- 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