The Gms Group, LLC and Joseph Costa v. Nathan Benderson

How courts have described this case

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

• “We have repeatedly stressed that our review under the doctrine of manifest disregard is severely limited.” (quotation omitted)
• The court “will confirm the award if we are able to discern any colorable justification for the arbitrator’s judgment, even if that reasoning would be based on an error of fact or law.”
• “[I]t is well established that, under the manifest disre gard standard, it requires more than a mistake of law or a clear error in fact finding to disturb an award.” (internal quotations omitted)
• even \clear error in fact\ is insufficient to warrant disturbing arbitration award
• even “clear error in fact” is insufficient to warrant disturbing arbitration award
• Although there is no right of action for simply violating NASD rules, violation of NASD Rules 2860(19) and 2310, which govern the conduct of-NASD members and address the suitability of securities recommendations, are relevant for purposes of § 10(b) unsuitability claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).