- 5 - permitted Nomura to file the Form U-5 but granted an injunction requiring that it be filed under seal. That injunction was vacated on appeal. In the same court, petitioner commenced a second action against certain Nomura employees. With petitioner’s concurrence, that action was ultimately dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner was also involved in separate investigations of Nomura’s and petitioner’s trading activities while at Nomura, instituted in 1996 by both the NYSE and the NASD (the NYSE and NASD investigations). The Partial Summary Judgment Motions In April 1997, petitioner moved for partial summary judgment in the arbitration proceeding on the issue of whether Nomura should be required to advance to him the legal fees to be incurred by him in connection with the arbitration proceeding, the injunction action, and the NYSE and NASD investigations. Nomura opposed petitioner’s motion and, itself, moved for partial summary judgment dismissing petitioner’s claim for advancement or reimbursement of the legal fees. Petitioner filed a reply in further support of his own motion and in opposition to Nomura’s motion. Petitioner’s position that Nomura was required to advance to him the legal fees was based upon Article XIII of Nomura’s by-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011