In a unanimous decision handed down on June 5, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court has imposed what in many cases may be a substantial limitation on the
As robo-advisers continue to grow in popularity with investors, especially millennial investors, at least one regulator is taking a closer look. On
Applying Massachusetts law, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has held that an exclusion for claims made in connection with
Secretary of the Commonwealth William Francis Galvin has proposed regulations to add conditions to the use of "matching or expert network services" by investment advisers which are registered in Massachusetts or operating in Massachusetts within an exemption from registration.
In Coyne v. Nascimento, Case No. 10-P-12, 2010 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1251 (Nov. 19, 2010), a decision issued pursuant to Rule 1:28, the Appeals Court affirmed summary judgment against the plaintiff on statute of limitations grounds.
Case law relating to trusts and estates is constantly evolving.
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled in Genzyme Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co. that Massachusetts public policy does not prevent a corporation from recovering under a directors and officers liability policy for securities liabilities arising from the corporation’s exchange of different classes of its own stock.
Three decisions issued last week by the Appeals Court pursuant to Rule 1:28 are worth mentioning.