Contract – Arbitration – FINRA — Securities – Valuation & Marketing Firm

Contract – Arbitration – FINRA — Securities – Valuation & Marketing Firm (access required)

Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Silverman A company that valued and marketed certain bond funds purchased by plaintiff investors through a brokerage firm is not subject to FINRA arbitration proceedings, the 4th Circuit says, because the investors were not “customers” of the marketing company under the controlling FINRA rule; the district court order enjoining arbitration is affirmed.

Login required


You have clicked on a link to information that is exclusive to NC Lawyers Weekly subscribers.

	Email Address: Password:	Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here. Forgot Password?

Interested in Subscribing?

Start by choosing how you'd like your news delivered.

- Print and Digital -

- Digital Only -

POST A COMMENT

Comments are closed.

Most Important Opinions

Real Property – Contract – Materialman’s Lien – Subsequent Purchaser – Mortgages – Unjust Enrichment (access required)

John Conner Construction, Inc. v. Grandfather Holding Co. Where the majority opinion in our Court of Appeals held, Where the plaintiff-contractors started working on the land at issue for defendant Grandfather Holding Co. before Grandfather Holding even entered into formal negotiations to buy the land, the contractors had no statutory right to file a claim of lien on the property, the ruling stands without precedential value

Criminal Practice – Search & Seizure – Defendant’s Residence — Protective Sweep – Weapon (access required)

State v. Dial Even if Deputy Burger’s testimony about prior arrests at defendant’s home only included one felony drug arrest, the trial court’s finding that Burger “had dealt with defendant on other occasions as well, including making felony drug arrests at the residence” was not prejudicial

Workers’ Compensation – Change of Condition – Insufficient Showing – Doctor’s Testimony (access required)

Wilhite v. Pike Electric, Inc. Although plaintiff’s doctor agreed with plaintiff’s counsel’s assertion that plaintiff was “100 percent” disabled, the doctor’s opinion on this point was not based solely upon plaintiff’s medical condition – which the doctor said was unchanged – or on the doctor’s medical expertise; rather, the doctor agreed with counsel’s assessment based on the doctor’s consideration of plaintiff’s “skill set and educational background.”