Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

FINRA Continues Investor-Friendly Arbitration Reforms
July 08, 2014

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is submitting rule amendments for SEC approval that would generally make individuals with any past ties to the financial industry ineligible to be considered "public" FINRA arbitrators. Currently, an individual with past ties to the industry, but no current ties, can be considered a public arbitrator under certain conditions.

A FINRA panel typically includes three arbitrators, who can be public arbitrators, nonpublic (industry insider) arbitrators, or both. Several years ago, FINRA made rule changes that gave investors the power to demand panels comprised entirely of public arbitrators. See also "FINRA Favors an Easier Choice [of Public Arbitrators]" in Expect Focus, Volume III, Summer 2013.

FINRA critics have argued that nonpublic arbitrators can exhibit bias in favor of the industry. FINRA’s tolerance for customer agreement provisions whereby broker-dealers require arbitration of disputes has also been criticized as unfriendly to investors. See, e.g., "Blue-Sky Regulators Attack Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements" in Expect Focus, Volume II, Spring 2013.

The amendments FINRA submitted may help quell critics’ frustration regarding mandatory arbitration provisions. If not, the SEC or Congress could act to prohibit these provisions. This could substantially reduce the volume of FINRA arbitrations, perhaps to the detriment of FINRA’s arbitration program.
Authored By
Image: Michael N. Wolgin
Michael N. Wolgin
Related Practices
Securities Litigation and Enforcement
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.