Opinion ID: 586393
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inherent Conflict

Text: 30 Saari argues that requiring arbitration in his case creates an inherent conflict with EPPA's underlying purposes 4 which rely on the judicial forum as an essential feature of the Act. Saari bases his argument on the enforcement provision of the EPPA which prohibits a waiver of both the rights and procedures available under the EPPA. As stated supra in section I.A., this argument lacks merit. 31 Saari further argues that if he is compelled to arbitration, the panel of arbitrators would be drawn from the securities industry, which would be inimical to the underlying purposes of the EPPA. This argument is without merit. [M]istrust of the arbitral process was clearly rejected as a reason for avoiding arbitration by the Court in Gilmer. Gilmer, 111 S.Ct. at 1656, n. 5. 32 We conclude that Saari's claims under EPPA were subject to arbitration, and therefore the district court erred in denying Smith Barney's motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case pending arbitration.