Dane Investments LLC v. H & R Block Fincl

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 19, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 05-30414
_____________________
DANE INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
H & R BLOCK FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC.,
formerly known as Olde Discount Corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:04-CV-2080
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, AND BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this appeal Dane Investments (“Dane”) seeks to vacate an
arbitration award in favor of its stockbroker, H & R Block
Financial Advisors, formerly the Olde Discount Corporation
(“Olde”). Vacatur is an especially steep hill to climb given our
deference to arbitration awards. Here we are satisfied that there
are no grounds for holding that the arbitration panel exceeded its
authority or that it manifestly disregarded relevant law in making
the award.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
We also reject Dane’s argument that the panel failed to
“enforce” an SEC consent order with Olde. Although the panel
probably should not have even admitted the consent order into
evidence (it certainly was not “enforceable” by the panel), the
panel nevertheless admitted and considered it. We further reject
the contention that the panel improperly ignored Dane’s breach of
fiduciary duty claim; although the admittedly terse award made no
specific reference to the claim, there is no basis to say it was
not considered, and the award explicitly denied any and all claims
it did not address specifically. Dane’s third argument, that the
panel manifestly disregarded National Association of Securities
Dealers rules and its own compliance standards in selling Dane
unsuitable stocks, is meritless because Dane was an aware,
sophisticated, and particularly aggressive investor; further, it is
well-established such rules and standards do not provide a private
cause of action. Because there is no basis to show what law the
panel applied, Dane’s argument that it somehow improperly drew upon
Michigan law in its decision is without merit. Finally, Dane’s
contention that the arbitration clause in its agreement with Olde
is unconscionable and void is foreclosed because Dane voluntarily
brought its claims before the panel and it may not revisit that
decision now, having received an adverse judgment.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The decision of the district court denying Dane’s motion to
vacate the arbitration award is therefore
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --