Under FINRA Customer Code Rule 12900, pertaining to fees due when a claim is filed, initial filing fees are as follows, as of winter 2018: $.01 to $1,000 (claim amount) – $50 (filing fee) $1,000.01 to $2,500 – $75
Full Answer
A summary of fees and terms associated with the arbitration process. The Arbitration Fee Calculator can help parties estimate the filing fees and hearing session fees associated with their claim. It is for informational purposes only. All fees calculated are based on input from the user. Investors and associated persons may submit a written ...
No member shall be assessed more than one process fee in any arbitration. For more detail, go to Customer Code Rule 12903 and Industry Code Rule 13903. Statutory Discrimination Filing Fee Respondent – The fee assessed to the member in cases involving statutory employment discrimination claims where there is a pre-dispute agreement to arbitrate. The fee is the …
The filing fee is based on the total amount of your claim including any punitive and treble damages, but excluding interest, attorneys' fees, and expenses. Please see the schedule of fees in Rule 12900 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes and Rule 13900 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes.
10000. CODE OF ARBITRATION PROCEDURE. 10200. INDUSTRY AND CLEARING CONTROVERSIES. 10215. Attorneys' Fees. This Code was superseded by the Customer Code (Rule 12000 Series) and the Industry Code (Rule 13000 Series) on April 16, 2007, for claims filed on or after that date. The Code remains in effect, however, for cases filed before April 16, 2007.
The fee amount is based on the largest amount in dispute in the case. If an associated person of a member is a party, the member that employed the associated person at the time the dispute arose will be charged the process fees, even if the member is not a party. No member shall be assessed more than one process fee in any arbitration.
A hearing session is any meeting between the parties and arbitrator (s) of four hours or less, including a hearing or a prehearing conference. Thus, two hearing sessions may be held in one day.
Adjournment Fees – The fee assessed when the arbitrators grant a party's postponement request. FINRA will not assess an adjournment fee in certain circumstances.
Non-Sufficient Funds Fee – The fee FINRA assesses when the bank returns a check due to insufficient funds.
Initial Filing Fee – The fee a claimant pays to file a claim. Part of the fee is non-refundable and part is potentially refundable.#N#For more detail, go to Customer Code Rule 12900; Industry Code Rule 13900.
Member Surcharge – A surcharge based on the amount of the initial claim that will be assessed against each member that: (1) files a claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third party claim under the Codes of Arbitration Procedure ; (2) is named as a respondent in a claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third party claim filed and served under the Codes; or 3) employed, at the time the dispute arose, an associated person who is named as a respondent in a claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third party claim filed and served under the Codes.#N#For more detail, go to Customer Code Rule 12901 and Industry Code Rule 13901.
Arbitrators may not assess any of the surcharge and processing fees or the statutory discrimination filing fee paid by the respondent against other parties.
The FINRA Finance Department will answer all questions regarding balances due and payments. You may contact FINRA’s Finance Department at (240) 386-5992, or by email.
Fees assessed at the conclusion of a case include hearing session fees, motion-related fees, and contested subpoena fees, among others. At the time of case closure, FINRA Dispute Resolution Services invoices all the parties for outstanding fees based on the Panel's assessment. The parties may also advise FINRA of any written agreement on the assessment of outstanding fees at the time of settlement.
Any refunds will be paid directly to the named parties, even if a non-party made payment on behalf of the named parties. FINRA generally issues refunds 45-60 days after the date a case is closed. Please see Rule 12900 (c) and Rule 12902 (e) of the Code of Arbitration Procedures for Customer Disputes and Rule 13900 (c) and Rule 13902 (e) of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes for more information on refunds of filing fees.
A non-refundable process fee is assessed against each member that is a party to the arbitration at the time the parties are sent arbitrator lists. FINRA assessed this fee to you because staff generated and sent arbitrator lists to you. This fee is assessed even if no hearings are held in a case.
What is a "joint and several" fee? A joint and several fee assessment means that each party is liable for the entire fee until the fee is paid in full. FINRA is entitled to determine which parties to invoice for joint and several fees, and, therefore, may assess all or part of the fee to any liable party. 6.
You will receive a Statement of Account (with a complete listing of all your fees, credits and payments) within 30 days after FINRA closes your case. You will also receive a Statement of Account when there is an unpaid balance for more than 30 days. Parties can request a Statement of Account at any time during the case. Requests should be emailed.
FINRA will mail all invoices and statements to your attorney. If you are representing yourself, FINRA will mail all invoices and statements to you.
The arbitrator (s) shall have the authority to provide for reasonable attorneys' fee reimbursement, in whole or in part, as part of the remedy in accordance with applicable law.
Arbitration and mediation case participants and FINRA neutrals can view case information and submit documents through this Dispute Resolution Portal.
