13‐2657‐cv
NASDAQ OMX Grp., Inc. v. UBS Sec., LLC
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
________________
August Term, 2013
(Argued: June 17, 2014 Decided: October 31, 2014)
Docket No. 13‐2657‐cv
________________
THE NASDAQ OMX GROUP, INC. AND THE NASDAQ STOCK MARKET LLC,
Plaintiffs‐Appellees,
—v.—
UBS SECURITIES, LLC,
Defendant‐Appellant.*
________________
Before:
LEVAL, STRAUB, AND RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
________________
On appeal from a preliminary injunction entered in the Southern District
of New York (Sweet, J.), barring appellant from compelling appellees’
participation in arbitration pertaining to how it conducted the Facebook IPO,
* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption as shown above.
1
appellant challenges the district court’s (1) exercise of federal question
jurisdiction, (2) determination that arbitrability is a question for the court rather
than an arbitrator, and (3) conclusion that appellant’s underlying claims are not
arbitrable.
AFFIRMED.
Judge STRAUB dissents in a separate opinion.
________________
STEPHEN J. KASTENBERG (Paul Lantieri, III, William A. Slaughter, on
the brief), Ballard Spahr LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for
Plaintiffs‐Appellees.
CHARLES E. DAVIDOW (Leslie Gordon Fagen, Daniel J. Toal, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York,
New York, on the brief), Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, Washington, D.C., for Defendant‐Appellant.
________________
REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judge:
On May 18, 2012, plaintiffs, the NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and the
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (collectively “NASDAQ”), conducted the initial
public offering (“IPO”) for Facebook, Inc. The IPO was one of the largest in
history, with 421 million shares of Facebook common stock offered at $38 per
share, for a total value of over $16 billion. In conducting the offering, NASDAQ
encountered and addressed various problems, prompting a number of
2
subsequent actions, including disciplinary proceedings by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (“SEC”), see Order Instituting Admin. & Cease‐and‐
Desist Proceeding, SEC Release No. 34‐69655, 2013 WL 2326683, at *2–3 (May 29,
2013) (“SEC Release No. 34‐69655”), and SEC‐approved changes to NASDAQ
rules. Among the latter is a new rule subsection establishing a voluntary
procedure for NASDAQ members injured in the Facebook IPO to seek
compensation. See Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 4626—Limitation of Liability, SEC Release No. 34‐69216, 78 Fed.
Reg. 19,040, 19,041 (Mar. 22, 2013) (“SEC Release No. 34‐69216”). Defendant UBS
Securities, LLC (“UBS”) chose not to pursue that avenue for relief, instead
initiating an arbitration proceeding against NASDAQ seeking indemnification
for injuries sustained in the Facebook IPO, as well as damages for breach of
contract, breach of an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and gross
negligence.
NASDAQ initiated this declaratory judgment action to preclude UBS from
pursuing arbitration. UBS now appeals from a preliminary injunction to that
effect, entered on June 28, 2013, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge). See NASDAQ OMX
3
Grp., Inc. v. UBS Sec. LLC, 957 F. Supp. 2d 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). In seeking
vacatur of the injunction, UBS contends that the district court erred in
(1) exercising federal question jurisdiction in a case presenting only state law
claims; (2) determining that the arbitrability of UBS’s claims is a question for
decision by the court, rather than an arbitrator; and (3) concluding that UBS’s
claims are not subject to arbitration. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we
identify no error in these rulings and, therefore, affirm the challenged
preliminary injunction. Our colleague, Judge Straub, dissents from the ruling as
to federal jurisdiction and, thus, does not reach the other two issues.
I. Background
A. The Facebook IPO
NASDAQ is a publicly‐traded, self‐regulatory organization (“SRO”)
registered as a national securities exchange under Section 6 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). See 15 U.S.C. § 78f. It operates “one of
the largest national securities exchanges,” executing “approximately 15% of U.S.
equity securities transactions every day.” SEC Release No. 34‐69655, 2013 WL
2326683, at *1. UBS is a registered broker‐dealer and investment adviser, as well
as a member of the NASDAQ exchange.
4
On May 18, 2012, NASDAQ was scheduled to conduct the highly‐
anticipated Facebook IPO. The initial Eastern Standard start time of 11:00 a.m.
was delayed approximately one half hour, largely due to technical difficulties
that NASDAQ encountered with the IPO “Cross,” the computerized system that
typically launches IPO trading by matching buy and sell orders to determine the
opening price. See id. at *2, *5–6. At 11:30:09 a.m., NASDAQ switched to a
backup “failover” system that completed the IPO Cross, whereupon
“[c]ontinuous trading in Facebook shares then commenced on NASDAQ and
other exchanges.” Id. at *7.
The delayed start in trading had certain adverse effects, two of particular
relevance here. First, over 30,000 orders entered between 11:11:00 a.m. and
11:30:09 a.m. were not included in the completed IPO Cross. See id. at *10.
These orders were dealt with in various ways, including some being cancelled by
NASDAQ and others being released into the market at 1:50 p.m. See id. Second,
certain trade confirmation messages for orders placed before 11:30:09 a.m. were
not transmitted, as a result of which some “NASDAQ members . . . were not able
to determine whether their orders had been included in the cross and, therefore
did not know what position they held in Facebook securities.” Id. at *8. Despite
5
suggestions that it halt trading in the Facebook IPO, NASDAQ did not do so. See
id. at *9.1
B. NASDAQ Rules
In conducting securities trading generally, including the Facebook IPO
specifically, NASDAQ operated pursuant to certain internal rules mandated by
federal law. Some background as to NASDAQ’s internal rules is helpful to our
discussion of issues raised on this appeal.2
1. Exchange Act Mandates with Respect to Internal Rules
In order to register as an exchange, federal law requires an SRO such as
NASDAQ to demonstrate to the SEC that its internal operating rules satisfy the
requirements of the Exchange Act and all federal rules and regulations
thereunder. See 15 U.S.C. § 78s(b)(2)(C). The Exchange Act specifically requires
that a registered exchange’s rules be designed
1 The systems error in launching the Facebook IPO also caused other problems
not directly relevant to this appeal, e.g., (a) NASDAQ inadvertently assumed an
“error position in Facebook . . . massively greater than NASDAQ had
envisioned,” SEC Release No. 34‐69655, 2013 WL 2326683, at *10; and (b) the
technical difficulties that plagued the Facebook IPO Cross affected non‐Facebook
stock that NASDAQ had chosen to halt because “halt crosses” used the same
applications, id. at *11.
2 NASDAQ Rules are available at the following website:
http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/.
6
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
Id. § 78f(b)(5) (emphasis added). The highlighted requirement is of particular
significance to this case.
With certain exceptions not relevant here, an exchange must secure SEC
approval for every proposed rule or rule change according to a detailed statutory
procedure that provides for public notice and comment, possible hearings, and
agency findings. See id. § 78s(b), 17 C.F.R. § 240.19b‐4. The Exchange Act also
provides for the SEC itself to “abrogate, add to, or delete from” an exchange’s
rules in specified circumstances. See 15 U.S.C. § 78s(c).
The Act makes an exchange’s compliance with its own rules a requirement
of federal law, see id. § 78s(g)(1), and rule violations can result in SEC revocation
of an SRO’s registration, censure, or other sanctions, see id. § 78s(h)(1). The Act
further requires an exchange to enforce its members’ compliance with the
Exchange Act, SEC regulations, and the exchange’s internal rules. See id.
7
§ 78f(b)(1). Moreover, it precludes parties from contracting around, or otherwise
waiving compliance with, SEC‐approved exchange rules. See id. § 78cc(a).
2. SEC Sanctions NASDAQ for Rules Violations in Connection
with the Facebook IPO
The SEC conducted an investigation into NASDAQ’s handling of the
Facebook IPO, which resulted in the agency sanctioning NASDAQ for violating
the Exchange Act by not complying with its own SEC‐approved rules. Notably,
the SEC found NASDAQ not to have complied with NASDAQ Rule 4120(c)(7),
which mandates that trading commence immediately after an IPO “display only
period” and limits extension of the display period to specified circumstances
found not to have been present in the Facebook IPO. See SEC Release No. 34‐
69655, 2013 WL 2326683, at *2, *14. The SEC also found NASDAQ not to have
complied with its own Rule 4757(a)(1) by failing to adhere to its specified
price/time priority with respect to approximately 30,000 orders placed before
completion of the Facebook IPO Cross. See id. at *2, *14–15 The SEC further
identified an Exchange Act violation insofar as NASDAQ rules did not permit
NASDAQ to assume an error position in its own account, an action that, in
connection with the Facebook IPO, yielded NASDAQ a profit of approximately
$10.8 million. See id. *14.
8
To address these and other concerns, NASDAQ agreed, inter alia, to
amend Rule 4120 and to make certain technical changes to its IPO Cross system.
See id. at *15. The SEC endorsed these remedial proposals but, nevertheless,
sanctioned NASDAQ by, inter alia, censuring the exchange, ordering it to cease
and desist from violating the Exchange Act’s requirement that an exchange
adhere to its own rules, and imposing a $10 million civil penalty. See id. at *17.
C. The Parties’ Services Agreement
NASDAQ and UBS are parties to a bilateral “Services Agreement,” several
sections of which are relevant here.3
Section 12.B of the Services Agreement, entitled “Indemnification,” is the
basis for UBS’s underlying claim for breach of contract and indemnification. It
states as follows:
NASDAQ OMX shall be liable to, indemnify against, and hold
Subscriber [i.e., UBS], its employees, directors, and other agents
harmless from, any and all Claims or Losses (as those terms are
defined . . . herein) imposed on, incurred by or asserted against
[UBS], its employees, directors, and other agents to the extent that
the Claims and Losses result . . . from acts or omissions of NASDAQ
OMX, its employees, directors, agents or associated persons; or from
the receipt or use of [UBS]’s Data (including representations about
3 Like the parties, we refer to the latest version of the Agreement, as revised
February 20, 2013, which does not differ materially from that in effect at the time
of the Facebook IPO.
9
[UBS]’s Data) by NASDAQ OMX, its employees, directors, or agents
. . . .
A. 136. The referenced “Claims or Losses” are defined in Section 12.G of the
Services Agreement as follows:
any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, claims,
actions, suits, judgments, and reasonable costs and expenses of
whatever nature, whether incurred by or issued against an
indemnified Party, including without limitation: (i) indirect, special,
punitive, consequential, or incidental loss or damage (including, but
not limited to, trading losses, loss of anticipated profits, loss by
reason of shutdown in operation or increased expenses of operation,
or other indirect loss or damage); and (ii) reasonable administrative
costs, litigation costs, and auditors’ and attorneys’ fees, both in‐
house and outside counsel, and related disbursements.
A. 137.
UBS’s demand for arbitration derives from Section 18 of the Services
Agreement, entitled “Arbitration,” which states in relevant part:
A. Except as may be provided in the NASDAQ OMX
Requirements, all claims, disputes, controversies, and other matters
in question between the Parties to this Agreement and the Parties’
employees, directors, agents and associated persons arising out of,
or relating to this Agreement, or to the breach hereof, shall be settled
by final binding arbitration in accordance with this Agreement and
the following procedure or such other procedures as may be
mutually agreed upon by the Parties.
B. Except as otherwise provided herein or by agreement of the
Parties, any arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in accordance
with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration
10
Association or in accordance with such other rules and procedures
as are agreed to by the Parties.
. . .
D. The arbitration proceeding shall be held in the City of New
York, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties. The decision rendered
through arbitration shall be final and binding upon the Parties
hereto and judgment may be entered in accordance with applicable
law in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
A. 139. The “NASDAQ OMX Requirements,” referenced in the opening
qualifying phrase of the Arbitration provision, are defined at the outset of the
Services Agreement, in Section 1.A, as follows:
(i) the rules, regulations, interpretations, decisions, opinions, orders
and other requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC”); (ii) the applicable rules, regulations, disciplinary decisions,
and rule interpretations of self‐regulatory organizations;
(iii) NASDAQ OMX’s operating procedures, specifications,
requirements, and other documentation that is regulatory or
technical in nature (including, but not limited to, user guides) . . . ;
(iv) all other applicable laws, statutes, rules, regulations, orders,
decisions, interpretations, opinions, and other requirements,
whether promulgated by the United States or any other applicable
jurisdiction (including in the area of intellectual property); and
(v) the successors, as they may exist at the time, of the components
of the NASDAQ OMX Requirements.
A. 122–23.
Further noteworthy is Section 17 of the Services Agreement, which states
that “[i]n the event of any conflict between the provisions of the [Services
Agreement], the Attachments, or the NASDAQ OMX Requirements, the order of
11
preference shall be the NASDAQ OMX Requirements, the Attachments, and the
[Services Agreement].” A. 138.
D. Procedural History
1. UBS Demands Arbitration
On March 15, 2013, UBS filed a demand for arbitration against NASDAQ
with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). See Demand for
Arbitration and Statement of Claims (“Demand”), A. 46. The 18‐page demand
asserts that UBS’s dispute with NASDAQ originates in the exchange’s
“catastrophic mismanagement” of the Facebook IPO. Demand ¶ 1, A. 46.
Specifically, UBS alleges that NASDAQ “was not up to the task” of handling
such a large, high demand IPO: “[i]ts systems buckled under the strain,” and
“proved incapable of completing the all‐important ‘IPO Cross.’” Id. ¶ 3, A. 47.
As a result, NASDAQ not only “was forced repeatedly to delay the open of
trading in Facebook stock,” but also decided to “conceal[] from the market why it
was doing so,” and that it was switching to a “risky and untested” alternative
system, thereby preventing customers from evaluating how that system might
affect their own. Id. ¶¶ 4–5, A. 47. Moreover, because the alternative system
impaired NASDAQ’s ability to confirm executed trades, market participants
12
were left “in the dark for more than two hours” as to the state of tens of
thousands of trades, so that “[c]haos and mass confusion ensued throughout the
market.” Id. ¶¶ 7, 28, 32–33, A. 47–48, 53.
Based on these allegations, UBS charges NASDAQ with “violat[ing]” its
“primary obligation to the investing public and to entities such as UBS”: “to
operate a fair and orderly market.” Id. ¶ 37, A. 55. UBS asserts that how
NASDAQ should have “responsibly” met this obligation was “by delaying or
halting trading.” Id. ¶ 38, A. 55.
UBS also alleges that it was “grossly negligent” for NASDAQ to “depart[]
from proven software” in conducting such a large IPO and to continue trading
with “new and inadequately tested solutions,” without advising market
participants of “what was happening or what actions it was taking so they could
evaluate the potential consequences for themselves, their systems and take
appropriate action in response.” Id. ¶ 36, A. 54–55.
