|
 The plan, submitted in June by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (FINRA) would ban securities industry veterans from
serving as public arbitrators on the panels that decide cases filed
by investors against their brokerages.
But now some investors' attorneys who had pushed for the new rule
are taking issue with the fact that it could apply to them as well.
Other critics say the rule could be so stringent as to leave FINRA,
an industry watchdog funded by Wall Street, without enough qualified
arbitrators for the dispute resolution system it runs.
The SEC, which would have to approve the FINRA proposal for it to
become a final rule.
FINRA arbitrators typically are considered "public" - those
presently unaffiliated with the securities industry - and
"nonpublic" - those with Wall Street ties. Many investors and their
lawyers want a panel of three public arbitrators to hear their cases
because non-public arbitrators may be biased in Wall Street's favor,
they say.
FINRA's arbitration system has faced criticism for everything from
not thoroughly vetting arbitrators to making it too easy for brokers
for clean up their records. The plan addresses investor advocates'
criticisms that some arbitrators can be deemed "public" even if they
previously worked in the securities industry for years.
The SEC solicited public opinions on the rule with a comment period
that ended July 24. Separately, a new FINRA task force is conducting
a broader review of the arbitration system.
INVESTORS' LAWYERS BITE BACK
One of Wall Street's largest trade groups backs the proposal, but
with a big condition.
In a July 24 letter to the SEC, the Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), said lawyers who represent
investors should also be prohibited from acting as public
arbitrators.
Firms and brokers would view arbitrators who have counseled
investors as being biased against the industry, SIFMA wrote.
That view, already embodied in FINRA's proposal, could hurt members
of the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA), a group
of 450 lawyers who represent investors and a key force behind the
push to weed out public arbitrators with Wall Street ties.
[to top of second column] |
Under FINRA's proposal, investors' lawyers would not qualify as
public arbitrators if they devoted more than 20 percent of their
time within the past five years representing investors in disputes.
Similar restrictions would also apply to accountants and expert
witnesses. They could become public arbitrators again, subject to
certain restrictions, such as a hiatus from practice.
Lawyers and other professionals who have worked on behalf of the
financial industry would be bound by similar rules.
But PIABA is already pushing back. The group has asked the SEC to
reject language that would exclude lawyers and others who work on
behalf of investors from being public arbitrators, according to its
July 24 letter.
FINRA cites no evidence that professionals who serve investors would
be biased, wrote Jason Doss, PIABA's president. What's more, the
"non-public arbitrator" label has traditionally applied to
arbitrators who have industry ties, he wrote.
FINRA declined to comment.
It is unclear how many of FINRA's 3,560 public arbitrators would be
deemed non-public. But too few arbitrators would strain the system.
That is especially true when markets tank and claims spike, said
George Friedman, an arbitration consultant and former director of
FINRA's arbitration unit.
"At the end of the day, we're looking at fewer public arbitrators
when we're likely to need more going forward," Friedman said.
(Reporting by Suzanne Barlyn; editing by Linda Stern and G Crosse)
[© 2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright
2014 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