Legal Fees. Contrary to popular belief , the legal fees related to pursuing a claim through FINRA arbitration are not entirely onerous. You will have to pay FINRA a filing fee, which is calculated in relation to the size of your claim.
You have affordable, high quality, legal options available to you. At Sonn Law Group, we will represent you on a contingency fee basis. You should never let worries about the potential cost of legal action dissuade you from protecting your rights and seeking compensation. Here, our experienced FINRA arbitrations attorneys discuss the legal cost of bringing a claim, as well as FINRA’s fee-shifting provisions.
Generally, FINRA arbitrators will award attorneys’ fees if the contract in question includes an express fee-shifting provision, or if there is a reason to do so under a statute. Under Florida securities law, FINRA arbitrators are empowered with considerable discretion on the issue of attorneys’ fees.
4 th 771, 779 (2000), the Court noted that the arbitrator determined that she was not compelled to award attorney fees because the claims alleged in the arbitration proceeding were tort claims and hence were not based on the contract between the parties. Because the arbitrator expressly based her decision on an interpretation of the contractual fees clause, the Court ruled that the clause did not apply to the action at hand.
Perhaps the best way to overturn an arbitrator’s failure to award attorney fees is to take the path la id out in DiMarco v Cheney, 31 Cal. App. 4 th 1809 (1995). In that case, the arbitration contract provided that “the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs”. (Emphasis supplied.) Nevertheless, the arbitrator denied the prevailing party’s request for attorney fees. The trial court vacated that portion of the award and ruled that the prevailing party was entitled to attorney fees. The losing party appealed, arguing that the trial court was bound by the arbitrator’s decision even if it were an error of law under the rule set forth in Moncharsh. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument, holding that the arbitrator was compelled by the terms of the agreement to award reasonable attorney fees and had exceeded his powers by not doing so. The California Supreme Court, in issuing its decision in Moshonov, expressly distinguished Di Marco, holding that the arbitrator in Moshonov had the discretion to determine whether the underlying claim was in tort or contract while the arbitrator in DiMarco had no such discretion.
998, which provides a method for a party to make a settlement offer to its adversary and recover post-offer costs if the outcome of the litigation is worse for the adversary than it would have been if the offer were accepted. In 1997, this statute was amended to include arbitrations. However, a trier of fact cannot be made aware of a Section 998 offer until after the case concludes, a time when the arbitrator would be functus oficio. And so if the functus oficio doctrine were applied, it would be impossible for an arbitrator to make an award pursuant to this statute. One way to avoid this problem is to ask the arbitrator at the close of testimony to hold the record open after rendering the decision. But this may be difficult to accomplish because the arbitrator will want to know a reason for the request and obviously an attorney cannot reveal the existence of a Section 998 offer at that time. Failing that option, a litigator whose client has the right to collect costs pursuant to Section 998 probably has two additional options after the award is rendered. One option is to ask the arbitrator to refuse to apply the functus oficio doctrine, either on the ground that the statute’s purpose of encouraging settlement supersedes the doctrine and/or that the legislation impliedly meant that the doctrine should not be applied in such a case. The other option is for the attorney to request reimbursement for the costs when a motion to confirm the award is filed. In Pilimai v Farmers Ins. Exchange Co., 39 Cal. 4 th 133, 149 (2006), the prevailing party invoked Section 998 when she moved to confirm the award. The court denied the request, but on the ground that if the costs were appended to the judgment, the amount of the judgment would exceed the limits on her insurance policy. The Court of Appeal reversed and the Supreme Court affirmed that portion of the Court of Appeal decision that permitted the prevailing party to recover the costs allowed under Section 998. Although the Court did not specifically state that seeking those costs during the confirmation proceeding was permissible, it impliedly allowed this procedure because that was the method used by the prevailing party to enforce her rights under Section 998. However, there could be a problem with the confirmation approach if the losing party pays the award soon after it is rendered. Thus, the motion to confirm should be filed immediately.
There are at least three impediments to the recovery of attorney fees under a contract which contains an arbitration clause. First, there is the doctrine of functus oficio. Second, you may run into an arbitrator who, for one reason or another, chooses not to award attorney fees to the prevailing party and, given the limited ability to appeal ...
Your client has retained you to prosecute or defend a contractual claim. Because the contract contains an arbitration clause, the case will be arbitrated. The contract contains a clause which clearly awards attorney fees to the prevailing party. You believe that there is a decent chance that your client will prevail and so you are also confident that your client will be able to recover its attorney fees. Indeed, the prospect of recovering attorney fees may color the stance that you take in any settlement negotiations in which you engage prior to the hearing.
