NEW YORK — In a decisive legal victory, Apex Clearing Corporation has successfully confirmed a $2.48 million arbitration award against Hui Zou following a breach of contract case tied to unpaid trading debts. The Supreme Court of New York County, Commercial Division, ruled on March 17, 2025, with Justice Andrew Borrok presiding.

This judgment comes after Apex Clearing petitioned the court to confirm a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration award dated December 6, 2023. With no opposition presented and all statutory requirements satisfied, the court granted the motion under CPLR § 7510.

The Case in Brief

The legal dispute arose from a series of financial agreements signed by Hui Zou, a former client of Mint Global Markets Inc. and Electronic Transaction Clearing Inc., doing business as Apex Pro. These agreements included a Clearing Firm Customer Agreement and a Margin Agreement, dated December 10, 2021.

Under these contracts, Zou agreed to repay any unsecured debit balances he incurred during trading activities. The agreements also included provisions requiring reimbursement for legal and collection costs. More importantly, both contracts featured mandatory arbitration clauses for resolving disputes.

When Zou allegedly failed to honor his financial obligations, Mint and Apex Pro initiated arbitration proceedings. Eventually, they assigned their claims to Apex Clearing through formal settlement and assignment agreements executed in 2023.

Arbitration and Judgment

Apex Clearing filed an arbitration claim with FINRA on April 6, 2023, citing a breach of contract. The claim sought compensation for Zou’s alleged unpaid trading-related debts. Despite being adequately notified, Zou did not appear at the arbitration hearing held on December 4, 2023. The hearing was conducted virtually by arbitrators Keely D. Parr and Ronald J. Colombo.

After reviewing the evidence, the FINRA panel awarded Apex Clearing a total of $2,480,592.49. This included:

• $2,448,915.25 in compensatory damages,
• $29,532.24 in attorneys’ fees and legal costs,
• $2,150 in filing fees.

FINRA formally served Zou with the award notice on December 6, 2023. Apex Clearing moved swiftly to enforce the award by filing its petition with the New York County Supreme Court.

The Legal Framework

The court relied on CPLR § 7510, which mandates confirmation of an arbitration award unless a valid ground to vacate or modify the award exists under CPLR § 7511. In this case, no such grounds were raised or found.

Justice Borrok affirmed that Apex’s petition met the statutory timeline. He emphasized that the award was issued by a duly selected arbitration panel and that service was proper. The court found no procedural or substantive errors that would prevent confirmation.

In his ruling, Borrok ordered the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in favor of Apex Clearing. The judgment includes the $2.48 million award, plus interest at the statutory rate of 9% per year from the award date until final payment. Additional court costs and disbursements will be added to the total.

Contractual Clarity and Enforceability

This case underscores the binding power of arbitration clauses in financial contracts. Both the Clearing and Margin Agreements outlined specific terms for dispute resolution. These clauses compelled the parties to submit disagreements to FINRA arbitration rather than pursue lengthy litigation.

Zou’s failure to appear at the arbitration hearing did not derail the process. According to the court, proper notice was provided. FINRA rules allow proceedings to move forward without one party, especially if they’ve been properly served and fail to respond.

The result affirms that financial obligations don’t disappear with silence. When contract terms are clear and legally enforceable, courts and regulatory bodies will act decisively to uphold them.

The Role of Assignments

An important element in this case was the formal assignment of claims. In 2023, Mint and Apex Pro transferred their claims to Apex Clearing via a Settlement Agreement and an Assignment and Assumption Agreement. This step ensured Apex Clearing had the legal standing to initiate arbitration and seek judgment enforcement.

Assignments like these are standard practice in financial disputes involving multiple parties. They clarify ownership of claims and streamline the legal process. The court acknowledged the validity of the assignment agreements and accepted Apex’s role as the rightful claimant.

Wider Implications

This ruling carries broader implications for the securities industry. It reaffirms the enforceability of arbitration awards, especially in cases involving high-value trading disputes. It also demonstrates the court’s willingness to enforce contractual remedies without delay, provided statutory procedures are met.

For firms like Apex Clearing, the judgment sends a strong message: clients who default on their obligations can and will be held accountable, even through multi-layered financial transactions.

For investors and account holders, the case serves as a cautionary tale. Agreements signed with brokers carry legal weight. Arbitration clauses are not just boilerplate—they can dictate how and where disputes are resolved, with binding consequences.

Closing Thoughts

The court’s decision in Apex Clearing Corp. v. Hui Zou confirms the integrity of arbitration as a dispute-resolution mechanism. It illustrates how financial firms can recover losses through structured legal processes when agreements are breached.

Justice Borrok’s swift and unambiguous ruling also reinforces New York’s status as a pro-business legal forum that upholds contractual obligations with rigor. For Apex Clearing, the judgment brings a long financial dispute to a definitive end—and signals that contractual clarity and timely legal action still win the day.

More: Latest National Business news