Key Points

  • The Georgia Court of Appeals vacated an interlocutory injunction and expedited-discovery order that Primerica Financial Services won against Osaic Wealth and Legacy Investment Advisors and Wealth Management.
  • The panel held that the trial court's order lacked sufficient detail on Legacy's personal-jurisdiction challenge and the defendants' joint motion to compel FINRA arbitration to permit meaningful appellate review.
  • The trial judge's statement at the hearing that the court had jurisdiction under the Georgia Long Arm Statute did not cure the gap because the written order did not mention the statute.
  • The court remanded for the trial court to clarify the basis for denying both motions, declined to reach any of the defendants' enumerations of error, and expressly did not decide the merits.

The Georgia Court of Appeals on Wednesday threw out an interlocutory injunction that Primerica Financial Services LLC had won against Osaic Wealth Inc. and a West Virginia firm. The court held that the trial court never explained how it had resolved the defendants' objection to its power over the West Virginia firm or their demand that the dispute go to arbitration.

Presiding Judge Dillard wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel, and Judges Gobeil and Pipkin concurred. The panel vacated the Gwinnett County Superior Court order, which had barred the defendants from using confidential information that Primerica claimed had been obtained from its computer systems and had required them to respond to Primerica's discovery requests on an expedited basis.

The ruling sends the case back to the trial court to state the basis for two rulings it made only by implication. The first is whether a Georgia court has personal jurisdiction, meaning a court's power over a particular party, over Legacy Investment Advisors and Wealth Management LLC. The second is whether the dispute belongs in arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, a self-regulatory organization that oversees securities firms.

The dispute began on Oct. 17, 2025, when six registered Primerica representatives, who worked as independent contractors, resigned from a branch office in Hurricane, West Virginia. According to the opinion, the six associated with Osaic as independent contractors and "immediately began selling financial services and products for Osaic."

Primerica sued in Gwinnett County on Nov. 3, 2025, alleging that the resignations were part of a raid by Osaic and Legacy on the Hurricane office. Primerica alleged that the defendants induced the representatives with cash payments to move customers' investments to Osaic. It also alleged that the departing representatives "accessed and downloaded large amounts of confidential customer account data" from its IT systems, in breach of their contractual and legal duties.

On Nov. 20, Primerica filed an emergency motion for expedited discovery and an interlocutory injunction, a temporary order meant to preserve the status quo "pending a final adjudication of the case." On Dec. 5, Legacy moved to dismiss, arguing that it was a West Virginia entity with no contacts with Georgia. The same day, Osaic and Legacy jointly moved to compel arbitration, arguing that because Primerica and Osaic were broker-dealers registered with FINRA, all disputes between them had to be arbitrated in a FINRA forum.

The trial court heard argument on Dec. 11, 2025, and granted Primerica's motion at the end of the hearing. On appeal, the defendants argued that the court erred by enjoining them before deciding jurisdiction and arbitrability, by granting an injunction when Primerica had an adequate remedy at law, and by ordering expedited discovery.

Judge Dillard acknowledged that trial courts have broad discretion over injunctions and discovery. The panel concluded, however, that it could not tell how the trial court had decided the threshold motions. Because the trial court granted the injunction, Judge Dillard wrote, "there is—at the very least—an implication it denied Legacy's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and the Defendants' joint motion to compel arbitration." The opinion continued, "Even so, we cannot discern the grounds on which the court did so."

The opinion contrasted the order's treatment of the injunction with its treatment of the two motions. The order was "detailed in its analysis of the factors supporting a grant of the interlocutory injunction," Judge Dillard wrote, but it "only makes a single brief reference" to the jurisdiction challenge and the arbitration motion.

In a footnote, the panel explained why the jurisdiction question comes first. It quoted its own 2021 decision in Crispin v. State of Georgia, which held that "jurisdiction over a party must be established before the court can enter any ruling binding the party or the ruling is declared null and void." The panel also cited a 1990 Second Circuit decision explaining that "[a] court must have in personam jurisdiction over a party before it can validly enter even an interlocutory injunction against him."

The panel also compared the 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, in which Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the high court has "long held that a court must have power over the parties before it (personal jurisdiction) before it can resolve a case." On arbitration, the panel cited Georgia Supreme Court precedent recognizing "a clear public policy in favor of arbitration."

The opinion notes that the trial court briefly said near the end of the hearing that it believed it had jurisdiction under the Georgia Long Arm Statute. "We can only speculate as to how it applied that statute because it is not mentioned in the actual order," Judge Dillard wrote, citing precedent that personal jurisdiction "requires a consideration of evidence."

Relying on Georgia Supreme Court guidance, the panel said an appellate court may remand when a trial court's order "lacks sufficient detail to enable meaningful appellate review." Citing judicial economy, it declined to rule on any of the defendants' three claims of error.

The case now returns to the Gwinnett County court. The panel wrote that its opinion "does not preclude any further appeal of the issues raised or any other issues that might arise on remand." The panel also said the opinion should not "be construed as reaching the merits of the issues raised in this appeal." Under a notice printed on the opinion, motions for reconsideration must be received by 4:30 p.m. on the 10th day after the decision.