Investor Choice Act of 2015

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements, and for other purposes. 1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Investor Choice Act of 2015 2. Findings Congress makes the following findings: (1) Investor confidence in fair and equitable recourse is essential to the health and stability of the securities markets and to the participation of retail investors in such markets. (2) Brokers, dealers, and investment advisers hold powerful advantages over investors, and mandatory arbitration clauses, including contracts that force investors to submit claims to arbitration or to waive their right to participate in a class action, leverage these advantages to severely restrict the ability of defrauded investors to seek redress. (3) Investors should be free to choose arbitration to resolve disputes if they judge that arbitration truly offers them the best opportunity to efficiently and fairly settle disputes, and investors should also be free to pursue remedies in court should they view that option as superior to arbitration. 3. Arbitration agreements in the securities exchange act of 1934 Section 15(o) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( 15 U.S.C. 78o(o) (o) Limitations on pre-Dispute agreements Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be unlawful for any broker, dealer, funding portal, or municipal securities dealer to enter into, modify, or extend an agreement with customers or clients of such entity with respect to a future dispute between the parties to such agreement that— (1) mandates arbitration for such dispute; (2) restricts, limits, or conditions the ability of a customer or client of such entity to select or designate a forum for resolution of such dispute; or (3) restricts, limits, or conditions the ability of a customer or client to pursue a claim relating to such dispute in an individual or representative capacity or on a class action or consolidated basis. . 4. Arbitration agreements in the investment advisers act of 1940 Section 205(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ( 15 U.S.C. 80b–5(f) (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be unlawful for any investment adviser to enter into, modify, or extend an agreement with customers or clients of such entity with respect to a future dispute between the parties to such agreement that— (1) mandates arbitration for such dispute; (2) restricts, limits, or conditions the ability of a customer or client of such entity to select or designate a forum for resolution of such dispute; or (3) restricts, limits, or conditions the ability of a customer or client to pursue a claim relating to such dispute in an individual or representative capacity or on a class action or consolidated basis. . 5. Application The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to any agreement entered into, modified, or extended after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Summary: Investor Choice Act of 2015 Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to revise the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission to prohibit, or impose conditions or limitations on the use of, agreements that require customers or clients of any broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer to arbitrate any future dispute between them arising under the federal securities laws, related rules and regulations, or the rules of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that prohibition, imposition of conditions, or limitations are in the public interest and for the protection of investors. Declares unlawful for a broker, dealer, funding portal, or municipal securities dealer (entities) to enter into, modify, or extend an agreement with customers or clients governing a future dispute between the parties that would mandate arbitration. Declares likewise unlawful acts by such entities that would restrict, limit, or condition the ability of a customer or client to: (1) select or designate a forum for dispute resolution, or (2) pursue a claim relating to a dispute in an individual or representative capacity or on a class action or consolidated basis.