Merrill Lynch Futures Inc was a subsidiary of Merrill Lynch, a global financial services firm that was acquired by Bank of America in 2008. Founded in the 1970s, Merrill Lynch Futures was one of the first futures commission merchants (FCMs) to be registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
As an FCM, Merrill Lynch Futures was responsible for facilitating the trading of futures and options contracts on various financial and commodity markets. This included providing clearing and settlement services, as well as acting as a intermediary between buyers and sellers.
One of the key advantages of Merrill Lynch Futures was its strong presence in the global financial markets. With a network of offices and partners around the world, the company was able to offer its clients access to a wide range of financial products and services. This included futures and options on indices, currencies, commodities, and other financial instruments.
In addition to its trading and clearing services, Merrill Lynch Futures also offered a variety of educational resources to help clients understand the complexities of the futures and options markets. This included research reports, market analysis, and training programs.
However, like many other financial firms, Merrill Lynch Futures was hit hard by the global financial crisis of 2008. As a result, the company was forced to restructure its operations and divest certain business lines. In 2009, it was announced that Merrill Lynch Futures would be merged with another FCM, Newedge Group, to create a new company called Newedge USA LLC.
Despite these challenges, Merrill Lynch Futures remains a well-respected name in the financial industry, known for its commitment to providing top-quality service and innovative solutions to its clients. Today, it continues to operate as a leading provider of futures and options trading services, helping investors and traders around the world to manage risk and capitalize on market opportunities.
Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc. v. Miller, 686 F. Supp. 1033
Memo at 51, 53 footnote omitted. It must be shown that the arbitrators manifestly fell into such error concerning the facts or law, and that the error prevented their free and fair exercise of judgment on the subject. The article was republished by the Futures Industry Association, Inc. The remainder of Miller's argument on this claim rests on his assertion that MLF's pre-filing investigation should have revealed to them that Miller was not involved in the fraudulent scheme alleged. As evidence of yet another source of information, a broker with a different investment firm testified that he provided the defendant with information he obtained from his office regarding the lumber market. However, even assuming that Miller has identified statements made by MLF employees that would meet this description, he has not demonstrated that any of MLF's communications were false.
MERRILL LYNCH FUTURES, INC. v. DAVID S. SANDS :: 1999 :: New Hampshire Supreme Court Decisions :: New Hampshire Case Law :: New Hampshire Law :: US Law :: Justia
Merrill Lynch Accuses Ex-Employee, Others Of Defrauding Firm New York — Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, Inc. The true nature of his transactions with the bank in question were made known within two weeks of MLF's erroneous representations. Further, there is evidence that during the transactions at issue the defendant was privy to considerable information concerning the lumber market. The defendant asserts that these documents contain provisions that required Merrill Lynch to provide him with the commentary that was withheld by his broker and to liquidate his account when he indicated he could not meet additional margin calls. See Complaint ¶ 6.
Wealth Management and Financial Services from Merrill Lynch
The broker knew of the strategist's comments but did not disclose them to the defendant. Merrill Lynch began liquidating the account, completing the task on March 11. In addition, the defendant frequently discussed the lumber market with his Merrill Lynch broker, who testified he related to the defendant all pertinent information gathered by the Merrill Lynch research department. This is precisely how the losses proximately caused by the type of fraud alleged should be calculated. Benson establishes that when an investor is in a losing position, cannot meet margin calls, and clearly articulates a desire to liquidate, the broker must do so in a commercially reasonable fashion to mitigate contract damages. The superior court denied the motions and confirmed the arbitration award.
On January 18, 1993, the defendant discussed with a Merrill Lynch broker the possibility of "shorting" lumber futures. Although defendants may at trial demonstrate that the losses. From MLF's perspective, however, the activity in Miller's personal account appeared highly suspicious. See also Celotex Corp. There are important differences between brokerage and investment advisory services, including the type of advice and assistance provided, the fees charged, and the rights and obligations of the parties.
Neither of these facts bear any relationship to the alleged libel. There is no evidence in the record that Merrill Lynch intentionally withheld the Commodity Compliance Outline and Commodity Credit Manuals. The record does not support the defendant's claims of "plain mistake" and "misconduct. He concedes that he did not respond to that inquiry with complete candor. At the outset of the action MLF obtained ex parte orders of attachment against the assets of all defendants, the validity of which was extensively litigated before this Court. These allegations rest on Miller's interpretation of events which preceded termination of his employment as a broker in Prudential-Bache's Houston office. To the contrary, all evidence submitted on the cross-motions indicates that MLF shared with Prudential-Bache information it had obtained regarding suspicious trades, including the suspicious mirror trades which appeared in Miller's account.
Given the circumstances of the representation, malicious intent cannot reasonably be inferred from the mere fact that incorrect assertions were made. Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc. Thus I do not consider them. The alleged co-conspirators placed trades that appeared on the books of the Commodities Exchange, Inc. Since they should have known that Miller was not involved, he reasons, filing an action against him was an abuse of process. You can click the "Return to Merrill; button now to return to the previous page, or you can close the new window after you leave. Feltner, Evidence submitted on the cross-motions provides no support for Miller's contention that MLF caused his termination.
In fact, Miller had not made such a sizable withdrawal. Benson, however, does not support the premise that brokers must immediately liquidate when investors announce that further margin calls cannot or will not be met. Mark Miller, a broker with Prudential-Bache Securities in Houston; and Robert Kelly, a clerk for Federbush, Semel Cardello, Inc. The claim of commodities fraud could have failed at arbitration on this basis alone. MLF contends that New York law should apply.
When Miller was untruthful in the course of the investigation, he was suspended and then terminated. Nevertheless, the defendant had access to other information that was negative toward his investment strategy. MLF believed itself entitled to compensation from Miller and was zealously seeking, in a lawful manner, to preserve all available assets to that end. A: In short, I omitted a material fact. Jacobs, supra, Grant v.