As to its own injuries, UBS asserts that NASDAQ’s failure to provide
prompt execution records prevented UBS’s own computers from confirming
what orders had been executed, resulting in UBS’s placement of duplicate orders
or its acceptance of cancellations for purchases that had, in fact, been made. See
13
id. ¶¶ 44–48, A. 57. “As a result, UBS unintentionally amassed a net long
position of approximately 40.2 million Facebook shares by the end of the trading
day,” and ultimately incurred losses “in excess of $350 million.” Id. ¶¶ 8, 50, A.
48, 58.
UBS seeks to recover these losses from NASDAQ based on (1) the
indemnification provision of the parties’ Services Agreement, (2) NASDAQ’s
breach of contract in refusing UBS’s indemnification demand, (3) NASDAQ’s
breach of the Services Agreement’s implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing in failing to declare certain UBS transactions clearly erroneous under
NASDAQ Rule 11890, and (4) NASDAQ’s gross negligence in using
insufficiently tested and inadequate systems to conduct the Facebook IPO. See
id. ¶¶ 52–76, A. 58–62.
2. NASDAQ’s Declaratory Judgment Action
In lieu of an answer to UBS’s demand for arbitration, on April 4, 2013,
NASDAQ filed this action in the Southern District of New York seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief. On April 16, NASDAQ moved preliminarily to
enjoin UBS from proceeding with arbitration. UBS promptly cross‐moved to
dismiss NASDAQ’s complaint and opposed the preliminary injunction motion.
14
On June 18, 2013, the district court granted NASDAQ’s motion for a
preliminary injunction and denied UBS’s cross‐motion to dismiss. See NASDAQ
OMX Grp., Inc. v. UBS Sec. LLC, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 407. UBS timely filed this
appeal.
II. Discussion
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) affords appellate jurisdiction to review the
grant of a preliminary injunction. Our standard of review is “abuse of
discretion,” which we will identify only when the grant of equitable relief
(1) “rests on an error of law or a clearly erroneous factual finding,” or
(2) otherwise “cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.”
Evergreen Ass’n v. City of New York, 740 F.3d 233, 242 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). UBS urges us to identify abuse of
discretion here based on the district court’s purported legal errors in
(1) exercising jurisdiction in a case raising only state law claims between non‐
diverse parties, (2) deciding the arbitrability of UBS’s claims itself rather than
leaving that issue to an arbitrator, and (3) concluding that UBS’s claims are not
arbitrable. We are not persuaded for reasons we discuss in turn.
15
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1. Federal Jurisdiction Over State Law Claims
We review a district court’s challenged determination of subject matter
jurisdiction de novo. See Cutrone v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 749 F.3d
137, 142 (2d Cir. 2014). In doing so, we are mindful of the “‘fundamental precept
that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction’ and lack the power to
disregard such limits as have been imposed by the Constitution or Congress.”
Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson, & Cortese‐Costa, P.C. v. Dupont, 565 F.3d
56, 62 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365,
374 (1978)). Where, as here, there is no diversity of citizenship between the
parties, we look to whether the case “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States” to determine whether federal jurisdiction is
properly exercised. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see Fracasse v. People’s United Bank, 747
F.3d 141, 143–44 (2d Cir. 2014).
“It is long settled law that a cause of action arises under federal law only
when the plaintiff’s well‐pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.”
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987). Nevertheless, in a
declaratory judgment action such as this one, which seeks a ruling establishing
16
plaintiff’s nonliability on the defendant’s claim (for arbitration), “a complaint . . .
is to be tested, for purposes of the well‐pleaded complaint rule, as if the party
whose adverse action the declaratory judgment plaintiff apprehends had
initiated a lawsuit against the declaratory judgment plaintiff.” Garanti Finansal
Kiralama A.S. v. Aqua Marine & Trading Inc., 697 F.3d 59, 68 (2d Cir. 2012)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Under this “conceptual[ ] realign[ment],” we
analyze the parties’ claims “as they would appear in a coercive suit.” Id. at 67.
Accordingly, here, we must look to UBS’s underlying demand for arbitration to
determine the nature of the claims at issue.
UBS’s demand does not assert any claims created by federal law so as to
admit federal jurisdiction most directly on the principle articulated by Justice
Holmes in American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., that “[a] suit arises
under the law that creates the cause of action.” 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916); see Gunn
v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1064 (2013) (noting that case “[m]ost directly . . . arises
under federal law when federal law creates the cause of action asserted,” a “rule
of inclusion” that “accounts for the vast bulk of suits that arise under federal
law” and “admits of only extremely rare exceptions”). Rather, UBS seeks to
arbitrate claims—for breach of contract, indemnification, breach of implied
17
duties of good faith and fair dealing, and gross negligence—created by New
York State law. This, however, does not necessarily preclude the exercise of
federal jurisdiction.
As we have frequently observed, “[t]he artful‐pleading doctrine, [a]
corollary to the well‐pleaded complaint rule, prevents a plaintiff from avoiding
[federal jurisdiction] by framing in terms of state law a complaint the real nature
of [which] is federal, . . . or by omitting to plead necessary federal questions in a
complaint.” Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 55 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal
quotation marks omitted); accord Romano v. Kazacos, 609 F.3d 512, 518–19 (2d
Cir. 2010). Moreover, even in the absence of artful pleading, federal jurisdiction
may properly be exercised over a “special and small” category of actual state
claims that present significant, disputed issues of federal law. Gunn v. Minton,
133 S. Ct. at 1064. At issue in this case is whether UBS’s state law claims fall
within this special and small category so as to admit federal question
jurisdiction.
The category, which dates back “nearly 100 years” in Supreme Court
precedent, is rooted in “the commonsense notion that a federal court ought to be
able to hear claims recognized under state law that nonetheless turn on
18
substantial questions of federal law, and thus justify resort to the experience,
solicitude, and hope of uniformity that a federal forum offers on federal issues.”
Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005)
(citing Hopkins v. Walker, 244 U.S. 486, 490–91 (1917), and “classic example” of
Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180, 201 (1921)). Still, the
Supreme Court has been sparing in recognizing state law claims fitting this
criterion. See R. Fallon, J. Manning, D. Meltzer, & D. Shapiro, Hart and
Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and The Federal System (“Hart & Wechsler”) 799
(6th ed. 2009) (observing that Court has explicitly upheld federal jurisdiction in
absence of federal cause of action only four times, citing Grable & Sons Metal
Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. at 314–16, and City of Chicago v.
Int’l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 164 (1997), in addition to Smith and
Hopkins). Indeed, delineating the parameters of federal jurisdiction in such
circumstances has presented a constant challenge. See Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct.
at 1065 (describing Supreme Court’s efforts to bring order to “this unruly
doctrine”); Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 809–10 (1986)
(referencing “‘litigation‐provoking problem’” created by “presence of a federal
issue in a state‐created cause of action” (quoting Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills,
19
353 U.S. 448, 470 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)). This, in turn, has
engendered persistent skepticism as to the value of the endeavor. See Grable &
Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. at 320 (Thomas, J.,
concurring) (signaling openness to reconsideration of whether federal question
jurisdiction should be limited to cases in which federal law creates cause of
action because “[j]urisdictional rules should be clear” and “[w]hatever the
virtues of the Smith standard, it is anything but clear”); Smith v. Kansas City
Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. at 214 (Holmes, J., dissenting) (“[I]t seems to me that a
suit cannot be said to arise under any other law than that which creates the cause
of action.”); see also Hart and Wechsler 799–800 (observing that “Justice Holmes’
cause of action test is simpler and clearer—and while excluding cases like Smith
or Grable, it avoids the need in a much larger number of cases to engage in what
can be a refined and uncertain analysis”).
This background properly signals caution in identifying the narrow
category of state claims over which federal jurisdiction may be exercised. It does
not, however, absolve federal courts of the duty to exercise jurisdiction when
they identify state claims falling within that limited sphere. To facilitate such
identification, the Supreme Court has pronounced a determinative four‐part test:
20
[F]ederal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue
is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and
(4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the
federal‐state balance approved by Congress. Where all four of these
requirements are met . . . jurisdiction is proper because there is a
“serious federal interest in claiming the advantages thought to be
inherent in a federal forum,” which can be vindicated without
disrupting Congress’s intended division of labor between state and
federal courts.
Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. at 1065 (quoting Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v.
Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. at 313–14); accord Fracasse v. People’s United
Bank, 747 F.3d at 144.
Applying this Gunn‐Grable test here, we conclude that the district court
correctly exercised federal question jurisdiction in this case. Indeed, while that
conclusion only requires us to identify federal question jurisdiction over one of
UBS’s state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (providing for supplemental
jurisdiction over claims related to one giving rise to original jurisdiction);
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983)
(stating that, if either of two causes of action comes within original jurisdiction of
federal courts, removal was proper as to whole case), for reasons discussed in the
next section, we conclude that federal question jurisdiction applies to all four of
UBS’s state claims.
21
2. Applying the Gunn‐Grable Test to UBS’s Claims
a. The Presence of a Necessarily Raised and Actually
Disputed Federal Issue
In determining whether UBS’s four state law claims against NASDAQ
raise a federal issue, we begin by considering the duty underlying each claim. It
is the violation of a duty that would trigger any contract right to indemnification,
or support tort claims for negligence or a failure of good faith and fair dealing in
the circumstances presented. See Aegis Ins. Servs., Inc. v. 7 World Trade Co.,
L.P., 737 F.3d 166, 177 (2d Cir. 2013) (stating that, under New York law,
negligence claim depends on “the existence of a duty on defendant’s part as to
plaintiff” (internal citation omitted)); Havana Cent. NY2 LLC v. Lunney’s Pub,
Inc., 49 A.D.3d 70, 77, 852 N.Y.S.2d 32, 37 (1st Dep’t 2007) (observing that “if
there is no contractual obligation to perform an act, the failure to perform the act
cannot be a breach of the contract” (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts
§ 235(b) (1981) (defining breach of contract as “non‐performance of a duty when
performance is due”))); Thyroff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 460 F.3d 400, 407–08
(2d Cir. 2006) (recognizing that implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claim
requires “an obligation that may be presumed to have been intended by the
parties” to the underlying contract).
22
UBS’s arbitration demand makes plain that a singular duty underlies all
four of its state law claims: NASDAQ’s duty to operate a fair and orderly market.
“An exchange is required to operate a fair and orderly market. This is its
primary obligation to the investing public and to entities such as UBS. Nasdaq
violated this obligation.” Demand ¶ 37, A. 55.
The duty UBS identifies—indeed, the very language it employs—derives
directly from federal law. In the Exchange Act, Congress makes plain that
“maintenance of fair and orderly markets” is the animating goal of federal
securities law. 15 U.S.C. § 78k‐1(a)(1)(C). Toward this end, and as detailed in
Part I.B.1., supra, the Exchange Act requires, as a specific condition of
registration as a national exchange, that an SRO satisfactorily demonstrate to the
SEC that its internal operating rules “remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.” Id. §
78f(b)(5).4 The Act further makes an exchange’s compliance with its SEC‐
approved rules a mandate of federal law, see id. § 78s(g)(1), and provides for
4 In its arbitration demand, UBS effectively acknowledges the federal law origin
of NASDAQ’s market duty when it describes NASDAQ as “a self‐regulatory
organization . . . within the meaning of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is
responsible for operating and maintaining the integrity of the Nasdaq stock
market.” Demand ¶ 14(a), A. 50.
23
violators to be sanctioned, see id. §§ 78u(d),(f), 78s(h)(1),(4). Thus, whether a
registered securities exchange such as NASDAQ has violated its federally
prescribed duty to operate a fair and orderly exchange necessarily raises a
disputed question of federal law.
Moreover, that federal law question can only be answered by considering
another: how NASDAQ’s duty to operate a fair and orderly market—a duty
sourced in the Exchange Act, amplified by SEC regulations, and implemented
through SEC‐approved NASDAQ rules—applies in the context of an IPO
generally, and particularly with respect to the Facebook IPO. Thus, even if, as
our dissenting colleague Judge Straub observes, there is no dispute here as to the
existence of a federal duty, see Dissenting Op., post at [7–8], there is certainly a
dispute as to the violation of that duty, particularly in causing UBS’s injuries.
Resolution of that dispute will require construction of a federal statute, rules
promulgated pursuant to the statute’s mandates, and the statute’s
implementation by the SEC.5 In short, “it is the propriety of [NASDAQ’s]
5 We need not decide whether, as Judge Straub maintains, federal jurisdiction
over state claims invariably depends on the disputed “validity or construction of
a federal statute.” See Dissenting Op., post at [20–21]. We note, however, that
this court has concluded that federal jurisdiction over a state claim was properly
exercised where the dispute required a construction of exchange rules
24
actions, as prescribed under federal law, that is at the heart of [UBS’s]
allegations.” D’Alessio v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., 258 F.3d 93, 103 (2d Cir. 2001).6
In reporting on its inquiry into NASDAQ’s compliance with the Exchange
Act in conducting the Facebook IPO, the SEC stated that “[w]hen initiating an
IPO, an exchange has an obligation to ensure that its systems, processes and
contingency planning are robust and adequate to manage the IPO without
disruption to the market, and that it complies with all rules regarding, among
other things, order price and time priority.” SEC Release No. 34‐69655, 2013 WL
2326683, at *1. These are the very obligations that UBS charges NASDAQ with
failing to meet in violating its duty to provide a fair and orderly market for the
Facebook IPO. See supra Part I.D.1 (discussing UBS Demand allegations). Thus,
although UBS’s claims for relief may invoke state law of contract and tort, the
duty on which these claims turn—and their particular scope as it pertains to UBS
implicating the exchange’s statutory duty to monitor its members’ compliance
with federal law, the identified substantial issue. See D’Alessio v. N.Y. Stock
Exch., Inc., 258 F.3d 93, 101–02 (2d Cir. 2001).
6 As in D’Alessio, exchange rules are at issue in this case to the extent they inform
the statutory duty—“to operate a fair and orderly market”—that UBS asserts
NASDAQ “violated.” Demand ¶ 37, A. 55.
25
in participating in the Facebook IPO—necessarily raises disputed issues of
federal securities law.
