and registered security associations, including power to mandate adoption of any rules to ensure arbitration procedures adequately protect statutory rights). Because Ottman signed the U-4 registration agreement, compulsory arbitration does not violate his right to a jury trial. III. The employer argues monetary sanctions should be imposed against Ottman because he “persists in advancing” legal positions not well grounded in fact or law. See Minn.Stat. § 549.21, subd. 2 (1996) (court may, in its discretion, award costs, including reasonable attorney fees, against party who acted in bad faith or asserted an unfounded position solely to delay course of proceedings), repealed by 1997 Minn. Laws ch. 213, art. 2, § 6; Radloff v. First Am. Nat’l Bank, 470 N.W.2d 154, 157 (Minn.App.1991) (<HOLDING>), review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991). But see
holding award of sanctions permissible where appellant asserted multiple baseless causes of action that resulted in increased cost for all parties and distracted courts attention from any meritorious claims holding sanctions order was too general to support award holding that an assignment of all causes of action  claims and demands of whatsoever nature constituted an express assignment of rico claims holding that a preliminary injunction was a reasonable means of preserving the status quo and was of the same character as the ultimate relief sought when a few but not all of the causes of action in the complaint were of an equitable nature including causes of action for unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust holding that shareholders status as personal guarantors of the debts of several automobile dealerships did not give them standing to assert claims against a creditor that provided the dealerships with floor plan financing where the causes of action pleaded by the shareholders all asserted losses sustained by them as a result of the destruction of their eorporations  and the claims were entirely derivative of causes of action which  belonged to the corporations