The Twist Here: A Defunct Member of FINRA Cannot Compel Arbitration – But Its Agent or Third Party Beneficiary Could Do So Here (Maybe)
The Ronay Family Limited Partnership (Ronay) sued its financial advisor Robert R. Tweed, his investment firm TFI, and others, claiming Ronay had lost $4M as a result of bum investment advice. Tweed, in his capacity as a registered representative of CapWest Securities, Inc., had signed an arbitration agreement between Ronay and CapWest covering the subject matter of Ronay’s claims. However, CapWest, a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), was defunct, and under the rules of FINRA, it could not compel arbitration. The issue here is whether anyone can enforce the arbitration provision.
Tweed moved to compel arbitration, and the trial court denied his request, reasoning that because CapWest could not compel arbitration, neither could its agent Tweed. Tweed appealed. Ronay Family Limited Partnership v. Tweed, D062195 (4th Dist. Div. 1 May 23, 2013) (Irion, J., author 3:0) (certified for partial publication except for part III.C).
Held: Tweed and TFI may enforce the arbitration clause of the account agreement between Ronay and CapWest as agents and third-party beneficiaries. Though CapWest became defunct and under FINRA rules lost its right to enforce the arbitration clause, Tweed and TFI retained rights to do so. It probably helped that, though Tweed himself was not a member of FINRA, he was registered as an associated person with FINRA at all relevant times.
Note that we’ve said Tweed “may be allowed to compel arbitration.” It is hardly a foregone conclusion, however, because the Court, in the unpublished part of the opinion, remanded for further consideration of an issue that wasn’t briefed: whether the possibility of conflicting rulings among multiple parties should lead to denial of arbitration under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. section 1281.2(c).
Que sera, sera.
Comments