April 16, 2009
File No. SR-FINRA-2009-008
From: James A. Dunlap Jr., Esq.
Affiliation: James A. Dunlap Jr. & Associates LLC, Atlanta, Georgia
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this long overdue rule change. As an attorney who concentrates his practice in the representation of public investors, I have had many a frustrating conversation with clients attempting to explain the inconsistencies in the CRD reporting system.
Imagine trying to explain to a lay person why a one sentence letter stating "Mr. X cheated me out of $20,000" is reportable, but a ten page Statement of Claim explaining in detail how Mr. X cheated me is not reportable if it only names Mr. X's firm as the actual respondent.
There are many reasons why a claimants' attorney chooses not to name a broker as an arbitration respondent, most of which have nothing to do with the broker's personal culpability, i.e. limiting the respondents'arbitrator strikes, limiting the number of defense counsel. etc.
I believe this change will go a long way toward enhancing the credibility of the public disclosure system.
James A. Dunlap Jr. & Associates LLC