Skip to main content

Fiduciary Duty of Brokerage Firms and Stockbrokers: Key Legal Precedents

California Supreme Court and Appellate Court Cases

California Supreme Court Cases

  1. Twomey v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc. (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 690Summary: This case established that a stockbroker owes a fiduciary duty to his customers. The court held that a broker, as an agent, owes a fiduciary duty of the utmost good faith and integrity in dealings with the client.
    • A broker’s fiduciary duty includes full and fair disclosure of all material facts.
    • The duty encompasses managing the client’s account with care and prudence.

California Appellate Court Cases

  1. Duffy v. Cavalier (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1517Summary: In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the broker, Cavalier, failed to act in his best interest, constituting a breach of fiduciary duty. The court reaffirmed that stockbrokers owe a fiduciary duty to their customers.
    • The broker’s fiduciary duty includes providing accurate information and suitable investment recommendations.
    • Breach of fiduciary duty can result in liability for any damages suffered by the customer due to the broker’s actions.
  2. Black v. Shearson, Hammill & Co. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 362Summary: This case involved a dispute where the plaintiffs claimed their stockbroker made unauthorized trades and provided misleading information. The court recognized the fiduciary duty of brokers.
    • The court held that stockbrokers must act in the best interests of their clients.
    • Brokers are responsible for ensuring that any advice given is suitable for the client’s financial situation and goals.
  3. Hobbs v. Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 174Summary: The court ruled that stockbrokers have a fiduciary duty to manage accounts with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence that a prudent person would use.
    • This duty includes the obligation to avoid conflicts of interest and to act solely in the best interest of the client.
    • The court emphasized the importance of transparency and full disclosure by brokers.
  4. Schwab v. First California Co. (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 403Summary: The case highlighted that a broker’s fiduciary duty encompasses a responsibility to provide honest and accurate advice tailored to the client’s needs and objectives.
    • The court found that brokers must make recommendations based on a thorough understanding of the client’s financial situation and goals.
    • A breach of this duty can lead to liability for any resulting client losses.

FINRA and SEC Administrative Opinions

FINRA Opinions

  1. In re Vaughan (2011) FINRA Disciplinary Proceeding No. 2009016763101Summary: In this decision, FINRA found that the broker violated his fiduciary duty by recommending unsuitable investments to his customers without proper consideration of their financial situations.
    • Brokers are required to recommend investments that are suitable based on a client’s risk tolerance and financial goals.
    • Violations of this fiduciary duty can result in disciplinary actions and fines.
  2. In re Kernweis (2008) FINRA Disciplinary Proceeding No. 2007007728001Summary: This case involved a broker who failed to disclose material information and engaged in fraudulent activities. FINRA held that the broker’s actions constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.
    • Brokers must provide full disclosure of all material information to their clients.
    • Engaging in fraudulent activities breaches the fiduciary duty owed to clients and can lead to severe penalties.

SEC Opinions

  1. SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc. (1963) 375 U.S. 180Summary: The Supreme Court, in a case brought by the SEC, held that investment advisors owe a fiduciary duty to their clients, which includes full and fair disclosure of all material information.
    • Although this case primarily concerns investment advisors, it sets a precedent for fiduciary duties in the financial industry.
    • The principle of full and fair disclosure is a cornerstone of fiduciary duty.
  2. In re Goldman Sachs & Co. (2010) SEC Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-13847Summary: The SEC found that Goldman Sachs failed to disclose conflicts of interest and misled investors about the nature of certain investment products, thereby breaching its fiduciary duty.
    • Brokerage firms must disclose conflicts of interest and provide accurate information about investment products.
    • Failure to do so constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty and can result in SEC enforcement actions.

Explanation of Fiduciary Duty

A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation for one party to act in the best interest of another. In the context of brokerage firms and stockbrokers, this duty includes:

  • Loyalty: Brokers must prioritize the interests of their clients above their own.
  • Care: Brokers must manage their clients’ investments with a high degree of care and expertise.
  • Disclosure: Brokers must fully disclose all relevant information that might affect the client’s investment decisions.
  • Conflict of Interest: Brokers must avoid conflicts of interest and disclose any potential conflicts to their clients.

These cases and administrative opinions collectively reinforce the principle that brokers and brokerage firms have a fiduciary duty to their clients, encompassing loyalty, care, and full disclosure. Breaches of this duty can lead to legal consequences and liability for any resulting damages.

If you believe your brokerage firm breached its fiduciary duty to you and caused losses, contact Bakhtiari & Harrison.