ILNews

Judge says bank can pursue suit against broker

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Peoples State Bank of Ellettsville can move forward with its lawsuit against broker Stifel Nicolaus & Co., which the bank claims duped it into investing $13 million in auction-rate securities just before those markets froze up.

Federal Judge Richard Young granted Peoples the victory March 14 by ruling that the bank can sue Stifel on its claims that the broker violated the Indiana Securities Act and committed fraud.

The judge dismissed a lesser breach-of-contract claim on Stifel’s attempt to get him to throw out Peoples’ entire case on summary judgment.

The tiny bank west of Bloomington sued St. Louis-based Stifel in late 2010. Its suit claims a Stifel broker, Michael Sullivan, called the bank in early November 2007 and within days convinced Peoples to spend $7.5 million on a security backed by federal student loans. Over the next two months, Peoples poured nearly $6.2 million more into the auction-rate investments.

Peoples’ officials never reviewed a prospectus before placing the order, according to the bank’s lawsuit, nor did they realize their investment is subordinate to another investor who bought securities on the same batch of student loans.

“Unlike federal case law, the Indiana Securities Act remains silent on the duty to read,” Young wrote. “Even so, the underlying policy of full disclosure should be considered here, too. The Act principally requires broker-dealers to disclose all material information.”

Peoples claims the auction-rate securities were marketed by Stifel as liquid, investment-grade securities that could be sold at any seven-day or 28-day auction rate. In addition, Peoples alleges that Sullivan represented them as safe, well-collateralized and guaranteed by the federal government.

Because of the market collapse, Peoples now alleges it has long-term securities that generate no interest payments and don’t mature for 35 years.

The bank's purchases represented 15 percent of its investments at the time, according to data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Peoples has 11 branches in Monroe, Brown, Owen and Morgan counties, according to the FDIC.

Within weeks of Peoples' making the deal, investors across the country bailed on the monthly auctions of the securities, which had been sold as ways to invest in corporate and municipal debt, and for those debt issuers to obtain more attractive interest rates.

The failure of the auctions kicked Peoples’ investments into default status, in which it earns little to no interest on its investments. It still has $11.8 million tied up in the auction-rate securities.

Peoples is suing Stifel in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT