Edelman Monetary Engines is dealing with a set of lawsuits from former advisors attempting to interrupt freed from what they deem “unenforceable” covenants limiting their actions after departing the agency.
However Edelman disputed this in a response to one of many lawsuits, accusing the advisor of “flagrant breaches of contract.”
Former Edelman advisors Jennifer Staben and Tim Dowden filed their complaints in California and Texas state courts, respectively. Dowden’s criticism argued that the non-solicitation and confidentiality contract he signed when working at Edelman is now getting used “to discourage him and different staff from in search of employment elsewhere.”
Staben’s criticism, filed earlier this month within the Superior Court docket of California, detailed how she joined Edelman in 2018 and rapidly signed an settlement with confidentiality and non-solicitation restrictions. After becoming a member of, Staben helped the agency rent a full-time customer support affiliate to help her in constructing a e book of enterprise.
In April 2023, Edelman instituted a coverage wherein advisors with lower than $100 million in managed property wanted to make use of a “CSA Pool” of associates not partnered full-time with specific advisors.
In keeping with the criticism, Staben mentioned the change led to a decline in customer support, and her work suffered, with Edelman clawing again compensation in 2023. She determined to go away Edelman, resigning on Feb. 16, 2024.
However Edelman knowledgeable her that almost all stipulations within the covenants have been nonetheless enforceable, leaving Staben (and others in comparable conditions) in a “dilemma,” based on the criticism.
“They’ll both adjust to overly broad and illegal restrictive covenants to keep away from being sued however, in doing so, danger violating the fiduciary responsibility they owe to their purchasers, or search to problem the overly broad restrictive covenants liable to being sued in order to completely honor the fiduciary responsibility they owe to their purchasers.”
Dowden confronted such a dilemma when opting to go away Edelman, based on his swimsuit filed in Texas District Court docket on Jan. 12.
After Dowden joined Edelman in December 2019, he additionally signed an worker settlement, based on the criticism. Whereas Dowden claims Edelman promised him about 50% of major leads within the Dallas space, the circulation of leads trickled to twenty% “with out discover or justification,” affecting Dowden’s compensation, bonuses and inventory income.
Dowden, who managed $154 million for 280 purchasers at Edelman, mentioned he felt “trapped” on this state of affairs, arguing the perceived scope of the covenants hemmed him in. In keeping with Edelman’s studying of the contract, Dowden was restrained from participating purchasers he offered providers to, and people he was “even offered details about” within the earlier two years, based on the swimsuit.
Within the criticism, Dowden famous that the agreements restricted him from speaking with purchasers to inform them about his departure in the course of the four-week resignation discover interval nor saying his departure “on public platforms.” To Dowden, this ran in opposition to the CFP Board’s Code of Ethics (Dowden held a CFP certificates).
Notably, he cited the CFP’s mandate that certificates holders have an obligation to supply purchasers with “any info that may be a materials change” or that will sway a consumer to proceed doing enterprise with that advisor or their agency. The advisor believed his resignation from Edelman simply certified as being materials.
“As a monetary advisor, Mr. Dowden has an impartial responsibility to his purchasers as their fiduciary to inform them of knowledge materials to the advisory relationship, significantly the announcement of his resignation from (Edelman) and his change of employment,” the criticism learn.
The CFP Board declined to remark “about pending litigation.” When requested whether or not the board thought-about covenants limiting advisors from contacting purchasers for a while in battle with CFP Code of Ethics mandates, no matter this case, the board once more declined to remark.
Each Dowden and Staben have discovered new work with the identical agency, Prime Capital Funding Advisors, based on SEC filings indicated on their IAPD profiles. Each advisors are already featured on Prime Capital’s itemizing of advisors on its web site.
Staben is being represented in courtroom by Michael Seitz, whereas Dowden is being represented by Mavish Bana and Scott Seifert. The three attorneys work at Spencer Fane, a Kansas Metropolis-based regulation agency that usually gives authorized providers for Prime Capital.
Attorneys for Staben and Dowden didn’t reply to requests for remark previous to publication, nor did representatives for Prime Capital Funding Advisors.
The twin fits detailed Edelman’s alleged ways at play when an advisor leaves, together with immediately shutting off all cellphone and electronic mail addresses to stop them from speaking with purchasers. Staben additionally accused Edelman of not telling former purchasers the place she had gone to work, even when the agency knew and the purchasers requested (Dowden echoed this in his criticism).
