April 9, 2008
April 9, 2008
Nancy M. Morris, Secretary
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20549-0609
Dear Ms. Morris:
I have been representing investors in FINRA arbitrations in Salt Lake City, Utah, for 12 years. Over the past 3 years, I have noticed a literal explosion in the number of motions to dismiss filed by respondent member firms. At one point of time, during late 2005 to year 2006, the first approximate 8 cases I filed (against a variety of FINRA member firms) were all Answered with a motion to dismiss. These cases were not different than previous cases I've filed in terms of time from broker misconduct to filing, etc.
Although I prevailed in all but one motion to dismiss over the course of time I have been representing investors, motions to dismiss have added a burden and cost to my clients that I strongly believe should be stopped with the new proposed rule now.
There are no rules and limited case law in place for appeal of erroneously granting a motion to dismiss under FINRA rules, unlike court. Unless there is a 6 year eligibility issue, I believe the least a customer of a member firm is entitled to is a hearing, in person, in front of arbitrators. I believe this new proposed rule will also serve the member firm's interests because its customers will know they were given an opportunity to be heard if this rule becomes enacted.
Thank you for your consideration.
Randall R. Heiner
Attorney at Law
Salt Lake City, Utah