King v. Sebens

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “although [plaintiff’s] theories are posited as state law claims,” their viability depended on whether the SRO’s “rules were violated,” thereby triggering the exclusive jurisdiction provision of § 78aa
• holding “that a self-regulatory organization [such as FINRA] is immune from liability based on the discharge of its duties under the Exchange Act”
• finding that when NASD “acts in [its] capacity to suspend trading” and de-list stocks, NASD is “performing a regulatory function cloaked in immunity” as “there are few functions more quintessentially regulatory than suspension of trading.”
• “Extending immunity when a self-regulatory organization is exercising quasi-governmental powers is consistent with the structure of the securities market as constructed by Congress.”
• affirming dismissal of suit against the NASD for improperly de-list-ing and suspending trading in a stock on the NASDAQ stock market on immunity grounds
• acknowledging that immunity applies to an SRO’s “adjudicatory” actions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).