nyse rule in California

2015(See, e.g., Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co. (9th Cir. 1980) 614 F.2d 677, 681 [NASD suitability rule]; Carrott v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc. (9th Cir. 1984) 724 F.2d 821, 823 [NYSE rule 405]; Thompson v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. (11th Cir. 1983) 709 F.2d 1413, 1419 [NYSE’s know-your-customer rule and NASD’s suitability rule]; see also Asplund v. Selected Investments in Financial Equities, Inc. (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 26, 40, fn. 8 [violation of NASD and stock exchange reporting and disclosure requirements do not support a private cause of action].) Allegations of unsuitability by customers

2015(See, e.g., Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co. (9th Cir. 1980) 614 F.2d 677, 681 [NASD suitability rule]; Carrott v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc. (9th Cir. 1984) 724 F.2d 821, 823 [NYSE rule 405]; Thompson v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. (11th Cir. 1983) 709 F.2d 1413, 1419 [NYSE’s know-your-customer rule and NASD’s suitability rule]; see also Asplund v. Selected Investments in Financial Equities, Inc. (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 26, 40, fn. 8 [violation of NASD and stock exchange reporting and disclosure requirements do not support a private cause of action].) Allegations of unsuitability by customers

2015(See, e.g., Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co. (9th Cir. 1980) 614 F.2d 677, 681 [NASD suitability rule]; Carrott v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc. (9th Cir. 1984) 724 F.2d 821, 823 [NYSE rule 405]; Thompson v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. (11th Cir. 1983) 709 F.2d 1413, 1419 [NYSE’s know-your-customer rule and NASD’s suitability rule]; see also Asplund v. Selected Investments in Financial Equities, Inc. (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 26, 40, fn. 8 [violation of NASD and stock exchange reporting and disclosure requirements do not support a private cause of action].) Allegations of unsuitability by customers

2015(See, e.g., Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co. (9th Cir. 1980) 614 F.2d 677, 681 [NASD suitability rule]; Carrott v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc. (9th Cir. 1984) 724 F.2d 821, 823 [NYSE rule 405]; Thompson v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. (11th Cir. 1983) 709 F.2d 1413, 1419 [NYSE’s know-your-customer rule and NASD’s suitability rule]; see also Asplund v. Selected Investments in Financial Equities, Inc. (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 26, 40, fn. 8 [violation of NASD and stock exchange reporting and disclosure requirements do not support a private cause of action].) Allegations of unsuitability by customers

2005(See 15 U.S.C. § 78s(b).) To approve a rule, the SEC must determine that the rule is consistent with the requirements and goals of the SEA “to protect investors and the public interest.” ( 15 U.S.C. § 780-3 (b)(6); see McMahon, supra, at p. 233 .) Although Congress’s 1975 amendment of the SEA substantially altered the statutory scheme that the high court had earlier construed in Ware, supra, 414 U.S. 117 , the precise impact of the amendment on the continuing validity of Ware’s reasoning is unclear.

2005(See 15 U.S.C. § 78s(b).) To approve a rule, the SEC must determine that the rule is consistent with the requirements and goals of the SEA “to protect investors and the public interest.” ( 15 U.S.C. § 780-3 (b)(6); see McMahon, supra, at p. 233 .) Although Congress’s 1975 amendment of the SEA substantially altered the statutory scheme that the high court had earlier construed in Ware, supra, 414 U.S. 117 , the precise impact of the amendment on the continuing validity of Ware’s reasoning is unclear.

2003(NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure, rule 10201; NYSE rule 600(a); see also Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., supra, 500 U.S. at p. 33 [111 S.Ct. at pp. 1655-1656]; Desiderio v. National Assn. of Securities Dealers, Inc. (2d Cir. 1999) 191 F.3d 198, 207 .) Furthermore, Mercuro v. Superior Court, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at pages 176-178, upon which plaintiff relies, does not support his argument that the existence of an injunctive relief exemption from arbitration renders the present agreement unenforceable.

2003Armendariz deems the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.05 as incorporated into an arbitration clause involving a Fair Employment and Housing Act claim. ( Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 104-106; see Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 422 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ].) The California Supreme Court has explicitly held the Armendariz requirements also apply to a claim for wrongful termination in violation of fundamental public policy.

2003Armendariz deems the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.05 as incorporated into an arbitration clause involving a Fair Employment and Housing Act claim. ( Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 104-106; see Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 422 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ].) The California Supreme Court has explicitly held the Armendariz requirements also apply to a claim for wrongful termination in violation of fundamental public policy.

