Judge denies Merrill Lynch bid to restart OpenArc/Dynasty lawsuit

Patrick Donachie Thu, July 23, 2026 at 9:36 AM PDT | 3 min read

A federal judge has ruled against Merrill Lynch’s efforts to resume paused litigation involving OpenArc Corporate Advisory, a massive $129 billion breakaway firm affiliated with Dynasty Financial Partners.

In its motion, Merrill argued that the case against OpenArc, its key players, and Dynasty should be restarted because Dynasty was reneging on alleged promises to participate in FINRA arbitration proceedings related to the dispute.

Dynasty countered that it had made no such promise and that the wirehouse had misinterpreted an earlier order by the federal judge, which paused litigation while the parties pursued arbitration.

In this week’s ruling, Atlanta District Federal Judge Victoria Calvert sided with Dynasty, stating that while Merrill Lynch “may have assumed that all of the parties were going to arbitration,” the earlier order was “plainly limited.”

Background of the Dispute

The conflict began last fall when Erik Bjerke and other principals in Merrill’s Global Corporate and Institutional Advisory Services team grew frustrated with what they described in court documents as Merrill’s lack of investment in the division.

After years of negotiations, they launched OpenArc, a $129 billion Atlanta-based RIA, majority-owned by senior leadership with minority backing from Dynasty. The firm launched as a mega-RIA that would typically take years—and multiple acquisitions—to create.

OpenArc moved to independence with Dynasty support as a single team, comprising:

• 77 advisors
• 95 corporate clients
• More than 10,000 individual and family relationships

Merrill’s Legal Response

Merrill quickly filed a federal lawsuit in Georgia, alleging that OpenArc leadership had launched a premeditated “corporate raid” when starting the new firm and had breached non-solicitation contractual obligations, including by taking client information. The suit also named Dynasty and firm custodian Charles Schwab as defendants.

The federal judge denied a temporary restraining order. According to court documents, the case was paused last fall after the parties allegedly agreed to resolve the issues in FINRA arbitration.

In March, Merrill moved to reopen the case, claiming Dynasty had “reneged” on an agreement to arbitrate.

Dynasty’s Defense

Dynasty accused the wirehouse of legal “sleight of hand,” arguing that it was never a party to the agreement to arbitrate and that Merrill should have known Dynasty was not a FINRA-registered member and would not be subject to the proceedings.

Dynasty also claimed that Merrill’s counsel, when asked during proceedings who was participating in arbitration, wrongly stated that “everyone is going,” and that Dynasty should not be bound to arbitration by “negative consent.”

Court’s Ruling

According to Judge Calvert, Merrill argued that Dynasty’s failure to notify the court that it did not consent to FINRA jurisdiction amounted to consent, and that other statements during the hearing could lead the court to believe Dynasty had consented.

However, she wrote: “The excerpts included in (Merrill’s) Motion are devoid of the context necessary to clearly construe them in (Merrill’s) favor. And the Court is not convinced that Dynasty’s statements (or silence) at the hearing, without more, are sufficient to establish consent to be bound to FINRA arbitration.”

Reactions

A Dynasty spokesperson praised the court’s “well-reasoned decision denying Merrill Lynch’s unfounded and mischaracterized attacks on Dynasty and the entire independence movement.”

A Merrill spokesperson said the firm was “aware of the Court’s procedural decision, and we will continue to vigorously litigate our claims against all of the defendants in both court and arbitration on the merits.”

You can find the original article here. Subscribe to our free daily WealthManagement newsletters.