Harrison v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
974 F.2d 873 (1992)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Hudson Harrison and his company, Harrison Construction Inc. (collectively, Harrison) (plaintiff), invested money with Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (Dean Witter) (defendant). Harrison worked with Dean Witter account executive John Kenning, and Kenning’s assistant, John Carpenter (defendants), who both had assigned office space at Dean Witter’s Boca Raton branch, a local office telephone number, a toll-free telephone number, and Dean Witter business cards. Kenning and Carpenter told Harrison that if Harrison sent money to Kenning and Carpenter personally, the money would be placed into Carpenter’s employee account at Dean Witter and then be invested in a specially available fund. Kenning and Carpenter told Harrison that the arrangement would be more lucrative for Harrison because commissions would be reduced, and bonds could be purchased at Dean Witter’s prices. Harrison sent Kenning and Carpenter nearly $4 million, but Kenning and Carpenter did not handle the money as promised. Instead, Kenning and Carpenter invested the money in riskier put options and lost most of the money. Harrison sued Kenning, Carpenter, and Dean Witter for claims including violations of federal securities law. The district court granted summary judgment in Dean Witter’s favor, finding under the so-called “culpable-participant test” that Dean Witter had not exercised control over Kenning and Carpenter with respect to the alleged fraud and thus could not be held liable as a control person as a matter of law. Harrison appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wood, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.