is excluded from the class by the court; or (D) the customer elects not to participate in the putative or certified class action or, if applicable, has complied with any conditions for withdrawing from the class prescribed by the court. The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) passed an identical rule, NYSE 600(d), which was approved by the SEC on August 26, 1992. The parties here have limited their arguments to the NASD rule; hence our opinion will be limited to the application of that rule to the parties' agreement. 3 . Before the SEC's rule, individuals who attempted to certify their claims as class actions were subject to the enforcement of their separate arbitration agreements by their broker-dealers. See, e.g., Coleman v. Nat'l Movie-Dine, Inc., 449 F.Supp. 945, 948 (E.D.Pa.1978)
holding that a class action tolls the statute of limitations only for subsequent individual actions not for subsequent class actions holding that the district court did not err by compelling individual rather than class arbitration because the relevant agreements were silent as to class arbitration holding class action to be superior adjudication method where individual class members had no interest in controlling prosecution of individual actions holding that in the absence of an express provision excluding class actions from arbitration an individual claimant could not get out of his agreement to arbitrate simply by filing his claims in a class action holding that the trial court must determine whether an agreement to arbitrate was reached when several contracts the subject of a class action allegedly did not contain an arbitration provision