.

Samuel E. Cohen

Chair, Securities and Investments Professional Liability Practice Group

Portrait of Samuel E. Cohen

As Chair of the Securities & Investments Professional Liability Practice Group, Sam represents broker-dealers, registered representatives and registered investment advisors in state and federal court and in Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration proceedings. Sam also represents broker-dealers, registered representatives and registered investment advisors before state and federal regulatory authorities as well as in FINRA investigations, examinations, inquiries and enforcement matters. As well, Sam represents registered representatives in FINRA expungement proceedings. Sam's practice also includes the defense of life insurance agents and brokers, real estate agents and title agents.

From 1996 through 1997, Sam served as a law clerk to the Honorable G. Craig Lord in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Sam graduated from Temple University in 1993 where he received a Bachelor of Business Administration and subsequently his juris doctor in 1996 from Temple University School of Law. At Temple Law School, Sam served as the vice president of his graduating class.

In 2019 Sam was appointed to serve on the Special Olympics PA-Philadelphia Executive Advisory Board. The Executive Advisory Board assists Special Olympics PA-Philadelphia by opening doors to key community and corporate contacts, raising funding for the program, providing high-level support of its strategic objectives and in general, advocating on behalf of its athletes and mission.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 1996)
    • Temple University (B.B.A., 1993)
    • New Jersey, 1996
    • Pennsylvania, 1996
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2005-2008)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Special Olympics Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Executive Advisory Board, 2019-Present
    • Best Interest Reviews: Decoding FINRA Rule 2330 (Variable Annuities), Financial Services Institute OneVoice Conference, January 28, 2025 
    • Outside Business Activities: Overview and Best Practices for Broker-Dealers, 7th Annual CNA Life Agent and Broker-Dealer Conference, October 5, 2023
    • Educational and Technology Tools that May Save You in the Long Run if You Are Named in an Arbitration/Lawsuit, IBDC (Independent Broker Dealer Consortium) Annual Risk Management Conference, May 8, 2023
    • Hiring with Caution: How One Bad Apple Can Spoil Your Business, Alternative & Direct Investment Securities Association (ADISA) Annual Conference and Trade Show, October 11, 2022
    • Claims Involving Life Insurance Impacting Life Agents and Broker-Dealers, Independent Broker Dealer Consortium (IBDC) Annual Conference, September 2021
    • Current Issues Facing Broker-Dealers, Registered Investment Advisors and Their E&O Carriers, Client seminar, June 22, 2021
    • Reconciling SEC and FINRA Examinations in Complex Products and Business Practices. Independent Broker Dealer Consortium 10th Annual Risk Management Conference in Amelia Island, Florida, October 2018.
    • Department of Labor Fiduciary Rule, Delaware County Estate Planning Council, September 2017
    • Reducing Regulatory Exposure: Properly Preparing for FINRA and SEC Regulatory Examination, Independent Broker-Dealer Consortium Annual Conference, September 2017
    • Protecting Seniors, A Priority for FINRA, State and Federal Legislators, and Arbitration Panels, 2016 Cadaret, Grant Advisor Forum, October 21, 2016
    • Legislative Update on Issues of Concern to Financial Advisors and Independent Broker Dealers, Financial Services Institute, April 2010
    • "DOL's Retirement Security Rule Imposes New Fiduciary Standards on Financial Services, Insurance Industries,"The Legal Intelligencer, May 10, 2024
    • "FINRA Proposal Creates Urgency for Brokers Seeking Expungement of Customer Complaints,"The Legal Intelligencer, May 4, 2023
    • "FINRA, the SEC and Congress Aim to Safeguard Senior Investors,"The Legal Intelligencer, May 12, 2022
    • "FINRA Proposes Rule to Streamline Broker/Dealers’ Oversight of Outside Business Activities", Aon Advisor Solutions, Summer 2018 Newsletter 
    • “Protecting Seniors: A Priority for FINRA, Federal and State Legislators, and Arbitration Panels,” Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 3, September 2016
    • "Protecting Seniors: A Priority for FINRA, Federal and State Legislators, and Arbitration Panels," Financial Services Institute newsletter, July 2016
    • Legal Updates for Securities, regular contributor, 2015-present
    • "Bum Rap? Wrap Fee Programs Under Scrutiny," Westlaw Journal: Securities Regulation & Litigation, October 2014
    • Case Law Alerts, regular contributor, 2012-present
    • "FINRA Requests Comment On Brokercheck Enhancements," Defense Digest, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 2012
    • "Covenants Not To Compete: Why You May Not Be Able To Work For Your Employer's Competitors," co-author, AgentsofAmerica.org, January 13, 2009
    • "FINRA Moves to Limit Dispositive Motions In Arbitration," PLUS Journal, Volume XXI, Number 1, January 2008
    • "NASD Approves Merger With The New York Stock Exchange," Defense Digest, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2007
    • "Injured Plaintiff Has No Direct Action Against Tortfeasor's Insurer for Bad Faith," Pittsburgh Legal Journal
    • "Customer Account Statements Must Include Reminder To Customers To Report Inaccuracies In Their Accounts In Writing," Defense Digest, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2007
    • "529 Plans: Tax Free Withdrawals Now Permanent, But Regulatory Concerns Remain," Defense Digest, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2007
    • "U.S. Supreme Court Continues Its Strong Support Of Arbitration," Defense Digest, Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2006
