Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-3684 Belom v. National Futures Association, et al.

By: dmc-admin//April 1, 2002//

01-3684 Belom v. National Futures Association, et al.

By: dmc-admin//April 1, 2002//

Listen to this article

“Here, LFG’s application for membership in the NFA included ‘an express agreement by the Applicant that, if admitted to NFA membership, the Applicant shall become and remain bound by all NFA requirements as then and thereafter in effect.’ See NFA Form 7R at para. 8. One of NFA’s requirements was sec. 2(a) of its code of arbitration, which explicitly requires that customer disputes involving commodity futures contracts against members and their employees be arbitrated. Under ordinary principles of contract and agency, Belom agreed to be bound by this code provision when he accepted employment with LFG. See Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 7 F.3d 1110, 1121-22 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that arbitration agreement of employer bound employee even though employee did not sign agreement); Lee v. Chica, 983 F.2d 883, 886-87 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding same); Arnold v. Arnold Corp., 920 F.2d 1269, 1281-82 (6th Cir. 1990) (holding same); Letizia v. Prudential Bache Sec., Inc., 802 F.2d 1185, 1187-88 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding same). This rule is an outgrowth of the strong federal policy favoring arbitration. See Letizia, 802 F.2d at 1188. Therefore, even if we were to reach the issue, we would have little trouble concluding that Belom waived his right to an Article III forum by accepting employment with LFG.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Conlon, J., Evans, J.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests