We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 23

Is the would-be arbitration claimant a brokerage firm “customer?” The Fourth Circuit says both “yes” and “no”

  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 14 2013

It makes sense that a brokerage firm can only be forced to arbitrate claims by its customers for investment activity occurring at that brokerage firm

SEC weighs in on Intercontinental Regional Center Trust of Chicago (IRCTC)

  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 11 2013

On Wednesday, February 6, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Comission (SEC) brought a civil action alleging a myriad of SEC violations against A

Oregon flocks to fraud on the market

  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 23 2013

In a recent decision, State v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., 2012 WL 6212518 (Or. Dec. 13, 2012), the Oregon Supreme Court gave birth to a state

Court rules SEC cannot invoke its investigatory powers to circumvent discovery rules

  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 11 2012

A Texas federal district court recently refused to reconsider its order imposing sanctions on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for conducting an “extra-judicial deposition” of a third party without providing notice to defendants in a pending civil action to which the third party’s testimony was relevant

Ninth Circuit reverses securities fraud conviction based on admission of prior complaint

  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 14 2012

Rather than attempt to prove their claims with facts and evidence that relate to their own dealings with their brokers, securities claimants far too often instead seek to smear respondents by parading before the arbitrators (or the judge or jury) unrelated past complaints and settlements regardless of their merits or relevance or whether any factual findings were ever made or admitted

California Northern District Court adopts “regulatory value” standard in granting motion for expungement of CRD records

  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 11 2012

In Bridge v. ETrade Securities LLC, 2012 WL 3249508 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2012), the District Court granted ETrade’s motion for an order directing expungement of plaintiffs’ complaint from the Central Registration Depository (“CRD”) record of its employee pursuant to FINRA Rule 2080

SEC issues its first whistleblower program award

  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 23 2012

On August 21, 2012, the SEC announced its first whistleblower award payout of nearly $50,000 to a whistleblower who helped the agency halt a multi-million dollar fraud

ERISA fiduciary breach for failure to monitor fees leads to $35 million class action hit

  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 28 2012

In the first class action over 401(k) fees to be tried and decided on its merits, a Missouri federal district court ruled in March that manufacturer ABB Inc. breached its Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary duties

Solving a circuit splitter: Amgen in the high court

  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 22 2012

Must a plaintiff in a securities fraud class action prove that the alleged misrepresentations or omissions are material in order to obtain class certification?

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York gives priority to forum selection clause over prior arbitration agreement

  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 10 2012

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that a forum selection clause giving New York state and federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between two parties would supplant the parties’ prior arbitration agreement based on the parties’ status as FINRA members