BROKER-DEALER DISPUTE OF THE WEEK
The summary below appeared in a recent Securities Litigation Alert.

Click Here For Cov

Chaney v. Dreyfus Service Corp., No. 08-60555, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1572 (5th Cir. 1/25/10).  FRCP (Rule 56 “Summary Judgment”) * Account Administration (Wire Transfers) * Negligence, Actionable * U.S. Statutes Interpreted (18 U.S.C. §1962(d) “RICO” Act) * Insurance Issues * Trusts/Estates/Receiverships * Culpability Standards (Ought to Know; Imputed Knowledge) * Statutory Definitions (“Customer”).  Court affirming summary judgment in favor of broker dealer on RICO claims and certain tort claims brought by receivers of defrauded insurance companies, but vacating summary judgment as to tort claims involving accounts of insurance companies on basis that determination of claims involved fact issues as to whether broker-dealer properly discharged its duties.

This appeal arises out of a case brought by receivers of seven insurance companies (the “Receivers”), whose assets were looted through a complex fraud scheme perpetrated by Martin Frankel (“Frankel”) and certain co-conspirators.   Frankel’s scheme involved the purchase of insurance companies with funds acquired fraudulently from investors and the fraudulent transfer of millions of the insurance companies’ assets to Swiss accounts under Frankel’s control.  Frankel accomplished the fraudulent transfers through brokerage accounts maintained at Dreyfus Service Corporation (“DSC”), a registered broker-dealer. Using an alias, Frankel opened at DSC a “master account” in the name of LNS, Inc., and certain “sub-accounts,” five of which were in the name of LNS, Inc., and five of which were in the name of the insurance companies.  Over a period of years, Frankel transferred approximately $200 million in assets of the insurance companies from the DSC accounts to his Swiss accounts through a pattern of large purchases and rapid redemptions to offshore accounts via standing wire instructions.  Frankel’s fraud was eventually discovered and the insurance companies placed in receivership.  The Receivers sued a number of parties, including DSC, against whom the Receivers asserted claims of negligence and a RICO conspiracy claim.  The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of DSC on all claims, and the Receivers appealed.  On appeal, the Receivers argue that summary judgment in favor of DSC on the negligence claims was in error, because DSC’s failure to monitor for suspicious activity or verify redemption authority breached duties of care owed by DSC to the insurance companies, causing their losses.  The Court first determines that the insurance companies, as named owners of the DSC “sub-accounts,” were “customers” to whom DSC owed duties of care under New York tort law.  Next, the Court rejects the Receivers’ arguments that, even though the insurance companies were not customers of DSC with respect to accounts in the name of LNS, Inc., DSC should be liable to the insurance companies for misappropriations in the LNS accounts, because DSC “ought to have known” that LNS was a fiduciary of the insurance companies with respect to such funds.  On that point, the Court concludes that DSC had no reason to know that LNS controlled the funds as a fiduciary and refuses to impose upon DSC the obligation to monitor non-fiduciary accounts for suspicious activity.  Turning to the issue of whether DSC breached its duty of care owed to the insurance companies as “customers” of the sub-accounts, the Court notes that, even though the sub-accounts were non-discretionary, DSC owed some duty to the insurance companies to determine if the redemptions Frankel made in the insurance companies’ accounts were authorized.  The Court finds that determination of whether DSC breached this duty involves triable issues of fact and vacates the lower court’s grant of summary judgment on this issue.  Finally, the Court finds no basis to reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of DSC on the Receivers’ RICO conspiracy claims, observing that the Receivers presented no theory by which DSC could be properly charged with knowledge of Frankel’s fraudulent activities.  (J. Ballard) (SLC Ref. No. 2010-09-08, 3/1/10)  (CLICK HERE to order copy of decision)


