In burish group lawsuit the lawsuit filed by Dennis Hansen and his wife, the Burish group allegedly failed to disclose material information to clients. In doing so, the group breached its duty of care and violated the suitability rule. The couple lost $16.5 million. The lawsuit is set for arbitration in January 2021.
The Andy Burish Group lawsuit accuses UBS and its top Madison, Wisconsin advisor of violating a FINRA suitability rule and breach of fiduciary duty. The group is seeking $23 million in damages and unspecified punitive damages. They also claim that UBS failed to properly supervise the broker.
According to the lawsuit, Burish promoted short-selling Tesla stocks, causing investors to lose more than $23 million. A long-time industry veteran, Andrew Burish’s short-selling strategy was largely unsuccessful, resulting in losses of $23 million for four couples and one investor. The lawsuit also alleges breach of fiduciary duty and unsuitability.
UBS and the Andy Burish Group have denied any wrongdoing. The lawsuits were filed by Andrew Burish and his extended family. The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Courts at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. It will likely go to trial. If it goes to trial, the case will go to a jury.
Andy Burish is a renowned investment advisor who has been with UBS for over three decades. His team oversees over $4 billion in client assets. The lawsuit accuses the Andy Burish Group of breaching fiduciary duty and violating Finra’s suitability rule. He was terminated from UBS in 2018, and his former employees filed a lawsuit against the firm, alleging that he failed to act in their best interest.
UBS’s failure to disclose material information to clients
This lawsuit alleges that three UBS entities – PW, Warburg, and UBS AG – failed to disclose material information to their clients. Although these three companies are incorporated in different jurisdictions, the plaintiffs argue that all three entities constitute one single enterprise and therefore violated the Securities Exchange Act. The courts will decide whether or not the corporate form should be disregarded.
In this case, the Respondents who supervised the broker allegedly failed to disclose material information to the client, despite knowing that the broker had performed unauthorized trading. This was material information, because the trades were not permitted under internal guidelines. As such, the firm violated the SEC’s Rules and Regulations regarding the disclosure of material information to clients.
Breach of fiduciary duty
The Burish Group is under fire for promoting short-selling Tesla stock that led to losses of over $23 million. An extended family of investors has filed an arbitration claim with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority claiming the investment firm failed to oversee the investment and was unsuitable for its investors.
The plaintiffs claimed that the board and financial advisor failed to act in their duties as directors of the company. The court concluded that the financial advisor had misled the board and created an informational gap, knowing that they were making critical decisions with incomplete information. Moreover, the advisor failed to disclose his involvement in buy-side financing and the lobbying he had done to influence the financing. The financial advisor also erred in lowering Rural/Metro’s valuation to conform to the sell-side opinion.
In order to file a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit, it must be proven that the investment advisor’s actions caused the investor damages. You must show that the breach caused actual harm, based on the definition of “actual harm.” In other words, the damages must be foreseeable and caused by the breach of duty.
If you feel that your financial advisor has breached their fiduciary duty, it’s important to stop working with them. In addition, you may be able to file a civil lawsuit against them. Before deciding to file a suit, you should consult with an attorney.
Violation of suitability rule
In a recent arbitration case filed by the Burish Group, the brokerage firm UBS was accused of violating its suitability rule and breaching its fiduciary duty, among other things. The plaintiffs also claim the company failed to adequately supervise its brokers. Ultimately, the suitability rule requires brokerage firms to conduct proper due diligence and make appropriate recommendations based on the customer’s investment profile and risk tolerance.
The complaint filed by a group of investors against UBS and its top Madison, Wisconsin-based investment advisor alleges that Burish violated FINRA suitability rules by promoting the idea of short-selling Tesla stock. The investors are seeking $23 million in damages and unspecified punitive damages. They also allege that UBS breached their fiduciary duty by failing to supervise the broker and failed to supervise his actions.
Damages sought by plaintiffs
Plaintiffs in the Burish group lawsuit are seeking to recoup damages for wrongful stock trading that caused their losses. Andrew Burish has been in the investment industry for 38 years. He oversees $4 billion in client assets and leads a team of 14 advisors. A ‘Snapshot’ report maintained by state securities regulators confirms one client complaint against Burish, settled for $1 million of the $1.2 million sought.
The plaintiffs argue that the defendants were negligent. However, Digon does not dispute that she lacked reasonable care, and was not looking for Burish when she proceeded through an intersection. Moreover, the evidence supports the conclusion that Burish had adequate time to avoid the collision.
Andrew Burish is a 38-year industry veteran who began his career at UBS in 1984. He now runs a firm, The Burish Group, which employs 14 investment advisors and manages $4 billion of client assets. The Burish Group lawsuit claims that UBS breached its fiduciary duty and failed to supervise the firm’s investment advisors.