]]> Home | Message Board Home Search Arbitration Investors Brokers Finance Law Compliance Archives Court Examines Control of Foreign Broker by US Broker
Control, and therefore associated person status, lacking
SEC v. Zahareas, No. 00-3047 (8th Cir., 11/29/01): The SEC failed to show that a foreign broker-dealer was controlled by and, therefore, an associated person of a U.S. broker-dealer.
In 1993, the SEC brought a civil enforcement action against Nicholas Zahareas, the president and majority shareholder of a brokerage firm in Greece, which resulted in an order permanently barring Zahareas from the U.S. securities industry.
In 1996, Tuschner & Co., a registered broker-dealer in the U.S., underwrote an IPO of ACT Teleconferencing. John M. Tuschner, president and CEO of Tuschner, agreed to pay Zahareas a foreign finders fee for recruiting Greek citizens to purchase shares in the ACT offering, and further agreed that Zahareas thereafter would continue to refer Greek investors to Tuschner & Co. and receive commission-based compensation.
In 1997, the SEC brought another action, alleging that Tuschner & Co. unlawfully associated with a barred person, and that Tuschner aided and abetted his firms violation by allowing Zahareas to become associated with the firm. According to the SEC, Tuschner controlled Zahareas, who therefore was an associated person within the meaning of that phrase in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Tuschner & Co. settled. Thereafter, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the SEC against Tuschner.
Reversing, a divided Eighth Circuit Panel finds that Zahareas was not controlled by Tuschner. Zahareas was almost certainly not an employee of Tuschner, who never put Zahareas on his firms payroll, never paid him a salary, and never visited Zahareas office, let alone directed his work or hired or monitored his employees. A majority of the Panel rejected the District Courts reasoning that Tuschner controlled Zahareas by virtue of the fact that Zahareas depended on Tuschner for access to the ACT IPO underwritten by Tuschner & Co.
Refusal to sell does not establish control. To hold that a refused buyer becomes an associated person, whenever an underwriter does not sell to that buyer, would expand the scope of liability under §78c(a)(18) beyond recognition.
The Panel concluded by noting that, even if it were to depart from the plain meaning of associated person in favor of public policy, it would interpret the law in a more, not less, restrictive manner, in light of the following: Zahareas customers were all Europeans; Congress carefully limited the federal securities laws to the domestic shores of the United States; and the SEC never promulgated a rule applicable to transactions by a registered broker-dealer with a foreign broker, as in this case.
Accordingly, public policy argued for a restrictive definition of associated person on the facts of the case. (SLC Ref. No. 2001-49-06)
Copyright 2000-2002 Securities Arbitration Commentator, Inc. P.O. Box 112, Maplewood, NJ 07040; t: 973-761-5880 f: 973-761-1504. Materials denoted with a SAC Reference No. (e.g. SAC Ref. No. 99-01-001) are on hand at SAC and may be obtained by calling the Securities Arbitration Commentator, or by email to firstname.lastname@example.org. The Securities Arbitration Commentator is the leading publication for securities arbitration news and information, and maintains the most complete database of arbitration awards availalble anywhere. For more information regarding their services, visit their website at www.sacarbitration.com
Nothing herein is intended as legal or financial advice. The law is different in different jurisdictions, and the facts of a particular matter can change the application of the law. Please consult an attorney or your financial advisor before acting upon the information contained in this article.
Return to The Securities Law Home Page
Visit Beam & Astarita, LLC, securities arbitration, regulation and litigation attorneys