Nanlawala v. Jack Carl Associates, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the CME’s rules “establish a reasonableness standard for the time accorded a customer to comply with a margin call”
• statements that defendant futures trader had “expertise” was merely “puffing” and statement that defendant would “pick good trades” was also not actionable because it was merely a prediction of future investment success
• statements that defendant futures trader had \expertise\ was merely \puffing\ and statement that defendant would \pick good trades\ was also not actionable because it was merely a prediction of future investment success

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).