2003(See Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., supra, 500 U.S. at pp. 31-32 & fn. 4 [111 S.Ct. at pp. 1654-1655] [finding such procedures to be sufficient to ensure that under limited judicial review of whether arbitrators comply with the requirements of the law]; Shearson/ American Exp., Inc. v. McMahon, supra, 482 U.S. at p. 232 [107 S.Ct. at pp. 2340-2341].) NASD rule 10334(g) does not render the arbitration agreements substantively unconscionable. g) the mutual obligation to arbitrate Plaintiff contends that NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure, rule 10335 is substantively unconscionable beca

1992(Ibid.) The NASD clause “is certainly broad enough to cover a dispute between an NASD member and an employee, not stemming from the purchase and sale of securities.” (Francis v. Marshall, supra, 661 F.Supp. at p. 775 [common law counts arbitrable re: fraud in purchase/sale of a securities business]; see Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Hovey (8th Cir. 1984) 726 F.2d 1286 , 1288-1289, fn. omitted, in which, inter alia, the court construed a similar NYSE rule regarding nonmembers which states that “any controversy ‘arising out of the business’ of a member” required arbitration re: conver

1992(Ibid.) The NASD clause “is certainly broad enough to cover a dispute between an NASD member and an employee, not stemming from the purchase and sale of securities.” (Francis v. Marshall, supra, 661 F.Supp. at p. 775 [common law counts arbitrable re: fraud in purchase/sale of a securities business]; see Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Hovey (8th Cir. 1984) 726 F.2d 1286 , 1288-1289, fn. omitted, in which, inter alia, the court construed a similar NYSE rule regarding nonmembers which states that “any controversy ‘arising out of the business’ of a member” required arbitration re: conver

1992(Ibid.) The NASD clause “is certainly broad enough to cover a dispute between an NASD member and an employee, not stemming from the purchase and sale of securities.” (Francis v. Marshall, supra, 661 F.Supp. at p. 775 [common law counts arbitrable re: fraud in purchase/sale of a securities business]; see Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Hovey (8th Cir. 1984) 726 F.2d 1286 , 1288-1289, fn. omitted, in which, inter alia, the court construed a similar NYSE rule regarding nonmembers which states that “any controversy ‘arising out of the business’ of a member” required arbitration re: conver

1992(Ibid.) The NASD clause “is certainly broad enough to cover a dispute between an NASD member and an employee, not stemming from the purchase and sale of securities.” (Francis v. Marshall, supra, 661 F.Supp. at p. 775 [common law counts arbitrable re: fraud in purchase/sale of a securities business]; see Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Hovey (8th Cir. 1984) 726 F.2d 1286 , 1288-1289, fn. omitted, in which, inter alia, the court construed a similar NYSE rule regarding nonmembers which states that “any controversy ‘arising out of the business’ of a member” required arbitration re: conver

1992(Ibid.) The NASD clause “is certainly broad enough to cover a dispute between an NASD member and an employee, not stemming from the purchase and sale of securities.” (Francis v. Marshall, supra, 661 F.Supp. at p. 775 [common law counts arbitrable re: fraud in purchase/sale of a securities business]; see Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Hovey (8th Cir. 1984) 726 F.2d 1286 , 1288-1289, fn. omitted, in which, inter alia, the court construed a similar NYSE rule regarding nonmembers which states that “any controversy ‘arising out of the business’ of a member” required arbitration re: conver

1992(Ibid.) The NASD clause “is certainly broad enough to cover a dispute between an NASD member and an employee, not stemming from the purchase and sale of securities.” (Francis v. Marshall, supra, 661 F.Supp. at p. 775 [common law counts arbitrable re: fraud in purchase/sale of a securities business]; see Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Hovey (8th Cir. 1984) 726 F.2d 1286 , 1288-1289, fn. omitted, in which, inter alia, the court construed a similar NYSE rule regarding nonmembers which states that “any controversy ‘arising out of the business’ of a member” required arbitration re: conver

1989It is well settled that disputes between a member of a national stock exchange and its employee are governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 United States Code section 1 et seq., where there is a binding arbitration agreement. ( 178 Cal.App.3d at p. 638 , and cases there cited; see also Thomas v. Perry (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 510, 515 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 156 ].) In such instances, questions concerning the construction and scope of the arbitration clause are determined by federal law.

1989It is well settled that disputes between a member of a national stock exchange and its employee are governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 United States Code section 1 et seq., where there is a binding arbitration agreement. ( 178 Cal.App.3d at p. 638 , and cases there cited; see also Thomas v. Perry (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 510, 515 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 156 ].) In such instances, questions concerning the construction and scope of the arbitration clause are determined by federal law.