Nobody should have to sacrifice their rights in order to save for retirement.

On Tuesday, Public Citizen launched its “Stand Up to Chuck” campaign calling on Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., a well-known investment advisor holding more than $2 trillion in assets for millions of investors, to drop the class-action ban and forced arbitration clause from its terms.

On Twitter, Schwab responded:

Charles Schwab twitter response to Public Citizen petition

The link that @CharlesSchwab shared was to a boilerplate statement on how it’s legal for the corporation to ban class actions because of the Supreme Court’s horrendous ruling (almost exactly two years ago) in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

The statement also references Schwab’s dispute with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). FINRA, a banking industry self-regulatory body, has rules to prevent brokerage firms like Schwab from banning class actions. By inserting a class-action ban into its terms, Schwab violated those rules.

Continue Reading

the logo for the Securities and Exchange Commissionby Jon Croteau

Last Tuesday, Luis Aguilar, a commissioner for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), showed that he was serious about investor protection. At an annual conference for securities regulators, Aguilar expressed his personal support for an SEC rule that would permit investors to decide how to resolve disputes with broker-dealers and investment advisors. If Aguilar’s fellow commissioners agree and the SEC adopts such a policy, investors will have the option of pursuing their legal claims in court.

Aguilar said, “[i]nvestors … should have the unencumbered right to seek redress in all available forums.” He explained,

Arbitration may be a viable option after a dispute arises and both parties knowingly agree to go into arbitration. However, my main concern with pre-dispute mandatory arbitration is the denial of investor choice; investors should not have their option of choosing between arbitration and the traditional judicial process taken away from them at the very beginning of their relationship with their brokers and advisers.

Currently, the overwhelming majority of broker-dealers and investment advisors include language in their contracts that force investors to resolve disputes against them in private arbitration. Brokerage firm Charles Schwab has raised the stakes by not only forcing individual customers to resolve disputes in arbitration, but by recently adding a provision in its investor contracts that deny customers the ability to band together in class actions against it.

The ban on class actions will harm small investors the most because many lack the resources to pursue valid claims on their own in costly arbitration. They will be unable to recover for losses resulting from all-too-frequent violations, such as misrepresentations about the nature or value of investments.

Since last Monday, Commissioner Aguilar’s statement endorsing investors’ right to seek redress in court has been making headlines in the investment community. The Investment News also agreed with Aguilar that investors should be able to choose a forum to resolve their disputes with broker-dealers and investment advisors. While Aguilar’s statement is a positive development, our work is far from complete.

In 2010, Congress expressly authorized the SEC to restrict forced arbitration between investors and broker-dealers and investment advisors as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. To protect investors, the SEC must adopt a rule to eliminate forced arbitration from these contracts.

Jon Croteau is an intern with Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division

Sign up to receive a weekly email highlighting the best from Public Citizen’s blogs.

The West Fertilizer Company facility that exploded in a deadly blast Wednesday evening had not been inspected by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in at least 10 years. While we leave it to investigators to determine what exactly happened, we already know that this facility and ones like it operate with very little oversight, and that this is a problem.

Records show that the facility in West, Texas, owned by Adair Grain Incorporated, has not been inspected by OSHA in the past 10 years.

In the past five years, only two Texas facilities in the same classification – that produce fertilizer using ammonia – have been inspected by OSHA, records show. The agency, with a budget of roughly $568 million, lacks the resources to regularly inspect these types of facilities, including the many with high danger levels. Often facilities do not see an inspector for decades at a time.

While OSHA’s budget had increased slightly in the past several years, it was recently reduced yet again by budget sequestration, which means fewer inspectors to monitor facilities like the West Fertilizer Company. Small budgets also make it even harder for the agency to issue new safety standards. The agency’s budget is similar to what it was several decades ago, but the size of the economy – and the number and complexity of workplaces to inspect – has grown tremendously.

Though total occupational deaths are far lower today than they were decades ago, more than 4,000 workers still die every year on the job in the United States, most in incidents that could have been prevented. Last night’s tragic explosion in Texas is a reminder of the work still ahead to make our nation’s workplaces safer.

Devoting only a miniscule portion of our budget to protecting workers is a policy choice – and it’s the wrong one.

