Home » Securities Law Updates » New Judicial Opinions » Current Summary
Securities Law Summary
Circuit Court Remands Bear Stearns Fraud Case for Trial
Magnolia Capital Advisors, Inc. v. Bear Sterns & Co. and Bear Stearns Securities Corp.
Nos. 07-10320 & 07-11222, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 04/03/2008
Holding
In this appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court’s order compelling the parties to arbitrate a plaintiff’s (Magnolia Capital Advisors, Inc., “Magnolia”) claims of negligence and fraud. In ruling against defendant Bear Stearns, the Eleventh Circuit applied Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act that provides for a trial when the “making of an agreement to arbitrate is put 'in issue.'" Specifically, the Eleventh Circuit found that Magnolia was able to present sufficient evidence to substantiate its denial of having entered into an agreement to arbitrate. The Eleventh Circuit thus remanded the case for trial as to determine whether the parties did enter into such an agreement.
Detailed Summary
This case was an appeal from the order of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida compelling the parties to arbitrate plaintiff-appellant Magnolia’s claims. At that time, Magnolia was a registered investment firm primarily engaged in recommending and directing securities transactions to its clients. On the other hand, defendants-appellees Bear Stearns & Co. and Bear Stearns Securities Corp. (‘Bear Stearns”) was an investment banking, securities trading and brokerage conglomerate.
As stated in the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion, Don Reinhard, as Magnolia’s principal, made the recommendations and transactions with clearing agent Bear Stearns through Paragon Financial Group, an introducing broker dealer. Bear Stearns’ task was to provide daily status reports containing accurate and up-to-date information on Magnolia’s client accounts. In its suit against Bear Stearns, Magnolia alleged that Bear Stearns, for various reasons, failed to provide the daily reports. As a result, Magnolia’s clients suffered substantial losses when margin calls were unexpectedly issued. Magnolia had to liquidate those accounts. Magnolia thus instituted an action for negligent misrepresentation, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with existing business relationships.
Bear Stearns filed a motion to dismiss or compel arbitration of these claims. It pointed to certain provisions contained in an “Options Information Form and Agreement” (“Options Form”) as proof that Magnolia had agreed to resolve all disputes by arbitration. This agreement, for account number 174-00602-9-6, dated 5 April 2000, was presented as a letter addressed to a Bear Stearns client. Among other features, this form contains name and address blanks prior to the salutation on the first page, and a space for a customer signature at the end of the second page. There are also signature blanks at the end of the first page for “R.B.,” “BOM/ROP,” and “Registered Options Principal.” The second page of the agreement contained an arbitration clause which explained the procedures for and consequences of arbitration, including waiver of the right to seek redress in court, the final and binding nature of arbitration decisions, and the limited right to appeal.
Written in the name blank of the agreement in this case was “AmSouth Bank/Magnolia Capital Advisors.” Next to it was Magnolia’s mailing address. Don Reinhard signed at the end of the document in the space for a customer signature. Magnolia argued that it is not a party to the agreement and is only listed on the agreement in the capacity of an interested party for the purpose of receiving account statements, confirmation of trades, and other information important to management of the account.
On the basis alone of the Options Form, the district court granted Bear Stearns’s motion. Magnolia moved for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) and 9 U.S.C. § 4. The district court denied the motion, stating that “the face of the agreement alone was sufficient to show that Magnolia bound itself to the terms of the agreement through the signature of its principal, Don Reinhard.”
The applicable rule is that courts require a party resisting arbitration to “substantiate[] the denial of the contract with enough evidence to make the denial colorable.” Wheat, First Secs., Inc. v. Green, 993 F.2d 814, 819 (11th Cir. 1993) (quotation and citation omitted). Once an agreement to arbitrate is thus put “in issue,” the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires the district court to “proceed summarily to the trial thereof” and if the objecting party has not requested a jury trial, “the court shall hear and determine such issue.” 9 U.S.C. § 4.
In one case, the Third Circuit applied the summary judgment standard in deciding what is sufficient evidence to require a trial on the issue of whether there was an agreement to arbitrate. Par-Knit Mills, Inc. v. Stockbridge Fabrics Co., 636 F.2d 51, 54 n.9 (3d Cir. 1980). It is “[o]nly when there is no genuine issue of fact concerning the formation of the agreement should the court decide as a matter of law that the parties did or did not enter into such an agreement.” Id. at 54.
Applying these rules, the Eleventh Circuit found that Magnolia has met the first requirement for a § 4 trial by unequivocally denying that Reinhard signed the Options Form as an agent of Magnolia. The Eleventh Circuit likewise pointed to other evidence that Magnolia was able to adduce in support of its position, such as: (1) the affidavit of Reinhard in which he swears not to have signed the agreement as an agent of Magnolia and explains that he signed it as a registered representative of Paragon on behalf of the AmSouth investors who owned the account numbered 172-00602-9-6; (2) a fax from Paragon to Bear Stearns requesting the opening of that account by Paragon for the benefit of AmSouth investors, and listing Magnolia as an “interested party (to receive hard confirms and statements);” and (3) a further fax from Paragon to Bear Stearns seeking to ensure that “Magnolia Capital” is listed as an “interested party to receive confirms and statements” on several accounts including the account at issue.
Given this contention of Magnolia, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that it was able to produce sufficient evidence to substantiate its denial of having entered into an agreement to arbitrate. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s order, and remanded the case for trial as to the issue of whether the parties did enter into an agreement to arbitrate.
View a PDF of the article.Law Commentary
Read the related Law commentary: Magnolia Capital Advisors v. Bear Sterns Teaches How to Make A Colorable Denial of An Agreem, by Joel B. Ginsberg, Esq.
Service
Link to this article · 
Send via E-mail · 
Printable Version (opens in new window)
