In Re Darru Hsu

Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) contradicts Investment Advisers Act (IAA) when fraud is inside an investment contract. All investors therefor are entitled to a Rule 23(b)(2) class action. However, Rule 23(b)(l or 2) bars opt out of a mandatory class, while FINRA excludes class action and bars bifurcation. A faked “arbitration agreement” therein can displace courts and coerce individual investors into arbitration. The “bifurcated” outcome can never let a court to deliver “finality” for 28 U.S.C. §1291. Courts must reject such a Rule 12(b)(6) defense under Rule 81(a)(6)(B). See 15 U.S.C. § 78o, subsec. (o) - [SEC] Authority to restrict mandatory pre­ dispute arbitration. The Chevron deference doctrine under Chevron v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 467 US 837

1. requires judicial deference to unambiguous agency authority. However, loopholes exist in Rule 52(a), 23(b) and 54(b) for a district judge using “findings of fact” to dispose of documentary evidence that requires deference and appellate review, thus block the authority of agencies under the Executive Branch that courts do not have. The questions presented are:

2. Whether this Court must reconcile the conflict between Federal Arbitration Act and FINRA - the only self-regulatory organization (SRO) in the 21st Century who is authorized to arbitrate disputes on all securities laws under 15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(26) of the Maloney Act of 1938?