JPMorgan Chase & Co. and a bank-based advisor who joined LPL have reached a truce in the first stage of a battle over client solicitation.
Alan C. Feutz, who is based in Deerfield, Illinois, and moved in June, agreed to abide by the terms of his non-solicitation agreements barring him from encouraging customers to move assets to LPL, according to a stipulated agreement reached on Thursday. In return, JPMorgan clarified that nothing blocks Feutz, who LPL said managed $725 million, from processing in-bound accou nt transfer requests or doing business with those who have already moved their accounts.
The bank agreed that the court “need take no action” on its request for a temporary restraining order, and both sides waived their right to a preliminary injunction hearing.
The agreement is a common first step that brokers take in seeking to resolve TRO disputes. By agreeing to an early stipulation, the case can proceed on an expedited basis in arbitration where JPMorgan will argue for damages and a permanent injunction.
Feutz did not admit or deny wrongdoing as part of the stipulation.
“The Stipulated Order merely confirms that Mr. Feutz will continue to abide by his lawful continuing obligations to JPMS,” Feutz’ lawyer James V. Garvey, who chairs the restrictive covenants group at Vedder, said in an email. “It is not an admission or concession that he has not met those obligations to date. He has,” he added.
“The merits of JPMS’ claims will now be adjudicated in the FINRA arbitration forum, Garvey also said, stressing that he and his client are confident of prevailing based on merits “once there has been a fulsome vetting of the evidence.” Garvey previously had said the bank’s “allegations against Mr. Feutz are unfounded,” and that he will defend against them “vigorously.”
JPMorgan filed its lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on July 15. As in dozens of other cases that the bank has filed in recent years, it alleged that Feutz retained confidential client contact information and used it to encourage clients to move assets to LPL in violation of non-solicitation agreements.
The bank alleged that he called former clients on their personal cell phones and told at least one customer that LPL has “a lot more investment choices” than JPMorgan, according to the complaint, which was filed by JPMorgan’s broker-dealer, J.P. Morgan Securities.
Another client allegedly said Feutz told her that her fees would stay the same if she moved her accounts to him, according to JPMorgan, which also claimed that clients with at least $146 million had transferred their accounts to him at LPL.
Feutz started his career with Dean Witter Reynolds in 1999 and worked at three other firms before moving to JPMorgan’s Chase Investment Services Corp. in 2005, according to BrokerCheck.
Facts Only
* JPMorgan Chase & Co. and an advisor joined LPL reached a truce over client solicitation.
* Alan C. Feutz agreed to abide by non-solicitation agreements barring him from encouraging customers to move assets to LPL.
* JPMorgan clarified that Feutz could process in-bound account transfer requests or do business with clients who had already moved accounts.
* The bank agreed not to seek a temporary restraining order.
* Both sides waived their right to a preliminary injunction hearing.
* Feutz did not admit or deny wrongdoing in the stipulation.
* JPMorgan filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on July 15.
* The lawsuit alleged Feutz retained confidential client contact information and used it to encourage clients to move assets to LPL in violation of non-solicitation agreements.
* The bank alleged Feutz called former clients and stated LPL had more investment choices than JPMorgan.
* The bank alleged a client claimed Feutz promised fees would stay the same if accounts moved to him.
* JPMorgan claimed clients with at least $146 million had transferred accounts to him at LPL.
* Feutz worked at JPMorgan’s Chase Investment Services Corp. in 2005.
Executive Summary
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and an advisor who joined LPL reached a truce regarding client solicitation in the first stage of a dispute. Alan C. Feutz agreed to abide by non-solicitation agreements prohibiting him from encouraging customers to move assets to LPL. In exchange, JPMorgan allowed Feutz to process in-bound account transfer requests or conduct business with clients who had already moved their accounts. The bank agreed not to seek a temporary restraining order and both parties waived the right to a preliminary injunction hearing.
This stipulation is described as a common initial step for brokers resolving temporary restraining order disputes. The agreement facilitates an expedited arbitration process where JPMorgan will argue for damages and a permanent injunction, while Feutz did not admit or deny any wrongdoing. Feutz's lawyer indicated that he will continue to honor his obligations, and the merits of the claims will be decided in the FINRA arbitration forum.
The underlying dispute arose from allegations by JPMorgan that Feutz used confidential client contact information to encourage clients to move assets to LPL, including comments about LPL offering more investment choices or maintaining fees. The case is set for adjudication in the FINRA arbitration forum.
Full Take
The negotiation framework reveals a strategic movement from immediate litigation threat to structured arbitration, suggesting a calculated attempt to manage liability while preserving leverage for future claims. The agreement establishes an operational truce—allowing transfers and business continuity—which serves the practical need to stabilize the immediate conflict (avoiding injunctive action) before fully engaging in the merits-based dispute over damages. Feutz’s lawyer’s assertion that he has met his obligations, without admitting guilt, shifts the focus from factual dispute resolution during this stage to future evidentiary challenges within the arbitration forum.
The dynamic between JPMorgan and Feutz highlights the tension between corporate control (JPMorgan's claims regarding confidentiality and solicitation) and individual professional autonomy (Feutz’s defense of continuing lawful obligations). The fact that the agreed framework immediately directs the matter to FINRA arbitration implies an acknowledgment by both parties, or at least a calculated path forward, that the core dispute is fundamentally one of interpretation of contractual relationship rather than pure factual discovery regarding past actions. This pattern suggests a reliance on established regulatory structures to resolve disputes where adversarial litigation might be overly costly or outcome-dependent.
The implications for agency involve the mechanism by which professional relationships are governed and penalized. When settlements prioritize procedural efficiency—agreeing to arbitration over public court battles—it underscores how complex financial disputes are managed through self-regulating bodies. The pattern of alleging specific client interactions suggests that regulatory actions often hinge on interpreting the scope of fiduciary or non-solicitation duties, rather than solely on tracing transactional mechanics.