Washington Square Securities, Inc. v. Sowers

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting the Washington Square’s argument that “Henderson is a thief but not our thief’ and concluding that the disputes are covered by NASD Rule 10301(a)
• “Court considers them to be customers of Washington Square associated person, and therefore, customers of Washington Square.”
• “In this case, where the parties have already submitted this question to the arbitration panel, the Court finds it reasonable to allow the matter to proceed in the arbitral forum.”
• with respect to four of the plaintiffs, in an earlier decision in this case, the court reached the same conclusion and noted the reasonableness of placing the burden of controlling stockbrokers upon the brokerage firm with which they are affiliated
• involving only fraudulent promissory notes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).