Michael G. Gilman v. Bhc Securities, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that punitive damage claims may not be aggregated of the underlying claim is not an “integrated” claim
• holding that claims of plaintiff-investors against defendant-brokerage for illegally charging “order flow payments” on securities transactions could not be aggregated because they “do not implicate a ‘single indivisible res,’ and could be adjudicated on an individual basis”
• emphasizing that although there were similarities between “plaintiffs’ claims,” those similarities “[did] not demonstrate a unitary claim”
• explaining cogently the difference between a common fund permitting aggregation and the common fund that is usually generated in any class action
• “Such a ‘fund’ [damages from disgorgement of payments improperly retained] is created to facilitate the litigation process in virtually every class action and has nothing necessarily to do with whether the plaintiffs shared a pre-existing (pre-litigation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).