v. Benefits Communications Corp., 175 F.3d 155, 162 (D.C.Cir.1999) (broader SEA definition of “associated person” “reinforce[s]” the narrower NASD definition); Tays v. Covenant Life Ins. Co., 964 F.2d 501, 503 (5th Cir.1992) (same). We agree with the Fifth and D.C. Circuits that the definitions of the SEA do not necessarily control the meaning of the same terms in the NASD’s own By-Laws and Rules. Here, the Ni^SD’s different definition does not result in any rule or practice that is inconsistent with the statute or any regulatory command of the SEC. Moreover, the SEC reviews and approves all NASD rules and by-laws before they become effective. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 78o-3 & 78s; see also Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 233-34, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 96 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987) (<HOLDING>). We think it is safe to assume that the SEC
recognizing that the waiver rule is wholly consistent with the bias rule of practice as an appellate body holding that because the development plan had the force and effect of law the proposed development must be consistent with both the general plan and the zoning emphasis in original holding that in the context of a rule 10b5 claim when the merger was approved and the exchange of securities occurred the owner of stock had in effect purchased a new security and paid for it by turning in his old one holding that the sec has specifically approved the arbitration procedures of the  nasd and no proposed rule change may take effect unless the sec finds that the proposed rule is consistent with the requirements of the exchange act holding that even if a defendant in a proposed class action does not seriously contest whether the rule 23 requirements have been met a court nevertheless has the responsibility of conducting its own inquiry as to whether the requirements of rule 23 have been satisfied in a particular case