April Term, 2011 Decided: January 30, 2015 Docket No. 14-3983, 09-4414 - - - - - - -… v. 7 8 Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., Bear Stearns Securities Corp., Richard 9 Harriton,…

14-3983,09-4414-cv
Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
April Term, 2011
(Decided: January 30, 2015)
Docket No. 14-3983, 09-4414
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MOHAMMED FEZZANI, CIRENACA FOUNDATION, DR. VICTORIA BLANK, LESTER 1
BLANK, JAMES BAILEY, JANE BAILEY, BAYDEL LTD., MARGARET BURGESS, 2
PATRICK BURGESS, BOOTLESVILLE TRUST, AND ADAM CUNG, 3
4
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 5
6
v. 7
8
BEAR, STEARNS & CO. INC., BEAR STEARNS SECURITIES CORP., RICHARD 9
HARRITON, MORRIS WOLFSON, ARIELLE WOLFSON, ABRAHAM WOLFSON, TOVIE 10
WOLFSON, ANDERER ASSOCIATES, BOSTON PARTNERS, WOLFSON EQUITIES, 11
TURNER SCHARER, CHAN SASHA FOUNDATION, UNITED CONGREGATION 12
MESERAH, ISAAC DWECK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CUSTODIAN FOR NATHAN 13
DWECK, BARBARA DWECK, MORRIS I. DWECK, RALPH I. DWECK, JACK 14
DWECK, FAHNESTOCK & CO. INC., BARRY GESSER, MICHAEL REITER, AND 15
APOLLO EQUITIES, 16
17
Defendants-Appellees, 18
19
ARTHUR BRESSMAN, ANDREW BRESSMAN, RICHARD ACOSTA, GLENN O'HARE, 20
JOSEPH SCANNI, BRETT HIRSCH, GARVEY FOX, MATTHEW HIRSCH, RICHARD 21
SIMONE, CHARLES PLAIA, JOHN MCANDRIS, JACK WOLYNEZ, ROBERT 22
GILBERT, FIRST HANOVER SECURITIES, INC., BANQUE AUDI SUISSE 23
GENEVE, FOZIE FARKASH, RAWAI RAES, BASIL SHIBLAQ, IYAD SHIBLAQ, 24
KEN STOKES, MILLO DWECK, BEATRICE DWECK, RICHARD DWECK, ISAAC B. 25
DWECK, HANK DWECK, and DONALD & CO., 26
27
Defendants. 28
29
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30
31

-- 1 of 26 --

B e f o r e: WINTER, CABRANES, and LOHIER, Circuit Judges. 1
2
Petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc of a 3
portion of this panel’s opinion and summary order dated May 7, 4
2013, which affirmed the district court’s dismissal of federal 5
securities law fraud claims against a clearing broker and 6
individual investors. 716 F.3d 18; 527 Fed. Appx. 89. The 7
petition for panel rehearing is denied. 8
Judge Lohier concurs in part and dissents in part in a 9
separate opinion. 10
11
Max Folkenflik, Folkenflik & McGerity, New 12
York, New York, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. 13
14
Kerry A. Dziubek and Michael D. Schissel, 15
Arnold & Porter LLP, New York, New York, for 16
Defendants-Appellees Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. 17
and Bear, Stearns Securities Corp. (Now J.P. 18
Morgan Securities Inc. and J.P. Morgan 19
Clearing Corp.). 20
21
Howard Wilson and Scott A. Eggers, Proskauer 22
Rose LLP, New York, New York, for 23
Defendant-Appellee Richard Harriton. 24
25
Anne K. Small, Michael A. Coley, Jacob H. 26
Stillman, John W. Avery, and Jeffrey A. 27
Berger, for amicus curiae The Securities and 28
Exchange Commission, Washington, DC. 29
30
WINTER, Circuit Judge: 31
32
This opinion addresses petitions for rehearing by appellants 33
from the court’s summary order and from the opinion filed the 34
same day. It also addresses an amicus brief filed by the 35
Securities and Exchange Commission in support of the Petition for 36
2

