any compensation. Further, Mr. Grant did not receive any financial benefit from the bank or any other source. Therefore, Ms. Rotolante was not Mr. Grant’s customer under FIN-RA Rule 12200. See Wachovia Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd., 661 F.3d 164, 173-74 (2d Cir.2011) (indicating that when it is clear that no goods or services were provided by FINRA member, “there is no need to grapple with the precise boundaries of the FINRA meaning of ‘customer’ ” because “no rational factfinder could infer” customer relationship under such facts); UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. W. Va. Univ. Hosps., Inc., 660 F.3d 643, 650 (2d Cir.2011) (indicating that purchase of good or service from FINRA member creates customer relationship); see also Silverman, 706 F.3d at 567-68 (<HOLDING>); Cf. First Montauk Sec. Corp. v. Four Mile
holding that the definition of covered business method patent is not limited to products and services of only the financial industry or to patents owned by or directly affecting the activities of financial institutions holding that unlike the activities at issue in lopez and morrison the activities regulated by the controlled substances act are quintessentially economic holding that defendants were not customers of distributorunderwriter because they did not purchase commodities or services from distributorunderwriter in course of business activities regulated by finra holding that employees claims against firm were not subject to mandatory arbitration because they did not arise out of business activities of either employee or firm but instead arose out of divorce agreement holding that prisons have programs services or activities because they provide inmates with many recreational activities medical services and educational and vocational programs 