United Capital is accusing Concurrent Investment Advisors of helping a former employee breach confidentiality agreements after she left United Capital following its acquisition by Creative Planning.
United Capital Financial Advisors filed a suit against the Florida-based Concurrent last week in a Florida court, alleging tortious interference and aiding in the breach of advisors’ fiduciary duty.
The suit centers around Tatiana Stratigaki, a former head of office for United Capital’s Boca Raton location, and her move from United Capital to Concurrent in 2023 (though Stratigaki is not named as a defendant in the complaint).
According to SEC records, Stratigaki entered the industry with Next Financial Group in 2002, followed by a decade at Girard Securities, and then registered with United Capital in 2014, as well as a three-year stint with Cetera.
In May 2019, Goldman Sachs acquired United Capital, transforming it into Goldman Sachs Personal Financial Management. According to the suit, Straigaki’s employment at United Capital was “enormously successful,” and she had “unique and privileged access” to the firm’s “most confidential and proprietary information.”
United Capital never found a home within Goldman Sachs, with several former employees criticizing Goldman Sachs’ top-down approach to United Capital’s operations. On Aug. 21, 2023, Stratigaki learned through a group meeting that Goldman Sachs was selling the business.
Several days later, Creative Planning announced that it would acquire the $30 billion firm.
In the suit, United Capital surmised that Stratigaki was “dissatisfied” with the prospect of working for Creative Planning and concocted a plan with Concurrent to solicit United Capital clients to move their assets.
Stratigaki resigned from United Capital in October 2023, allegedly with a job offer from Concurrent. However, United Capital claimed that Stratigaki signed employee agreements concerning notice of termination, trade secrets and client non-solicitation agreements that remained in effect for six months after her tenure ended.
United Capital found that within a month of her departure, clients representing approximately $1.5 million in managed assets left the firm, and within 16 weeks, the total had grown to $30 million. United Capital believed most of these clients moved their accounts and assets to Concurrent.
According to United Capital, restrictive covenants are “commonplace” within the “highly competitive” investment advisory business, claiming a firm’s success can depend on its ability to attain and keep client relationships.
“As many investment advisory firms enter into restrictive covenant agreements to advance these interests, Concurrent knew or should have been aware that contractual obligations like Stratigaki’s are ubiquitous,” the complaint read.
Concurrent declined to comment on the suit, as it is ongoing litigation.
In the suit, United Capital is seeking a jury trial, with potential damages “to compensate United Capital for all monetary and/or economic damages,” including disgorgement of profits and punitive damages.
