![]() In order to obtain the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction, Smith Barney must establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that it will succeed on the merits and that it is reasonably likely to suffer irreparable harm if relief is denied. On May 3, 2000, we held a preliminary injunction hearing. We denied the request for a temporary restraining order on May 1, 2000. The complaint does not seek a permanent injunction or other relief. Until the dispute between the parties can be arbitrated on the merits, Smith Barney asks this court to restrain Vockel from using, disclosing, or misappropriating Smith Barney's customer information, to compel Vockel to undo account transfers for any former Smith Barney accounts he successfully caused to be transferred to his new employer, and to require Vockel to return all documents containing Smith Barney client information. In that proceeding Smith Barney seeks, among other things, a monetary award. In addition to this action, Smith Barney has instituted an arbitration proceeding against Vockel under the rules promulgated by the National Association of Securities Dealers. We have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Vockel, III ("Vockel"), who resigned from Smith Barney on April 28, 2000. ![]() ("Smith Barney") for a preliminary injunction against one of its former financial consultants, Stewart M. Vockel, III.īefore the court is the motion of plaintiff Salomon Smith Barney Inc. Mathes, Hoyle, Morris & Kerr, Philadelphia, PA, for Stewart M. Wishchuk, Mc Aleese, Mc Goldrick & Susanin, P.C., King of Prussia, PA, for Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |