Supremes give Schwab a boost over Finra in arbitration scuffle

High court ruling tips scales in favor of class action waivers

Jun 30, 2013 @ 12:01 am

By Dan Jamieson

The Charles Schwab Corp.'s continuing fight with Finra over its use of class action waivers in arbitration agreements received a boost from an unlikely source: the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 5-3 decision June 20, the court said a class action waiver used by American Express Co. in contracts with merchants who use its charge card is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925. The merchants had argued that AmEx's waiver, which precludes any class claims and mandates that all disputes be heard as individual arbitrations, effectively killed their right to bring an antitrust action because the cost of pursuing an antitrust case in arbitration would not make economic sense.

In the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc.'s case against Schwab, a Finra hearing panel this year similarly ruled that the FAA prevented the self-regulatory organization from enforcing its rules that ban the controversial waivers. The panel cited a 2011 Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, in which the high court threw out a California law banning class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements.

The court's recent decision in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant “certainly supports Schwab's argument,” said Heath Abshure, Arkansas' securities commissioner and president of the North American Securities Administrators Association Inc.

“I assume Schwab is probably busy drafting a supplemental brief right now that talks about that [American Express] case,” he said.

The decision hurts the argument that Finra and plaintiff's lawyers have been making in the Schwab case, namely that arbitration agreements can't effectively remove legal rights, said Paul Bland, a senior attorney at Public Justice, a public-interest law firm founded by trial lawyers.

“It's significant, but not the end of the ballgame,” he said. “There are several strong arguments to be made that Schwab shouldn't be allowed to break Finra rules.”

The Supreme Court's decision prompted NASAA to call for congressional action to ensure that investors can pursue small claims as a class.

“We think Congress is going to have to act on it,” Mr. Abshure said. “The SEC could [act] under Dodd-Frank, but all indications are, it's not going to, at least anytime soon,” he said.

NASAA is seeking a sponsor for legislation that would allow class claims below a certain threshold, without banning waivers outright.

Finra filed its disciplinary action against Schwab in 2012, claiming that its arbitration agreements wrongly precluded customers from bringing class action claims against the firm in court. After losing before the hearing panel, Finra appealed to its internal-appeals body, the National Adjudicatory Council. A NAC hearing in the case is set to begin in September.

In May, Schwab dropped the class action waiver language from its client arbitration contracts while the case is being litigated.

Spokespeople for both Finra and Schwab declined to comment.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video

INTV

Diversity & Inclusion Awards: 2018 nominations are open

Editor Fred Gabriel and special projects editor Liz Skinner discuss the nomination process for InvestmentNews' inaugural Diversity & Inclusion awards.

Latest news & opinion

Cetera reportedly exploring $1.5 billion sale

The company confirmed it's talking to investment bankers to 'explore how to best optimize [its] capital structure at lower costs.'

SEC Chairman Jay Clayton outlines goals for a new fiduciary standard

Rule should provide clarity on role of adviser, enhanced investor protection and regulatory coordination.

Advisers bemoan LPL's technology platform change

Those in a private LinkedIn chat room were sounding off about fears the independent broker-dealer will require a move to ClientWorks before it is fully ready.

Speculation mounts on whether others will follow UBS' latest move to prevent brokers from leaving

UBS brokers must sign a 12-month non-solicit agreement if they want their 2017 bonuses.

Maryland jumps into fiduciary fray with legislation requiring brokers to act in best interests of clients

Legislation requires brokers to act in the best interests of clients.

X

Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting investmentnews.com? It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist investmentnews.com

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print