Prudential Securities Inc. v. Dalton

929 F. Supp. 1411 (1996)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Prudential Securities Inc. v. Dalton

United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
929 F. Supp. 1411 (1996)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD


John Dalton (plaintiff) was a registered securities dealer and manager of the Tulsa branch of Prudential Securities Inc. (Prudential) (defendant). Dalton and Prudential were required to arbitrate their disputes. In July 1989, Dalton voluntarily resigned from Prudential. Prudential filed a U-5 form reflecting the reason for Dalton’s departure. In January 1991, a former client of Prudential, John Lytle, filed a claim against Prudential, Dalton, and two subsequent branch managers for selling unsuitable investments in limited partnerships to Lytle. At the time, government and industry regulators were investigating Prudential for its national sales of limited partnerships. Prudential settled the claim with Lytle for $137,000. Dalton did not pay any part of the settlement. Prudential believed it was required to file an amended U-5 as to Dalton to reflect the Lytle settlement. Prior to filing, Prudential sent a copy of the proposed amendment to Dalton’s counsel; the proposed amended U-5 merely stated that Lytle had alleged “unsuitability in connection with investments in limited partnerships.” Dalton or his counsel did not respond to Prudential. Prudential’s later filed amended U-5 included a line that Lytle’s alleged damages were “in excess of $10,000,” and further, the form indicated that Dalton had been the subject of a consumer complaint that was settled against Dalton for $5,000 or more. Dalton initiated arbitration against Prudential, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with future economic advantage based on the amended U-5. In response, Prudential filed a motion to dismiss, primarily arguing that its conduct was privileged and that Dalton’s claim was barred by estoppel. Dalton argued that Prudential filed an intentionally misleading amended U-5 to shift blame from itself to Dalton because Prudential was then under investigation. The amended U-5 tended to implicate Dalton in fraudulent conduct even though Dalton had not paid any settlement money. The arbitration panel granted Prudential’s motion to dismiss without allowing discovery or an evidentiary hearing. In district court, Dalton filed a motion to vacate the award.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Brett, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 748,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership