254 F.3d 48, 59 (2d Cir.2001)). The Second Circuit’s holding in John Hancock now represents the majority view. See Washington Square Sec., Inc. v. Aune, 253 F.Supp.2d 839, 841 n. 1 (W.D.N.C.2003) (“The majority view is stated in the John Hancock opinion ... holding that customers of the NASD member firm’s representative/associated person can require the NASD member to submit to arbitration”) (internal citation omitted); see also Daugherty v. Washington Square Sec., Inc., 271 F.Supp.2d 681, 689-90 (W.D.Pa.2003) (“The majority of fedefal courts faced with interpreting NASD Rule 10301(a) concluded that NASD members must arbitrate disputes raised by customers of their associated persons”). It has been adopted by the S 130291, *1, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26527, *4 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 20, 2002) (<HOLDING>); Washington Square Sec. Inc. v. Sowers, 218
holding that customers of registered representative were customers of memberfirm 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 as a general rule that a bank and its customers do not have a special or confidential relationship recognizing that the seller may accept the patronage of those customers who were actively dealing with the purchased company on the date of the sale if such customers choose to leave the purchased company without prompting from the seller 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