|
 The figures, published this week by the securities industry-funded
watchdog, showed investors in 2013 were as likely to win cases
against brokerages when a Wall Street affiliated arbitrator hearing
the case, as they were when arbitrators had no industry ties.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which published
the statistics, also runs the arbitration forum where investors must
resolve legal disputes against brokerage firms.
Investors agree to the requirement when signing documents to open
their brokerage accounts.
A FINRA rule change in 2011 eliminated a controversial requirement
that one of the three arbitrators who hears investors' claims
involving $100,000 or more must have securities industry
affiliations.
That can mean anything from currently working in the industry to
being an outside lawyer who advises the industry.
Investors can now choose between a panel that includes an arbitrator
with industry ties or one composed of three "public arbitrators,"
who do not have industry affiliations but may have previously worked
in the securities industry.
The 2013 data, compiled through last November, showed panels
composed of three public arbitrators ordered brokerages to pay
investors damages in 43 percent of cases that ended with a ruling.
Panels that included an arbitrator with industry ties awarded
damages to investors in 44 percent.
"I'm not surprised that the results are similar," Jonathan Uretsky,
a lawyer in New York who represents brokerages, said in an email.
"Facts are facts, and law is law. The panel's composition won't
change that."
EXPERTISE
The Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA), a Norman,
Oklahoma-based group of lawyers who represent investors, pushed for
the change for roughly 20 years, saying industry ties can give rise
to bias against investors and conflicts of interest, or the
appearance of unfairness.
Those who support the requirement for one arbitrator with industry
ties say they bring much-needed expertise to disputes that often
involve complex financial dealings.
PIABA, however, is not backing down.
"The problems of the results go deeper than simply the removal of
the industry arbitrator," said Jason Doss, the group's president and
a lawyer in Marietta, Georgia.
The system is fundamentally unfair to investors if less than half of
the cases that proceed through a hearing end with an award in their
favor, Doss said. What's more, brokerages are more inclined to settle cases heard by
panels with three public arbitrators, said Doss. PIABA does not keep
that data.
[to top of second column] |
FINRA's figures covered 221 arbitration cases that proceeded to a
final ruling last year, a fraction of the thousands filed annually
by investors with the watchdog. Many cases settle or were not
included because they involved smaller claims decided by solo
arbitrators rather than a panel.
FINRA does not track the amounts investors requested compared to how
much they received, as their demands may be unrealistic or change,
said Linda Fienberg, who heads the watchdog's arbitration unit.
Investors who chose panels of all-public arbitrators also scored
fewer wins in 2013 than in 2012. Those panels awarded damages to
investors in 49 percent of cases in 2012, compared to 43 percent of
cases in 2013.
However, the decline may be partly due to difficulties some
attorneys may have had adjusting to the new rules.
STREAMLINED
Cases heard by all-public panels in the first year might have been
brought by more experienced lawyers, who were more adept at
requesting a public panel, Fienberg said.
The process was streamlined last year so investors can get all
public panels simply by choosing from three lists of arbitrators
that lawyers for both parties receive.
The data also showed arbitrators with industry ties are "perfectly
able to be fair," Fienberg said.
Nonetheless, allowing investors to choose panels composed solely of
public arbitrators was necessary to improve investors' perceptions
about the process among investors, Fienberg said.
Lawyers who opposed eliminating the requirement for mandatory
industry arbitrators say they found the results frustrating.
"We did all this to accommodate an all-public panel and for this
year, it seems it didn't make a difference," said Marc Dobin, an
arbitrator and lawyer in Jupiter, Florida who represents brokerages.
"What was this whole exercise in creating an all public panel for?"
(Reporting by Suzanne Barlyn; editing by
Linda Stern and Sophie Hares)
[© 2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2014 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
