Securities Law News Update, From the Securities Law Home Page

   

]]> Home | Message Board Home Search Arbitration Investors Brokers Finance Law Compliance Archives NASD Defunct Firm Proposal
Default Arbitration Procedures against Defunct, Expelled Firms. Comment Period Ends May 22, 2002

The Securities and Exchange Commission has invited public comment on a rule proposal from NASD Dispute Resolution that would institute default arbitration procedures for non-responding defunct firms and terminated personnel.

When the General Accounting Office disclosed in June 2000 (SAA 00-26) that many winning Claimants in arbitration do not collect on their winning awards, the NASD reacted with a group of proposals designed to address that perceived problem.

This proposal, filed with the Commission on February 1, 2002 (SAA 02-09) and announced in the Federal Register on May 1, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 84, p.21780; SEC Rel. 34-45816, dtd. 4/24/02), is the last in that series of corrective measures.

The Rule revision amends NASD Rule 10314, “Initiation of Proceedings,” to provide that, in certain circumstances, a non-responding party will be subject to expedited default procedures. Those procedures, described in a new subparagraph (e), apply to members who are terminated, suspended, expelled, cancelled, revoked (i.e., defunct) and associated persons whose registrations are terminated, revoked or suspended.

In those cases and where all Claimants in the case agree, the Director will appoint a single arbitrator who, without a hearing, will consider the documentary evidence and issue an Award. If there are other Respondents in the case who are not defunct/terminated, NASD-DR will deal with the bifurcated case under two different docket numbers “to avoid confusion.” The proposal does not state that the single arbitrator must be a different arbitrator from the ones who hear the “active Respondent” side of the case.

There appears to be no time limit on the right to request bifurcation and the question of separate fees for the two proceedings is not discussed, some areas do exist where comment could be helpful.

The purpose is to separate out those firms or persons who would not participate in the arbitration process in any case and to provide an expeditious, but fair manner for providing a resolution with respect to those parties. (ed: Although proposed in response to an investor protection matter, the new rule would appear to apply to intra-industry matters as well. Public comment on this proposal should be addressed to the SEC’s Secretary with six copies. Refer to File SR-NASD-2002-15 and submit before May 22, 2002.) (SAC Ref. No. 02-19-01)


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

]]> ]]>