Keith Wrightson is Public Citizen’s workplace safety expert. Keep up with Public Citizen’s workplace health and safety work by following @SafeWorkers on Twitter.

Sign up to receive a weekly email highlighting the best from Public Citizen’s blogs.

Activists gathered and rallied in Pittsburgh outside of EQT Corporation’s April 17 shareholder meeting to call on the multinational gas giant to keep its corporate money out of the people’s elections.

Public Citizen's Rick Claypool holding a sign with organization leaders at EQT political spending rally

Public Citizen’s Rick Claypool (holding the sign) with PIRG’s Blair Bowie (speaking) and Keystone Progress’ Ritchie Tabachnick, Common Cause PA’s Barry Kauffman, PennEnvironment’s Erika Staaf and University of Pittsburgh graduate Eva Resnick-Day

EQT has poured nearly $328,000 into Pennsylvania elections since 2001 and $281,000 into statewide races across the country since 2003. On the whole, the fracking industry has spent $23 million to influence Pennsylvania politics since 2003.

What do EQT and the rest of the industry reap from this political spending?

On the national level, the industry’s influence has resulted in fracking– the process of injecting millions of gallons of toxin-laced water deep underground in order to break up shale rocks and extract “natural” gas – being exempt from major environmental regulations, including the Safe Drinking Water, Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.

In Pennsylvania, 47 percent of state forestlands have been leased to shale drillers and 80 percent of state park mineral rites have been privatized.

The influence is also obvious when you look at EQT’s tax receipts. EQT’s effective federal tax rate over the past five years was -1 percent – meaning that, instead of paying, the corporation actually received $2 million back from the IRS. In Pennsylvania – where EQT is headquartered – the corporation’s five-year effective tax rate was only 0.1 percent.

At the rally, I delivered the petition signed by more than 20,000 Public Citizen activists calling on EQT to stop polluting our elections with its corporate money.

Among the groups rallying outside the meeting were Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, Common Cause PA, PennEnvironment, Keystone Progress, One Pittsburgh and Clean Water Action. Others supporting the action include Food and Water Watch, Coffee Party and a network of advocates and investors united behind the banner of the Corporate Reform Coalition.

“Corporate spending injects a corrosive agent into our democracy,” said PIRG’s Blair Bowie in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. “(It) drowns out the voice of ordinary citizens.”

Before EQT’s shareholders was a resolution, proposed by Clean Yield Asset Management, calling on EQT to study the feasibility of instituting a ban on political spending.

Photo of activists holding signs at EQT rally against corporate political spending

Pittsburgh activists rallying outside of EQT’s shareholder meeting.

EQT’s shareholders did not adopt the resolution, but the demonstration outside the meeting – as well as activists’ departing chant of “We’ll be back! We’ll be back!” – sent the corporation a strong message that the public will not tolerate the industry’s systemic corruption and co-optation of our government, at any level, from local to state to national.

And, as this shareholder season moves on, Public Citizen and the rest of the Corporate Reform Coalition will keep holding corporations accountable and fighting to get corporate money out of our elections.

Rick Claypool is online director for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. Follow him on Twitter at @RickClaypool.

Sign up to receive a weekly email highlighting the best from Public Citizen’s blogs.

a protestor carrying a sign that reads "too big to fail is too big to allow"

Flickr photo via Nowviskie

Note: Public Citizen submitted testimony to the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in advance of its hearing today titled “Who is Too Big to Fail: Does Dodd-Frank Authorize the Government to Break Up Financial Institutions?” The testimony is available here.

Public Citizen commends the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for holding today’s hearing to discuss the government’s authority to break up financial institutions under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

In January 2012, Public Citizen called on the Federal Reserve and the Financial Stability Oversight Council to break up the financial behemoth Bank of America. We relied on a relatively obscure provision in the Dodd-Frank Act, Section 121, which grants financial regulators authority to mitigate the grave threat that an institution poses to U.S. financial stability. More than 30,000 people have signed our petition calling for regulators to break up the bank into pieces that are smaller, simpler and safer for market stability.

But regulators appear unwilling to use the broad authorities in their arsenal to safeguard financial stability, and the Federal Reserve Board’s three-paragraph response to our detailed petition suggests that regulators may not be taking seriously their responsibilities under Dodd-Frank.

Continue Reading

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.