Skip to main content

You are here

Advertisement

Appellate Court Considers B/D’s Liability for Advisor Fraud

What’s a broker-dealer’s liability when an advisor does something that has been specifically prohibited by the B/D, but does so away from the firm for individuals who never became customers of the broker-dealer?

According to an article in the National Law Review, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently answered that question… with a resounding “maybe.” Moreover, it clarified that the employer could be liable in negligence if it knew or should have known that its employee posed a risk of defrauding others.

The case, Owens v. Stifel Nicolaus and Co., et al, No. 15-12911 (11th Cir. May 27, 2016), involved an advisor who had requested that he be allowed to add a particular investment to the list of approved investments. The broker-dealer rejected the advisor’s request, but the advisor went forward with soliciting potential investors for that investment, identifying himself as an employee of the broker-dealer and using the email address and telephone number associated with the broker-dealer.

Ultimately, the plaintiff purchased two convertible promissory notes and executed a securities purchase agreement with the issuer, though the transaction documents stated that the investment was not effected by or through a broker-dealer, and the advisor informed he investor that it was not necessary to open an account with the broker-dealer in order to make the investments.

Court Case

Well, at some point the issuer failed to repay the promissory notes, and the investor sued the broker-dealer asserting claims of fraud and negligence. The district court dismissed the claims against the broker-dealer on motion for summary judgment, finding that the broker-dealer was not responsible for the fraud of its employee as a matter of law.

On appeal, the 11th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the fraud claim, but reversed the dismissal of the negligence claim, remanding the matter for trial on the issue of negligence.

Regarding the fraud claim, the court noted that an employer can be held liable for the fraud of its employee where the employee is acting within the scope of his actual or apparent authority. Here, the advisor did not have actual authority to sell the investment in question because the broker-dealer had disapproved the investment, and maintained policies that prohibited the advisor from selling securities away from the firm. Moreover, the broker-dealer had terminated the advisor’s employment when it learned he had sold investments outside of the firm.

Additionally, the court determined that the facts were insufficient to establish that the advisor had apparent authority, at least under the governing law of Georgia, where an agent has apparent authority when the principal’s conduct leads a third party to reasonably believe that agent has the authority to act on the principal’s behalf. The court concluded that the broker-dealer’s employment of the advisor, and providing him with an email address, telephone number and an office, were insufficient to establish apparent authority where the broker-dealer did not receive any benefit from and did not directly participate in the alleged fraud, and the advisor’s conduct was solely for his own personal benefit.

As for the negligence claim, the district court had dismissed it, holding that the broker-dealer did not owe the plaintiff any duty because it never became a customer of the broker-dealer. The 11th Circuit reversed that holding, however, reasoning that a duty of care is not always limited to clients.

Tendencies and Propensities

The court further explained that under applicable law, an employer has a duty to use ordinary care not to hire or retain an employee the employer knew or should have known posed a risk of harm to others, where it was reasonably foreseeable from employee’s “tendencies” or “propensities” that the employee could cause the type of harm sustained by the plaintiff.

Here the court found that the investor had sufficiently stated a claim that the broker-dealer breached its duty by hiring and retaining the advisor when the broker-dealer knew or should have known the he posed a risk of defrauding others, in addition to what it said were “red flags” in the advisor’s employment and investment management history, which it said the jury could consider in determining whether the broker-dealer acted negligently in hiring, retaining and supervising the advisor.

All of which suggests that the concerns about, and potential impact of hiring – and retaining – so-called “rogue” brokers are of merit.

Advertisement