or for whom a member organization extends, arranges or maintains any credit.” 39 . As a result of the fact that this Court is granting the Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. No. 15), the Plaintiff's, IFG Securities, motions seeking injunctive relief to prevent arbitration necessarily must fail. Thus, insofar as Judge Spaulding’s R & R recommends denying IFG Securities’ Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (Doc. No. 2), this Court adopts her findings and legal conclusions. 40 . In reaching this conclusion, this Court emphasizes that merely being a customer of a NASD member or a NASD member’s associated person is not enough to entitle an investor to arbitration against a NASD member. See, e.g., Wheat, First Sec., Inc. v. Green, 993 F.2d 814, 820-21 (11th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The investor must also offer a plausible
holding that no  prohibition  prevents the imposition of liability vicariously on corporate persons on account of the acts of their agents particularly where the corporation benefitted by those acts holding that defendantinvestors were not customers of nasd member firm on account of their relationship with agents of the firms predecessorininterest because the acts giving rise to the question of arbitrability occurred before the plaintiff became a successorininterest holding that the plaintiff was required to arbitrate his claim which accrued before he became bound by the arbitration rules of the new york stock exchange because he was fully aware of the existing claim at the time he became a member of the exchange and became bound by its arbitration rules holding an attorney who carries on representation of an existing case after a law firm dissolves does so on the firms behalf and any income derived from the case belongs to the dissolved firm holding that the principal is liable for an agents acts committed within the scope of the agents employment