Summary
holding that allegations that bank's conduct permitted securities wrongdoer to create "a false aura of financial and moral respectability . . . essential to the fraudulent scheme" were insufficient to establish securities fraud liability
Summary of this case from Seattle-First Nat. Bank v. CarlstedtOpinion
No. 73-2165.
June 16, 1975.
Michael R. Newman, Los Angeles, Cal. (argued), for appellant.
Michael Zimmerman, Los Angeles, Cal. (argued), for appellee.
Appeal from the District Court for the Central District of California.
OPINION
Plaintiff brokerage firm, having lost $64,000 as the result of an alleged swindle by Ed Pierce, a short-selling securities customer, sued Pierce, his associates, the bank, and its manager. Plaintiff claimed that the bank and the manager had violated § 10(b) of The Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 of The Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, by permitting the brokers to believe that their mutual customer, Pierce, was a man of means and probity. The trial court exonerated the bank and its manager of 10b-5 liability, and the brokers appeal. We affirm.
The plaintiffs' theory was that the bank and its manager "aided and abetted" the alleged swindler in his scheme by unwittingly permitting Pierce to use his bank accounts and associations with bank officers to create a false aura of financial and moral responsibility which was essential to the fraudulent scheme and instrumental in causing plaintiffs' loss.
The district court correctly found that the bank's dealings with Pierce and with the brokers did not render it liable under 10b-5. See White v. Abrams, 495 F.2d 724, 735-736 (9th Cir. 1974).
Affirmed.