Despite that connection to federal law, the plaintiffs claims ultimately turned solely on “the internal rules of the NYSE, which are contractual in nature, and ‘thus interpreted pursuant to ordinary principles of contract law, an area in which the federal courts have no special expertise.’ ” D’Alessio, 258 F.3d at 101 (quoting Barbara, 99 F.3d at 55). So too here, “although federal ... laws do indeed relate to the subject matter of plaintiffs’ case, plaintiffs’ claims do not rest upon violation of federal laws.” Fin. & Trading Ltd., 2004 WL 2754862 at *8. Put simply, “[tjhere is no reason why ... state common law standards for determining fraud and negligent misrepresentation cannot form the sole basis for assessing” S & P’s representations. Id.; see also Glazer, 672 F.Supp.2d at 377 (<HOLDING>). S & P’s final argument — that the States’
holding that new york law did not preclude an arbitrators award of punitive damages despite a new york choice of law provision because there was no indication in the contract that the parties intended to limit their remedies in arbitration holding that dalessio did not justify removal where the gravamen of plaintiffs complaint was that defendants made materially false statements to them in a manner prohibited by new york law and in violation of duties created by new york law and no construction or interpretation of federal law was required holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership holding that new york law applies to this matter