Securities Arbitration After McMahon

In Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, the Supreme Court decided that federal securities claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act or Exchange Act) are arbitrable. Since McMahon, there has been a flurry of activity in, and focus upon, the general area of arbitration of public securities disputes. This activity has generated particular interest in such subjects as: arbitration forums; pre-trial procedures and discovery; remedies and relief; composition of panels; training, background and evaluation of arbitrators; and the rendering of written opinions. In discussing many of these areas, this Article will track the history of securities arbitration before McMahon, analyze the McMahon decision, and explore possible solutions and alternatives which may help forge the pattern of securities arbitration in the future

The New York Tax Windfall

With the enactment of the 1986 Internal Revenue Code and its elimination of many tax deductions, the scope of what is now considered taxable income has been greatly broadened. New York State, the State with the highest average per-person income tax levy in the country, because it generally follows the federal definitions of what is considered taxable income stands to reap an enormous tax windfall in the coming years due to the federal definitional change as to what is considered taxable income. This Article discusses the two major plans being considered as what to do with the expected windfall. It reviews New York State Governor Mario Cuomo\u27s plan and the plan of the New York State Senate Republican majority. It advocates for the Republican plan as it is broader in scope and proposes to save New Yorker\u27s more money. The Article insists that in order for New York to continue attracting business at a high level and avoid having its residents move to other states at even more alarming rates, it is imperative that its taxpayers be given the benefits of the expected windfall in the form of reduced taxes