The better course of action is to ask the court to award the fees after the court proceeding is concluded and before the arbitration proceeding commences. The argument against this is that there is no prevailing party at that stage of the proceedings. But courts that have awarded attorney fees in these instances have held that the prior proceedings in court were distinct actions and that there was a prevailing party therein. See Acosta v Kerrigan, 150 Cal. App. 4 th 1124 (2007); Otay River Constructors v San Diego Expressway, 158 Cal. App. 4 th 796 (2008); and Turner v Schultz, 175 Cal. App. 4 th 974 (2009). In those cases, the courts were assisted by clauses in the underlying contracts that contemplated court proceedings necessary to enforce the contracts and so the courts in essence were enforcing the parties’ intent. There is, however, a split in the Courts of Appeal on this issue. See Lachkar v Lachkar, 182 Cal. App. 3d 641 (1982) and Green v Mt. Diablo Hospital District, 207 Cal. App. 3d 63 (1989). Nevertheless, Acosta, Otay River, and Turner appear to contain the better reasoning and, of course, there is no harm in asking for the fees.
The California Supreme Court, in issuing its decision in Moshonov, expressly distinguished Di Marco, holding that the arbitrator in Moshonov had the discretion to determine whether the underlying claim was in tort or contract while the arbitrator in DiMarco had no such discretion.
Arbitration, a privatization of civil justice, is a process without the right to a jury trial, and is free of the constraints of certain constitutional rights . Moreover, until very recently, the bases for appeal of an arbitration award were very limited, thereby preventing the parties from becoming enmeshed in a lengthy and time-consuming appellate review process. 1 Notwithstanding these constraints and limitations, arbitration has increasingly found favor in the federal courts 2 and the business community. Businesses prefer the anonymity of arbitration, and those who generally favor it believe that arbitration relieves clogged court dockets and involves fewer costs. Arbitration is also considered a favored alternative when: there is a need to offset power imbalances; there is a high volume of disputes that need to be resolved between the parties; parties need to be compelled to attend and participate (which is mandated by arbitration clauses); and there is a need for privacy. 3 Consequently, many business institutions have made arbitration mandatory in many of their contractual relationships.
Arbitration has assumed an expanding role for resolving disputes in the areas of education, employment, health care, sports, 4 securities, and credit card disputes. Despite the foregoing, members of the Bar are generally resistant to use arbitration as an alternative method of resolving disputes because: 1) a perception exists among the Bar that arbitrators are encouraged to reach “equitable and just” results, as opposed to adhering strictly to substantive and procedural law; 5 2 ) arbitration limits the use of technical legal arguments to exclude testimony, such as the rule against hearsay; and 3) pretrial discovery and pretrial motion practice are severely limited in arbitration proceedings. More significantly, as the amounts in controversy become larger, counsel prefer that they have the option of seeking relief through the traditional, expanded judicial review afforded through the judicial process.
In Moser, the arbitration panel found in favor of Ms. Moser on her claims and stated in the award that “the Claimant’s request for attorneys’ fees is referred to a court of competent jurisdiction.” The arbitration panel, however, did not specifically state under which of the claims that Ms. Moser alleged in her statement of claim (s) the panel based its award. When the matter was brought before the circuit court, the court affirmed the arbitration award and awarded attorneys’ fees to Ms. Moser based on the attorneys’ fee language in the arbitration panel’s award. The court’s ruling was appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal, which reversed the ruling, holding that the circuit court did not have the authority to award attorneys’ fees to Ms. Moser because the arbitration panel’s award did not specify that Ms. Moser prevailed on her §517 claim (the only claim pursuant to which she could recover attorneys’ fees).
For example, in Halligan v. Piper Jaffray, Inc., 148 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1034 (1999), the Second Circuit reversed an arbitration award by applying the “manifest disregard doctrine.” The Second Circuit found that, where the plaintiff presented “strong evidence that he was fired because of his age” the arbitration panel’s failure to award relief on the ADEA claim showed manifest disregard by ignoring “the law or the evidence or both.”
The 11th Circuit held that. It is certainly true that parties can establish the parameters of the arbitration explicitly in their agreement. When a claim arises under specific laws, however, the arbitrators are bound to follow those laws in the absence of a valid and legal agreement not to do so. 9.
If your client can afford to hire a court reporter, hire your own reporter. Although many arbitrators tape the arbitration sessions, the quality of the recording is often poor. Remember that arbitrators can and will negotiate the amount of their fees. Make sure that you know clearly what the arbitrators will charge and whether there will be charges for study, travel, or other expenses. Know what the bases are for appealing an unfavorable award, so you can best advise your client in the event that your client is unhappy with the arbitration award.
Since the circuit court and not the arbitration panel had jurisdiction to determine entitlement to attorneys’ fees (absent contrary agreement by the parties), interest on any attorneys’ fees awarded could not date back to the date of the arbitration award.