ARBITRATION ITEM OF THE WEEK

SURVEY UPDATE, MORGAN KEEGAN INCOME FUND AWARDS:  A recent article on Morgan Keegan’s high legal costs in defending against customer claims spurred us to update our late 2009 survey of Morgan Keegan income fund Awards; we find that these cases continue to flow through the FINRA arbitration system, sometimes with a bang.  Investment News (“Morgan Keegan’s Legal Fees Piling Up,” 3/1/10) reports that the beleaguered brokerage firm has expended $251 million in the past two years, largely due to defending itself against customer claims arising from its problematic proprietary products, collectively labeled Regions Morgan Keegan or RMK funds.  Our prior survey of 2009 Awards (in SLA 2009-42) found 62 customer-initiated Awards against Morgan Keegan by early November, of which 56 were mutual fund cases, either expressly involving or probably involving RMK funds.  We stated at the time that we did not believe there were many more such cases waiting in the wings, based on the low number of Awards issued in the early part of the fourth quarter.  We spoke too soon!  The fourth quarter ultimately saw 20 customer-initiated Awards (13 in November alone) out of a total of 77 for the entire year.  A total of 70 of these cases involved mutual funds and customers won 38 of them – a 54% win rate, well above the 45% win rate for all customer cases throughout 2009, but a substantial pullback from an adjusted 57% win rate relating to Morgan Keegan Awards in our initial survey.  Small Claims claimants did even better than customers as a whole, which is somewhat paradoxical, but then the sample is small.  Seven monetary awards out of 12 cases yielded a 58% win rate for Small Claims customers, a slight increase over the 55% win rate we reported in November and substantially higher than the overall 2009 Small Claims win rate of 39% (preliminary).  The 38 wins were awarded a total of $7.6 million, an average of $238,000 per Award.  The first two months of 2010 sent mixed signals, indicating, on the one hand, that Morgan Keegan’s torrent of cases might indeed be ebbing but, if so, the greatest storm is before the calm.  Only four customer-initiated Awards naming Morgan Keegan as a respondent issued in January or February, all of them involving the RMK fund, and three of them (all in February) were wins.  More significantly, one of them, Stein v. Morgan Keegan, FINRA ID #08-03109 (Boca Raton, 2/19/10), set new records for the largest monetary award in this group, $2.5 million on a claim of almost $37.2 million, based on findings of unsuitability, negligence and failure to supervise.  Altogether, these last three customer wins cost the broker-dealer more than $3.6 million in damages, more than $1 million per case and almost half of the total awarded for all of 2009.(3/3/10)

 


As the authority on securities arbitration, SAC's data and expertise are regularly utilized by the top financial publications. Our Award Database provides essential support for surveys conducted annually by Smart Money and Kiplinger's. SAC's authoritative staff is frequently quoted in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Securities Week, Barron's, Dow Jones, Bloomberg, and others. The General Accounting Office, recognizing the usefulness and accuracy of our data, has chosen to use SAC services for its second study of customer-initiated cases in securities arbitration.

Here's what the press and our customers have to say about SAC products.

"…the best source of information about the results of Wall Street arbitration cases." 
The New York Times

"…highly useful in the defense of arbitrations."
Securities Industry Association

"Thank you for your research regarding attorney fees and interest. The database information and case law you sent targeted the relevant issues, helping us to assess the risks involved in the case and ultimately to reach a satisfactory settlement. Your knowledge of the material is invaluable, and I certainly look forward to working with you again."
April M. Chung, attorney, Theodore A. Krebsbach & Associates New York, NY

"By encouraging arbitrators to read [the Commentator], the practitioners (and SAC) would assist in developing and maintain a better informed cadre of arbitrators, which is bound to serve the interests of those who appear before us and the industry which we all serve."
James Knotter, arbitrator San Diego, CA



P.O. Box 112
Maplewood, NJ 07040
TEL: 973.761.5880   FAX: 973.761.1504
E-MAIL: help@sacarbitration.com

 

Copyright © 2010 Securities Arbitration Commentator, Inc. All rights reserved.
Please read our copyright and disclaimer, and privacy statement.
Site Designed By: World Internet Resources.
Writer: Susan Dillon.