Wilko v. Swan
346 U.S. 427 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pre-dispute agreement to arbitrate claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933 is void under § 14 of the Act because it constitutes an unenforceable waiver of the right to a judicial forum, which is a substantive 'provision' of the Act designed to protect investors.
Facts:
- Petitioner Wilko, a customer, entered into margin agreements with the securities brokerage firm Hayden, Stone and Company.
- The agreements contained a clause stipulating that any future controversies between the parties would be resolved through arbitration.
- On January 17, 1951, Hayden, Stone and Company induced Wilko to purchase 1,600 shares of Air Associates, Inc. stock.
- The firm made false representations that the stock's value would increase significantly due to a merger.
- The firm also failed to disclose that a director of Air Associates was concurrently selling his own shares of the stock, including some that Wilko purchased.
- Approximately two weeks after the purchase, Wilko sold the shares at a financial loss.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Wilko filed suit against respondents Hayden, Stone and Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
- Respondents moved in the District Court to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act and the parties' margin agreements.
- The District Court denied the motion to stay, ruling that the arbitration agreement was an invalid waiver of the petitioner's rights under the Securities Act.
- Respondents, as appellants, appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that the Securities Act did not prohibit the agreement to arbitrate.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted petitioner Wilko's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pre-dispute agreement to arbitrate future controversies arising under the Securities Act of 1933 constitute a 'stipulation... to waive compliance with any provision' of the Act, rendering the agreement void under § 14 of the Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Reed
Yes, a pre-dispute agreement to arbitrate future controversies arising under the Securities Act of 1933 is a void stipulation under § 14 of the Act. The Act's anti-waiver provision, § 14, voids any 'stipulation' that waives compliance with any 'provision' of the Act. The court reasoned that the agreement to arbitrate is a 'stipulation,' and the right to select a judicial forum and the accompanying procedural advantages granted by the Act are a 'provision.' Congress passed the Securities Act specifically to protect investors, who are often at a disadvantage, by granting them special rights, including a wide choice of courts and venue and placing the burden of proof on the seller. The effectiveness of these statutory protections is lessened in arbitration, where judicial review is limited and arbitrators may not provide explanations for their decisions, making it difficult to ensure they have correctly applied complex legal standards like 'burden of proof' or 'material fact.' Therefore, to uphold the protective intent of the statute, the policy favoring investor protection under the Securities Act must override the general federal policy favoring arbitration.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Jackson
Yes, the Securities Act prohibits the waiver of a judicial remedy through a pre-dispute arbitration agreement. However, this prohibition should only apply to agreements made before a controversy arises. Once a dispute exists, the parties should be free to mutually agree to resolve it through arbitration. The opinion finds it unnecessary to decide the broader issue of whether the Arbitration Act prevents judicial review of an arbitrator's legal errors, as no arbitration has yet occurred in this case.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No, a pre-dispute arbitration agreement for claims under the Securities Act is not inherently void. There is no evidence to suggest that the arbitral system would fail to protect the plaintiff's rights under the Act. Arbitrators are bound by law, and their failure to adhere to the provisions of the Securities Act would constitute grounds for a court to vacate the award under § 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, ensuring judicial oversight. The advantages of arbitration—speed and economy—should not be denied absent a showing that the process would jeopardize the plaintiff's statutory rights or that the agreement was the product of coercion.
Analysis:
This decision established the 'Wilko doctrine,' which for decades stood for the principle that the federal policy of investor protection under securities laws superseded the federal policy favoring arbitration. The Court's reasoning, which emphasized the unique judicial protections afforded to investors, was highly influential and was extended to claims under other federal statutes. However, this specific holding was ultimately overturned in Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc. (1989), reflecting a major shift in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence to strongly favor the enforcement of arbitration agreements, even in the context of federal statutory rights.
Unlock the full brief for Wilko v. Swan