A federal court in California has ruled that J.P. Morgan Securities must pay the $4.25 million award an arbitration panel granted a former advisor who claimed he was wrongfully terminated over an expense-account dispute. Brent Bodner, now with Wells Fargo, alleged that the unit of JPMorgan Chase had used an expense-reporting error as a pretext to fire him and then poach his clients.

The dispute involved a $642.40 deli platter that Bodner ordered for a Super Bowl get-together with a client, a prospective client, and Bodner's business partner at his Beverly Hills home. The expense report, which his assistant prepared, mistakenly identified the location of the gathering as the restaurant, rather than his home.

J.P. Morgan said that was a violation of its hospitality policy and dismissed Bodner in May 2024. He filed a complaint with an arbitration panel convened by brokerage industry self-regulator Finra, which awarded him $4.25 million in damages plus interest. Bodner had been seeking $30 million and the expungement of the Form U5 J.P. Morgan filed describing the circumstances of his dismissal.

J.P. Morgan says it "appreciates the court's time and attention to this matter," but contends that it did nothing improper in its U5 filing.

"We respectfully disagree with the decision," the company says. "JPMorgan maintains that it complied with Finra's mandatory regulatory reporting requirements and then Finra wrongly punished JPMorgan for doing so."

The arbitration panel had recommended that Bodner's Form U5 be changed to describe his departure from the company as "voluntary," which J.P. Morgan had asked the court to overturn, in addition to vacating the monetary award. Ahead of this week's ruling, J.P. Morgan and Bodner agreed to a modification of his Form U5 to read that the parties "separated on May 29, 2024," which the court said was a more accurate description.

Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. of California's Central District said that while J.P. Morgan had "raised serious challenges to the arbitration award," federal law provides substantial deference to the decisions of arbitration panels and the firm hadn't produced sufficient evidence to warrant overturning the monetary award.

"Federal courts rarely vacate arbitration awards," the judge wrote. "This is not one of those rare occasions."

Write to advisor.editors@barrons.com