Normal
I believe the answer was in the Oxford judgement you provided all along McLovin.It is not to the point that the defendants did not advise a client as to particular transactions, as for example whether to buy, sell or hold a particular security. It is sufficient that their system would "influence" such a decision, in the sense of making available information, and a system of analysing that information, which would be seen by a recipient as relevant to the making of a decision.This is Judge Herrey's interpretation of the act. This judgement was handed down in 2008, so it is recent and relevant.
I believe the answer was in the Oxford judgement you provided all along McLovin.
It is not to the point that the defendants did not advise a client as to particular transactions, as for example whether to buy, sell or hold a particular security. It is sufficient that their system would "influence" such a decision, in the sense of making available information, and a system of analysing that information, which would be seen by a recipient as relevant to the making of a decision.
This is Judge Herrey's interpretation of the act. This judgement was handed down in 2008, so it is recent and relevant.
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.
