Dillon v. Militano

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• clearing broker not making decisions regarding the account, and thus, there is no fiduciary relationship and clearing broker cannot be primarily liable for securities fraud violation
• dismissing claims against a clearing broker was “merely performing back office functions”
• “As the clearing broker performing bookkeeping functions, [it] owed no duty to the investors whose contact and relationship was solely with the introducing broker.”
• “SSC owed no compensable duty to the investors and the inaction of a clearing broker is not enough to constitute the ‘substantial assistance' that aiding and abetting liability requires.”
• “Inaction may be found to be substantial assistance only where the independent duty to act was a duty owed to the [plaintiff].”
• since introducing broker hired clearing agent to perform record-keeping functions, would be incongruous to hold that clearing broker controlled the introducing broker absent evidence of direct or indirect influence over policy and decision-making process

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).