To Dowden, these alleged “draconian employment agreements” resulted from a interval of intense mergers and acquisitions funded by quite a few personal fairness over a number of years. Dowden believed these infusions of PE money left Edelman’s executives fixated on rising the agency’s property underneath administration “in any respect prices,” based on the criticism.
“As a part of attaining that aim, the executives at Edelman Monetary Engines are incentivized to make sure, by all means essential, that the purchasers serviced by a departing monetary advisor don’t observe their most well-liked advisor to a distinct agency,” the criticism learn.
Edelman declined to remark however mentioned it might proceed to “defend in opposition to the claims in these lawsuits.”
That protection is illustrated in additional element in a response Edelman filed in opposition to Dowden’s allegations final Friday. Within the counterclaim, Edelman accused Dowden of “flagrant breaches of contract.”
In keeping with Edelman, Dowden began working for Prime Capital earlier than tendering his resignation to Edelman. Dowden allegedly recreated an inventory of Edelman purchasers he’d beforehand serviced “on behalf of, or to the good thing about” his new employers at Prime Capital, and in doing so, broke the covenants he’d agreed to at Edelman.
“This info figuring out people as having important property to take a position and the power to make future investments shouldn’t be publicly obtainable and constitutes considered one of (Edelman’s) most precious commerce secrets and techniques,” the counterclaim learn. “(Dowden) used and disclosed this info to Prime Capital with out permission and in violation of the agreements.”
Each Staben and Dowden argue Edelman will pursue former advisors in courtroom to make sure the covenants are adhered to, a course of at present enjoying out in a current authorized tug-of-war between the agency and Mariner Wealth Advisors.
Edelman accused the RIA of encouraging advisors to interrupt their non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements after shifting to Mariner, claiming the agency was engaged in a “calculated marketing campaign” to steal Edelman’s enterprise. Mariner countered by accusing Edelman of utilizing the courts in a multi-year effort to stifle truthful competitors inside the trade. Edelman can also be in arbitration with a number of advisors who left the agency for Mariner.
However Edelman’s not the one agency coping with former advisors in search of to interrupt what they deem unfair covenants. Hightower is being sued in California federal courtroom by Darren Reinig, a former advisor who claims the restrictions in his contract make persevering with within the wealth administration house untenable.
Reinig claims he was the founding associate of Delphi Non-public Advisors, which Hightower acquired in 2019 and merged with one other California-based agency. However a number of years later, he opted to go away and this month registered a brand new RIA with the Securities and Trade Fee. Like Staben and Dowden, Reinig signed a contract together with confidentiality, non-compete and non-solicitation mandates when he started work at Hightower.
Reinig claimed the settlement certain him from beginning any enterprise that “Hightower (or any Hightower affiliate) could also be engaged in or could interact within the indeterminate future.”
In keeping with Reinig, Hightower argued that he’s not allowed to contact any “Hightower consumer,” which may lengthen to as many as 138 totally different companies in 34 states (in addition to these companies’ distributors, staff and contractors).
“Hightower’s place limits the power of potential purchasers to do enterprise with people of their alternative and makes it not possible for Reinig and/or third events to discern if, who, when, with whom and whether or not they would possibly interact in conduct with out operating afoul of Hightower’s purported contractual restrictions,” the criticism learn.
Hightower declined to remark, citing a coverage to not talk about pending litigation.
Regardless of these instances, Brian Hamburger, the CEO of MarkerCounsel and Hamburger Legislation Agency, mentioned his follow wasn’t monitoring any improve in these kind of instances in contrast with the previous, and felt there have been many features of an advisor’s relationship with their former agency that may have to be thought-about earlier than shifting to litigation. Max Schatzow, a associate with RIA Attorneys, informed WealthManagement.com that anecdotally he’d seen an uptick in these kind of claims, and suspected it was principally because of the development within the house.
“There are such a lot of extra aggregators and huge RIAs immediately than there have been years in the past,” he mentioned. “These companies have extra executives and staff topic to non-competes and non-solicits. I believe most wirehouses and their staff are topic to obligatory arbitration earlier than FINRA to resolve these kind of claims.”
