had not been overruled when FOS moved to stay the action, granting the stay was error. We disagree. In their brief, the Dowds state: “In Wilko, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a securities customer’s waiver of the right to select the judicial forum was unenforceable.” Brief for appellants at 9. The Dowds’ characterization of the Wilko holding is too broad. Wilko applies only to actions brought under the 1933 Act, specifically, those brought under § 12(2). The Wilko Court stated, “[W]e decide that the intention of Congress concerning the sale of securities is better carried out by holding invalid such an agreement for arbitration of issues arising under the [1933] Act” (Emphasis supplied.) Wilko, 346 U.S. at 438. See, also, Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. at 228 (<HOLDING>). The Dowds’ petition makes no mention of the
holding of wilko equally applicable to cases arising under the securities exchange act of 1934 holding that claims under the securities act of 1933 were arbitrable under a predispute arbitration agreement holding wilko inapplicable to the securities exchange act of 1934 and stating in wilko the court held that a predispute agreement could not be enforced to compel arbitration of a claim arising under  122 of the securities act 15 u s c  772 emphasis supplied holding that claims under  10b of the securities exchange act of 1934 were arbitrable under a predispute arbitration agreement holding that a predispute agreement to arbitrate securities act of 1933 claims was enforceable