TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2014Da17220 Decided February 26, 2015 ¡¼Damages, Etc.¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] Whether a dealer under the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act owes a duty of care to protect the investor at the stage of investment solicitation (affirmative), and whether the said duty to protect is excluded for the sole reason that the investor is a sophisticated investor (negative) / Standard for setting the scope and extent of the duty to protect investors [2] Scope of the duty to explain owed by a dealer of investment trust securities under the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act at the stage of soliciting a customer to purchase securities

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2010Da106436 Decided February 26, 2015 ¡¼Confirmation of Worker Status¡½
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2013Da27442 Decided February 26, 2015 ¡¼Damages¡½