Morgan Stanley and adviser win lawsuit over annuity distribution

The judge said the adviser erred in recommending a lump-sum distribution, but barred plaintiffs from recovery because they were also negligent

Jan 8, 2018 @ 2:07 pm

By Greg Iacurci

Morgan Stanley has prevailed in a lawsuit alleging the company and one of its advisers acted negligently when it told clients to take a particular type of annuity distribution, which cost the clients nearly $300,000 in tax liabilities.

While the judge in the case, Berkenfeld et al v. Lenet et al, said the Morgan Stanley investment adviser did indeed give advice that was "erroneous" and "negligent," state law in Maryland barred the clients from recouping any damages because the clients' own negligence contributed to their ultimate losses.

"The firm is pleased with the court's decision," said spokeswoman Christine Jockle. She declined further comment on the lawsuit.

David E. Fink, the attorney for plaintiffs, declined comment due to the likelihood of an appeal.

(More: New York State proposes 'best interest' standard for life insurance and annuities)

The plaintiffs — Brandon Berkenfeld, Barbara Holland-Eytan and Sandra Ricki Diamond — filed suit in Maryland district court against Morgan Stanley adviser Gary R. Lenet in April 2016.

The plaintiffs were equal beneficiaries of two annuities owned by a recently deceased relative, Claire Blumberg. They incurred roughly $287,000 in tax liabilities after Mr. Lenet advised that they should take lump-sum annuity distributions, plaintiffs alleged. They contend the adviser "specifically and incorrectly" said there were no other distributions available to them.

Judge Paula Xinis agreed with plaintiffs. However, she ruled in favor of Morgan Stanley and Mr. Lenet due to plaintiffs' "contributory negligence," according to the Jan. 4 ruling.

(More: Complexity of new indexed annuities causing concern)

Contributory negligence, defined as the "failure to observe ordinary care for one's own safety," bars recovery for plaintiffs according to Maryland state law, according to the court document.

Plaintiffs, who themselves are annuity investors, ignored readily available information such as annuity documents describing alternative distribution options, and also failed to seek out independent tax advice before taking the lump sum, despite Mr. Lenet's recommendation that they do so, Ms. Xinis said.

Further, the forms plaintiffs completed to elect a lump-sum distribution "clearly identified" the other distribution options available, and required plaintiffs to select one of the choices, according to the court order.

(More: Advisers fear private equity's reach into variable annuities)

"No reasonable finder of fact could ignore that plaintiffs' own dereliction in failing to read the relevant forms and seek advice on the tax implications of their decisions contributed to their losses," the judge wrote. "Accordingly, plaintiffs cannot recover from Lenet as a matter of law."

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video

INTV

Children of AI, and when they are coming to financial advice

Technology reporter Ryan Neal talks about the tremendous progress in artificial intelligence in other industries, and how its applications are slowly making headway in the advice sector.

Latest news & opinion

SEC advice rule: Here's what you need to know

We sifted through the nearly 1,000-page proposal and picked out some of the most important points.

Cadaret Grant acquired by private-equity-backed Atria

75-year-old owner Arthur Grant positions the IBD for the 'next 33 years.'

SEC advice rule seeks to tighten reins on brokers

The proposed rule puts new restrictions on brokers, but it is still unclear how strongly the SEC is clamping down.

SEC advice rule hearing updates

Commission says a lot of work ahead, public will have 90 days to comment.

SEC advice proposal unveiling: Here's what to expect

Chairman Jay Clayton will initiate momentous action Wednesday, as the commission meets to debate a rule on broker and adviser standards.

X

Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting investmentnews.com? It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist investmentnews.com

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print