Griswold v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc., 85C4948.
Decision Date | 25 November 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 85C4948.,85C4948. |
Citation | 622 F. Supp. 1397 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Parties | J.L. GRISWOLD and Patricia Griswold, Plaintiffs, v. E.F. HUTTON & CO., INC., Arthur Lassila and Robert Stieren, Defendants. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Joel J. Bellows, Nicholas P. Iavarone, Bellows & Bellows, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
John J. Enright, Robert P. Bramnik, Andrew B. David, Marjorie E. McCollom, Arvey, Hodes, Costello & Burman, Chicago, Ill., for defendants E.F. Hutton and Arthur Lassila.
J.L. Griswold and his wife Patricia ("Griswolds") sue E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc. ("Hutton") and two Hutton account executives, Arthur Lassila ("Lassila") and Robert Stieren ("Stieren"), for civil damages based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA"), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26 and violations of fiduciary duty under state law. Hutton and Lassila have moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") in its entirety as to them.1 For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, their motion is denied.
In November 1983 Lassila, a former classmate of J.L. Griswold, learned Griswolds had sold their business and had a large sum of money available for investment (¶ 14).3 During November and December 1983 Lassila had several conversations with J.L. Griswold in which he "extolled" the advantages of Hutton's Managed Commodity Account Program ("MCAP") as an investment vehicle (¶ 15). Griswolds were convinced by Lassila's presentation of MCAP and decided to invest in it. On December 7, 1983 Griswolds opened several accounts with Hutton, depositing some $775,000 for use in trading commodities (¶ 25). On January 26, 1984 Griswolds invested a further $250,000 (¶ 26).
Lassila described MCAP to Griswolds as a program for trading commodity futures by drawing on the abilities of several Commodity Trading Advisers ("Advisers") at once. MCAP provided Hutton's customers with a number of Advisers, each of whom would separately trade an account established in the customer's name by Hutton. Thus MCAP was supposed to be a means of diversifying the risk associated with commodities trading (¶ 15).
Lassila ultimately introduced J.L. Griswold to six Advisers. Five of those — Cresta Commodity Management, Inc. ("Cresta"), Orion, Inc. ("Orion"), A.O. Management Corp. ("A.O."), Institute for Computer Studies of Commodities ("ICSC") and Colorado Commodities Management Corp. ("Colorado") — were "outside" Advisers participating in Hutton's program. Stieren, a Springfield, Illinois Hutton account executive, was the sixth. All were recommended to Griswolds by Lassila, who promised he would oversee the activities of the Advisers on a daily basis to insure adherence to a trading plan and to control risks (¶ 22-23, 25).
Griswolds signed a client agreement (the "Client Agreement") with Hutton that included authorization for Stieren to trade on their behalf (Ex. A-1). Griswolds also signed individual authorization agreements with Cresta,4 Orion, A.O., ICSC and Colorado, each authorizing the individual Adviser to trade a designated dollar amount on account with Hutton (Exs. A-2 to A-7).
On January 28, 1984 Lassila sent a hand-written note (Ex. E) to J.L. Griswold:
Cordially Arthur Lassila Acknowledgement of Letter and Stop-loss /s/ J. Griswold Jim Griswold Jan. 28, 1984
J.L. Griswold signed the acknowledgment.
On February 21, 1984 J.L. Griswold met Lassila at Hutton's Peoria, Illinois office to obtain the discount mentioned in Lassila's January 28 letter. Lassila tendered Hutton's check (Ex. G) for $59,134 made out to "James Griswold & Patricia R. Griswold JTWROS."5 Lassila said that was the amount due Griswolds after the commissions were discounted, and he also tendered a one-page single-spaced typed document (the "Release," Ex. F), which he said Hutton needed signed to show the discount on Stieren's commissions was final. In relevant part the Release reads:
When J.L. Griswold signed the Release he believed, based on Lassila's statements, he was agreeing only not to seek further discounts on Stieren's trades (¶ 34).
Stieren's last trade on Griswold's account was on February 15, 1984. During the two-month-plus trading period, Stieren generated $196,893 in total commissions on the $400,000 entrusted to him (¶ 29 and Ex. B).
Although Stieren's account had been funded in full for $400,000, the accounts of the other Advisers were not. Lassila told Griswolds it was Hutton's practice to fund such accounts with "fifty-cent dollars," so the Advisers believed there was twice as much money available for trading as was actually the case. Lassila told Griswolds that procedure would work to their benefit (¶ 24).6 Each individual agreement with an Adviser (other than Stieren) indicates account funding at twice the amount actually deposited by Griswolds with Hutton.
Griswolds' investment in MCAP was a disaster. By May 4, 1984 they had sustained losses of $542,232 in trading, while incurring $298,827 in commissions to Hutton and $19,708 in fees to the outside Advisers (¶ 31). In total about 84% of some $1,025,000 Griswolds invested in Hutton's MCAP had evanesced.
Griswolds' Complaint asserts (with considerable redundancy) various forms of fraud and misrepresentation as predicates for their RICO, CEA and state-law claims:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co.
...of a release of a federal cause of action. This precept is ably demonstrated by Judge Shadur's opinion in Griswold v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 622 F.Supp. 1397 (N.D.Ill.1985). Also as pointed out in Griswold, a stock or commodities broker is the agent of the customer and a fiduciary relatio......
-
Hisel v. Upchurch, CIV 89-1666-PHX-EHC (MM).
...as here, the rights of the litigants and the operative federal policies derive from a federal source"); Griswold v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 622 F.Supp. 1397, 1404 (D.D.Ill. 1985).8 For example, the release of admiralty and maritime claims is governed by federal common law. See Garrett v. M......
-
In re Cannon
...1222 (S.D.N.Y.1986). The relationship between broker and investor is that of an agent to his principal. See Griswold v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 622 F.Supp. 1397 (N.D.Ill.1985). The relationship is primarily fiduciary in nature, because it contemplates that the broker will hold and use the ......
-
Pierce v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co.
...Id. at 631; see Kolson v. Vembu, 869 F.Supp. 1315, 1322 (N.D.Ill.1994) (Shadur, J.). But see Griswold v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 622 F.Supp. 1397, 1404-06 (N.D.Ill.1985) (Shadur, J.). Estoppel cases have employed similar reasoning. See Anetsberger, 14 F.3d at 1233 n. 6; Dresser Indus., Inc. v. P......
-
Permanently reviving the temporary insider.
...e.g., McBeth v. Carpenter, 565 F.3d 171, 177 (5th Cir. 2009) (applying Texas law). (232.) See, e.g., Griswold v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 622 F. Supp. 1397, 1407 (N.D. Ill. 1985) (suggesting that a "discount broker" providing no expert advice might argue for a lesser fiduciary (233.) 37 Am. J......