For example, in pursuing its claim for indemnification and breach of
contract for failure to indemnify (collectively “indemnification claims”), UBS
submits that the parties’ Services Agreement obligates NASDAQ to compensate
UBS for losses sustained as a result of technical errors in conducting the
Facebook IPO, including NASDAQ’s failure timely and accurately to fill and
confirm orders. See Demand ¶¶ 58–59, 66, A. 59–60. But the Services Agreement
does not itself specify how NASDAQ was to fill and confirm orders or otherwise
conduct an IPO. Those obligations are delineated in NASDAQ’s own rules,
notably, Rules 4120 (“Limit Up‐Limit Down Plan and Trading Halts”) and 4753
(“Halt and Imbalance Cross”), which prescribe how NASDAQ was to conduct an
IPO Cross, to fill orders, to provide disclosures, and to make decisions regarding
initiating, halting, and resuming trading. The Services Agreement incorporates
NASDAQ’s rules by reference, see Services Agreement § 17, A. 138, but
NASDAQ’s duties to promulgate those rules and then to adhere to them were
dictated by federal law, see 15 U.S.C. § 78s(b)(2) (mandating exchanges to
promulgate rules “consistent with the requirements of the [Exchange Act]”),
26
§ 78s(g)(1) (requiring exchange compliance with own rules). Thus, UBS’s
indemnification claims are reasonably understood to seek compensation for
losses allegedly caused by NASDAQ’s violation of its federal law duties to
operate fair and orderly markets and to adhere to its own SEC‐approved internal
rules ensuring such operation. As such, the claims necessarily raise disputed
issues of federal law.7
The same conclusion obtains as to UBS’s claim for breach of the implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing, insofar as NASDAQ failed to cancel certain
UBS trades placed during the Facebook IPO. Although pleaded by reference to
7 The incorporation of a federal standard in a state‐law private action does not
necessarily trigger federal jurisdiction, but that conclusion derives not from the
absence of a disputed federal law issue at the initial step of Gunn‐Grable analysis
but from doubt as to the substantiality of the federal issue in dispute at the next
step of analysis. See Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. at 805–06,
814–16. As we explain in Part II.A.2.b, infra, Merrill Dow does not support any
categorical conclusions as to substantiality, as suggested by Judge Straub, see
Dissenting Op., post at [26–27]. Indeed, in Grable, the Supreme Court described
Merrell Dow as “disclaim[ing] the adoption of any bright‐line rule, as when the
Court reiterated that ‘in exploring the outer reaches of § 1331, determinations
about federal jurisdiction require sensitive judgments about congressional intent,
judicial power, and the federal system’” and “‘careful judgments,’ . . . about the
‘nature of the federal interest at stake.’” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v.
Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. at 317 (quoting Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v.
Thompson, 478 U.S. at 810, 814 & n.12).
27
New York law, the claim is premised on NASDAQ Rule 11890. See Demand
¶¶ 68–73, A, 61–2 (repeatedly referencing Rule 11890).
Rule 11890 authorizes NASDAQ to cancel any transaction deemed clearly
erroneous. A party seeking cancellation must submit a written complaint within
30 minutes of the time at which the erroneous transaction was executed. See
Rule 11890(a)(2)(A)(i). Alternatively, NASDAQ, in its discretion, may consider
cancellation requests received up to 60 minutes after execution of an erroneous
transaction. See Rule 11890(a)(2)(A)(iii).
UBS alleges that, on the day of the Facebook IPO, it provided NASDAQ
with notice of certain erroneous transactions. To the extent its request for
cancellation was untimely, UBS charges that it was NASDAQ’s own conduct that
deprived it of the rule’s benefit, thereby breaching the duty of good faith and fair
dealing implicit in the Services Agreement’s incorporation of Rule 11890: “By
failing to inform UBS or the market of its system malfunctions in a timely
manner, Nasdaq denied UBS the opportunity to provide notice of clearly
erroneous trades in a manner consistent with Nasdaq Rule 11890, and thus
denied it the benefit of that provision.” Demand ¶ 73, A. 61.
28
UBS’s good faith and fair dealing claim thus necessarily raises disputed
questions as to NASDAQ’s obligations under Rule 11890, not only generally, but
in the particular circumstances where NASDAQ has allegedly violated its
Exchange Act duty to provide a fair and orderly market for securities trading.
Thus, this claim also necessarily presents a disputed issue of federal law.
Finally, UBS charges NASDAQ with gross negligence insofar as it
employed unprecedented, untested, and inadequate systems and procedures to
conduct the Facebook IPO. See Demand ¶¶ 74–76, A. 62. As earlier noted, an
essential element of a negligence claim is the existence of a duty owed by
defendant to plaintiff. See Aegis Ins. Servs., Inc. v. 7 World Trade Co., L.P., 737
F.3d at 177. The source of the duty NASDAQ owed its members and the
investing public in conducting an IPO is federal law. See D’Alessio v. N.Y. Stock
Exch., Inc., 258 F.3d at 103 (observing that source of exchange’s duty to monitor
compliance with federal securities law and rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder “is found in federal law, namely, in the Exchange Act” (emphasis in
original)); SEC Release No. 34‐69655, 2013 WL 2326683, at *1 (summarizing
exchange’s obligations under federal law when initiating an IPO). Insofar as the
parties dispute whether NASDAQ breached its duty to UBS in conducting the
29
Facebook IPO, the negligence claim thus also necessarily raises disputed issues of
federal law.8
In sum, UBS’s claims against NASDAQ necessarily raise multiple disputed
issues of federal law, including the contours of NASDAQ’s federal duty to
maintain a fair and orderly market, the scope of that duty, and whether the
failure of NASDAQ’s systems during the Facebook IPO amounted to a breach of
that duty. Accordingly, we deem this prong of the Gunn‐Grable test satisfied
and we turn to the next requirement: substantiality.
b. Substantiality
The exercise of federal jurisdiction over state law claims demands “not
only a contested federal issue, but a substantial one.” Grable & Sons Metal
Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. at 313. Substantiality ensures “a
serious federal interest in claiming the advantages thought to be inherent in a
federal forum.” Id. Consistent with this objective, “it is not enough that the
federal issue be significant to the particular parties in the immediate suit”; rather,
8 Although UBS suggested at oral argument that its negligence claim did not
depend on federal law, the argument is defeated by the cited precedents, by
UBS’s specific reference in its Demand to the Exchange Act duty to operate a fair
and orderly market, and by its failure to point us to any distinct state law duty
applicable to NASDAQ’s conduct of the Facebook IPO.
30
“substantiality . . . looks to the importance of the issue to the federal system as a
whole.” Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. at 1066; accord Fracasse v. People’s United
Bank, 747 F.3d at 144. We here conclude that the disputed federal issue in this
case—whether NASDAQ violated its Exchange Act obligation to provide a fair
and orderly market in conducting an IPO—is sufficiently significant to the
development of a uniform body of federal securities regulation to satisfy the
requirement of importance to “the federal system as a whole.”9
In reaching this conclusion, we begin with language in the Exchange Act
stating Congress’s express finding that “[t]he securities markets are an important
national asset which must be preserved and strengthened.” 15 U.S.C. § 78k‐
9 Judge Straub suggests that issues “important to the federal system as a whole”
must be issues of “federal jurisprudence.” Dissenting Op., post at [20]. We note
that the Supreme Court has not referenced jurisprudence—“the study of the
general or fundamental elements of a particular legal system, as opposed to its
practical and concrete details,” Black’s Law Dictionary 932 (9th ed. 2009)—in
explicating Gunn‐Grable analysis. The matter requires no detailed discussion
here, however, because the federal law requirement that national exchanges
provide fair and orderly markets is a fundamental element, and not a peripheral
detail, of the federal system of securities regulation. According to the standards
laid out in Gunn, this is sufficient to establish importance to the federal system as
a whole. See Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. at 1067 (suggesting that “development
of a uniform body of [patent] law” was of importance to the federal system as a
whole (alterations in original)); see also Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue
Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. at 309 (holding that dispute over “meaning of a federal
tax provision” is “important federal‐law issue that belongs in federal court”).
31
1(a)(1)(A). The central role stock exchanges play in the national system of
securities markets is beyond question:
Stock exchanges perform an important function in the economic life
of this country. They serve, first of all, as an indispensable
mechanism through which corporate securities can be bought and
sold. To corporate enterprise such a market mechanism is a
fundamental element in facilitating the successful marshaling of
large aggregations of funds that would otherwise be extremely
difficult of access. To the public the exchanges are an investment
channel which promises ready convertibility of stock holdings into
cash. The importance of these functions in dollar terms is vast . . . .
Moreover, because trading on the exchanges, in addition to
establishing the price level of listed securities, affects securities
prices in general, and because such transactions are often regarded
as an indicator of our national economic health, the significance of
the exchanges in our economy cannot be measured only in terms of
the dollar volume of trading.
Silver v. N.Y. Stock Exch., 373 U.S. 341, 349–50 (1963). The SEC recently
reiterated this point: “National securities exchanges . . . are critical components
of the National Market System, which provides the foundation for investor
confidence in the integrity and stability of the United States’ capital markets.”
SEC Release No. 34‐69655, 2013 WL 2326683, at *1. Thus, while exchanges are
self‐regulatory organizations, their self‐regulation is not independent. Federal
law imposes specific preconditions to, ongoing requirements for, and oversight
of, the operations of registered exchanges in furtherance of the strong national
32
interest in “preserv[ing] and strengthen[ing]” the operation of national securities
markets. 15 U.S.C. § 78k‐1(a)(1)(A).
Even if the importance of stock exchanges and securities markets to the
national economy does not necessarily render every federal question pertaining
thereto sufficiently substantial to satisfy this prong of Gunn‐Grable analysis, it is
noteworthy here that the SEC’s just‐quoted statement was made, not generally,
but in the specific context of assessing the very federal issue disputed in this case,
namely, whether NASDAQ, in conducting one of the largest IPOs in the nation’s
history, had complied with mandates of the Exchange Act, including mandates
that it operate a fair and orderly market and adhere to its own SEC‐approved
rules. This strongly signals the substantial importance of these federal issues, not
simply to the parties in this action, but to the development of uniform federal
securities regulation, and thus to the “federal system as a whole.” Gunn v.
Minton, 133 S. Ct. at 1066.10
10 Our dissenting colleague suggests that the fact that UBS challenges NASDAQ’s
market operations in the context of one of the largest IPOs in history is of no
import to our substantiality analysis. See Dissenting Op., post at [21–22]. To the
contrary, it is these circumstances that demonstrate NASDAQ’s challenged
actions to have reached well beyond UBS to affect every member of the
NASDAQ exchange and hundreds of thousands of investors. Thus, the parties’
dispute as to the parameters of NASDAQ’s Exchange Act duty to provide a fair
33
UBS urges otherwise, citing Barbara v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 99
F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1996). In there holding that a disputed issue about an exchange’s
compliance with an internal rule was not sufficiently substantial to support
federal jurisdiction over state claims, this court observed that such rules are
essentially “contractual in nature, and are thus interpreted pursuant to ordinary
principles of contract law, an area in which the federal courts have no special
expertise.” Id. at 54–55 (internal quotation marks omitted). UBS suggests, and
Judge Straub appears to agree, see Dissenting Op., post at [12–13], that this
pronouncement categorically precludes identifying exchange rules disputes as
“substantial” federal issues. This not only overreads Barbara, but also fails to
heed Supreme Court precedent disavowing categorical assessments of federal
jurisdiction over state law claims.
As to Barbara, we first note that this court there recognized that state law
claims turning on an exchange’s compliance with its internal rules do raise
disputed questions of federal law; it was at the next step of analysis that Barbara
and orderly market in the context of this IPO must be viewed as a federal
question important to the national system of securities regulation as a whole and,
therefore, a “substantial” federal dispute. Indeed, we explain this point further
in Part II.A.2.b, infra.
34
concluded that the particular federal questions raised in that case were
insufficiently substantial, i.e., important to the federal system as a whole, to
support the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See 99 F.3d at 54.
Second, the source of Barbara’s observation about the contractual nature of
securities rules, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Georgiadis, 903
F.2d 109, 112 (2d Cir. 1990), is worth noting. In Merrill Lynch, this court had to
decide which of two agreements controlled an arbitration dispute: the general
arbitration provision in the American Stock Exchange’s SEC‐approved
constitution or the parties’ more specific customer agreement pertaining to
arbitration. Viewing both agreements as contractual, this court concluded that
federal arbitration law, see 9 U.S.C. § 2, required that the more specific customer
agreement control. This case presents us with no comparable separate
agreement between the parties—much less one subject to a unique statutory
mandate, such as federal arbitration law—that might afford UBS rights distinct
from those reflected in NASDAQ’s SEC‐approved rules for satisfying the fair‐
and‐orderly market requirements of the Exchange Act.
Barbara made no mention of these circumstances in applying Merrill
Lynch’s analogy of exchange rules to contracts even in the absence of a statutory
35
conflict. Nor did it have occasion to consider or discuss the fact that, unlike most
contracts between private parties, exchange rules are subject to SEC approval.
This is hardly surprising given that the particular rules dispute at issue in
Barbara was of trifling significance to the overall system of federal securities
regulation, especially in comparison to the far more important question of
whether NASDAQ breached its duty to maintain a fair and orderly market in the
Facebook IPO—a point discussed further in the next paragraph.11 In fact,
however, the ordinary principle of contract law that looks only to the intent of
private contractors to construe their agreements, see Goldman v. White Plains
Ctr. for Nursing Care, LLC, 11 N.Y.3d 173, 176, 867 N.Y.S.2d 27, 29 (2008), is not
so simply applied to SEC‐approved rules, particularly rules intended to effect the
Exchange Act’s prescribed duty to provide fair and orderly markets—the point
11 Barbara acknowledged SEC‐approval of NASDAQ rules in setting forth the
case’s background, see 99 F.3d at 51, but the court had no need thereafter to
consider or discuss how this statutorily mandated approval process might bear
on substantiality because the rules dispute at issue in Barbara was important
only to the parties, not to the federal system as a whole. Thus, the conclusion
Barbara drew from Merrill Lynch’s pronouncement that “the rules of a securities
exchange are contractual in nature,” Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v.
Georgiadis, 903 F.2d at 113, i.e., that such rules “are thus interpreted pursuant to
ordinary principles of contract law, an area in which the federal courts have no
special expertise,” Barbara v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 99 F.3d at 55,
supports at most a general, but not a categorical, conclusion that exchange rules
disputes do not raise substantial federal questions.
36
at issue here. While NASDAQ and UBS here incorporated NASDAQ rules into
their own Services Agreement, federal law did not permit them to do otherwise
or to agree on a different rule construction within the Services Agreement than
that recognized by the SEC. See 15 U.S.C. § 78cc(a) (precluding parties from
contracting around SEC‐approved exchange rules); Services Agreement § 17, A.
