are required to abide by NASD Rules of Fair Practice and to meet other NASD requirements”). f34 While NASD Rules do not create a private cause of action, courts have looked to the Rules to define the scope of a common law duty such as negligent supervision. Craighead v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 899 F.2d 485, 493 (6th Cir. 1990) (“We agree with the district court that NYSE [(New York Stock Exchange)] Rule 405 does not imply a private right of action cognizable in federal court.”); As You Sow, 584 F. Supp. 2d at 1048-49 (“violations of NASD rules alone do not give rise to actionable claims,” but NASD Rule 3040 and other NASD Rules “assist Tennessee and other courts in defining the extent of a legal duty at common law”); McGraw v. Wachovia Sec., LLC, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1053, 1075 (N.D. Iowa 2010) (<HOLDING>); Colbert & Winstead, PC 401(K) Plan v. AIG
recognizing that policy determines duty recognizing privilege under federal rules recognizing that old chief was based entirely on the federal rules of evidence rather than the constitution recognizing duty based on nasd rules recognizing implied duty to market