On June 21st, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed what appears to be a novel question, whether a person who is not in a contractual relationship with a member firm nevertheless can be an "associated person" of that firm for purposes of FINRA arbitration. Waterford Investment Services, Inc. ("Waterford") claimed it should not be required to arbitrate an investor dispute because the advisor who allegedly gave the bad advice was an associated person with CBS, not Waterford. Applying the federal presumption in favor of arbitration, the Court held that to have indirect control of a person, such that he is an "associated person" under FINRA Rule 12200, a member firm need only have the potential power to influence the person, rather than exercise any actual control over him. Here, a significant degree of overlap existed between Waterford and CBS, with a common majority owner, officers and directors, and shared resources. As a result, Waterford had the potential power to control the advisor at issue and can be compelled to arbitrate the investor dispute. Waterford Investment Services, Inc. v. Bosco.
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.
RegisterIf you have any questions about the service please contact customerservices@lexology.com or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
Potential authority is sufficient to compel FINRA arbitration
- Winston & Strawn LLP
- USA
- June 25 2012
-
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at ateague@lexology.com.
Jennifer Miller
Senior Legal Counsel, Bankwest Business
Bank of Western Australia Ltd