Lexplug logoLexplug

Lustgraaf v. Behrens

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
619 F.3d 867 (2010)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A broker-dealer may be held liable as a 'controlling person' under § 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for the fraudulent acts of its registered representative, even when the fraudulent transactions occur through an unaffiliated entity. However, a parent company cannot be held liable as a controlling person based solely on its ownership of the broker-dealer subsidiary; the plaintiff must allege facts showing the parent actually exercised control over the primary violator's general operations.


Facts:

  • Bryan Behrens was a registered representative of Sunset Financial Services, Inc. ('Sunset') and a general agent for Kansas City Life Insurance Company ('KCL').
  • Sunset is a broker-dealer firm and a wholly-owned subsidiary of KCL, an insurance company.
  • Behrens operated 21st Century Financial Group, Inc., which he allegedly ran as a branch office of Sunset.
  • KCL promoted Behrens and gave him several awards, which the Appellants claim created an 'aura of authority' around him.
  • Behrens induced Appellants to invest money through an entity he controlled, National Investments, Inc., by selling them promissory notes.
  • Behrens promised Appellants he would invest their funds and provide a steady stream of income.
  • Instead of investing the money, Behrens misappropriated the funds for his personal use and to pay other investors in a Ponzi scheme.

Procedural Posture:

  • Appellants filed complaints in the U.S. District Court against Sunset Financial Services, Inc. and later added Kansas City Life Insurance Company as a defendant.
  • The complaints alleged federal and state control-person liability, apparent authority, and respondeat superior.
  • Sunset and KCL filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
  • The district court granted the motions to dismiss all claims against both defendants.
  • The district court also denied the Appellants' motions for leave to file amended complaints, ruling that the proposed amendments would be futile.
  • Appellants appealed the district court's dismissal orders and denial of leave to amend to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a complaint state a claim for federal control-person liability against a broker-dealer and its parent company where the broker-dealer's registered representative committed securities fraud through an unaffiliated entity, and the parent company's only alleged connection is its ownership of the broker-dealer?


Opinions:

Majority - Melloy, Circuit Judge.

Yes, as to the broker-dealer (Sunset), but no, as to the parent company (KCL). A complaint sufficiently pleads control-person liability against a broker-dealer when it alleges a primary securities violation by one of its registered representatives. The court reasoned that under 8th Circuit precedent set in Martin v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., the fact that a fraudulent solicitation occurs while the representative is employed by the broker-dealer is sufficient to establish a prima facie case, regardless of whether the transaction was executed through an unrelated entity. Broker-dealers have a statutory duty to supervise their representatives, which gives them the requisite power of control. The court explicitly rejected the requirement that a plaintiff plead 'culpable participation' by the control person, reaffirming the circuit's more lenient standard. However, the claims against the parent company, KCL, fail because merely owning the subsidiary (Sunset) does not establish control. To hold a parent company liable, a plaintiff must allege facts showing the parent 'actually exercised control' over the primary violator's general operations. The Appellants' allegations of KCL's ownership and shared directors were insufficient to meet this standard, as they only demonstrated an ability to control, not the actual exercise of control.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the 8th Circuit's plaintiff-friendly standard for pleading control-person liability against broker-dealers, emphasizing their broad supervisory duties. By rejecting a 'culpable participation' requirement at the pleading stage, the court makes it significantly easier for plaintiffs to survive motions to dismiss. In contrast, the ruling establishes a high bar for extending liability to parent corporations, requiring specific factual allegations of active participation and control over the subsidiary's operations, not just status or potential influence. This distinction provides clarity for future litigation, reinforcing the direct supervisory relationship as the key to liability while protecting parent companies from automatic exposure for the actions of a subsidiary's employees.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lustgraaf v. Behrens (2010)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"