Sekerak v. National City Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that bank owed plaintiff no fiduciary duties under custody agreement where investment ad-visor was given discretion to make investment decisions for plaintiffs account, and bank’s duties were largely administrative
• rejecting unauthorized wire transfer claims brought by customer of custodian bank where customer’s advisor had contractual authority to authorize transactions at issue
• rejecting unauthorized wire transfer claims brought by customer of custodian bank where customer’s advisor had contractual authority to authorize transactions at issue
• granting summary judgment where a bank was not informed of a fiduciary’s limitations and the principal knew of and did not object to the transactions
• under Ohio law, custodian bank does not owe “any duties beyond those made explicit in the Custody Agreement”
• under Ohio law, custodian bank does not owe ‘any duties beyond those made explicit in the Custody Agreement’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).