|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chronology of Court Case Against TD Ameritrade |
Click
here to add this page to your favorites folder! Laurent J. LaBrie v. TDAmeritradeDistrict Court for Baltimore, MD Civil Case #: 0804-0021814-2010 STATEMENT OF NO CONTEST TO THE ARBITRATIONSTATEMENT OF NO OBJECTION TO THE STAY1.Plaintiff acknowledges Defendant's desire to resolve this matter in arbitration as expressed in their Memorandum of August 5, 2010. 2.Plaintiff, Laurent J. La Brie, hereby submits this statement of his non objection to allowing arbitration to proceed and to resolution of this matter by arbitration rather than by lawsuit and to stay this litigation for a 60 day period ending November 1, 2010 but this non objection is conditioned on Defendant, within said 60 days, presenting to Plaintiff a confirmation from FINRA that FINRA has received the Claim for the $15,173.94 (and any further financial claims the Defendant has against the Plaintiff) which Plaintiff asserts is due to Plaintiff from the described transactions Defendant executed on behalf of Plaintiff. 3.WHEREAS Plaintiff is a resident of the United States of America; 4.WHEREAS it is Plaintiff's experience that applicable laws prohibit Plaintiff from opening a brokerage account in a country where Plaintiff is not a resident; 5.WHEREAS it is Plaintiff's experience that brokerage companies in the United States of America require their customers to sign account contracts having arbitration clauses similar to those referenced by Defendant in the aforementioned Memorandum. Such clauses typically dictate that any matters in dispute be submitted to arbitration and unfairly deprive customers of their right to submit matters to U.S. Courts having jurisdiction over the matter; 6.WHEREAS Plaintiff did not have a large enough asset base which might have given Plaintiff bargaining power to negotiate a bilateral agreement reasonably satisfactory to Plaintiff prior to signing the Account Application (i.e. Contract) unilaterally prepared and presented by the Defendant to Plaintiff for signature; 7.NOW, THEREFORE Plaintiff had no option but to agree to an arbitration clause such as is in the agreement that TD Ameritrade presented to Plaintiff upon Defendant's merger with Waterhouse Securities other than to discontinue investing in the public markets of exchange. Lack of access to the public market would have had a substantial detrimental affect upon the finances of Plaintiff and Plaintiff's family. 8.Plaintiff therefore files this No Contest to Defendant's request for Arbitration provided that the Plaintiff complies to the conditions stated above. 9.Further Plaintiff notes to the Court that Plaintiff has been attempting to resolve this matter with Defendant on a mutually satisfactory negotiated basis since March 2009, during which time Defendant made no mention of a desire for Arbitration. Plaintiff makes no objection to Defendant's request that the Court stay this case, but requests that, if satisfactory to the Court, such stay be on the conditional basis stated above at paragraph 2 so that Defendant will expeditiously begin such Arbitration proceedings to enhance the possibility that any amount due to Plaintiff will be determined and paid to Plaintiff on a more prompt basis. If Defendant does not present a confirmation from FINRA that FINRA has received the Claim within 60 days, Plaintiff requests the opportunity to reopen this Case and continue the Court proceedings. ________________________________ I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ____ day of August, 2010, a copy
of the foregoing STATEMENT OF NO CONTEST TO THE ARBITRATION,
STATEMENT OF NO OBJECTION TO THE STAY was mailed, first class,
postage prepaid to: ________________________________ Chronology of Court Case Against TD Ameritrade See stories of TDAmeritrade misappropriating funds from other investors: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
© 2009 |
|