Fidelity Brokerage Services has successfully obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) against former Vice President Adam Ritter. The order was granted by Judge Andrea R. Wood of the Illinois Northern District Court on August 21, 2025.
Ritter, who worked as a Financial Consultant for the firm, resigned on December 19, 2024. Shortly after, in April 2025, he became associated with competing firms NewEdge Capital Group and Cubit Wealth Management.
The complaint submitted by Fidelity claims that Ritter took or memorized sensitive customer information during his tenure, which he later allegedly used to recreate a client list and solicit business from former customers. While the firm admits there is no evidence of Ritter physically removing any records, it contends that he retained significant information in his memory.
Furthermore, several Fidelity clients reported receiving unsolicited messages from Ritter since his departure, indicating that he had access to their personal contact details and was actively seeking to win their business.
Fidelity asserts that these actions breach Ritter’s post-employment restrictive covenant as stated in his Employment Agreement, violate the Illinois Uniform Trade Secret Act, contravene common law principles, and infringe upon the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act.
The court evaluated the evidence presented and determined that Fidelity met the necessary criteria for a temporary restraining order. Consequently, the court issued directives restraining Ritter from:
1. Using, disclosing, or possessing any confidential information pertaining to Fidelity’s customers, which he had access to during his employment. This includes but is not limited to names, contact information, and financial details, unless directly provided by customers after his resignation.
2. Soliciting any business from former clients of Fidelity that he served or became acquainted with during his time at the firm.
However, Ritter is permitted to continue servicing customers who have already chosen to transfer their accounts to him at NewEdge or Cubit, provided he supplies Fidelity with a list of those clients.
In compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), when a TRO is granted, the party requesting it must provide security as deemed appropriate by the court to cover potential damages if the restraining order is found to be wrongful. Ritter proposed a bond of $100,000, which the court deemed reasonable.
As a result, Fidelity is required to provide $100,000 as security, either in cash or as a surety bond, to ensure that any damages Ritter may claim as a result of this TRO will be adequately covered.