Barry Belmont v. MB Investment Partners, Inc.
708 F.3d 470, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3732, 2013 WL 646344 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be held liable for an employee's fraudulent acts, even when conducted through a separate entity, if the employee acted with the employer's apparent authority and the fraudulent scheme conferred some benefit upon the employer. The 'adverse interest' exception, which normally prevents imputation when an agent acts against the principal's interest, does not apply as a matter of law where a third party would not have notice that the agent was acting outside their authority.
Facts:
- Mark Bloom was a high-level executive, president, and co-managing partner at MB Investment Partners, Inc. ('MB'), a registered investment adviser.
- While employed at MB, Bloom also operated his own separate hedge fund, North Hills, L.P., which was secretly a Ponzi scheme he used to misappropriate at least $20 million for his personal use.
- Bloom used MB's offices, computers, equipment, and support staff to administer North Hills.
- Bloom, sometimes accompanied by another MB employee, Robert Altman, marketed North Hills to potential investors, using his MB business card and at times presenting materials on MB letterhead.
- Several MB officers and directors were aware that Bloom was operating North Hills, although they believed it was his 'family investment vehicle' and not a fraudulent enterprise.
- MB's internal compliance procedures were deficient and failed to identify or prevent Bloom's fraud and self-dealing through North Hills.
- The plaintiffs (Belmont, PFS, the Kellys, and Perez) invested approximately $4.4 million in North Hills based on Bloom's representations and lost their money when the scheme collapsed.
- Some plaintiffs, like Belmont and the Kellys, were also official investment advisory clients of MB, while others like PFS and Perez were not.
Procedural Posture:
- The Investors filed suit against MB Investment Partners, its directors, and employees in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The District Court granted a motion to dismiss all claims against defendant Robert L. Altman.
- Following discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of all other remaining defendants (except Mark Bloom) on all of the Investors' claims.
- The District Court entered a default judgment against Mark Bloom, who failed to appear in the case.
- The Investors (appellants) appealed the District Court's dismissal and summary judgment orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can an employer be held liable for its employee's fraudulent Ponzi scheme, conducted through a separate entity but using the employer's resources and apparent authority, under federal securities law and state consumer protection law?
Opinions:
Majority - Jordan, Circuit Judge.
Yes, an employer can be held liable under these circumstances. The court determined that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether Bloom's fraudulent acts can be imputed to his employer, MB. Under Pennsylvania law, fraud is imputed to a corporation if the officer's conduct was (1) in the course of his employment, and (2) for the benefit of the corporation. The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude Bloom acted with the apparent authority of MB, noting he used MB resources, involved other MB employees, and marketed North Hills to MB clients during meetings ostensibly about MB services. Furthermore, there was evidence MB benefitted from the scheme, such as by using access to North Hills as a selling point to attract advisory clients. The court rejected the application of the 'adverse interest' exception at the summary judgment stage. That exception shields a company when an employee acts entirely for their own benefit, but the court clarified that the key inquiry is fair risk-allocation and whether the investors reasonably believed Bloom was acting within his authority. Because the ultimate harm to MB from the fraud's exposure does not negate the potential benefit during the scheme or the appearance of authority from the investors' perspective, the claims for violations of Rule 10b-5 and the UTPCPL against MB were remanded for trial.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant risk employers face from employee misconduct, even when the fraud is technically conducted through an outside entity. It clarifies that the 'adverse interest' exception to corporate liability is not a simple defense based on the ultimate outcome; rather, it involves a fact-intensive inquiry into the third-party victim's perspective and whether the employee acted with apparent authority. The ruling serves as a strong reminder that corporations cannot easily escape liability for the actions of high-level executives who leverage their corporate positions to commit fraud, especially when compliance and oversight systems are weak. This precedent makes it more difficult for corporate defendants to win on summary judgment by merely showing the employee's scheme ultimately harmed the company.
