(August 28, 2020 – Los Angeles, CA). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued this ruling and judgment in a securities case that Brandon S. Reif and Marc S. Ehrlich of Reif Law Group, P.C. defended for Capital Synergy Partners, LLC. (David Kirkwood v. Financial West Investment Group, Inc., et al, Case No. 19-2231, 2020 U.S. App.LEXIS 24814 (4th Cir. Aug. 6, 2020).
As Reif stated, “Victims can take many forms, and this ruling shows that a securities firm can also be a victim of an investment scam. The court agreed with us that clever pleading, intending to inflame an emotion, is not a substitute for properly pleading an actionable claim.” Reif and Ehrlich represented Capital Synergy Partners (CSP) and argued that the District Court correctly granted CSP’s motion to dismiss Kirkwood’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and correctly denied Kirkwood’s motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery. On the pleadings, affidavits and evidence presented to the court, Kirkwood failed to make a prima facie showing that CSP’s contacts with the State of Maryland were ongoing and systematic to support the exercise of general personal jurisdiction or that Kirkwood’s injuries arose from CSP’s contacts with Kirkwood in the State of Maryland. Kirkwood also failed to make any showing that his request for jurisdictional discovery was justified. Reif Law Group, P.C. wishes to thank co-counsel Markun Zusman Freniere & Compton, LLC for this collective win.
In summary, Reif stated, “The securities firm cannot be held liable for the registered representative’s bad acts when not authorized and unknown to the securities firm, especially when the securities firm was conferred
no benefit.”
About Reif Law Group, P.C
Reif Law Group, P.C. is California’s preeminent boutique trial and litigation law firm for securities and business disputes. The firm prosecutes and defends court and arbitration actions involving securities, investments and real estate, professional liability, corporate and shareholder, financial abuse, workplace misconduct involving harassment, discrimination, recruitment and Form U5, and business disruption and restraining order actions involving non-compete, non-solicit and confidentiality clauses.
