Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

and therefore did not file any claims. Further, because the LLC did not file a claim, the statute of
limitations was never tolled for the claim as the arbitrator had perceived. The appellate court
denied defendants any relief on the ground that the arbitrator incorrectly awarded damages.
First, the court found that the award to the LLC was valid because the award was made to the
LLC as a real party in interest to the claim advanced by plaintiff. Second, the arbitrator’s
handling of the statute of limitations issue was appropriate because the arbitrator limited the
damages to the six years prior to the filing of the complaint. The court found that this decision
was consistent with the relation-back doctrine. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the
decision of the circuit court in confirming the arbitration award.
Citigroup Smith Barney v. Henderson, 241 Ore. App. 65 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
Henderson opened an IRA account with plaintiff. In doing so, he entered into an
agreement that required arbitration of all claims and controversies between the parties. The
agreement also included a choice of law provision selecting New York law to govern and
construe its terms. Upon his death, two conflicting forms were discovered; one form designated
his second wife, Madge Henderson, as beneficiary while the other designated his children from a
prior marriage. Madge and the children were unable to resolve the dispute by themselves, and
Plaintiff filed an interpleader action to determine the rightful owner of the IRA. After Madge and
the children filed answers and counterclaims, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel arbitration. In
response, Madge and the children argued that plaintiff had waived its right to arbitrate by filing
the interpleader action. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel on the basis of
waiver, and plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the court considered whether the issue of waiver was
a procedural question for the arbitrator or a question of arbitrability for judicial determination.
The court first determined that although New York law provided that the court decides issues of
waiver, the choice of law provision did not expressly require New York law to govern the
enforcement of the agreement. As such, the court applied the default presumption that the
parties intended an arbitrator to decide procedural issues such as statute of limitations and
waiver. Although the court limited its holding to the waiver issue, its reliance on statute of
limitations doctrine suggested that choice of law provisions would be treated similarly in those
instances.
Raymond James Fin. Servs. Inc. v. Phillips, 2011 WL 5555691 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 16,
2011).
In November 2005, the account holders filed a Statement of Claim with the NASD
based on allegations of negligence, misconduct, breaches of fiduciary duty, and state and federal
securities violations. In response, the Firm filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the claims were
barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Because the arbitration agreement provided that
timeliness issues would be decided by the court, the account holders filed an action in the circuit
court seeking a declaratory judgment. The circuit court found that the statute of limitations was
not applicable to arbitration claims as a matter of law. On appeal, the appellate court found that
N.2
N.2
338