-- 2 of 26 --

Rehearing from the panel opinion. Familiarity with the summary 1
order, the panel opinion, and the dissent from the panel opinion 2
is assumed. We deny appellants’ petitions. 3
I. 4
The petition for rehearing relating to the summary order 5
argues that this court’s decision in Levitt v. J.P. Morgan, 710 6
F.3d 454 (2d Cir. 2013), filed just before the summary order, is 7
inconsistent with that summary order with respect to the 8
complaint’s allegations of Bear Stearns’ liability as the 9
clearing broker for Baron’s fraud. We disagree. 10
We begin by noting that the issue in Levitt was whether the 11
common issues with regard to the liability of clearing brokers 12
for the fraud or manipulation of introducing brokers so 13
predominated over individual issues as to justify certification 14
of a class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). That issue 15
necessarily caused a discussion of the caselaw governing such 16
liability. That discussion stated in part: 17
III. Duty of a Clearing Broker (Generally) 18
We have previously said that “a clearing 19
‘agent [ ]’ is generally under no fiduciary 20
duty to the owners of the securities that 21
pass through its hands” . . . . 22
23
[D]istrict courts in this Circuit have 24
distinguished two categories of cases. 25
First, in cases where a clearing broker was 26
simply providing normal clearing services, 27
district courts have declined to “impose [ ] 28
liability on the clearing broker for the 29
transgressions of the introducing broker.” 30
Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 592 F.Supp.2d 31
3

-- 3 of 26 --

410, 425-26 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). The district 1
courts have so held even if the clearing 2
broker was alleged to have known that the 3
introducing broker was committing fraud, 4
Fezzani, 592 F.Supp.2d at 425; even if the 5
clearing broker was alleged to have been 6
clearing sham trades for the introducing 7
broker . . . and even if the clearing broker 8
was alleged to have failed to enforce margin 9
requirements against the introducing broker 10
-- thereby allowing the introducing broker’s 11
fraud to continue -- in violation of Federal 12
Reserve and NYSE rules. 13
14
In the second, much more limited 15
category of cases, district courts have found 16
plaintiffs’ allegations to be adequate -- and 17
so have permitted claims to proceed -- where 18
a clearing broker is alleged effectively to 19
have shed its role as clearing broker and 20
assumed direct control of the introducing 21
firm’s operations and its manipulative 22
scheme. Thus, in Berwecky v. Bear, Stearns & 23
Co., 197 F.R.D. 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), the 24
district court granted class certification in 25
a suit brought by investors against clearing 26
broker Bear, Stearns for its role in the 27
introducing firm A.R. Baron & Company’s 28
(“Baron”) scheme to defraud investors. The 29
Berwecky plaintiffs allege that Bear Stearns 30
“asserted control over Baron’s trading 31
operations by, inter alia, placing Bear, 32
Stearns’ employees at Baron’s offices to 33
observe Baron’s trading activities, approving 34
or declining to execute certain trades, 35
imposing restrictions on Baron’s inventory, 36
and loaning funds to Baron.” Id. at 67. The 37
plaintiffs alleged that Bear Stearns asserted 38
control over Baron’s activities “in order to 39
keep A.R. Baron a viable concern while Bear, 40
Stearns . . . continued to reap the large 41
profits they received from their activities 42
with A.R. Baron.” Id. The district court 43
found the allegations that Bear Stearns 44
“control[led]” the implementation of the 45
scheme to manipulate the price of securities 46
sold by Baron sufficient to satisfy Rule 47
23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement. Id. at 48
4

