Relmada Files Action Against Laidlaw & Company

 

PR Newswire recently reported on a legal action by Relmada Therapeutics against Laidlaw & Company and its two principal officers, Matthew Eitner and James Ahern. The complaint by Relmada alleges that Laidlaw divulged information about Relmada and its products designed to eliminate or reduce pain when used by p[atients. Laidlaw countered by claiming that they were brought in to help raise capital for Relmada and now Laidlaw should have a governing control of Relmada.
Relmada is a young company when compared to Laidlaw. Laidlaw traces their origins back 100 years. A glimpse of the 5-year chart of Relmada is frightening. Most skiers would lose control on the slippery slope of Relmada’s recent decline.
Relmada’s claim may be unworthy, but there is a great deal of contention between clients and brokerage firms. Laidlaw like all firms has had complaints but sometimes such complaints are not justified. The world of the novice stock broker is eerily similar to a used car salesman.
Management for both professions realizes that the novice brings family and friends as possible customers, and it is usual that sales can be made benefiting the novice salesperson. But this novice sales person does not know whether the car is a lemon or that the stock is a dud. In cases of customer disputes, it is usually the novice salesman who is criticized and pays the price for his well-meaning actions.
Unfortunately, investors expect too much from their brokers. Investors need to do a fair share of work on both selecting the brokerage firm and their possible choices for investment. The broker and the client, have a mandatory sit down meeting where the goals and the background of the client are discussed so that the broker may know of the client’s past trading experience and his financial status.
Original Article: