Securities Law News Update, From the Securities Law Home Page

   

]]> Home | Message Board Home Search Arbitration Investors Brokers Finance Law Compliance Archives Court Compels Arbitration Without Direct Account Relationship With Customer
If selling broker is associated person, and claimaint is his customer, BD compelled to arbitrate

BMA Financial Services, Inc. v. Guin, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18556 (W.D. La., 9/27/01): In the absence of a direct account relationship, a court will compel a firm to arbitration, if the selling broker is an associated person and Claimant is his customer.

BMA filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment of non-arbitrability and an order enjoining a NASD arbitration filed against it by Defendants. Defendants filed a cross-motion to compel arbitration. The underlying dispute involved the purchase by Defendants from Thomason of an unregistered security.

In granting the motion to compel and in dismissing the declaratory judgment action, the Court engages in a three-step analysis to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the claims. It first looks to whether the Defendants were “customers” under Code of Arbitration Rule 10301(a). Rejecting a narrow definition, the Court adopts the broader interpretation of the Second Circuit, finding that “customer” plainly refers to either the member’s or the associated person’s customer.

The second step requires a look at whether Thomason was an associated person of BMA. Although the Court’s decision is unclear and in fact is confusing on this point, it appears that Thomason never became a registered representative of BMA. BMA filed a Form U-4 on behalf of Thomason, but it does not appear to have become effective. That fact notwithstanding, the Court finds Thomason to be an associated person of BMA by looking to the definition contained in the NASD By-Laws, which includes persons who filed an application for registration.

Lastly, the Court examines whether the claims were sufficiently connected to the business of BMA or Thomason to fall within the scope of Rule 10301(a). Under the broad federal policy favoring arbitration, the Court concludes that the claims at issue had a sufficient nexus to BMA to fall within the scope of the rule. (SLC Ref. No. 2001-49-02)


Copyright 2000-2002 Securities Arbitration Commentator, Inc. P.O. Box 112, Maplewood, NJ 07040; t: 973-761-5880 f: 973-761-1504. Materials denoted with a SAC Reference No. (e.g. SAC Ref. No. 99-01-001) are on hand at SAC and may be obtained by calling the Securities Arbitration Commentator, or by email to help@sacarbitration.com. The Securities Arbitration Commentator is the leading publication for securities arbitration news and information, and maintains the most complete database of arbitration awards availalble anywhere. For more information regarding their services, visit their website at www.sacarbitration.com

Nothing herein is intended as legal or financial advice. The law is different in different jurisdictions, and the facts of a particular matter can change the application of the law. Please consult an attorney or your financial advisor before acting upon the information contained in this article. 


Return to The Securities Law Home Page 

Visit Beam & Astarita, LLC, securities arbitration, regulation and litigation attorneys

]]> ]]>