    • "Agreements To Arbitrate Upheld By Pennsylvania State And Eastern District Court Despite Alleged Confidential Relationship Between Plaintiff Investors And Defendant Stockbrokers," Defense Digest, Vol. 11, No. 3, September 2005
    • "Judge Reversed On Order Compelling Court Action To Arbitration," Defense Digest, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2004
    • "NASD Reminds Firm Of Their Discovery Obligations," Defense Digest, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2004
    • "NASD Members Are Warned To Give Investors Their Required Breaks," PLUS Journal, September 2003, Vol. XVI, No. 9 and Defense Digest, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2003
    • "Injured Plaintiff Has No Direct Action Against Tortfeasor's Insurer For 'Bad Faith'," Pittsburgh Legal Journal, June 9, 1998
    • "No Assignment -- No Excess Garnishment," Defense Digest, Vol. 4, No. 3, June 1998
    • Defense award obtained on behalf of our client, a registered investment advisor, in a FINRA arbitration involving alleged mismanagement and lack of transparency concerning a Donor Advised Fund. The arbitration panel denied the claims in their entirety and recommended expungement of the claim from our client's registration records.  
    • Defense award obtained in a binding FINRA arbitration in Columbus, Ohio on behalf of a financial advisor. The Claimant alleged unauthorized trading and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with individual stock trades. The Claimant further alleged breach of fiduciary duty in relation to the financial advisor’s recommendation that the account be changed from a commission based to an advisory fee-based account.
    • Defense verdict obtained on behalf of a broker dealer in a FINRA arbitration alleging over concentration in energy and precious metals investments. 
    • Defense verdict obtained on behalf of broker-dealer in arbitration in a suit brought by two retired broker Claimants who sought $5 million dollars in past and future benefits under a retirement program which paid override fees to retired brokers on books of business the retired brokers had developed decades ago.
    • Expungement recommendation obtained in FINRA arbitration on behalf of financial advisor involving investment losses in an advisory account.
    • Defense verdict obtained on behalf of a registered investment advisor and broker-dealer following a four day jury trial in Schuylkill County.  The registered investment advisor and broker dealer were sued by their former client for investment losses.  The Plaintiff was a paraplegic whose wealth was obtained through a jury verdict and settlements related to his injuries.  The case was defended on the basis that the registered investment advisor met the standard of care and did not breach any duties owed to the Plaintiff, as well as the fact that the Plaintiff was net profitable in his investments.  The Plaintiff sought to "cherry pick" losing investments from an overall profitable portfolio.  
    • Defense verdict obtained on behalf of a broker-dealer and a broker in a FINRA arbitration in New York. The Claimant, owner of a broker-dealer, alleged he was being charged an unreasonable mark-up on municipal bond sales and that he was the victim of elder abuse. In granting the motion to dismiss, the arbitration panel found that the Claimant failed to present a basis for his claim and recommended expungement of all references to the arbitration from the broker's records maintained by FINRA on the grounds that the claim, allegation or information was factually impossible or clearly erroneous. As well, the panel found the mark-ups on the municipal bonds sold to Claimant were not unfair or unreasonable and were not inconsistent with industry regulations.  
    • Defense verdict obtained on behalf of broker-dealer in FINRA arbitration where the customer alleged that a violation of her privacy had occurred, as well as asserting claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and breach of contract.
    • Defense verdict obtained on behalf of a broker-dealer and broker in FINRA arbitration alleging unsuitability and securities fraud in sale of a variable annuity. The defense was presented on the grounds that the variable annuity was suitable to the investment objectives of the customer and that any losses sustained by the customer were market related. 
    • Defense of broker-dealer in "selling away" case in FINRA arbitration alleging failure to supervise broker who allegedly operated a Ponzi scheme while affiliated with the broker dealer. Defense proceeded on the grounds that the broker-dealer's supervision of the broker was reasonable and that the Plaintiff did not sustain any losses in his investment in the scheme. Defense verdict obtained.
    • Motion to dismiss, with prejudice, granted in FINRA arbitration based upon Plaintiff customer's repeated discovery violations. Motion to dismiss upheld in federal district court following petition to vacate arbitration award filed by Plaintiff customer. Motion to dismiss granted in FINRA arbitration based upon FINRA Eligibility Rule.
    • Defense verdict obtained in FINRA arbitration on behalf of broker and broker-dealer where the public customer alleged that she was not properly advised regarding the tax implications resulting from a premature withdrawal from a variable annuity in a IRA account.
    • Motion to dismiss granted on behalf of title insurance agent in Federal civil RICO case.
    • Expungement obtained in FINRA arbitration on behalf of broker in case involving suitability of non-publicly traded REITs.
    • Dismissal on behalf of real estate agent in seller's disclosure case.
    • Dismissal on behalf of supervising life insurance general agent in wrongful termination case.
    • Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted on behalf of title insurance agent in real estate fraud case.