138 (providing that NASDAQ OMX Requirements, which include all SEC‐
approved NASDAQ rules, shall have preference over any conflicting Agreement
provisions). Thus, Exchange Act mandates for NASDAQ’s rules, the SEC’s
particular role in approving NASDAQ’s rules, its authority itself to change those
rules, its responsibility for overseeing NASDAQ’s compliance with the rules, and
its power to discipline NASDAQ for rules violations—as it did with respect to
the Facebook IPO here at issue—all indicate that NASDAQ rules are part of a
more complex scheme (implicating greater federal interests) than that presented
by most private party agreements, even those that borrow federal standards to
resolve state law contract claims. See D’Alessio v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., 258 F.3d
at 104 (“The comprehensive scheme of statutes and regulations designed to
police the securities industry is indicative of a strong federal interest.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, the contractual nature of Exchange Act‐
37
mandated exchange rules does not, by itself, mean that all rule disputes raise
insubstantial questions of federal law. Rather, substantiality depends on a
careful assessment of how the rule dispute affects the federal system as a whole.
See generally Fracasse v. People’s United Bank, 747 F.3d at 144–45 (concluding
that disputed issue under Fair Labor Standards Act was insubstantial where
plaintiffs referenced federal law for “public policy considerations” and not as
basis for their claims).
This brings us to our third, and most important point in distinguishing this
case from Barbara: the context of the rules disputes in these two cases. The
dispute in Barbara pertained to an exchange’s action, allegedly in violation of the
exchange’s rules, in provisionally barring a floor clerk from the trading floor
while disciplinary proceedings were pending against him, and then in refusing
to lift the ban even after all disciplinary charges against the clerk were dismissed.
See Barbara v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., 99 F.3d at 51–52.
Without belittling the importance of either the maintenance of discipline
among marketplace personnel, or of an exchange’s adherence to its disciplinary
rules, the parties’ dispute in Barbara did not implicate one of “the most
fundamental functions of a national securities exchange.” SEC Release No. 34‐
38
69655, 2013 WL 2326683, at *1. In contrast, UBS’s claims here, whether sounding
in contract or in tort, charge NASDAQ with violating the core duty of a federally
registered SRO under the Exchange Act: to provide a fair and orderly market for
a public stock offering. The SEC emphasized the importance of that duty to the
overall system of federal securities regulation when it observed in connection
with NASDAQ’s conduct of the Facebook IPO, “[t]he orderly initiation of
secondary market trading after an IPO is one of the most fundamental functions
of a national securities exchange, and affects not only the market for those
individual companies but also investor confidence in the market as a whole.”
SEC Release No. 34‐69655, 2013 WL 2326683, at *1. Indeed, there can be no doubt
as to that conclusion given that NASDAQ’s alleged failure to provide a fair and
orderly market was in the context of one of the largest public stock of offerings in
history—involving 421 million shares valued at $16 billion. In short, UBS does
not charge NASDAQ with violating its Exchange Act duty to provide a fair and
orderly market for a small or discrete number of securities transactions; rather it
charges a massive failure of NASDAQ’s systems. Thus, the federal question
39
raised by UBS’s claims as to NASDAQ’s performance of its critical, federally
mandated duty cannot be deemed less than substantial.12
That conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the particular NASDAQ
actions faulted by UBS—in starting and stopping trading, cancelling trades, and
informing the public of its actions—implicate exchange powers that have been
deemed “quasi‐governmental.” DL Capital Grp., LLC v. Nasdaq Stock Mkt., 409
F.3d 93, 98 (2d Cir. 2005) (listing among such powers “Nasdaq’s regulatory
decisions to suspend trading, resume trading, or cancel trades” and noting that
even choice of when and how to announce those decisions was “consistent with
Nasdaq’s quasi‐governmental powers as an SRO” (emphasis in original) (internal
quotation marks and brackets omitted). To be sure, this does not equate this case
to those presenting disputes as to the validity of actual governmental action. See
12 Our dissenting colleague downplays the pervasive effects on the national
securities markets of NASDAQ’s alleged failures in conducting the Facebook IPO
on the ground that substantiality means not “large” or “significant” but only
“important to federal jurisprudence.” See Dissenting Op., post, at [21–22]. We
have already explained why a dispute about the scope of an exchange’s duty to
operate a fair and orderly market is fundamental to the development of a
uniform body of federal securities regulation and, thus, important to the federal
system as a whole. See supra note 9 and accompanying text. The fact that UBS
charges NASDAQ with a failure of that duty in connection with such a large
public offering only confirms that the question here is important “to the federal
system as a whole,” the standard for substantiality set forth in Gunn v. Minton,
133 S. Ct. at 1066.
40
Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. at 315–16
(approving exercise of federal jurisdiction over state claims where validity of IRS
action was central to dispute); Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. at
201 (identifying federal jurisdiction over state law claim that required decision
on constitutional validity of federal bond issuance). Nevertheless, where, as
here, UBS’s state law claims already present a substantial dispute of federal law
insofar as they charge NASDAQ with violating its Exchange Act duty to provide
a fair and orderly market for the Facebook IPO, the fact that UBS attributes that
violation to NASDAQ’s malfeasance in performing quasi‐governmental powers
conferred on it by the Exchange Act reinforces our substantiality conclusion.
Further, characteristics that in some cases have signaled against
substantiality—e.g., the retrospective nature of a claim, the propriety of resolving
the federal dispute in a state forum, and the absence of a federal remedy—do not
support that conclusion here. See Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. at 1066–67
(referencing retrospective nature of claim and state’s ability to resolve dispute at
issue without threatening uniformity of federal law as factors that might signal
lack of substantiality); Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. at 814
(construing Congress’s decision not to provide federal remedy for violation of
41
federal law as tantamount to conclusion that presence of claimed violation in
state cause of action is insufficiently substantial to confer federal question
jurisdiction). To the contrary, resolution of the disputed federal law issue here
would likely have far‐reaching prospective consequences for the operation of
national securities exchanges, particularly in conducting IPOs. Further, as
discussed in the next section addressing the federal‐state balance prong of the
Gunn‐Grable test, see infra Part II.A.3, Congress has attempted to place disputes
alleging violations of federal securities law obligations exclusively in a federal
forum. Finally, since Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, the
Supreme Court has clarified that the absence of a federal cause of action is a
factor relevant to, but not dispositive of, the question of whether a federal law
dispute raised by a state law claim can properly be deemed substantial. See
Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. at 310, 318.
In short, UBS cannot urge that Barbara or any other case establishes a
categorical rule for assessing substantiality because the Supreme Court has ruled
that the concept is not susceptible to bright‐line analysis. Rather, substantiality
must be determined based on a careful, case‐by‐case judgment. See id. at 317–18;
see also Gully v. First Nat’l Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 117–18 (1936)
42
(Cardozo, J.) (observing that substantiality assessment requires “something of
that common‐sense accommodation of judgment to kaleidoscopic situations
which characterizes the law in its treatment of problems of causation”); accord
Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp., 68 F.3d 561, 570 (2d Cir. 1996)
(referencing need for court to make “principled, pragmatic distinctions” in
assessing substantiality (internal quotations omitted)).
Because the category of cases admitting federal jurisdiction over state law
claims is “special and small,” Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. at 1064, it is to be
expected that, after such careful, case‐specific consideration, most federal law
questions raised in connection with state law claims will not be deemed
substantial, see id. at 1064–65; Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp., 68
F.3d at 570–71; Gully v. First Nat’l Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. at 118. But the
federal law dispute in this case—whether NASDAQ violated its duty to provide
a fair and orderly market for the Facebook IPO—is of a different sort.13
13 Judge Straub predicts that exercising federal jurisdiction here will lead to a
“horde” of increased litigation, trying to sweep into federal court every state law
claim that turns on the interpretation of a stock exchange rule, including
countless arbitration proceedings before the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (“FINRA”). See Dissenting Op, post Part III.B. This concern is
unwarranted. Few, if any, such cases are likely to present issues of such
importance to the federal system of securities regulation as the alleged wholesale
43
As already explained, that duty is not simply coincidental to UBS’s state
law claims; it is the duty on which the claims rest. Thus, this case is not at all
akin to Gunn in which the Supreme Court ruled that a federal patent law
question arising in the context of a state malpractice action was not sufficiently
substantial to support federal jurisdiction over the malpractice action. See 133 S.
Ct. at 1066–68. Not only was the patent question in Gunn derivative rather than
direct; it was also merely “hypothetical” because of the backward looking nature
of the claim. See id. at 1066 (noting that state court would, at most, consider
what would have happened in prior federal proceeding if argument had been
made). There is nothing indirect or hypothetical in UBS’s claim that NASDAQ
failed in its “primary” duty to provide a fair and orderly market for the Facebook
IPO. Moreover, the strong federal interest in an exchange’s performance of that
duty is evident from the Exchange Act’s specific identification of fair and orderly
markets as an animating object of that legislation, see 15 U.S.C. § 78k‐1(a)(1)(C),
and from its provision conditioning national exchange registration on a
demonstration of (and subsequent compliance with) internal rules that promote
fair and orderly markets, see id. §§ 78s(g)(1), 78u(d) (f), 78s(h)(1) (4); see also
failure charged here of a stock exchange’s Exchange Act duty to provide a fair
and orderly market for a major IPO.
44
D’Alessio v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., 258 F.3d at 100 (stating that issues requiring
interpretation and application of federal securities laws and related statutory and
regulatory requirements are “areas of undisputed strong federal interest”);
Friedlander v. Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 788 F.2d 1500, 1504
(11th Cir. 1986) (“The comprehensive scheme of statutes and regulations
designed to police the securities industry is indicative of a strong federal
interest.”). The SEC has recognized that the need for fair and orderly markets is
greatest when a stock offering is being made to the investing public. NASDAQ’s
alleged violation of its duty to provide a fair and orderly market arises in just
that context, indeed, in connection with one of the largest public offerings of
securities in the nation’s history. Such circumstances compel the conclusion that
UBS’s state law claims raise substantial, disputed federal issues—issues
important to the federal system as a whole.
3. Federal‐State Balance
The final Gunn‐Grable factor “is concerned with the appropriate ‘balance
of federal and state judicial responsibilities.’” Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. at 1068
(quoting Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. at
314). Here, this factor strongly supports federal jurisdiction. Far from
45
threatening the federal‐state balance envisioned by Congress in this area, the
exercise of federal jurisdiction here comports with Congress’s expressed
preference for alleged violations of the Exchange Act, and of rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder, to be litigated in a federal forum. See 15
U.S.C. § 78aa(a) (providing federal courts with “exclusive jurisdiction of
violations of [Exchange Act] or the rules and regulations thereunder, and of all
suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created
by [Exchange Act] or the rules and regulations thereunder”).
Indeed, among our sister circuits, the Fifth and Ninth have concluded that
certain disputes involving state law claims against SROs confer exclusive federal
jurisdiction under § 78aa. See Sacks v. Dietrich, 663 F.3d 1065, 1068–69 (9th Cir.
2011) (concluding that, though plaintiff pleaded only state law causes of action
and did not name as defendant SRO or SRO employees, “liability turns on
interpretation of rules that are approved by the SEC and whose violations are
subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction,” citing § 78aa); Sparta Surgical Corp. v.
Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211–12 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding
that “although [plaintiff’s] theories are posited as state law claims, they are
founded on the defendants’ conduct in suspending trading and de‐listing the
46
offering, the propriety of which must be exclusively determined by federal law”
and therefore § 78aa provided for exclusive jurisdiction in federal court);
Hawkins v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 149 F.3d 330, 331–32 (5th Cir. 1998)
(concluding that plaintiff’s claims against SRO of breach of duty, conspiracy to
deny relief, and failure to supervise, “though carefully articulated in terms of
state law, are actions at law seeking to enforce liabilities or duties created by
federal securities laws which are governed exclusively by federal courts
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa”).
In Barbara, we declined to adopt such a broad reading of § 78aa. See 99
F.3d at 55 (holding that federal jurisdiction over state claims could not be
premised on § 78aa because that statute refers to claims created by the Exchange
Act and rules promulgated thereunder, not to claims created by state law). See
also Karsner v. Lothian, 532 F.3d 876, 887–88 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (concluding that
SEC approval of National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) rules did
not bring all rules questions within § 78aa grant of exclusive federal jurisdiction);
Ford v. Hamilton Investments, Inc., 29 F.3d 255, 258–59 (6th Cir. 1994) (holding
that dispute about arbitration compliance with NASD rules did not give rise to
federal question jurisdiction based on SEC approval of rules, particularly where
47
claim did not allege violation of securities laws or seek to enforce any duty
created by such laws). We need not revisit that conclusion here. At this step of
the Gunn‐Grable test—which post‐dates Barbara—it suffices for us to identify
the jurisdiction grant of § 78aa as a signal that we will not upset the appropriate
balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities by exercising federal
jurisdiction in this case, where state claims necessarily raise a disputed issue
about NASDAQ’s compliance with its Exchange Act duty to have provided a fair
and orderly market for the Facebook IPO. See D’Alessio v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc.,
258 F.3d at 104 (noting that exclusive jurisdiction grant of § 78aa signals
recognition of strong federal interest in regulation of securities industry and
exchanges). Indeed, that conclusion is only reinforced where, as here, a party’s
efforts to have that federal law duty assessed by reference to state law
principles—e.g., good faith, fair dealing, negligence—could undermine
Congress’s expectations for uniformity in an exchange’s performance of specified
Exchange Act duties. Cf. Gunn v. Minton 133 S. Ct. at 1067 (observing that state
court’s hypothetical assessment of how patent issue might have been resolved in
prior federal proceeding did not upset federal‐state balance favoring uniform
48
body of patent law because it would result neither in a binding ruling of federal
law nor a conflicting ruling of state law).
In sum, upon conducting the analysis prescribed by Gunn‐Grable, we
conclude that UBS’s state claims against NASDAQ necessarily raise disputed
issues of federal law of significant interest to the federal system as a whole, and
that the adjudication of state claims presenting such disputes in the federal
courts would not disrupt any federal‐state balance envisioned by Congress. See
Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. at 314–15.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court correctly exercised federal
jurisdiction here.
B. Arbitrability
1. Who Decides Arbitrability
UBS contends that, even if the district court properly exercised jurisdiction
in this case, it erred in concluding that it, rather than an arbitrator, should decide
whether UBS’s claims are subject to arbitration. See NASDAQ OMX Grp., Inc. v.
UBS Sec. LLC, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 403–05. We review this issue de novo, see
Contec v. Remote Solution Co., 398 F.3d 205, 208 (2d Cir. 2005), and we conclude
49
that the district court correctly identified arbitrability as a question for the court
to decide in this case.
The law generally treats arbitrability as an issue for judicial determination
“unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.” Howsam v.
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 83 (2002) (internal quotation marks and
brackets omitted); accord VRG Linhas Aereas S.A. v. MatlinPatterson Global
Opportunities Partners II L.P., 717 F.3d 322, 325–26 (2d Cir. 2013). UBS and
NASDAQ made no such alternative provision here. Rather, their Services
Agreement is silent as to who should decide arbitrability.
