Skip to main content

Will Murphy Comment On Regulatory Notice 26-06

Will Murphy

For complex or unusually large claims, perhaps parties should be able to request a selection of arbitrators that all have had at least three cases go to an award after a final hearing.

If all parties have agreed to take FINRA arbitration off the table, I see no reason they should not be able to enforce such an agreement.

I see no reason to take any class of disputes out of FINRA arbitration.

I would repeal the eligibility rule. Stale cases are challenging, but that is true in court, too. There should be a process to seek pre final hearing dismissal based on the statutes of limitations.

Particularly for non-lawyer or non-litigator arbitrators, training in the basics of the rules of evidence could be helpful. For public arbitrators, perhaps training should be available on common investments and strategies and related risks, rewards, etc.

Collective strikes of arbitrators could be problematic. Parties can often have different interests even when nominally on the same side of the table.

Discovery -- any training or guidelines that would assist with ways to restrict requests to which responses would be onerous without unduly limiting a party's ability to gather information and evidence, would be helpful.

Panels should be able to award punitive damages in the same way and to the same extent as courts would. However, given the limitations on review of awards, perhaps those awards should be subject to some sort of review by another FINRA panel.

At least some explanation of reasoning in awards may lead to greater party satisfaction with the process. Of course, parties are free to request this now. If arbitrators were expected to routinely provide such decisions or to provide significant detail, this could impact retention if not compensated.