Results

Thought Leadership

DOL's Retirement Security Rule Imposes New Fiduciary Standards on Financial Services, Insurance Industries

May 10, 2024

Like many recent DOL rules related to retirement investing, the retirement security rule is polarizing and is sure to face significant legal challenges, including from the insurance industry to whom the rule applies a new, heightened duty.

Legal Updates for Securities and Investments

FINRA Announces Effective Date for New Procedures for Expungement Requests

August 16, 2023

On August 11, 2023, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 23-12, which offers guidance on recent rule amendments to FINRA Rules 12800 and 12805 related to the expungement of customer dispute information from BrokerCheck.  The below rule amendments become effective on October 16, 2023.  Straight-in requests (an expungement where a broker files an arbitration case against their current or former brokerage firm requesting the expungement of a client complaint) be decided by a three-person panel that is randomly selected from a roster of experienced public arbitrators with enhanced expungement training (Special Arbitrator Roster); Prohibit parties to a straight-in request from agreeing to fewer than three arbitrators to consider their expungement requests, striking any of the selected arbitrators, stipulating to an arbitrator’s removal, or stipulating to the use of pre-selected arbitrators; Provide notifications to state securities regulators of all requests to expunge customer dispute information and a mechanism for state securities regulators to attend and participate in expungement hearings in straight-in requests; Impose strict time limits on the filing of straight-in requests; Specify procedures for requesting expungement of customer dispute information during simplified customer arbitrations; Codify and update the best practices in the Notice to Arbitrators and Parties on Expanded Expungement Guidance (Guidance) applicable to all expungement hearings, which include establishing additional requirements for expungement hearings, facilitating customer attendance and participation in all aspects of the expungement hearings and codifying the panel’s ability to request any evidence relevant to the expungement request; Require the unanimous agreement of the panel to issue an award containing expungement relief; and Establish procedural requirements for filing expungement requests, which include on-behalf-of requests. Brokers with old or dated customer disputes on their BrokerCheck report which are not part of an existing arbitration claim should consider filing an expungement before October 16, 2023, to avoid the forthcoming onerous expungement proceeding requirements.      Legal Update for Securities Litigation – August 16, 2023, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.