Fidelity Brokerage Services secures restraining order against former VP
Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC has secured a temporary restraining order (TRO) against its former VP Adam Ritter.
On August 21, 2025, the Honorable Andrea R. Wood of the Illinois Northern District Court granted Fidelity’s motion for the order.
Adam Ritter served as a Vice President, Financial Consultant at Plaintiff Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC until his resignation on December 19, 2024.
Four months later, in April 2025, Ritter became affiliated with Fidelity competitors NewEdge Capital Group and Cubit Wealth Management.
In its complaint, Fidelity alleges that before leaving Fidelity, Ritter took or memorized confidential customer information, including client names, to which he had access during his employment.
Fidelity claims that Ritter later used that information to reconstruct a customer list and solicit former clients.
Fidelity acknowledges that it does not currently have any evidence indicating that Ritter physically removed electronic or paper records. Rather, Fidelity asserts that Ritter retained the information in his memory.
It further claims that multiple Fidelity customers have reported receiving text messages from Ritter since his departure from the firm, confirming he had their personal phone numbers and was seeking their business.
Fidelity contends that this conduct constitutes a breach of Ritter’s post-employment restrictive covenant in his Employment Agreement, violates the Illinois Uniform Trade Secret Act, 765 ILCS 1065/1 et seq., violates several requirements of Illinois common law, and violates the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831 et seq.
The Court concluded that Fidelity has satisfied the requirements for a TRO.
Accordingly, the Court entered an order temporarily restraining Ritter from:
- Using, disclosing, transmitting or continuing to possess for any purpose, the information contained in the records of Fidelity regarding those Fidelity customers who Ritter served or whose names became known to him while in the employ of Fidelity, including, but not limited to, the names, mailing addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and confidential financial information of those customers (excluding information provided to Ritter directly by customers after his resignation from Fidelity); and
- Soliciting or inducing, whether directly or indirectly, and whether alone or in concert with others, any business from any customer of Fidelity who he served or whose name became known to him while he was in the employ of Fidelity.
Ritter may, however, continue servicing the customers who have already decided to transfer their business to Ritter at NewEdge or Cubit once he provides Fidelity with a list of those customers.
Finally, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), when granted a TRO, the moving party must “give security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”
In this case, Ritter proposed a $100,000 bond. The Court found that request reasonable.
Accordingly, Fidelity is required to deposit with the Court $100,000, either cash or surety bond, as security, which amount is seen as adequate for the payment of such damages as Ritter may be entitled to recover as a result of a wrongful restraint.
