Take it or Leave It: Unconscionability of Mandatory Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements in the Securities Industry

17 Univ. of Penn. J. Bus. L., Feb. 2015 (Forthcoming)

53 Pages Posted: 23 Aug 2014 Last revised: 2 Oct 2014

See all articles by William Alan Nelson

William Alan Nelson

George Washington University - Law School

Date Written: August 21, 2014

Abstract

The pervasive use of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements in the securities industry is a relatively new phenomenon. However, research reflects that an overwhelming majority of retail brokerage and investment advisory agreements include language requiring that all disputes between the customer and the broker-dealer/investment adviser be resolved through arbitration – most often with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Dispute Resolution. Thus, only in rare instances can an investor open either a brokerage or investment advisory account without agreeing to submit to mandatory pre-dispute arbitration.

The enclosed article is the first to focus on the fairness of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements through the lens of an investor’s options, or lack thereof, for relief once an arbitration award has been granted. The Article begins by discussing the jurisprudence of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements in the securities industry, including the legality of investors waiving their right to file class action lawsuits. The Article then transitions into a discussion of arguments against the use of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements including the Supreme Court invention of a “pro-arbitration” policy and the adhesive nature of brokerage and advisory contracts. The Article then argues that mandatory pre-dispute agreements do not meet investors’ “reasonable expectations” and are per se unconscionable, because they require investors to involuntary waive certain Constitutional rights and provide narrow appellate avenues that effectively preclude judicial review of arbitral awards. The Article concludes by providing an example of what a mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreement would look like if it reflected the current legal regime governing arbitration and provides solutions to policy-makers, the most appropriate of which is to end the use of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements in the securities industry.

Suggested Citation

Nelson, William Alan, Take it or Leave It: Unconscionability of Mandatory Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements in the Securities Industry (August 21, 2014). 17 Univ. of Penn. J. Bus. L., Feb. 2015 (Forthcoming), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2484587

William Alan Nelson (Contact Author)

George Washington University - Law School ( email )

2000 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20052
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
55
Abstract Views
491
Rank
670,186
PlumX Metrics