Articles Tagged with FAIR Act

On Friday, Malecki Law securities attorneys Jenice Malecki and Darryl Bouganim traveled to Washington D.C to lobby on behalf of investors as part of PIABA’s annual Hill Day. PIABA is an international bar association for securities attorneys representing investors in disputes within the financial services industry. As part of Hill Day, PIABA attorneys from across the nation met with representatives and their legislative aids on Capitol Hill to lobby for stronger investor protection. Following a day of discussing the issues amongst PIABA members, our attorneys met with officials across party lines including at the offices of Brian Higgins, John Katko, Tom Reed, Danny Davis, John Hawley, Tim Scott, and Patty Murray.  Alongside other PIABA members, Malecki Law securities attorneys lobbied for the FAIR Act; legislation to fund outstanding arbitration awards; and modification or clarification of the proposed Regulation Best Interest.

On Capitol Hill, Malecki Law attorneys lobbied for members of the House of Representatives and Senate to co-sponsor the Forced Arbitration and Repeal Act, known as the FAIR Act. U.S Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) and U.S Sen. Richard Blumental (D-CT) introduced the FAIR Act to end the use of mandatory arbitration in their effort to restore public accountability. As it stands now, investors must sign contracts with forced arbitration clauses when opening new brokerage accounts. The FAIR Act outlaws forced arbitration, thereby granting investors the freedom to choose venues besides private arbitration to adjudicate their disputes. Investors will still have the option to choose to use arbitration under FINRA rules, just as how it was before the historic Shearson/American Express v. McMahon case.

Mandatory arbitration clauses within investment account contracts undermine investors’ rights for fair process and their right to trial by jury under the 7th amendment. The industry’s self-regulatory agency, FINRA runs arbitrations as off the record legal proceedings. Instead of a judge and jury, one or three arbitrators decide on the verdict of cases. A major problem is that arbitrators are usually industry people who tend to be overwhelmingly older, white and male. Thus, the arbitration pool is not diverse enough for the diverse investors that use it to feel their case is being heard by their peers, which undermines the process. Additionally, arbitrators do not have to apply the law or include any reasoning behind their decisions. When only 40% of their cases win their cases, the process should be more transparent especially with the other forces that could foster bias. Even after winning their case in arbitration, investors sometimes cannot collect their damages from the wrongdoers found liable. This undermines self-regulation.