Have you been damaged as the result of investment fraud? Representation accepted on a contingent fee basis.  » View Our New Client Questionnaire « 
Guliano Law Firm Home
Home > Finra Securities Arbitration > Arbitration Awards

Explore Securities Arbitration
Arbitration Is Litigation
Securities Arbitration Process
Arbitrators
Discovery
Arbitration Awards
Legal Basis for Arbitration

Related Articles
  SEC Charges Psychic with Securities Fraud
   SEC Penalties Seen As Weak
  Investor Claims against Stockbrokers for Fraud Continue to Soar
  Prudential Investment Management Fraud
  Finra bars Ex-Morgan Stanley rep for allegedly bilking 97-year-olds charity
  Stock Broker Arbitration Claims Up 49% From 2007
  J.P. Turner Fined $250,000 for Failing to Supervise Commissions Charged on.
  Securities Fraud Investigation Against Wall Street Firms
  The SEC charges GunnAllen Financial stock broker Frank Bluestein with fraud to fund $250 million Ponzi scheme
Securities Arbitration Newsletter

The Arbitration Awards

For the first five months of 2009, the number of stockbroker investment fraud claims filed in FINRA securities arbitrations which allege that money managers and financial firms defrauded investors or mishandled investor money, increased by 85% over the same period of time last year, from 1,711 to 3,163.

Through May 2009, FINRA arbitration panels ruled in favor of awarding investors 47% of the time, as opposed to 42% during the same period last year. The most common complaint has been breach of fiduciary duty, which accounted for 1,718 cases through May. A breach of fiduciary duty means that the representative did not act in the best interests of a client.

Because, typically, arbitration panels do not explain their awards, and generally only provide the amount of any Award, or "claim is denied", it is exceedingly difficult for a court to examine these awards, or for a party to understand the underlying rationality of both favorable and unfavorable Awards, sometimes rendered against the great weight of the evidence that the parties saw presented at the hearing.   The basis of these FINRA awards remains a mystery.

Again, Professor Lipner's observations with respect to unexplained awards is insightful.

As Judge Posner observed, the review of arbitration awards is so narrow it ought to be called "no review at all". Short of authorizing "trial by ordeal or, more doubtfully by a panel of three monkeys, parties can stipulate to whatever procedures they want to govern the arbitration of their disputes".

In any event, arbitration awards are virtually, unappealable, at least successfully unappealable. There are only very limited circumstances under which a court will disturb an Arbitration award, Under federal law, Section 10 of Title 9 of the United States Code provides that:

a). In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration

  • (1) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.


  • (2) Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them.


  • (3)Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.

9 U.S.C. 10(a)

If every party aggrieved by what they believe to be an unfair arbitration award could petition a federal court to vacate or overturn an award, the entire process, and all the economies associated therewith, would evaporate. Accordingly, to prevent becoming the appeals court for all arbitration awards, even in outrageous circumstances, Courts will not disturb arbitration awards.

The perceived unfairness of arbitration, and particularly, the "unwillingness" of the judiciary to earnestly examine "egregious" arbitration awards, has motivated Congress to seek to make these arbitrations "voluntary". On July 12, 2008, Congress introduced Senate Bill 1782, entitled the "Arbitration Fairness Act", based upon a Congressional finding that:

Mandatory arbitration undermines the development of public law for civil rights and consumer rights, because there is no meaningful judicial review of arbitrators' decisions. With the knowledge that their rulings will not be seriously examined by a court applying current law, arbitrators enjoy near complete freedom to ignore the law and even their own rules.

Senate Bill 1872 at Section 2 (July 12, 2008, 110th Congress, First Session).

 Mystery     Explained Awards     Bavarati v. Josephtal





FINRA Securities Arbitration
- Arbitration is Litigation
- The Securities Arbitration Process
- The Arbitrators
- Discovery
- Arbitration Awards

Latest Securities News
- Archive

Claims Against Brokers
- Suitability
- Misrepresentations and Omissions
- Mutual Fund Fraud
- Annuity Fraud
- Failure to Supervise
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Unauthorized Trading
- Securities Of Financial Institutions

Investor Resources
- Check Your Broker
- Check Your Brokerage Firm
- Check Your Investment Advisor
- Investor Resource Links
Securities Arbitration Blog
- Archive
- Categories

Contact Us
- Online Contact Form
- Evaluation Process
- Frequently Asked Questions

About The Firm
- The Lawyers
- The Professional Staff
- The Green Initiative
Our Office Location(s):
230 South Broad Street
Suite 601
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

Telephone: (215) 413-8223
Telecopier/Fax: (215) 413-8223
Toll Free: 1(877) SEC-ATTY
Email: contact@securitiesarbitrations.com

Martindale-Hubbel
View Disclaimer
Copyright 2010 ©. All rights reserved. Nicholas J. Guiliano, Esquire
Philadelphia Lawyer - Stockbroker Fraud - Investment Fraud Lawyer