McDonald v. Alan Bush Brokerage Co.
Decision Date | 17 January 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 87-5418,87-5418 |
Citation | 863 F.2d 809 |
Parties | Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,177 Frederick McDONALD, Mary McDonald, and Fred R. McDonald, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALAN BUSH BROKERAGE COMPANY and William R. Dodson, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Russell L. Forkey, Pamela M. Burdick, Steven G. Goerke, Deerfield Beach, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellants.
David P. Ackerman, Scott J. Link, West Palm Beach, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before HILL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and THOMAS *, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiffs-appellants filed a complaint in district court on June 3, 1985, alleging violation of securities laws. A jury trial commenced on the claim brought pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder. At the close of the plaintiffs-appellants' case, the district court granted defendants-appellees' motion for a directed verdict on four grounds: 1) that plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence in the handling of their accounts; 2) that the action was not brought within the applicable statute of limitations; 3) that defendants did not act with scienter; and 4) that plaintiffs were estopped from maintaining this action. The district court issued a written order to this effect. Appellants filed timely notice of appeal to this court.
On appeal appellants contend that the district court erred in directing a verdict for defendants. We need address only one of the grounds of the district court order--absence of scienter--to conclude that the court was not in error. 1 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. 2
In November of 1980 appellants Frederick McDonald, his wife Mary McDonald and son Fred R. McDonald opened an account with appellees Alan Bush Brokerage Company and William R. Dodson, account executive. Frederick McDonald (McDonald) was the only active participant in the account. 3 Dodson was McDonald's account executive with Alan Bush from the time he opened the account until March of 1984. McDonald maintained his account with Bush until the late summer of 1984.
Although Dodson would make recommendations to McDonald, Dodson did not independently undertake purchases or sales without McDonald's approval. McDonald followed Dodson's recommendations more often than not. At times, however, McDonald originated his own suggestions of preferred purchases.
McDonald was an experienced investor in the stock market who had invested in stock options prior to his coming to Bush. 4 In 1978, McDonald opened an account at Merrill Lynch, where he originated half of the investment transactions he entered into, including transactions involving options. After leaving Merrill Lynch, McDonald opened and maintained concurrent trading accounts with Raymond James & Associates and Ovest Securities, Inc., an "order taking firm" at which 100% of the transactions were initiated by the customer. In eleven months with Raymond James and Ovest, McDonald executed 193 option transactions.
When McDonald opened his account with Alan Bush, he entered into an Option Agreement and completed an Options Trading Questionnaire on which he indicated his investment goals as income, growth and trading profits. The documents also spelled out the risks of options trading. 5 Dodson recommended to McDonald the purchase of certain securities for the purpose of implementing an investment strategy employing listed stock options in conjunction with the recommended securities.
McDonald does not contend that Dodson's actions were intentional. In fact, he conceded at trial that R. 6:89. Moreover, Dodson himself lost approximately $35,000 on his own investments in one of the stocks at issue during the same time period. McDonald does contend that Dodson's recommendations with respect to three stocks--Baldwin-United, Storage Technology, and Mitel--included reckless misrepresentations and omissions. 6
On March 9, 1983, Dodson first recommended that McDonald purchase the common stock of Baldwin-United. McDonald testified that, prior to McDonald's purchase of Baldwin-United on March 16, 1983, Dodson stated, "I'll recommend a stock which is very good and which is well known, that's Baldwin." R.6:82. Dodson testified that his recommendation of Baldwin-United rested on its "A" rating from Standard & Poors in late 1982, the fact that Baldwin-United had just taken over a company whose stock McDonald had previously traded with other brokers, that Baldwin-United's "bullish" quality was evidenced by its acquisition of Sperry & Hutchinson Green Stamp Division, that the Option Trading Wire information service had rated the potential return on the stock as "very good," and that on March 8, the day before he recommended it, the stock had hit a new high and was "trending upwards."
The day after McDonald purchased the stock at 35 3/4, its value fell. According to Dodson, McDonald suggested that Dodson purchase more common stock and call options in order to obtain a lower average price. Additional Baldwin-United stock was purchased on that second day. As the stock's price continued to decline during the last part of March, Dodson and McDonald had several discussions, and Dodson testified that on at least two occasions he suggested that one alternative might be for McDonald to sell the stock and take the loss. McDonald testified that, after the stock had fallen to 21, Dodson said, "Fred, you have confidence in me, remember there have been other times things looked bad and came back." R.6:82. When the stock fell to 14, McDonald testified, Dodson advised, R.6:82-83. Finally, on August 4, 1983, McDonald sold the stock at 7 1/2.
