{"id":900,"date":"2011-06-20T00:29:08","date_gmt":"2011-06-20T00:29:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com\/2011\/06\/morgan_stanley_barclays_and_me"},"modified":"2022-03-09T16:06:41","modified_gmt":"2022-03-09T22:06:41","slug":"morgan-stanley-barclays-and-me","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/morgan-stanley-barclays-and-me\/","title":{"rendered":"Morgan Stanley, Barclays, and Merrill Lynch Lose \u2018Hot News\u2019 Misappropriation Case Against Theflyonthewall.com Inc. in Appeals Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\tThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed a lower court’s ruling and decided that under New York law, Theflyonthewall.com Inc., an online financial news service, may not be held liable for disseminating the equity research recommendations found in reports of plaintiffs Barclays Capital Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.<\/a>, and Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. <\/a>The appeals court’s Judge Robert D. Sack concluded that federal copyright law preempts the ‘Hot News’ misappropriation claim.<\/p>\n

The financial firms’ reports contain research about public companies, their securities and business prospects, and their respective industries. The reports summarize these findings, which often include recommendations about holding, selling, and buying the subjects’ securities. The firms give clients and prospective ones these reports before the US securities markets open daily as an “informational advantage.” <\/p>\n

The plaintiffs accused Fly, which has managed to get a hold of these recommendations and issue them before the brokerage firms had given them to the public or before the exchanges that the securities are traded have opened, of copyright infringement. Concurring with the plaintiffs, a lower court then barred the news service from both infringing on the copyrighted aspects of the brokerage firms’ research reports and publishing their recommendations until after the New York Stock Exchange opened. <\/p>\n

Now, however, the appeals court is saying that “a firm’s ability to make news\u2026 does not give rise to a right for it to control who breaks the news and how.” The court reversed and remanded the earlier claim and told the district court to dismiss the brokerage firms’ misappropriation claim under New York law.
\n
\nRelated Web Resources: <\/strong>
\nTheflyonthewall.com Inc. <\/a><\/p>\n

Read the district court’s opinion (PDF)<\/p>\n

Brokerages Lose in Appeals Court On N.Y. ‘Hot News’ Misappropriation Claim, BNA Securities Law Daily, June 20, 2011
\n
\nMore Blog Posts:<\/strong>
\nMortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Now a Class Action Case<\/a>, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 25, 2011
\nChina-Based Hackers Broke into Morgan Stanley Network, Reports Bloomberg<\/a>, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 28, 2011
\nDismissal of Lone Star’s $60 Mortgage-Backed Securities Texas Fraud Action Against Barclays is Affirmed by Federal Appeals Court<\/a>, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 17, 2010 Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed a lower court’s ruling and decided that under New York law, Theflyonthewall.com Inc., an online financial news service, may not be held liable for disseminating the equity research recommendations found in reports of plaintiffs Barclays Capital Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., and Merrill […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3756,3752,3800,3787],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-900","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-barclays-capital","category-financial-firms","category-merrill-lynch","category-morgan-stanley"],"yoast_head":"\nMorgan Stanley, Barclays, and Merrill Lynch Lose \u2018Hot News\u2019 Misappropriation Case Against Theflyonthewall.com Inc. in Appeals Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — June 20, 2011<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed a lower court's ruling and decided that under New York law, Theflyonthewall.com Inc., an — June 20, 2011\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/morgan-stanley-barclays-and-me\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Morgan Stanley, Barclays, and Merrill Lynch Lose \u2018Hot News\u2019 Misappropriation Case Against Theflyonthewall.com Inc. in Appeals Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — June 20, 2011\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed a lower court's ruling and decided that under New York law, Theflyonthewall.com Inc., an — June 20, 2011\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Morgan Stanley, Barclays, and Merrill Lynch Lose \u2018Hot News\u2019 Misappropriation Case Against Theflyonthewall.com Inc. in Appeals Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — June 20, 2011","description":"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed a lower court's ruling and decided that under New York law, Theflyonthewall.com Inc., an — June 20, 2011","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/morgan-stanley-barclays-and-me\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Morgan Stanley, Barclays, and Merrill Lynch Lose \u2018Hot News\u2019 Misappropriation Case Against Theflyonthewall.com Inc. in Appeals Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — June 20, 2011","twitter_description":"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed a lower court's ruling and decided that under New York law, Theflyonthewall.com Inc., an — June 20, 2011","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/morgan-stanley-barclays-and-me\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/morgan-stanley-barclays-and-me\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"Morgan Stanley, Barclays, and Merrill Lynch Lose \u2018Hot News\u2019 Misappropriation Case Against Theflyonthewall.com Inc. in Appeals Court","datePublished":"2011-06-20T00:29:08+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-09T22:06:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/morgan-stanley-barclays-and-me\/"},"wordCount":377,"articleSection":["Barclays Capital","Financial Firms","Merrill Lynch","Morgan Stanley"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/morgan-stanley-barclays-and-me\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/morgan-stanley-barclays-and-me\/","name":"Morgan Stanley, Barclays, and Merrill Lynch Lose \u2018Hot News\u2019 Misappropriation Case Against Theflyonthewall.com Inc. in Appeals Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — June 20, 2011","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-20T00:29:08+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-09T22:06:41+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed a lower court's ruling and decided that under New York law, Theflyonthewall.com Inc., an — June 20, 2011","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/morgan-stanley-barclays-and-me\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/morgan-stanley-barclays-and-me\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/morgan-stanley-barclays-and-me\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Morgan Stanley, Barclays, and Merrill Lynch Lose \u2018Hot News\u2019 Misappropriation Case Against Theflyonthewall.com Inc. in Appeals Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/","name":"Investor Lawyers Blog","description":"Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys \u2014 Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431","name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-ew","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/900","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=900"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/900\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22338,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/900\/revisions\/22338"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=900"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=900"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=900"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}