Primerica alleges Osaic Wealth raided branch office and poached six advisors

Primerica claims Osaic Wealth raided its West Virginia branch, paid cash to grab six advisors, and took their client data. 

A Georgia appeals court on October 14, 2026, vacated a trial court injunction that had blocked Osaic Wealth and Legacy Investment Advisors and Wealth Management from using confidential client data that Primerica claimed was stolen during the alleged raid. 

The dispute started on October 17, 2025, when six registered independent-contractor representatives resigned from a Primerica branch in Hurricane, West Virginia. According to the decision, they immediately joined Osaic and started selling financial products for the firm. 

Primerica sued on November 3, 2025, in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, alleging the departures were coordinated. The company claimed the defendants induced the representatives with cash payments to transfer customers’ investments to Osaic and join the two firms. Primerica also alleged the departing representatives accessed and downloaded large amounts of confidential customer account data from its IT systems - conduct the company characterized as a breach of both their contractual and legal duties. 

On November 20, 2025, Primerica filed an emergency motion for an interlocutory injunction - a court order to freeze the defendants’ use of the allegedly stolen data while the case played out - along with a request for expedited discovery. 

The defendants pushed back. Legacy, a West Virginia entity, moved to dismiss on December 5, 2025, arguing the Georgia court had no personal jurisdiction over it. Both defendants jointly moved to compel arbitration the same day, arguing that because Primerica and Osaic were both FINRA-registered broker-dealers, the dispute belonged in a FINRA arbitration forum, not state court. 

The trial court held a hearing on December 11, 2025, and granted Primerica’s motion - issuing the injunction and ordering expedited discovery. 

The appeals court found the trial court moved too quickly. Its order was “detailed in its analysis” of the injunction factors but made only “a single brief reference” to the jurisdictional challenge and the arbitration motion. The trial court had mentioned at the hearing that it believed it had jurisdiction under the Georgia Long Arm Statute, but that statute was “not mentioned in the actual order.” 

The appeals court vacated the injunction and sent the case back, directing the trial court to address both personal jurisdiction and the FINRA arbitration question before proceeding. It did not reach the merits and said its opinion did not preclude further appeals.