stated that “[a]ll parties agree that Rule 10301(a) does not require the Defendanh-Investors to be direct customers of BMA. Instead, they fit within the confines of the Rule — and therefore may require BMA to arbitrate — even if they are only customers of BMA’s ‘associated person’ and not BMA.” See id. at 820 (emphasis in the original) (citing John Hancock Life Ins. Co. v. W pp.2d 1108, 1116 (D.Minn.2002) (“Federal case law plainly states that when the investor deals with an agent or representative [of a member], the investor deals with the member, and on that basis the investor is entitled to have resolved in arbitration any dispute that arises out of that relationship”) (internal citations omitted); Hornor, Townsend & Kent, Inc. v. Hamilton, 218 F.Supp.2d 1369, 1376-77 (N.D.Ga.2002) (<HOLDING>); see also Fin. Network Inv. Corp. v. Becker,
holding that a nasd member is required to arbitrate claims brought by the customer of an associated person holding that plaintiffs who are customers of a registered representative of a nasd member firm are customers of the nasd member firm for purposes of compelling arbitration holding that investors who were customers of an associated person were not customers of a nasd member without evidence of a firsthand customer relationship holding unconscionable an arbitration agreement requiring employees to arbitrate claims against the employer but not requiring the employer to arbitrate claims against the employees holding that employees could be required under mandatory securities registration form to arbitrate claims brought under adea