of an 83-year old widow into variable annuities, without informing her that he had done so, and under false pretenses. 

Result: The case was reso lved by a confidential settlement for an amount that exceeded the widow's capital loss. 

Case Number 4:  

     Adult children sued their deceased father’s financial advisor and his broker-dealer for assisting with changes to their father’s beneficiaries to the benefit of their stepmother.

Result: A FINRA arbitration panel order the financial advisor and broker-dealer to pay the children the entire amount they would have inherited prior to the changes, plus interest and costs  

Case Number 5:
     A financial advisor recommended illiquid real estate investments and a variable annuity for the accounts of a recently retired couple who wanted their monies to be invested conservatively.

Result: The case was resolved by a confidential settlement for an amount that was greater than the retirees’ capital loss.