el ca.. I didn't see your post till now. I am not 100% how IB is going to handle the new rules. I made some enquiries but didn't get back a definitive answer. As for your cash withdraw question, I have to assume if you ask for cash out of your account and it is available it will be returned within a day.
I may have found the answer to my question -- or at least part of it: the NYSE might be one of the primary targets. I searched under the keyword "daytrader" on the sec.gov site and apparently NYSE Rule 431 was a basis for the new SEC rule -- at least the proposal to raise the minimum equity requirement for daytraders from $2000 to $25,000. IF I did want to initiate a class action suit, does anyone have advice about first steps I should take? Fast
The first thing that needs to be done is locate a friendly federal judge who will issue a TRO and put the whole thing on hold for a while. Oh ya, a shark of an attorney will have to be retained and he/she will probably do it only if there are big dollars for them at the end. So lets see...a class action suit filed against_______ for a gazillion dollars. I don't see how a suit against the SEC is going to net the result we (and the shark attorney) want/need. Probably would have to be NASD as they are the SRO that is involved and they may have very deep pockets..perhaps NYSE as well. I dunno, sounds like a job for Jeffery Feiger maybe... Best regards to all, Jim
I'd say Bill Lerach from Milberg Weiss on the West Coast. He's a holy terror and could argue this pretty well. You need a good lead plaintiff.
Bill Lerach knows the NASDAQ system well. He was the attorney that made short term trading really possible. It was his case of the public against the NASDAQ market makers for artificial spreads. He he been in quite a few corporate lawsuits. Exxon Veldez is one I remember quite well. He was on the environment side. MO knows his name as he has won several huge lawsuits against them. I could go on about him...for a long time. He lives in Rancho Santa Fe (about 10 minutes from my place) and WOW talk about a house. I was at a party there. rtharp
What would make a strong plaintiff? Here is a draft of some initial criteria: 1. Trading account of less than $25,000 (any ideas about how much less? I am thinking that someone with $24,000 might not have as strong a case as someone with $10,000, but maybe not. Any thoughts?) 2. Active trader (this may be my own weakest trait right now as I have not been very active this year -- have taken time out to do additional study of trading) 3. Pattern of trading both long and short (is it necessary to show pattern of trading short as well as long? if not necessary, does it make the plaintiff stronger if he/she has traded short as well as long?) How important are things such as verbal fluency, professional demeanor, poised under pressure, persistence, commitment, etc.? (Exactly what does a lead plaintiff do? does he/she testify? produce documentation to demonstrate harm?) I may or may not be a stong plaintiff myself, but I am willing to seek one. If we can define a strong lead plaintiff, we may find one who is active on this web site. THANKS to those who have responded to my question. I especially appreciate names of specific lawyers. I think the NYSE's apparent role in bringing about this new SEC rule is enough to justify additional preliminary steps -- it may be that the NASDAQ also had a significant role. Does anyone know? Fast
The lead plaintiff should serve as a good example of the class being represented. The attorney should be able to show, through the specific actions of the lead plaintiff, that his actions were that of a typical trader acting in good faith and making sensible decisions. Further, that the plaintiff has been severely wronged as a result of the new rule and thousands of others have likely suffered the same fate. The argument must be one that is clear to the party hearing the case (judge or jury) and must show that the rule has placed an unfair burden on those with less $$$. The SEC will counter that the rule has an intended effect and that they are acting in good faith to accomplish that effect via the rule. To win, the plaintiff will need to show that the rule has (or will have) unintended consequences and will hinder those not targeted by the rule so severely that the rule must be modified or removed. To me, this falls under the "protecting citizens from themselves" category. If I should be protected from anything, it's the pathetic customer service I receive from so many companies on a regular basis. I think I should be able to risk losing all of my money in any way I see fit...to risk suffering the consequences of that loss...and to realize the benefits of success. off the soapbox...