An appellate court in Georgia has thrown out a lower court's injunction that had prevented Osaic Wealth and Legacy Investment Advisors and Wealth Management from using confidential client information that Primerica claimed was misappropriated during a coordinated advisor departure. The October 14, 2026 ruling from the Georgia Court of Appeals sends the case back to the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, where a judge must first resolve questions of personal jurisdiction and whether the dispute belongs in FINRA arbitration.
The underlying dispute began on October 17, 2025, when six registered independent contractors resigned from a Primerica branch in Hurricane, West Virginia, and promptly affiliated with Osaic. Primerica filed suit on November 3, 2025, alleging that the resignations were orchestrated and that the advisors were induced with cash payments to move client accounts to Osaic. The complaint also accused the advisors of downloading large volumes of customer account data from Primerica's systems, which the company characterized as a breach of contractual and fiduciary duties.
On November 20, 2025, Primerica sought an emergency interlocutory injunction to freeze the defendants' use of the data, along with expedited discovery. The defendants countered on December 5, 2025, with Legacy moving to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Georgia, and both defendants jointly moving to compel arbitration, arguing that as FINRA-registered broker-dealers, the dispute should be heard in a FINRA forum rather than state court.
The trial court held a hearing on December 11, 2025, and granted Primerica's injunction, also ordering expedited discovery. But the appeals court found that the trial judge acted prematurely. The appellate panel noted that the lower court's order was detailed in its analysis of the injunction factors but made only a single brief reference to the jurisdictional and arbitration motions. The trial judge had stated during the hearing that jurisdiction existed under Georgia's Long Arm Statute, but that statute was not mentioned in the written order.
The appeals court vacated the injunction and remanded the case, directing the trial court to address both the personal jurisdiction challenge and the arbitration question before proceeding further. The panel did not rule on the merits of Primerica's claims, and it noted that its opinion does not preclude further appeals.
This case highlights the growing complexity of advisor recruitment disputes, especially when cross-state moves and FINRA membership are involved. For RIAs and broker-dealers, the decision underscores the importance of establishing clear jurisdictional and arbitration frameworks in independent contractor agreements. The ruling also serves as a reminder that courts will scrutinize emergency injunctions that may bypass procedural safeguards.
Industry observers note that similar disputes have been on the rise, as firms compete for experienced advisors. The case also draws attention to the legal risks of using client data during transitions, a topic that has been central to recent regulatory actions, such as the SEC's allegations against Linqto and the class action against Webull.
For advisors considering a move, the case serves as a cautionary tale about the potential legal consequences of taking client data. Firms like Osaic, which have been actively recruiting, may need to review their onboarding procedures to ensure compliance with FINRA rules and state laws. The broader trend of advisor movement, as seen in recent hiring announcements, suggests that such disputes will remain a focal point for the industry.