We have found the “clear and unmistakable” provision satisfied where a
broad arbitration clause expressly commits all disputes to arbitration, concluding
that all disputes necessarily includes disputes as to arbitrability. See
PayneWebber Inc. v. Bybyk, 81 F.3d 1193, 1199 (2d Cir. 1996). But we have not
reached the same conclusion where a broad arbitration clause is subject to a
qualifying provision that at least arguably covers the present dispute. See Katz
v. Feinberg, 290 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2002). In such circumstances, we have
identified ambiguity as to the parties’ intent to have questions of arbitrability—
which would include whether a dispute falls within or outside the scope of the
50
qualifier—decided by an arbitrator. See id. Here, the broad arbitration clause in
the parties’ Services Agreement is subject to qualification: “Except as may be
provided in the NASDAQ OMX Requirements, all claims, disputes, controversies
and other matters in question between the Parties to this Agreement . . . shall be
settled by final and binding arbitration.” Services Agreement, § 18.A, A. 139
(emphasis added). As explained in the next section of this opinion, one of the
provisions of the NASDAQ OMX Requirements at least arguably immunizes
NASDAQ from liability for the type of claim asserted by UBS, making it far from
“clear and unmistakable” that the Services Agreement provides UBS with an
arbitrable claim. Thus, we cannot conclude that UBS and NASDAQ clearly and
unmistakably committed questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator rather than the
court.
In urging otherwise, UBS submits that the Services Agreement’s quoted
carve‐out provision is irrelevant because NASDAQ never adopted the referenced
limiting requirements. This misapprehends the relevant standard. The Services
Agreement need not clearly remove the question of arbitrability from arbitration
in order for that question to be one for judicial determination. Rather, UBS must
point to a clear and unmistakable expression of the parties’ intent to submit
51
arbitrability disputes to arbitration. See Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,
537 U.S. at 83. UBS cannot carry that burden by pointing to a broad arbitration
clause that the parties subjected to a carve‐out provision.
UBS nevertheless maintains that any ambiguity as to the parties’ intent
respecting resolution of questions of arbitrability is eliminated by the Services
Agreement’s incorporation of AAA rules, which provide for arbitrability to be
decided by the arbitrator. See Services Agreement, § 18.B, A. 139 (“Except as
otherwise provided herein or by agreement of the Parties, any arbitration
proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration
Rules of the American Arbitration Association or in accordance with such other
rules and procedures as are agreed to by the parties.”); AAA Commercial
Arbitration Rules & Mediation Procedures, R‐7 (Oct. 1, 2013) (“The arbitrator
shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any
objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration
agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.”).
In fact, the Services Agreement does not clearly and unmistakably direct
that questions of arbitrability be decided by AAA rules; rather, it provides for
AAA rules to apply to such arbitrations as may arise under the Agreement. As
52
noted, Section 18.A of the Services Agreement carves out certain issues from
arbitration, a circumstance that thus delays application of AAA rules until a
decision is made as to whether a question does or does not fall within the
intended scope of arbitration, in short, until arbitrability is decided. Thus, this
case is not akin to those in which we have construed the incorporation of AAA
rules into an agreement with a broad arbitration clause to signal the parties’ clear
and unmistakable intent to submit arbitrability disputes to arbitration. See, e.g.,
Contec Corp v. Remote Solution Co., 398 F.3d at 208; cf. Zachariou v. Manios, 68
A.D.3d 539, 539, 891 N.Y.S.2d 54, 55 (1st Dep’t 2009) (holding that reference to
AAA rules in conjunction with narrow arbitration provision does not constitute
clear and unmistakable evidence of intent to have arbitrator decide arbitrability).
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that
it should resolve the arbitrability of UBS’s claims rather than commit that
question to an arbitrator.
C. Arbitrability of UBS’s Claims
Insofar as UBS challenges the district court’s determination that its claims
against NASDAQ are not arbitrable, our review is de novo. See Specht v.
Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 26 (2d Cir. 2002). Two questions are
53
relevant to determining arbitrability: “(1) whether the parties have entered into a
valid agreement to arbitrate, and, if so, (2) whether the dispute at issue comes
within the scope of the arbitration agreement.” In re Am. Express Fin. Advisors
Sec. Litig., 672 F.3d 113, 128 (2d Cir. 2011). Neither UBS nor NASDAQ disputes
the validity of their agreement to arbitrate; thus, the sole issue on appeal is
whether that agreement reaches UBS’s claims.
In deciding that question, we are mindful that federal and state policies
favoring arbitration, see CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665, 669
(2012); Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP, 726 F.3d 290, 295 (2d Cir. 2013); Matter
of Brady v. Williams Capital Grp., L.P., 14 N.Y.3d 459, 468, 902 N.Y.S.2d 1, 6
(2010) (noting “strong state policy favoring arbitration agreements”), give rise to
an “important presumption[]” that “any doubts concerning the scope of
arbitrable issues be resolved in favor of arbitration,” Telenor Mobile Commc’ns
AS v. Storm LLC, 584 F.3d 396, 406 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted). At the same time, however, we recognize the “overarching principle
that arbitration is a matter of contract,” American Express Co. v. Italian Colors
Rest., 133 S. Ct. 2304, 2309 (2013), and that “it is the language of the contract that
defines the scope of disputes subject to arbitration,” EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc.,
54
534 U.S. 279, 289 (2002). Thus, parties may be compelled to arbitrate disputes—
“but only those disputes”—that they have contracted to submit to arbitration.
First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943 (1995); see Stolt‐Nielsen
S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 684 (2010) (observing that “courts
and arbitrators must not lose sight of the purpose of the exercise: to give effect to
the intent of the parties”); Bell v. Cendant Corp., 293 F.3d 563, 566 (2d Cir. 2002)
(“[A]rbitration is a creature of contract, and a person may only be compelled to
arbitrate a dispute to the extent that he has agreed to do so.”); Matter of Salvano
v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 85 N.Y.2d 173, 182, 623 N.Y.S.2d 790,
794 (1995) (holding with respect to contractual agreement regarding arbitration,
that court’s role is “limited to interpretation and enforcement of the terms agreed
to by the parties”).
In this case, the Services Agreement states the parties’ intent to submit all
disputes to arbitration “except as provided in the NASDAQ OMX
Requirements.” Services Agreement, § 18.A, A. 139. The Agreement defines
“NASDAQ OMX Requirements” to include NASDAQ rules and rule
interpretations. See id. § 1.A., A. 122–23.
55
The NASDAQ rule pertinent here is Rule 4626, which generally precludes
NASDAQ members from seeking compensation for losses attributable to the
exchange’s handling of securities transactions:
Except as provided for in paragraph (b) below, Nasdaq and its
affiliates shall not be liable for any losses, damages, or other claims
arising out of the Nasdaq Market Center or its use. Any losses,
damages, or other claims, related to a failure of the Nasdaq Market
Center to deliver, display, transmit, execute, compare, submit for
clearance and settlement, adjust, retain priority for, or otherwise
correctly process an order, Quote/Order, message, or other data
entered into, or created by, the Nasdaq Market Center shall be
absorbed by the member, or the member sponsoring the customer,
that entered the order, Quote/Order, message, or other data into the
Nasdaq Market Center.
Rule 4626(a). Because the parties subjected their otherwise broad arbitration
agreement to the limitations imposed by NASDAQ rules, we conclude that there
could not have been any intent to arbitrate claims precluded by Rule 4626(a).
UBS disputes that its claims against NASDAQ fall within the preclusive
language of Rule 4626(a). The argument is defeated by the plain language of the
rule, which reaches “any losses, damages, or other claims arising out of the
Nasdaq Market Center or its use,” except as provided in subparagraph (b). As
earlier noted, all of UBS’s claims allegedly derive from its use of the purportedly
malfunctioning Nasdaq Market Center to participate in the Facebook IPO.
56
Moreover, UBS claims that as a result of NASDAQ’s market failures, NASDAQ
did not correctly process UBS’s Facebook orders in that it did not provide timely
notice of confirmation. Rule 4626(a) specifically identifies losses attributable to
NASDAQ’s failure “correctly [to] process an order” as ones that must be
“absorbed” by the exchange member. Thus, we conclude that UBS’s claims fall
within Rule 4626(a).14
UBS nevertheless argues that because Rule 4626 does not explicitly
preclude arbitration, a court cannot conclude that the parties did not intend to
arbitrate UBS’s claims. UBS cites no authority for the proposition that an
14 UBS argues that arbitration of its gross negligence claims cannot be precluded
by Rule 4626(a) because New York does not permit a party to insulate itself from
gross negligence by contract. See Abacus Fed. Sav. Bank v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc.,
18 N.Y.3d 675, 683, 944 N.Y.S.2d 443, 446 (2012). UBS points to no authority,
however, extending this policy to exchange rules promulgated with SEC
approval pursuant to federal law. As we observed in Part II.A.2.b, supra, such
rules may be contractual in nature, but they differ significantly from general
private party contracts in that exchanges and their members are not free to
contract out of or around SEC‐approved rule requirements or limitations. See 15
U.S.C. § 78cc(a). Indeed, the Services Agreement between NASDAQ and UBS
gives effect to this federal statutory requirement by expressly stating that
NASDAQ rules take precedence over Agreement provisions in establishing the
parties’ obligations. See Services Agreement § 17, A. 138. Thus, there is no basis
in law to conclude that the broad language of Rule 4626(a) does not apply to
gross negligence claims, much less that the parties did—or could have—reached
a meeting of the minds to that effect when they agreed that their arbitration
obligations would be limited by NASDAQ rules.
57
affirmative rejection of arbitration is required to demonstrate a lack of intent to
arbitrate. In any event, such a requirement is particularly unwarranted here
where the agreed limit on arbitration is a rule that precludes not simply
arbitration of a claim, but the claim itself. In such circumstances, the question of
arbitrability depends on whether the challenged claims do or do not fall within
the limiting rule’s preclusion. UBS’s claims fall within the preclusive language of
Rule 4626(a) and, thus, are not arbitrable.
That conclusion finds further support in the single Rule 4626(b) exception
relevant here: subsection (b)(3), a provision specifically addressed to Facebook‐
IPO losses. Proposed by NASDAQ and approved by the SEC in March 2013,
Rule 4626(b)(3) establishes “a voluntary accommodation program” for certain
member claims arising from the Facebook IPO. SEC Release No. 34‐69216, 78
Fed. Reg. at 19,041. Toward that end, it provides a process for claims of injury
resulting from “the Nasdaq Halt and Imbalance Cross Process in connection with
the initial public offering of Facebook, . . . including any delay in delivering of
confirmations of orders.” Rule 4626(b)(3). The new subsection prescribes, inter
alia, how losses will be measured, the requirements for submitting a claim, the
58
evaluator of the claim, the priority in which claims will be paid, and the
maximum total program payment—$62 million. See Rule 4626(b)(3)(A)–(G).
The need to amend Rule 4626—and to secure SEC approval for the
amendment—to afford NASDAQ members some compensation for losses
incurred in the Facebook IPO reinforces the conclusion that when UBS and
NASDAQ agreed to subject the arbitration clause in their Services Agreement to
the limitations of Rule 4626(a), they signaled that it was not their intent to
arbitrate claims precluded by that rule.
In urging otherwise, UBS emphasizes that participation in the Rule
4626(b)(3) accommodation program is voluntary and that both the SEC and
NASDAQ acknowledged that members were free to forego the program and
pursue alternative remedies. See SEC Release No. 34‐69216, 78 Fed. Reg. at
19,046 (“[A] member is free to elect not to submit a claim for compensation under
the accommodation program and choose instead to pursue other remedies.”);
NASDAQ Ltr. to SEC, Sept. 17, 2012, at 5, A. 337 (“Members that would prefer
not to release Nasdaq and instead to attempt to pursue claims against it,
notwithstanding the otherwise applicable provisions of Rule 4626 [and other
potential defenses], are obviously free to do so.”). These statements were issued
59
in response to certain concerns raised during the rule’s public comment period
about the program’s liability release requirement. See Rule 4626(b)(3)(H). These
statements do not identify what claims members might alternatively pursue,
much less suggest that members can pursue claims foreclosed by Rule 4626(a)
except as provided in a 4626(b) exception.
In any event, our concern here is not to identify what, if any, alternative
judicial remedies a NASDAQ member might pursue against that exchange in
connection with the Facebook IPO. Nor is it to discern what defenses NASDAQ
might raise to such claims. Our singular purpose is to discern the scope of a
broad arbitration provision that is specifically limited by, among other things,
NASDAQ rules. Because Rule 4626(a) specifically disallows member claims
against NASDAQ for losses sustained in trading securities on that exchange, we
conclude that the parties did not intend to submit such foreclosed claims to
binding arbitration. The only rule exception applicable here—Rule 4626(b)(3)—
does not support a different conclusion. Thus, like the district court, we
conclude that UBS’s claims against NASDAQ are not subject to arbitration.
60
Because we thus identify no merit in any of UBS’s challenges to the
preliminary injunction entered against it in this case, we hereby affirm that
injunction.
III. Conclusion
To summarize, we conclude as follows:
1. Federal jurisdiction is properly exercised in this case because, although
UBS’s challenged arbitration demand against NASDAQ asserts only claims
created by state law, (a) the claims necessarily raise actually disputed issues of
federal securities law, (b) those issues are of substantial importance to the federal
system as a whole, and (c) the exercise of federal jurisdiction in these
circumstances will not disrupt any federal‐state balance approved by Congress.
2. The district court properly decided the question of arbitrability because
the parties never clearly and unmistakably expressed an intent to submit that
question to arbitration, and such an intent cannot be inferred where, as here, a
broad arbitration clause contains a carve‐out provision that, at least arguably,
covers the instant dispute.
3. UBS’s claims against NASDAQ are not subject to arbitration because
they fall within the preclusive language of NASDAQ Rule 4626(a), and the
61
parties specifically agreed that their arbitration agreement was subject to
limitations identified in, among other things, NASDAQ Rules.
The order of the district court preliminarily enjoining UBS from pursuing
arbitration against NASDAQ is hereby AFFIRMED, and the case is remanded to
the district court for such further proceedings as are warranted consistent with
this opinion.
62
STRAUB, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
Sixteen billion dollars. Over four hundred million shares.
Facebook. The high‐profile nature of this case sways the majority’s
analysis. It is true that the Facebook IPO was front‐page news. But it
simply cannot be true that every time a case involves a famous company or
a multi‐billion dollar IPO, federal courts have jurisdiction.
By exercising federal question jurisdiction over state law claims that
are premised on the internal rules of a private corporation, the Court
extends federal court jurisdiction far beyond its permissible bounds. The
majority’s expansion of our jurisdiction flies in the face of the dictates of
this Circuit and the Supreme Court urging restraint. I therefore
respectfully dissent.
