Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Segal

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Segal

603 So. 2d 689, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8961, 1992 WL 197864

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 19, 1992

DocketNo. 91-3617

StatusPublished

This text of 603 So. 2d 689 (Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Segal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Segal, 603 So. 2d 689, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8961, 1992 WL 197864 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, Judge.

Affirmed. An employment dispute arose between Prudential and its employee, Se-gal. Segal later left Prudential, and executed an agreement to arbitrate incident to his registrations with the National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock Exchange. Neither appellants nor appellee was an exchange member during their business relationship.

We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that Segal’s subsequent agreement to arbitrate, executed incident to his registrations after his employment dispute with Prudential, does not constitute an agreement to arbitrate disputes arising prior to such registration. The rules of the NASD and NYSE do not provide that a registrant’s agreement to arbitrate disputes applies retroactively. See Shearson, Lehman, Hutton, Inc. v. Lifshutz, 595 So.2d 996, 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); AT & T Tech., Inc. v. Comm. Workers of Am., 475 [690]*690U.S. 643, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986).

We deem Muh v. Newberger, Loeb & Co., Inc., 540 F.2d 970 (9th Cir.1976) and the other authorities relied on by appellants inapposite.

HERSEY and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STONE, Judge.

Affirmed. An employment dispute arose between Prudential and its employee, Se-gal. Segal later left Prudential, and executed an agreement to arbitrate incident to his registrations with the National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock Exchange. Neither appellants nor appellee was an exchange member during their business relationship.

We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that Segal’s subsequent agreement to arbitrate, executed incident to his registrations after his employment dispute with Prudential, does not constitute an agreement to arbitrate disputes arising prior to such registration. The rules of the NASD and NYSE do not provide that a registrant’s agreement to arbitrate disputes applies retroactively. See Shearson, Lehman, Hutton, Inc. v. Lifshutz, 595 So.2d 996, 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); AT & T Tech., Inc. v. Comm. Workers of Am., 475 [690]*690U.S. 643, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986).

We deem Muh v. Newberger, Loeb & Co., Inc., 540 F.2d 970 (9th Cir.1976) and the other authorities relied on by appellants inapposite.

HERSEY and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

603 So. 2d 689, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8961, 1992 WL 197864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prudential-bache-securities-inc-v-segal-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack