Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC has obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) against a former Vice President, following allegations of misconduct after his resignation. The order was issued by the Honorable Andrea R. Wood of the Illinois Northern District Court on August 21, 2025.
Adam Ritter had been employed as a Vice President and Financial Consultant at Fidelity until his departure on December 19, 2024. Shortly after, in April 2025, he began working with competing firms, NewEdge Capital Group and Cubit Wealth Management.
Fidelity’s complaint accuses Ritter of taking or memorizing sensitive customer data while he was still with the company. This information reportedly included names and other confidential details that he later used to create a customer list and solicit business from former clients.
Although Fidelity admits there is currently no proof that Ritter removed any physical records, the company asserts that he retained key information in his memory. Furthermore, Fidelity has received reports from multiple customers who indicated that Ritter had contacted them directly via text, suggesting he still had access to their personal phone numbers and was attempting to persuade them to transfer their business to his new employer.
The complaint outlines several legal violations attributed to Ritter, including the breach of his restrictive covenant as specified in his Employment Agreement, as well as infractions against the Illinois Uniform Trade Secret Act, common law provisions, and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act.
The court found that Fidelity met the necessary criteria for issuing a TRO. Consequently, the order restricts Ritter from using, disclosing, or retaining any information regarding clients served during his tenure with Fidelity. This includes but is not limited to their names, contact details, and financial information, except for details clients may have voluntarily shared with him after his departure.
Additionally, the order prohibits Ritter from soliciting business from any Fidelity customer with whom he had contact while employed there. However, Ritter is permitted to continue working with clients who have previously agreed to move their accounts to his new firms, provided he submits a list of those clients to Fidelity.
In connection with the TRO, a key requirement under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) necessitates that Fidelity provide security in the form of a financial bond to cover potential damages should the court later determine that the TRO was unwarranted. Ritter suggested a bond amount of $100,000, which the court deemed reasonable. As a result, Fidelity is required to deposit this amount, in cash or as a surety bond, with the court to ensure adequate compensation for any damages Ritter might incur due to the restraining order.
This legal development highlights ongoing issues in the financial services industry concerning the protection of sensitive client information and the obligations of former employees regarding confidentiality. It underscores the need for firms to take definitive actions to safeguard their proprietary data and maintain competitive integrity in a challenging marketplace.