DISCUSSION
This case is about UBS’s state law claims against NASDAQ
stemming from Facebook’s IPO. The majority contends that we have
jurisdiction because the state law claims are premised on the contention
that NASDAQ breached its Exchange Act duty to maintain a fair and
orderly market by violating its own internal rules. This conclusion runs
afoul of nearly every Grable‐Gunn requirement. There is no actually
disputed federal issue, to the extent one exists, it is not “substantial,” and
exercising jurisdiction disrupts the federal‐state balance approved by
Congress.
First, NASDAQ is a shareholder‐owned, publicly‐traded, for‐profit
company. It is not the SEC and its rules are not federal regulations or
federal law. In fact, we have explicitly held that the rules of a stock
exchange are contractual in nature and within the province of state law.
The only arguably federal issue present is a broad duty found in the
Exchange Act and that duty is not actually disputed.
Second, UBS’s state law claims do not present a “substantial” federal
question. In drawing the contrary conclusion, the majority ignores or
misapplies controlling case law from the Supreme Court and this Circuit.
We have held that state law claims premised on violations of the rules of a
‐2‐
stock exchange do not give rise to a “substantial” federal issue. The
majority holding renders our case law incoherent.
Moreover, Supreme Court precedent independently forecloses the
exercise of federal jurisdiction. Substantial does not mean “large” or
“significant” as the majority suggests. Rather, it means that the issue is
important to federal jurisprudence. The Court has repeatedly admonished
that federal courts may entertain this “extremely rare exception[]” only in
cases that pose a discrete question of law as to the construction or validity
of a federal statute or the U.S. Constitution. See Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct.
1059, 1064 (2013). That kind of issue is not present here.
Finally, exercising jurisdiction here would upset Congressional
intent as to the balance of federal‐state responsibility. I disagree with the
majority that Congress’s decision to grant federal courts exclusive
jurisdiction over Exchange Act violations suggests a similar intent to grant
jurisdiction over stock exchange rule violations. In fact, I believe it
suggests the opposite.
‐3‐
The majority’s uncabined holding could lead to a “tremendous
number of cases” being pulled into federal court—a possibility that should
give us pause. See Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Engʹg & Mfg.,
545 U.S. 308, 318 (2005). The majority offers no response to this concern
other than a conclusory assertion that this shift to federal court will not
occur.
For these reasons, I would reverse the decision of the District Court
and dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
I. UBS’s state law claims present no actually disputed federal issue.
Grable and Gunn require a federal issue to be “actually disputed.”
The majority identifies two different, though related, issues underlying
UBS’s claims: whether NASDAQ violated its own rules and whether
NASDAQ violated its Exchange Act duty to maintain a fair and orderly
market. But NASDAQ’s rules are not federal and the Exchange Act is not
actually in dispute.
‐4‐
A. NASDAQ’s rules are not federal.
The rules at issue—the rules of a stock exchange—are matters of
state law. We held as much in Barbara v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.,
where we stated: “[T]he rules of a securities exchange are contractual in
nature, and are thus interpreted pursuant to ordinary principles of contract
law, an area in which the federal courts have no special expertise.” 99 F.3d
49, 54‐55 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal citation omitted). We then reaffirmed our
holding that stock exchange rules are contractual in DʹAlessio v. New York
Stock Exchange, Inc., 258 F.3d 93, 101 (2d Cir. 2001). The majority does not
challenge or reject our holding that the rules of a stock exchange are
creatures of state law.
The majority opinion strongly implies that because NASDAQ is
subject to heavy federal regulation, its internal rules are sufficiently federal
to sustain federal question jurisdiction. See Opinion (“Op.”) at 23‐30. But
NASDAQ is a shareholder‐owned, publicly‐traded, for‐profit company.
See What is NASDAQ? available at http://www.nasdaqomx.com/aboutus/
‐5‐
company‐information/whatisnasdaq. It is not a federal agency, nor are its
rules federal law or federal regulations. Indeed, the primary responsibility
for promulgating and enforcing the rules of a stock exchange lies with the
stock exchange itself. See United States v. Solomon, 509 F.2d 863, 868 (2d Cir.
1975) (quoting Silver v. New York Stock Exch., 373 U.S. 341, 352 (1963)). The
federal government acts only as a backstop, bolstering the “exchanges’
traditional process of self‐regulation.” Id.; see also United States v. Stein, 440
F. Supp. 2d 315, 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“The stock exchanges had rules and
disciplinary mechanisms to enforce them even before the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 brought the industry under federal regulation.”).
Moreover, simply because an industry is subject to heavy federal
regulation does not elevate it to the status of a government entity, nor are
its internal rules elevated to the status of federal law. In Desiderio v.
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., we considered a case
involving the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD)—the
precursor to NASDAQ—and concluded that “the fact that a business entity
‐6‐
is subject to extensive and detailed state regulation does not convert that
organization’s actions into those of the state.” 191 F.3d 198, 206 (2d Cir.
1999) (quotation marks omitted). We noted further that a self‐regulatory
organization, like the NASD, “is a private actor, not a state actor. It is a
private corporation that receives no federal or state funding. Its creation
was not mandated by statute, nor does the government appoint its
members or serve on any NASD board or committee.” Id. We need not
exercise this extraordinary type of federal question jurisdiction over state
law claims that implicate only the internal rules of a private corporation in
a regulated industry.
B. The Exchange Act is not actually disputed.
The only arguably federal element present in these state law
claims—the duty to maintain a fair and orderly market—is not actually in
dispute. Unlike in Grable (where the parties argued for competing
interpretations of a federal statute) or Gunn (where one party argued that a
patent law exception applied to his lease and the other party argued that it
‐7‐
did not), no party here disputes the existence, validity, or construction of
this Exchange Act duty. See Gunn, 133 S. Ct. at 1065‐66 (“The federal issue
is also ‘actually disputed’ here—indeed, on the merits, it is the central
point of dispute.”); Grable, 545 U.S. at 315 (“[T]he meaning of the federal
statute is actually in dispute; it appears to be the only legal or factual issue
contested in the case.”). Nor does any party argue that any NASDAQ rule
is inconsistent with the Exchange Act.
The majority opinion does not challenge this point. The only
actually disputed issues identified by the majority opinion are issues
concerning the application of NASDAQ rules to the circumstances of the
Facebook IPO. See Op. at 24‐30. Although the Exchange Act provides the
backdrop for applying the NASDAQ rules, the Exchange Act itself is not at
issue in this litigation. We are therefore required to decline to exercise
federal question jurisdiction over these state law claims.
II. UBS’s state law claims present no “substantial” federal issue.
Grable and Gunn also require the federal issue to be “substantial.”
But this is exactly the sort of case that we and the Supreme Court have
‐8‐
held does not present a sufficiently “substantial” federal question. Our
precedent specifically forecloses the majority holding that violations of the
rules of a stock exchange present a substantial federal issue. The
majority’s strained attempt to distinguish those cases is unconvincing.
Moreover, the majority misunderstands, and thus misapplies, the
controlling cases from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court precedent
permits federal courts to exercise federal question jurisdiction absent a
federal cause of action only when the embedded federal issue is a pure
question of law as to the construction or validity of a federal statute or the
U.S. Constitution. This case presents no such issue. To the contrary, the
majority’s argument that a “substantial” federal issue exists where a duty
from federal law is implicated in a state law claim has been specifically
rejected by the Supreme Court.
A. Our precedent forecloses the exercise of federal question
jurisdiction here.
Our own precedent proscribes the exercise of federal question
jurisdiction over state law claims arising from alleged violations of the
‐9‐
rules of a stock exchange—even in cases where those rules implicate the
core duties of a stock exchange.
Barbara v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc. is fatal to the majority’s
holding. In Barbara, we declined to exercise federal question jurisdiction
over state law claims arising from alleged violations of the rules of a stock
exchange. The facts of Barbara are as follows: The SEC initiated an
investigation into alleged misconduct by Barbara, a floor clerk at the New
York Stock Exchange (NYSE), and his employer, a securities brokerage
firm. 99 F.3d at 51. After the SEC filed disciplinary charges against
Barbara, the NYSE barred Barbara from working on the floor of the NYSE
pending a formal hearing. Id. at 52. Despite the eventual reversal of the
charges against him, the NYSE Enforcement Division continued to bar
Barbara from working on the NYSE floor, causing him to leave the
securities industry. Id.
Barbara brought numerous state law claims against the NYSE. Id.
Those claims, we assumed in the opinion, were contingent on proving that
‐10‐
the NYSE violated its own rules. Id. at 54. Nevertheless, we held that the
federal issue presented was “insufficiently substantial” to generate federal
question jurisdiction over Barbara’s state law claims. Id. at 55.
UBS’s state law claims premised on NASDAQ violating its own
rules are also insufficiently substantial. The majority attempts to
distinguish Barbara by arguing that (1) there is no “separate agreement
between the parties . . . that might afford UBS rights distinct from those
reflected in NASDAQ’s SEC‐approved rules”; (2) Barbara had no “occasion
to consider or discuss the fact that, unlike most contracts between private
parties, exchange rules are subject to SEC approval”; and (3) unlike
Barbara’s claims, UBS’s claims “charge NASDAQ with violating the core
duty of a federally registered SRO under the Exchange Act.” See Op. at 35‐
39.
I am not persuaded.
‐11‐
1. The existence or absence of a separate agreement is
irrelevant here.
The majority first argues that Barbara’s observation that stock
exchange rules are contractual derives from a case in which “this court had
to decide which of two agreements controlled an arbitration dispute: the
general arbitration provision in the American Stock Exchange’s SEC‐
approved constitution or the parties’ more specific customer agreement
pertaining to arbitration.” Op. at 35 (citing Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Inc. v. Georgiadis, 903 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1990). In our case, the
majority notes, there is “no comparable separate agreement between the
parties.” Op. at 35.
I do not understand how this is relevant. The salient conclusion in
Merrill Lynch is that we “view[ed] both agreements as contractual.” Op. at
35. The presence of the second agreement is irrelevant to the conclusion
that the SEC‐approved constitution is contractual in nature. Moreover, in
Barbara, there was no “comparable separate agreement” and yet we had no
trouble declining to exercise federal jurisdiction. Barbara’s conclusion that
‐12‐
stock exchange rules are contractual is not the only significant aspect of the
decision. Its holding is also important, and Barbara held that federal
jurisdiction does not extend to state law claims premised on the violation
of a stock exchange rule. Those are just the kind of claims that are before
us today.
2. Barbara explicitly considered the role of the SEC.
Far from having no “occasion to consider or discuss the fact that,
unlike most contracts between private parties, exchange rules are subject
to SEC approval,” Op. at 36, the Barbara court explicitly acknowledged that
the rules of a stock exchange “are subject to SEC approval,” and that “the
[Exchange] Act requires that these disciplinary proceedings be conducted
in compliance both with the Act and with the Exchange’s rules and
regulations.” Id. at 51. We noted further that “[n]otice of any final
disciplinary sanction imposed by the Exchange must be provided to the
SEC, and the imposition of a sanction is subject to review by the SEC on its
own motion or at the instance of an aggrieved party.” Id. (citing 15 U.S.C.
§§ 78s(d)(1)‐(2)). It is therefore inaccurate to read Barbara as failing to
‐13‐
consider the role of the SEC in approving and enforcing stock exchange
rules.
3. Both this case and Barbara implicate a core duty of a
stock exchange.
Finally, the majority’s primary argument is that “the parties’ dispute
in Barbara did not implicate one of the most fundamental functions of a
national securities exchange.”1 Op. at 38 (quotation marks omitted).
Indeed, the majority characterizes the dispute in Barbara as “trifling.” Op.
at 36. This contention is inaccurate. Although the majority attempts to
downplay the importance of the circumstances in Barbara, that case
involved one of the most fundamental functions of a stock exchange—the
duty to discipline stock exchange members and associated persons in
order to protect the investing public. Indeed, the allegations of
1 The majority characterizes a stock exchange’s duty to provide for a fair and orderly
public stock offering as “the” core duty of a stock exchange. Op. at 39. There is no basis
for the conclusion that this duty is paramount, or even more significant than any of the
other core functions performed by a stock exchange. Indeed, the SEC Release cited by
the majority identifies “the orderly initiation of secondary market trading after an IPO”
as only “one of the” core functions of a stock exchange. See id.; see also discussion infra at
15‐18 (noting that the Exchange Act focuses much more particularly on the duty to
discipline members than on any duty to administrate a public offering).
‐14‐
misconduct against Barbara were no mere administrative or technical
matter. Rather, Barbara and one of his employers—a securities brokerage
firm—were alleged to have improperly executed trades for the clients of a
different brokerage firm. See Barbara Proposed Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9‐12.
As an employee of a brokerage firm that was a member of the New
York Stock Exchange, Barbara was “of the class of persons whose conduct
is regulated by the Exchange pursuant to its duties under the Exchange
Act.” Barbara, 99 F.3d at 54. He was therefore disciplined—pursuant to 15
U.S.C. § 78f(c) and (d)—as a person associated with a member of the New
York Stock Exchange. See Barbara, 99 F.3d at 51; see also Barbara v. New York
Stock Exch., Inc., 94‐CV‐1088 (ARR), 1995 WL 221487, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.
30, 1995) (noting that the disciplinary actions taken against Barbara were
“clearly authorized by the Securities Exchange Act and by Exchange Rules
35 and 308”) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78f(c) and (d)).
The discipline of national securities exchange members and persons
associated with members is a core function of an exchange and is
‐15‐
specifically provided for in the Exchange Act. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 78f(c)
and (d). The purpose of such discipline is to protect investors and
maintain an orderly market. For example, the Exchange Act provides that
a national securities exchange may bar or condition the association of a
natural person with a member if that person has engaged “in acts or
practices inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade.” 15
U.S.C. § 78f(c)(3)(B)(ii). And an exchange may summarily “limit or
prohibit any person with respect to access to services offered by the
exchange” if the exchange determines that “such person cannot be
permitted to continue to have such access with safety to investors,
creditors, members, or the exchange.”2 15 U.S.C. § 78f(d)(3).
The discipline of members and associated persons is grounded in
the duty of a stock exchange to “prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
2 It appears that the exchange summarily suspended Barbara pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
78f(c)(3), and an “Acceptability Committee” later determined that Barbara should have
been given a disciplinary hearing pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78f(c)(1)‐(2). See Barbara, 1995
WL 221487, at *1, 5 (noting that the stock exchange did not misuse its “Acceptability
Hearing and summary suspension procedures”).
‐16‐
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade . . . [and] to
protect investors and the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. § 78f(b)(5). Therefore,
the provisions governing member discipline are equally grounded in the
overarching duty to maintain a “fair and orderly market.” 15 U.S.C. § 78k‐
1(a)(1)(C).
