Washington Law Review
Abstract
This Note analyzes Byrd in light of the dilemma that occurs when federal and state claims arise in the same action. The Note concludes that, although Byrd may be a step in the right direction, the current state of the law is still not satisfactory. Because arbitration offers several advantages to the investor, this Note argues that both federal and state securities claims should be arbitrated. The Note suggests that either Congress change the law to allow arbitration of the federal claims, as Justice White proposed, or the Court allow arbitration of section 10(b) claims, or even of claims brought under the Securities Act. To ensure that investors are properly protected in the arbitration tribunal, however, substantial changes must be made in the arbitration process. Therefore, this Note proposes that Congress, the courts, and the industry itself act to make arbitration more fair to investors. Until the Court is convinced that arbitration proceedings provide adequate investor protection, it should continue to require litigation of federal claims in federal court.
First Page
245
Recommended Citation
Sherrie K. Goff,
Recent Developments,
Federal and State Securities Claims: Litigation or Arbitration?—Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 105 S. Ct. 1238 (1985),
61 Wash. L. Rev.
245
(1986).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol61/iss1/10