Search for: "Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Doe"
Results 61 - 67
of 67
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 May 2009, 10:25 am
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 395 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2005), the plaintiff securities broker brought a putative state law class action alleging that the defendant investment firm had manipulated various stock prices, which allegedly caused the broker to hold overvalued securities. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 9:02 pm
The upshot: so long as a defendant says what the SEC wants to hear (or says nothing at all), he does not violate the No-Admit-No-Deny Provision. [read post]
9 Oct 2015, 12:15 pm
California Teachers Association, 14-915; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 12:47 pm
See, e.g., Carras v. [read post]
14 Feb 2018, 2:57 pm
ANZ Securities, Inc. [read post]
18 Jul 2009, 7:31 am
This post is by my colleagues Mark Schonfeld, John Sturc, Barry Goldsmith, Eric Creizman, Jennifer Colgan Halter, Akita St. [read post]
8 Jun 2022, 9:01 pm
Right now, while the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) have rules on best execution, the SEC does not.[12] These FINRA and MSRB rules require broker-dealers to exercise reasonable diligence to execute customer orders in the best market so that their customers receive the most favorable prices under prevailing market conditions. [read post]