Indeed, under the majority’s reasoning, Barbara is a stronger case for
exercising federal jurisdiction than the one before us. Whereas 15 U.S.C.
§ 78f—the Exchange Act provision governing national securities
exchanges—is silent on any duty specifically concerning the
administration of a public offering, the provision specifically and
repeatedly provides for the discipline of exchange members and the
barring of broker‐dealers from membership. See 15 U.S.C. § 78f(c) and (d).
Of the eight requirements that must be satisfied before a securities
exchange can be registered, two concern member discipline. See 15 U.S.C.
§ 78f(b)(6) and (7). Before the SEC will register a national securities
exchange, it must determine that “[t]he rules of the exchange provide that
‐17‐
. . . members and persons associated with its members shall be
appropriately disciplined for violation of the provisions of this chapter, the
rules or regulations thereunder, or the rules of the exchange, by expulsion,
suspension, limitation of activities, functions, and operations, fine, censure,
being suspended or barred from being associated with a member, or any
other fitting sanction.” See 15 U.S.C. § 78f(b)(6); see also 15 U.S.C.
§ 78f(b)(7) (providing that the SEC will register a national securities
exchange only if it first determines that the rules of the exchange provide
for a fair procedure for disciplining members).
Thus, while the duty to administrate a fair public offering is
certainly important, the Exchange Act does not indicate that such a duty is
any more important than the general duty of a securities exchange to
administrate day‐to‐day securities trading. And the Exchange Act itself
places far more specific emphasis on the duty of a securities exchange to
discipline members for unethical or illegal conduct.
‐18‐
There is therefore no distinction between this case and Barbara. Both
involve state law claims premised upon possible violations of stock
exchange rules and both involve rules governing a core function of the
stock exchange as set forth in the Exchange Act. The duty to properly
manage an IPO and the duty to discipline members and associated persons
are both “critical, federally mandated” duties. See Op. at 40. But we have
held that stock exchange rules implicating such duties are insufficient by
themselves to generate federal question jurisdiction.
4. D’Alessio v. New York Stock Exchange does not support the
majority’s position.
Nothing in DʹAlessio v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 258 F.3d 93 (2d
Cir. 2001) changes our conclusion in Barbara that the rules of a stock
exchange alone are insufficient to exercise federal jurisdiction. Indeed, in
D’Alessio we reiterated that the internal rules of a stock exchange should be
examined “in accordance with well settled principles of contract
interpretation—a task uniquely within the province of state law.” 258 F.3d
at 101. We did not distinguish Barbara from D’Alessio on the ground that
‐19‐
some stock exchange rules give rise to federal question jurisdiction and
others do not. We distinguished Barbara on the ground that D’Alessio
alleged more than the violation of stock exchange rules. He alleged that the
stock exchange violated the federal securities laws themselves. See id. (“In
contrast, here, the federal interest is more substantial because D’Alessio’s
complaint does not simply challenge the propriety of disciplinary
proceedings conducted by the NYSE. . . . Rather, an examination of the
allegations contained in the complaint establishes that D’Alessio’s suit is
rooted in violations of federal law . . . .”). No such allegation is made here.
Thus, under Barbara, the federal issue is not substantial.
B. Supreme Court precedent independently forecloses the
exercise of federal question jurisdiction over UBS’s state law
claims.
Even without considering Barbara, I would reach the same
conclusion. The majority opinion misunderstands the meaning of
“substantial” in the Grable‐Gunn context. “Substantial” means, not
necessarily “large” or “significant,” but important to federal jurisprudence,
i.e., the collective body of federal case law. Grable‐Gunn jurisdiction must
‐20‐
therefore be exercised only over state law claims that implicate a federal
issue that is a pure question of law concerning the validity or construction
of a federal statute or the U.S. Constitution.
Supreme Court precedent also holds that state law claims
incorporating a standard “derive[d] directly from federal law,” see Op. at
23, as here, are insufficiently substantial to generate federal question
jurisdiction. The majority dismisses this contrary precedent.
1. Grable‐Gunn jurisdiction can be exercised only over
state law claims that turn on the construction of a
federal statute or the U.S. Constitution.
As the majority opinion acknowledges, the exercise of federal
question jurisdiction in the absence of a federal cause of action is extremely
rare. See Op. at 18‐19. The Supreme Court has approved of the exercise of
such jurisdiction in only four cases. Those cases, and others where
jurisdiction has been declined, demonstrate that “substantial” in the Gunn‐
Grable context is a term of art. The majority opinion misinterprets
“substantial” to mean “large” or “significant.” See, e.g., Op. at 39 (arguing
that this case presents a “substantial” issue because it was “in the context
‐21‐
of one of the largest public stock offerings in history—involving 421
million shares valued at $16 billion”). In this context, “substantial” means
“important to federal jurisprudence.”
Supreme Court precedent generally divides issues into two
categories. Pure questions of law that involve the construction or validity of
a federal statute or the U.S. Constitution may be substantial enough to
warrant federal jurisdiction. Each of the four cases where the Supreme
Court approved this kind of jurisdiction shared that key and necessary
hallmark:
Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Engʹg & Mfg., 545 U.S.
308, 310, 315 (2005): Federal question jurisdiction existed where
the meaning of a federal tax provision—specifically, what
constituted adequate notice pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6337(b)(1)—
was in dispute. The Court noted that “[t]he meaning of the
federal tax provision is an important issue of federal law that
sensibly belongs in a federal court” and that this issue of federal
law “appears to be the only legal or factual issue contested in the
case.”
City of Chicago v. Intʹl Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 160, 164
(1997): Federal question jurisdiction existed where plaintiffs
claimed that a city ordinance was facially unconstitutional in
violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
‐22‐
Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180, 201 (1921):
Federal question jurisdiction existed because the “decision
depends upon the determination” of “the constitutional validity
of an act of Congress which is directly drawn in question”—
specifically, whether Congress had acted unconstitutionally in
issuing certain bonds.
Hopkins v. Walker, 244 U.S. 486, 488‐89 (1917): Federal question
jurisdiction existed where “the determination of the plaintiffs’
rights requires a construction of the [federal] mining laws under
which the proceedings resulting in the patent were had, and a
decision of what, according to those laws, passed by the patent,
and what, if anything, was excepted and remained open to
location.”
In contrast, the Court has explicitly and repeatedly admonished that
federal courts should not exercise federal question jurisdiction over state
law claims if the federal issue is not a pure question of law, but is “fact‐
bound and situation‐specific.“ Gunn, 133 S. Ct. at 1068 (“Such fact‐bound
and situation‐specific effects are not sufficient to establish federal arising
under jurisdiction.”) (quotation marks omitted).
For example, in Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547
U.S. 677 (2006), the Court reviewed a reimbursement claim brought by an
insurance carrier pursuant to a health care contract authorized by the
‐23‐
Federal Employees Health Benefits Act. The Supreme Court affirmed our
holding that the federal court did not have federal subject matter
jurisdiction. Id. at 701. In doing so, the Court distinguished Grable, noting
that the federal issue embedded in the reimbursement claim was “fact‐
bound and situation‐specific,” rather than the “nearly pure issue of law”
presented in Grable. Id. at 700‐01. The Court also relied on the fact that the
federal issue in Grable was “one that could be settled once and for all and
thereafter would govern numerous tax sale cases.” Id. at 700.
We have echoed this limitation on the exercise of Grable‐Gunn
jurisdiction. See Fracasse v. Peopleʹs United Bank, 747 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir.
2014) (declining to exercise federal question jurisdiction over state law
claims based on public policy articulated in the FLSA because “[t]he FLSA
needs no interpretation in connection with the state tort claims that have
been pled”); Congregation Machna Shalva Zichron Zvi Dovid v. U.S. Depʹt of
Agric., 557 F. App’x 87, 90 (2d Cir. 2014) (declining to exercise federal
question jurisdiction over a state law claim because “the determination at
‐24‐
issue here is a fact‐specific application of the regulations to [the plaintiff]
that does not implicate the validity of the regulations themselves”).
There is no dispute that the arguably federal issue in this case is not
a pure question of law, but rather a question of how stock exchange rules
should be applied to the unique facts of the Facebook IPO. The majority
opinion acknowledges as much. See Op. at 24 (noting that the key question
here is “how NASDAQ’s duty to operate a fair and orderly market . . .
applies in the context of an IPO generally, and particularly with respect to
the Facebook IPO”). All of the potentially disputed issues identified by the
majority involve the application of this duty to the specific context of the
Facebook IPO. For example, the majority argues that this litigation may
require a court to determine whether NASDAQ should have cancelled
certain UBS trades placed during the Facebook IPO pursuant to NASDAQ
Rule 11890. See Op. at 28. The majority also contends that a court may
have to determine whether NASDAQ properly adhered to Rules 4120 and
4753—governing how NASDAQ is required to fill orders, provide
‐25‐
disclosures, and make decisions regarding initiating, halting, and
resuming trading—during the Facebook IPO. See Op. at 26‐27.
The question of how NASDAQ rules should have been applied to a
specific IPO is exactly the sort of “fact‐bound and situation‐specific”
question that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held does not give rise to
this rare type of federal question jurisdiction. Not only does this case
present only fact‐specific legal issues, the legal issues at stake do not
involve the construction or validity of a federal statute or the U.S.
Constitution. This litigation requires only the application of the rules of a
stock exchange, which—notwithstanding the majority’s attempt to elevate
such rules to federal status—we have repeatedly held are non‐federal in
nature.
2. The incorporation of a federal statutory standard into
a state law claim is insufficiently substantial to
generate federal question jurisdiction.
The incorporation into a state law claim of the Exchange Act’s
general duty to provide a fair and orderly market is insufficiently
substantial to trigger federal question jurisdiction.
‐26‐
In Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, the Supreme Court
rejected an analogous attempt to generate federal question jurisdiction by
incorporating a federal statutory standard into a state law claim. 478 U.S.
804, 814 (1986). There, the Supreme Court examined a product liability
claim against a drug manufacturer. As an element of one of their state law
claims, plaintiffs alleged that the drug was misbranded in violation of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and that this violation created a
rebuttable presumption of negligence. Id. at 805‐06. The Supreme Court
concluded that “the presence of a claimed violation of the statute as an
element of a state cause of action is insufficiently ‘substantial’ to confer
federal‐question jurisdiction.” Id. at 814. In Grable, the Court reiterated
this conclusion, pointing out that “if the federal labeling standard without
a federal cause of action could get a state claim into federal court, so could
any other federal standard without a federal cause of action.” 545 U.S. at 318
(emphasis added).
‐27‐
This case presents an even more tenuous link to the underlying
federal standard. The majority opinion argues that a violation of a stock
exchange rule—which is in turn premised on a duty found in the Exchange
Act—will be a required element of UBS’s state law claims. See Op. at 24‐
30. In Merrell Dow, the federal issue incorporated into the state law claim
was an alleged violation of a federal statute itself. Id. at 805‐06. That
federal issue was nevertheless deemed to be insufficiently substantial. Id.
at 814. The case before us does not present a more substantial issue than
that in Merrell Dow, let alone one sufficiently substantial to generate
federal question jurisdiction.
In short, I would conclude that there is no substantial federal
question presented under Barbara, Merrell Dow, and the other Supreme
Court precedent in this area.
‐28‐
III. Exercise of federal question jurisdiction over UBS’s state law
claims will upset Congressional intent as to the federal‐state
balance of responsibility.
Finally, this case violates the Grable‐Gunn requirement that the case
must be capable of being resolved in a federal court without upsetting the
federal‐state balance approved by Congress.
The majority’s argument that “the exercise of federal jurisdiction
here comports with Congress’s expressed preference for alleged violations
of the Exchange Act, and of the rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder to be litigated in a federal forum,” is an implausible reading of
the Exchange Act. See Op. at 46. In fact, Congress’s conferral of exclusive
federal court jurisdiction for violations of the Exchange Act cuts against the
majority’s argument. Congress understood the distinction between
violations of federal law and violations of the rules of a stock exchange,
and made a deliberate choice to confer exclusive federal court jurisdiction
on claims involving the former and not to confer such jurisdiction on
claims involving the latter.
‐29‐
Rather, Congress intended that any federal interest implicated in
violations of stock exchange rules be vindicated through direct SEC
enforcement action. It is curious to suggest that Congress intended that
federal interests be vindicated through the indirect means of state law
claims that only tangentially implicate federal law.
The majority also fails to adequately address a key concern of this
requirement—that permitting traditional state law causes of action, like
breach of contract and negligence, into federal court will result in the
undesired shift of a “tremendous number of cases” from non‐federal
forums into federal court. See Grable, 545 U.S. at 318.
A. Congress did not intend for state law claims premised solely
on violations of the rules of a stock exchange to be litigated
in federal court.
The majority’s reliance on the exclusive jurisdiction provision in the
Exchange Act as an indication of Congressional intent is unpersuasive.
The “Exchange Act” and “the rules and regulations thereunder” do not
include or refer to the rules of a stock exchange. Where Congress wished
to refer to the rules of a national securities exchange, it specifically referred
‐30‐
to them. Compare 15 U.S.C. § 78aa (providing for exclusive federal court
jurisdiction for violations of “violations of this chapter or the rules and
regulations thereunder”) with 15 U.S.C. § 78cc(a) (voiding any provision
allowing waiver of compliance “with any provision of this chapter or of
any rule or regulation thereunder, or of any rule of a self‐regulatory
organization”) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 78u(a)(1)
(providing that the SEC may investigate whether any person has violated
or is violating “any provision of this chapter, the rules or regulations
thereunder, the rules of a national securities exchange or registered securities
association of which such person is a member or a person associated . . . .”)
(emphasis added).
Based on the plain text of the statute, we have held that the exclusive
jurisdiction provision of the Exchange Act does not confer such
jurisdiction on claims based on the rules of a stock exchange: “We think
that the quoted language [15 U.S.C. § 78aa] plainly refers to claims created
by the Act or by rules promulgated thereunder, but not to claims created
‐31‐
by state law.” Barbara, 99 F.3d at 55. In so holding, we foreclosed the
contrary determinations of the Fifth and Ninth Circuits that the majority
oddly chooses to discuss before conceding that “we declined to adopt such
a broad reading of § 78aa.”3 See Op. at 47.
Despite acknowledging our contrary precedent, the majority
“identif[ies] the jurisdiction grant of § 78aa as a signal that we will not
upset the appropriate balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities
by exercising federal jurisdiction in this case.” See Op. at 48. In a
conclusory fashion, the majority simply extends principles that apply to
3 Other Circuits are in accord with our holding that the exclusive jurisdiction
provision of the Exchange Act does not apply to stock exchange rules. See
Karsner v. Lothian, 532 F.3d 876, 887 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“Moreover, although the
NASD Rules require SEC approval, the Rules do not come within the meaning of
15 U.S.C. § 78aa which gives a federal court ‘exclusive jurisdiction of violations’
of rules and regulations promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.”) (internal citation omitted); Ford v. Hamilton Investments, Inc., 29 F.3d 255,
259 (6th Cir. 1994) (“A breach of the NASD rules does not present a question that
arises under the laws of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
and it follows a fortiori that compliance with NASD rules does not give rise to
federal question jurisdiction.”) (internal citation omitted). The National
Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) was a self‐regulatory organization
and precursor to NASDAQ.
