In re Catanella and EF Hutton and Co.
| Decision Date | 09 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | M.D.L. No. 546. |
| Citation | 583 F. Supp. 1388 |
| Parties | In re CATANELLA AND E.F. HUTTON and COMPANY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Steven M. Kramer, Robert J. Vedatsky, Philadelphia, Pa., for Edward Gaugler.
Richard D. Greenfield, Robert P. Frutkin, David B. Zlotnick, Greenfield & Chimicles, P.C., Bala Cynwyd, Pa., George M. Conway, III, Haddonfield, N.J., for David Taraborelli and Ronald Singer.
Michael J. Rutenberg, Rutenberg, Rutenberg, Rutenberg & Rutenberg, Philadelphia, Pa., for Saul and Teresa Shulik.
Richard D. Greenfield, Robert B. Frutkin, David B. Zlotnick, Greenfield & Chimicles, P.C., Bala Cynwyd, Pa., James M. Richardson, Wynnewood, Pa., George M. Conway, III, Haddonfield, N.J., for the Rastelli plaintiffs.
Leonard Barrack, Gerald J. Rodos, Daniel E. Bacine, John G. Narkin, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Philadelphia, Pa., Philip Stephen Fuoco, Haddonfield, N.J., for Kenneth Catanella and E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc.
Walter B. Udell, Edelson, Udell, Kimmelman & Farrell, Philadelphia, Pa., M. Randall Vanet, Kansas City, Mo., for Joseph Granville.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1392
II. THE COMPLAINTS 1393
III. DISCUSSION 1397
A. Pleading Deficiencies 1397
1. Specificity and Rule 9(b) 1397
2. Immaterial, Impertinent or Scandalous
Matter 1400
3. Simplicity and Rule 8 1401
B. Federal Securities Laws 1402
1. Section 10(b) 1402
(a) Scope of Prohibited Conduct 1403
(b) Churning 1405
(c) In Connection With 1407
(d) Causation 1413
2. Section 12(2) 1417
3. Investment Advisers Act of 1940 1418
4. Section 17(a) 1417
5. Vicarious Liability 1419
C. The Rico Claims 1422
1. The Statute 1422
2. Securities Related Issues 1424
3. Organized Crime 1426
4. Injury 1430
(a) Competitive Injury 1431
(b) Racketeer Enterprise Injury 1434
D. State Law Claims 1437
1. Pendent Jurisdiction 1437
2. Causation 1438
3. State Securities Statutes 1438
4. New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act 1441
Before the court are motions to dismiss in five securities fraud cases, consolidated for purposes of pretrial proceedings by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.1Although the allegations contained in the complaints vary slightly, each involve the conduct of Kenneth G. Catanella("Catanella"), a securities broker employed by defendantE.F. Hutton and Company, Inc.("Hutton").Catanella is accused of a continuing course of fraud in connection with his handling of plaintiffs' portfolios.The allegations run the gamut from churning to the purchase of unsuitable securities and the failure to disclose the risks inherent in certain transactions.In addition to misrepresentations and omissions directly impinging upon trading decisions, it is also averred that Catanella failed to disclose his role in a prior securities fraud action.Defendants Hutton and Granville are sued for failing to supervise Catanella adequately and under the related doctrine of respondeat superior.They are also characterized as "controlling persons" and aiders and abettors.Plaintiffs invoke sections 12(2),15and17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,15 U.S.C. §§ 77l(2),77o,77q(a)(1976),sections 10(b)and20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b),78t(a)(1976) and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-1—80b-17(1976).Claims are also made pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970, ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968(1976).Various counts based upon state law have been appended to the federal claims.In their motions to dismiss, defendants have assailed the legal sufficiency of virtually every cause of action.For the reasons which follow, the motions shall be granted in part and denied in part.
When deciding a motion to dismiss, the court must take as true all well pled allegations and resolve all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.See e.g., Miree v. DeKalb County,433 U.S. 25, 27 n. 2, 97 S.Ct. 2490, 2492 n. 2, 53 L.Ed.2d 557(1977);Rogin v. Bensalem Township,616 F.2d 680, 685(3d Cir.1980);Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp.,561 F.2d 434, 444(3d Cir.1977).2Mindful of this standard, I shall summarize the rather complex allegations contained in the complaints.In the interest of brevity, I shall address issues jointly where possible.
Each complaint begins by tracing the progress of Catanella's brokerage career.After spending eight months as a trainee, he embarked on that career at Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc.("Paine, Webber") in 1969.Then, from December, 1972 until November, 1973, he was a registered representative and sales manager for Shearson, Hayden, Stone, Inc.("Shearson").Taraborelli Complaintat ¶ 16;Shulik Complaintat ¶ 8.3In April of 1974, Catanella's former customers from Paine, Webber and Shearson instituted suit against him and his former employers, claiming violations of a variety of federal and state securities laws.4After a bench trial, Catanella was found to have violated sections 10(b)and15(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b),78o(c)(1976), various regulations and stock exchange rules.The trial court determined that Catanella had intentionally mishandled those plaintiffs' accounts, making unauthorized and unsuitable purchases, failing to disclose the risks inherent in short term trading and recommending securities without justification or investigation.Catanella also churned the accounts, disregarded specific instructions and breached a variety of fiduciary duties.Taraborelli Complaintat ¶ 19.Paine, Webber and Shearson were held liable for, inter alia, failing to supervise Catanella.Id.Judgment was entered against the defendants for eight hundred and thirteen thousand dollars ($813,000.00) and the case was later settled for an amount very close to that figure.Id.at ¶ 20.
The instant complaints also allege that Catanella had been terminated by Paine, Webber and Shearson, had been the subject of customer complaints and disciplinary proceedings, and had been previously fined for unauthorized trading.Catanella's commission record had been quite high, a potential indicia of churning.Id.at ¶ 21.Despite this dubious employment history, Hutton hired Catanella as a registered representative.It is averred that Hutton either knew all of these facts before hiring him or was reckless in its failure to so learn.Not only was Catanella hired, but he was also named Portfolio Manager, made a member of Hutton's Director's Advisory Council and elected Vice-President.These titles added to Catanella's credibility, but were allegedly undeserved and misrepresented the level of his expertise.Id.at ¶¶ 23-24.In an attempt to launch Catanella's career at Hutton, a series of widely publicized seminars and lectures were sponsored by the firm.Famous market prognosticator, Joseph Granville was spotlighted at these lectures and Catanella was presented as a follower of the Granville method of investing.Gaugler Amended Complaintat ¶ 8.These seminars were directly or indirectly responsible for bringing plaintiffs and Catanella together.
Edward Gaugler, a sixty two year old retired scientist, attended a Hutton seminar in Atlantic City.Both Granville and Catanella were in attendance, and the latter was dubbed the "Granville Oriented Broker in the Tri-State Area."Id.at ¶ 9.During the seminar, Gaugler was given an informational card, which he filled out, entitling him to a free Granville Newsletter.This card also provided Catanella with the ability to contact and solicit him as a potential customer, which he did.Gaugler explained that his investments to date had been conservative, id.at ¶ 11, and that he desired only a "businessman's risk."Id. at 22.It is alleged that Gaugler was unsophisticated in investments and this fact should have been clear to Catanella.Id.at ¶¶ 3, 11.Catanella attempted to convince Gaugler to follow the Granville market approach, making it appear that he was in constant contact with Granville and that Granville approved of his trading decisions.He also represented that Hutton's research facilities were utilized in reaching all trading decisions.Id.at ¶¶ 11-14.
The complaint avers numerous wrongdoings by Catanella and Hutton, including their failure to disclose the cash position in Gaugler's account thereby enabling Hutton to use the idle cash for its own benefit, id.at ¶ 17; failure to disclose that certain transactions were contrary to Granville's advice, id at ¶ 18; failure to disclose that Gaugler had not "gotten in" at the beginning of Granville's strategy for a certain period, id at ¶ 23, and failure to disclose that Hutton's research resources were rarely utilized in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLendon v. Continental Group, Inc.
...Co., Inc. v. Browning-Ferris, Industries, 590 F.Supp. 1528, 1539-40 (W.D.Pa.1984); In re Catanella and E.F. Hutton and Co., Inc. Securities Litigation, 583 F.Supp. 1388, 1430-31, 1434-37 (E.D.Pa.1984) (citing cases); Yancoski v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., supra, 581 F.Supp. at 96-97; Kirschne......
-
Zola v. Gordon
...identical to section 101 of the Uniform Securities Act, which was paterned after Rule 10b-5." In re Catanella and E.F. Hutton & Co. Sec. Litig., 583 F.Supp. 1388, 1439 (E.D.Pa.1984); see N.J.Stat.Ann. § 49:3-52 (West 1970 & Supp.1987). However, section 49:3-52 has been held not to create a ......
-
Haroco, Inc. v. American Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago
...often remarked on this lack of explanation and the difficulty of definition as major reasons for rejecting it. E.g., In re Catanella, 583 F.Supp. 1388, 1436-37 (E.D.Pa.1984). Instead of defining a racketeering enterprise injury, at least two district courts have refused to do so, insisting ......
-
Perez-Rubio v. Wyckoff
...1980 WL 1392 (S.D. N.Y. April 11, 1980); Troyer v. Karcagi, supra, 476 F.Supp. at 1149. Accord In re Catanella and E.F. Hutton and Co. Securities Litigation, 583 F.Supp. 1388, 1413 (E.D.Pa.1984) ("Where a broker is given control of the client's portfolio, the choice of a broker is tantamoun......
-
Liability of stockbrokers: claims for churning and unsuitability.
...denied, 488 U.S. 926 (1988) (Louisiana Act not applicable to securities transactions); In re Catanella & E.F. Hutton & Co., 583 F.Supp. 1388 (E.D. Pa. 1984) (securities fraud not actionable under New Jersey Act); Nichols v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 706 F. Supp......
-
§ 4.1.9.9 "IN CONNECTION WITH"
...8 Loss, Seligman & Paredes, supra note 1020, at 184 (explaining Rule 10b-5).[1059] See In re Catanella & E.F. Hutton & Co. Sec. Litig., 583 F. Supp. 1388, 1409-11 (E.D. Pa. 1984) (interpreting Rule 10b-5).[1060] See Hemming v. Alfin Fragrances, Inc., 690 F. Supp. 239, 244-45 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)......
-
§ 5.1.9.9
...Seligman & Paredes, supra note 1105, at 217-18 (explaining Rule 10b-5).[1145] See In re Catanella & E.F. Hutton & Co. Sec. Litig., 583 F. Supp. 1388, 1409-11 (E.D. Pa. 1984) (interpreting Rule 10b-5).[1146] See Hemming v. Alfin Fragrances, Inc., 690 F. Supp. 239, 244-45 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (int......