Plaintiffs' expert, Henry Crowell Murfey, testified with respect to Baldwin-United that, "from a fundamental point of view, historically, the stock had been very successful in terms of producing a rise in earnings." R.9:560. Murfey opined that the stock could not have been recommended for two of McDonald's expressed objectives, income and growth. And with respect to McDonald's third goal, the "stock for trading purposes could not have been recommended as a top choice at the time it was recommended." R.9:577. "[O]n the very day it was bought," Murfey testified, R.9:566-67. Murfey testified that certain adverse developments with respect to Baldwin-United were reported prior to the time of Dodson's recommendation. On October 26, 1982, an article in The Wall Street Journal reported that an Arkansas regulatory body had found a Baldwin-United national investors pension insurance company unit short of acceptable asset levels during 1982. On December 20, 1982, The Wall Street Journal reported that a Merrill Lynch securities analyst had lowered the Baldwin-United stock ratings. On January 24, 1983, Murfey testified, it was reported that certain securities dealers, including Prudential Bache and Smith Barney, had ceased acting as sales agents for the insurance product of this Baldwin-United subsidiary. Finally, during the final quarter of 1982, Baldwin-United showed a loss of seven cents per share. However, on cross-examination, Murfey acknowledged that, at the time the Baldwin-United position was established, R. 9:627.
On February 4, 1983, Dodson recommended that McDonald purchase 500 shares of common stock in Storage Technology. McDonald testified that Dodson praised Storage Technology and enthusiastically recommended it. Dodson testified that the basis for his initial recommendation of this stock was that both the California Technology Letter and Market Logic, two stock research publications, recommended it highly, listing the stock in their respective model portfolios; and that Storage Technology was recommended by the Options Trading Wire and was given a B+ rating by Standard & Poors.
According to Dodson, McDonald made one to two thousand dollars on the first several transactions involving Storage Technology stock. However, the stock price fell precipitously in the second half of 1983 and 1984. From McDonald's first purchase on February 11, 1983 at 22 7/8, the price fell to 10 1/8 by May 22, 1984, when McDonald sold his last shares of the stock. Dodson testified that both he and his mother owned the stock and that he lost $35,000 when the stock price fell. In December, 1983, after the stock price had been falling for some time, Dodson testified that he R.7:302. Plaintiffs' expert, Murfey, testified that Storage Technology had an upward investment trend and that there was a reasonable basis to recommend the stock for at least one of McDonald's stated investment goals. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barton v. Peterson
...(3) made with scienter (4) upon which the plaintiff relied (5) that proximately caused the plaintiff's loss." McDonald v. Alan Bush Brokerage Co., 863 F.2d 809, 814 (11th Cir.1989). The Supreme Court held in Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976) tha......
-
Edward J. Goodman Life Income v. Jabil Circuit
...A complaint satisfies the pleading requirement for scienter by demonstrating "severe recklessness." McDonald v. Alan Bush Brokerage Co., 863 F.2d 809, 814 (11th Cir.1989). The Eleventh Circuit describes severe recklessness as "limited to those highly unreasonable omissions or misrepresentat......
-
In re Cascade Intern. Securities Litigation
...Judge found, the Complaint adequately alleges the "severe recklessness" required in a § 10(b) count. See McDonald v. Alan Bush Brokerage Co., 863 F.2d 809, 814 (11th Cir.1989) ("the rule of this Circuit is that a showing of `severe recklessness' satisfies the scienter requirement"). Plainti......
-
Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp.
...the Eleventh Circuit was clear that "a showing of `severe recklessness' satisfies the scienter requirement." McDonald v. Alan Bush Brokerage Co., 863 F.2d 809, 814 (11th Cir. 1989). Severe recklessness is limited to those highly unreasonable omissions or misrepresentations that involve not ......
-
SECURITIES FRAUD
...“an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care” (quoting Sundstrand, 553 F.2d at 1045)); McDonald v. Alan Bush Brokerage Co., 863 F.2d 809, 814 (11th Cir. 1989) (requiring “severe recklessness” defined as “highly unreasonable omissions or misrepresentations that involve not mere......
-
Securities Fraud
...“an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care” (quoting Sundstrand , 553 F.2d at 1045)); McDonald v. Alan Bush Brokerage Co., 863 F.2d 809, 814 (11th Cir. 1989) (requiring “severe recklessness” defined as “highly unreasonable omissions or misrepresentations that involve . . . a......
-
Securities Fraud
...“an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care” (quoting Sundstrand , 553 F.2d at 1045)); McDonald v. Alan Bush Brokerage Co., 863 F.2d 809, 814 (11th Cir. 1989) (requiring “severe recklessness” defined as “highly unreasonable omissions or misrepresentations that involve not mer......
-
Securities fraud.
...can satisfy the scienter requirement, but defining it as an extreme departure from ordinary care); McDonald v. Alan Bush Brokerage Co., 863 F.2d 809, 814-15 (11th Cir. 1989) ("Severe recklessness is limited to those highly unreasonable omissions or misrepresentations that involve not merely......