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.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 33

No broker-customer relationship absent a direct connection to investment-related services provided by the brokerage firm

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

A Utah federal district court is the latest to join the chorus of opinions holding that a would-be arbitration claimant cannot proceed with a FINRA

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

United States district court judge denies intervention motion by expert witness McCann, finding that “he took a check, and he took an oath, but he was faithful to only one”

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

Judge Lynn Hughes of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied the Motion by expert witness Craig McCann to intervene in vacatur proceedings involving 19 individualcorporate investors and brokerage firm Morgan Keegan, Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. v. John J. Garrett, et al., U.S.D.C., S.D. Tex., Case No. 4:10-cv-04308

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

U.S. District Court in Atlanta rules against the SEC in an insider trading case, describing the SEC's evidence as 'overreaching' and 'self-serving'

  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 16 2014

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lost an insider trading case last week in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia. SEC v

D.C. District Court upholds SEC’s conflict minerals rules, GAO report questions effectiveness on humanitarian efforts

  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 24 2013

On July 23, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Securities and Exchange

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

Supreme Court preview: securities law cases on the docket

  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 6 2009

With the arrival of the first Monday in October, the Supreme Court begins its new Term

U.S. Supreme Court limits liability under Rule 10b-5

  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 14 2011

In Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), issued Monday, June 13, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court endorses a bright-line test on who can be held liable for making a false statement to investors under Rule 10b-5 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b

Illinois Appellate Court reaffirms rulings that nonreliance clauses bar fraud claims

  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 1 2012

Last month, in Greer v. Advanced Equities, Inc., 2012 WL 335869 (Jan. 31, 2012), the First District of the Appellate Court of Illinois squarely held that “a purchaser of securities who contractually agrees through a non-reliance clause that it is not relying on any oral representation made in connection with its purchase of the securities” is “barred as a matter of law from thereafter pleading in an action alleging common law fraud that it relied on oral statements when purchasing the securities”