Tripi v. Prudential Securities, Inc.

303 F. Supp. 2d 349 (2003)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Tripi v. Prudential Securities, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
303 F. Supp. 2d 349 (2003)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

Beginning in August 1998, Rick Tripi (plaintiff) maintained a retirement account at Prudential Securities, Inc. (Prudential) (defendant). The funds in Tripi’s account were managed by Prudential broker Glenn Malloff, who had previously been censured and suspended by the New York Stock Exchange. Tripi intended his account funds to be used for retirement but was fine with aggressive investments. In January 1999, Tripi’s account reached a high of approximately $980,000, but by November 1999, it had fallen to less than $110,000. According to Tripi, he verbally instructed Malloff in January 1999 to liquidate stock into cash. Malloff denied receiving the instruction. On Prudential’s behalf, Malloff engaged in a high number of trades, each generating commissions, such that Tripi’s account was twice selected for a compliance review by Prudential. Although Tripi received written confirmations for each trade and monthly statements from Prudential, Tripi stated that he did not scrutinize the documents because he was more concerned about the “bottom line.” In October 2000, Tripi initiated arbitration against Prudential, alleging that his account had been improperly managed in the form of unauthorized and excessive trading in contravention of the account’s goal as a retirement fund and for the sole purpose of increasing Prudential’s commissions. Prudential defended itself by arguing that Tripi ratified Prudential’s conduct or failed to mitigate damages. The arbitration panel awarded Tripi $25,000 in compensatory damages, effectively holding Tripi at 97 percent fault and Prudential at 3 percent fault for Tripi’s investment losses. The panel declined to provide its rationale for the award. In court, Tripi moved to vacate the award, while Prudential moved to confirm it.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Scheindlin, 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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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 832,000 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
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 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