‐32‐
federal statutes and regulations to the rules of a stock exchange, without
acknowledging that Congress and this Court have found there to be a
meaningful distinction between the two. The boundaries of federal
jurisdiction are not limitless, and Congress and this Court have drawn that
boundary between claims arising from a federal statute or regulation and
those arising from the rules of a stock exchange.
Finally, as was made clear in Merrell Dow and reiterated in Grable,
the best expression of Congress’s forum preference is found in its decision
to create—or, as here, not create—a federal private right of action. See
Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 812 (“The significance of the necessary assumption
that there is no federal private cause of action thus cannot be overstated.”).
Grable reaffirmed and clarified this holding, noting that Merrell Dow
viewed the absence of a federal private right of action as an “important
clue” to Congressional intent. Grable, 545 U.S. at 318.
Although the Exchange Act provides for several private causes of
action for violations of the Act itself, see, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 78r (providing
‐33‐
private cause of action for misleading statements made in a registration
statement), it is undisputed that the Exchange Act does not provide for a
private cause of action for violations of stock exchange rules. The majority
confronts this problem only by noting that the existence of a federal
private right of action is “relevant to, but not dispositive of” the question
of substantiality. See Op. at 42. But the majority opinion then treats this
admittedly “relevant” consideration as irrelevant, because it provides no
further explanation as to why this particular case warrants such a ready
dismissal of the dictates of Merrell Dow.
The Act’s legislative history also makes clear that Congress intended
that a stock exchange’s violations of its own rules be addressed through
direct SEC enforcement action—not indirectly through private state law
claims. See, e.g. S. Rep. 94‐75 at 34 (1975) (“Although a wide measure of
initiative and responsibility is left with the exchanges, reserved control is in
the Commission if the exchanges do not meet their responsibility.”)
(emphasis added). To enforce stock exchange rules, the SEC can “censure
‐34‐
and place restrictions on the activities, functions, and operations of a self‐
regulatory agency” or “censure or remove from office any officer or
director of a self‐regulatory organization who had willfully failed to
enforce compliance with the Exchange Act.” Id. The SEC can also bring a
direct injunctive action in federal court to “command a member of a self‐
regulatory organization to comply with the rules of such organization.” Id.
Notably absent from the intended enforcement mechanisms are state
law actions premised on stock exchange rules. Indeed, no actor other than
the SEC—or a similar regulatory agency—is envisioned as playing a role in
the enforcement of those rules. There is therefore no basis for the
majority’s conclusion that the exercise of jurisdiction here aligns with
Congressional intent concerning the appropriate forum for state law
claims premised on stock exchange rules.
B. The majority ignores the “litigation‐provoking problem.”
The “balance of federal‐state responsibilities” requirement is
concerned in large part with upsetting Congressional intent by sweeping a
‐35‐
large number of cases into federal court that are only tangentially related
to federal interests. This concern has been termed the “litigation‐
provoking problem.” See Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 809‐10.
Any expansion of the exercise of federal question jurisdiction over
state law claims must be done with a careful eye to the impact of such a
holding on the volume of litigation in the federal courts. See Merrell Dow,
478 U.S. at 811 (expressing concern with the “increased volume of federal
litigation” that would result from the exercise of federal question
jurisdiction); Grable, 545 U.S. at 319 (observing that the Supreme Court
declined to exercise federal question jurisdiction in Merrell Dow in part
because “[a] general rule of exercising federal jurisdiction over state claims
resting on federal mislabeling and other statutory violations would thus
have heralded a potentially enormous shift of traditionally state cases into
federal courts”).
Such concerns should be at the forefront here. In Grable, the
Supreme Court reviewed the facts in Merrell Dow which led to its decision
‐36‐
to decline to exercise federal question jurisdiction: there was no federal
private cause of action, the federal question at issue was a federal standard
incorporated into a state law claim, and other “garden variety” state law
actions could have used the same “embedded” federal issue to bring
claims in federal court. See 545 U.S. at 318‐19. The confluence of these
factors led the Supreme Court to conclude that the exercise of federal
question jurisdiction over the state law claim in Merrell Dow “would have
attracted a horde of original filings and removal cases raising other state
claims with embedded federal issues.” Id. at 318.
Those same elements are present here. Although the majority gives
the potential “horde of original filings and removal cases” no attention, it
is a real danger, for three reasons: (1) the duty to maintain a fair and
orderly market underlies every stock exchange rule; (2) many other federal
statutes create a broad duty; and (3) the majority’s opinion will prompt
increased litigation even if jurisdiction is ultimately found lacking.
‐37‐
1. Federal question jurisdiction could exist for a state
law claim implicating any stock exchange rule
violation.
First, because the duty to “maint[ain] a fair and orderly market”
underlies every stock exchange rule, any alleged stock exchange rule
violation could provide a basis for removal or original filing in federal
court. See Op. at 23 (“’[M]aintenance of fair and orderly markets’ is the
animating goal of federal securities law.”) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78k‐
1(a)(1)(C)). This is contrary to the Court’s reasoning in Grable, where the
Court observed that “because it will be the rare state title case that raises a
contested matter of federal law, federal jurisdiction to resolve genuine
disagreement over federal tax title provisions will portend only a
microscopic effect on the federal‐state division of labor.” Grable, 545 U.S. at
315. Here, in the majority’s view, every state law claim premised on
violations of stock exchange rules “raises a contested matter of federal
law.”
‐38‐
2. The majority’s ruling would apply to numerous other
federal statutes.
Though the number of potential suits arising from stock exchange
rules is problematic enough, the litigation‐provoking problem extends far
beyond the context of stock exchange rules. To take one example, many
state law claims currently arbitrated by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (FINRA) could be swept into federal court. The majority
provides no limitation on such an outcome.
FINRA is a self‐regulatory organization, like NASDAQ, that is
registered with the SEC as a “national securities association.” Federal law
requires most securities firms to register with FINRA. See 15 U.S.C.
§ 78o(b)(11). Like NASDAQ, FINRA creates and enforces rules that govern
the securities industry and those rules must be approved by the SEC. See
15 U.S.C. § 78s(b)(1). FINRA’s rules govern all aspects of securities
trading, including, inter alia, securities offerings and underwriting,
quotation and trading obligations and practices, handling of customer
orders, and margin requirements. See generally FINRA Rules 4000‐5000.
‐39‐
Like NASDAQ’s Services Agreement, FINRA rules provide that
most disputes be resolved in arbitration. See FINRA Rule 12200. Last year,
3,714 arbitration cases were filed with FINRA. See FINRA, Dispute
Resolution Statistics: Arbitration Cases Filed available at
http://www.finra.org/ArbitrationAndMediation/FINRADisputeResolution
/AdditionalResources/Statistics/. From 1999 to 2013, the number of FINRA
arbitration cases filed per year has ranged from a low of 3,238 in 2007 to a
high of 8,945 in 2003. See id. To put those numbers in perspective, in 2013,
8,574 civil cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. See U.S. Courts, U.S. District Courts—Civil Cases
Commenced, by Nature of Suit and District, During the 12‐Month Period
Ending March 31, 2013 available at
http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/FederalJud
icialCaseloadStatistics/2013/tables/C03Mar13.pdf.
And those are only the cases that could be shifted from FINRA
arbitration. As Judge Friendly once observed, “stock exchanges . . . [are]
‐40‐
but one of many instances where government relies on self‐policing by
private organizations to effectuate the purposes underlying federal
regulating statutes.” Cf. United States v. Solomon, 509 F.2d 863, 869 (2d Cir.
1975). He pointed out that many heavily‐regulated industries are
responsible for self‐regulation, including “boards of trade,” which are
responsible for self‐policing under the Commodity Exchange Act, and
“[a]irline and steamship conferences,” which employ “elaborate
enforcement machinery” to police regulatory violations. Id. The potential
number of suits that could be filed in, or removed to, the district courts of
this Circuit on the basis of the majority’s uncabined holding is therefore
problematic.
3. The majority’s opinion will prompt litigation even
where federal jurisdiction is ultimately found lacking.
The majority avers, in conclusory fashion, that the exercise of such
jurisdiction will be rare. See Op. at 43 (“[A]fter such careful, case‐specific
consideration, most federal law questions raised in connection with state
law claims will not be deemed substantial.”). Even if that were true, Grable
‐41‐
makes clear that the relevant test is not concerned solely with the eventual
decision to exercise or decline jurisdiction, but with the increased volume
of litigation itself. Grable noted that the Court declined to exercise
jurisdiction in Merrell Dow in part because it “would have attracted a
horde of original filings and removal cases raising other state claims with
embedded federal issues.” 545 U.S. at 318.
The majority’s opinion provides no clear jurisdictional limitation to
a party with a state law claim based on a violation of a rule even remotely
related to federal law. Even if the majority does not significantly move the
line where we exercise federal jurisdiction, the majority makes the line
murky enough to invite the horde of cases that the Court was concerned
about in Grable and Merrell Dow.
The Supreme Court has indicated that, where federal question
jurisdiction would result in a large number of state law claims shifted from
other forums to federal court, those state law claims do not fall within the
“special and small” category of state law claims over which we can
‐42‐
exercise federal question jurisdiction. See Grable, 545 U.S. at 318; Merrell
Dow, 478 U.S. at 811. We should heed the Supreme Court, and recognize
that the exercise of Grable‐Gunn jurisdiction here would upset the balance
of federal‐state responsibility.
C. No federal forum is required to vindicate a federal interest.
We need not turn somersaults to exercise this exceptional category
of federal question jurisdiction, because no federal forum is required to
vindicate any federal interest here. To the extent there is a federal interest
at stake, it has already been vindicated by the SEC’s investigation and
sanction of NASDAQ. See SEC Release No. 31‐69655, 2013 WL 2326683
(“SEC Release”). Any tangential federal interest present in UBS’s state law
claims can be adjudicated in a non‐federal forum without doing damage to
the federal system.
The Supreme Court has found reason to exercise federal question
jurisdiction over the rare category of cases where a state law claim
challenges federal agency action and the government “has a direct interest
in the availability of a federal forum to vindicate its own administrative
‐43‐
action.” Grable, 545 U.S. at 315. Here, the SEC has already vindicated the
government’s interest by instituting and concluding its own administrative
proceedings. See SEC Release, at *1; see also Op. at 8‐9. In a lengthy
Release, the SEC found that NASDAQ had failed to comply with several of
its own rules, set forth remedial actions to be taken—including the
amendment of certain NASDAQ rules—and imposed sanctions. See SEC
Release, at *13‐17.
In any event, the SEC always has a federal forum available if it
wishes to pursue litigation concerning the NASDAQ rules. The Exchange
Act specifically provides that the Commission may bring an injunctive
action in federal court against any person or entity it believes to be
violating the provisions of the Exchange Act, any rules or regulations
promulgated thereunder, or “the rules of a national securities exchange.”
15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1). Congress therefore intended that any federal interest
at issue be vindicated—not through the inefficient and indirect means of a
‐44‐
state law claim based on a violation of a stock exchange rule—but through
direct SEC enforcement action.
The Supreme Court has confirmed that federal courts should not
exercise federal question jurisdiction over state law claims if those claims
can be competently adjudicated in a non‐federal forum. In Gunn, the
Supreme Court rejected the suggestion that a state law malpractice claim
premised on a patent law question was entitled to federal court
jurisdiction on the basis of federal court expertise: “Nor can we accept the
suggestion that the federal courts’ greater familiarity with patent law
means that legal malpractice cases like this one belong in federal court.”
133 S. Ct. at 1068. Likewise in Empire Healthcare—where a health
insurance carrier for federal employees filed a reimbursement action
against the insured’s estate—the Court declined to exercise federal
question jurisdiction in part because “it is hardly apparent why a proper
‘federal‐state balance’ would place such a nonstatutory issue under the
complete governance of federal law, to be declared in a federal forum.”
‐45‐
547 U.S. at 701 (internal citation omitted). The Court observed that “[t]he
state court in which the personal‐injury suit was lodged is competent to
apply federal law, to the extent it is relevant.” Id.
Non‐federal forums are presumptively competent to adjudicate state
law claims—even those that tangentially concern federal law.4 See Gunn,
133 S. Ct. at 1067; Empire Healthcare, 547 U.S. at 701. The state law claims at
issue, while perhaps complicated and potentially worth a great deal of
money, are not unlike any number of other complex contract and
negligence claims competently adjudicated in state court or arbitration
forums.
Finally, the majority opinion appeals to the need for “uniformity” in
the adjudication of “an exchange’s performance of specified Exchange
duties.” Op. at 48. As noted above, no provision of the Exchange Act
4 Indeed, state courts are presumed competent to adjudicate any federal cause of action
that has not been exclusively diverted to federal court. See Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v.
Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820, 823 (1990) (“Under our system of dual sovereignty, we have
consistently held that state courts have inherent authority, and are thus presumptively
competent, to adjudicate claims arising under the laws of the United States.”) (quotation
marks omitted).
‐46‐
requires interpretation or application here. And to the extent that the
Exchange Act is implicated in a state law claim, the most efficient and
direct way for the federal courts to ensure uniformity of federal law is to
interpret or construe any federal law dispute in the context of a direct SEC
enforcement action.
“[A]llowing state courts to resolve these cases” will not “undermine
the development of a uniform body of [securities] law.” Cf. Gunn, 133 S.
Ct. at 1067. Congress has already ensured a uniform body of securities
laws “by vesting exclusive jurisdiction over actual [securities] cases in the
federal district courts.” Cf. id.
Uniformity will also remain undisturbed because federal courts
have exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving actual violations of the
Exchange Act. And the adjudication of this case by an arbitration panel or
state court will be non‐binding on federal courts. See id.; Tafflin v. Levitt,
493 U.S. 455, 465 (1990) (rejecting the argument that state courts should not
adjudicate civil RICO claims because “federal courts . . . would retain full
‐47‐
authority and responsibility for the interpretation and application of
federal criminal law, for they would not be bound by state court
interpretations of the federal offenses constituting RICO’s predicate acts”).
There is no special need for a federal court to resolve these state law
claims.
CONCLUSION
The majority opinion expands our jurisdiction beyond its
permissible bounds. In doing so, it ignores or misreads controlling
precedent from the Supreme Court and this Circuit. I dissent.
‐48‐