-- 4 of 26 --

68-69. 1
2
Levitt, 710 F.3d at 465-67 (some internal citations omitted). 3
The petition argues that Levitt held that the allegations in 4
Berwecky were sufficient to state a claim for relief under Rule 5
12(b)(6) against a clearing broker. The petition further notes, 6
correctly, that the allegations in Berwecky that “[Bear Stearns] 7
asserted control over Baron’s trading operations by, inter alia, 8
placing Bear, Stearns’ employees at Baron’s offices to observe 9
Baron’s trading activities, approving or declining to execute 10
certain trades, imposing restrictions on Baron’s inventory and 11
loaning funds to Baron,” Berwecky, 197 F.R.D. at 67, are 12
substantially identical to those in the present case. The 13
complaint here alleges that “Bear Stearns assumed control over 14
and sent Bear employees to Baron to ‘enforce that control’” and 15
required that every trade ticket be checked and “reviewed every 16
order at this discretion [to] determine whether to execute the 17
trade.” Thus, because the pertinent factual allegations in the 18
present case and Berwecky are substantially identical, the 19
petition concludes that our affirmance by summary order resolved 20
the merits of the claim incorrectly. 21
However, Levitt also cited the district court opinion in 22
Fezzani twice favorably, the very decision that our summary order 23
affirmed, and any seeming inconsistency evaporates once it is 24
recognized that Levitt’s discussion quoted above was entirely in 25
5

-- 5 of 26 --

the context of determining only whether a class was properly 1
certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and not whether the 2
factual allegations were sufficient under Rule 12(b)(6). Levitt, 3
710 F.3d at 465. Indeed, Berwecky was itself a district court 4
decision under Rule 23(b), and the issues regarding the legal 5
sufficiency of the allegations were never finally determined. 6
Berwecky, 197 F.R.D. at 68-69. 7
The issues regarding the sufficiency of the pleadings under 8
Rule 12(b)(6) are quite different from those regarding 9
certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). Whereas the 10
Rule 12(b)(6) inquiry goes to the merits, the Rule 23(b)(3) issue 11
is whether “law or fact questions common to the class predominate 12
over questions affecting individual members.” In re Initial Pub. 13
Offerings Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24, 32 (2d Cir. 2006). As the 14
Supreme Court noted in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & 15
Trust Funds, although 16
a court’s class-certification analysis must 17
be “rigorous” and may “entail some overlap 18
with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying 19
claim,” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 20
U.S. 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011), Rule 23 21
grants courts no license to engage in free- 22
ranging merits inquiries at the certification 23
stage. Merits questions may be considered to 24
the extent -- but only to the extent -- that 25
they are relevant to determining whether the 26
Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification 27
are satisfied. 28
29
133 S. Ct. 1184, 1194-95 (2013). 30
Therefore, Levitt’s comment on Berwecky at most held that 31
6

-- 6 of 26 --

Bear Stearns’ alleged “control” of Baron was “sufficient to 1
satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement.” Levitt, 710 2
F.3d at 467 (citing Berwecky, 197 F.R.D. at 68-69). 3
Because Levitt is not in conflict with our summary order in 4
Fezzani, the present panel did not overlook or misapprehend the 5
law as is required for rehearing by F.R.A.P. 40(a)(2). We, 6
therefore, reaffirm our holding that Bear Stearns’ conduct as 7
alleged in the Amended Complaint is not sufficient to state a 8
claim for relief under Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)(5). While 9
the Amended Complaint alleges in conclusory fashion that Bear 10
Stearns asserted “control” over Baron’s trading activity, it 11
fails to allege facts showing how this “control” related to 12
fabricating “market” prices of particular securities and 13
communicating them to customers or to manipulating prices with 14
regard to any particular securities. Appellants allege that Bear 15
Stearns was aware of the manipulations, knew that these 16
manipulations were leading to a crisis, but continued to clear 17
trades that did not involve unnecessary exposure to itself. 18
Knowledge alone, however, is not enough to attach liability to a 19
clearing broker under Section 10(b). ATSI Commc’ns, Inc. v. 20
Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 102 (2d Cir. 2007). Moreover, 21
there are legitimate reasons for clearing brokers to monitor the 22
trading activities of some introducing brokers. A clearing 23
broker guarantees the performance of buyers and sellers of the 24
7

-- 7 of 26 --

securities being traded and often extends credit to clearing 1
brokers. Indeed, the complaint states that Baron was in deep 2
debt to Bear Stearns, reason enough to monitor Baron’s 3
activities. 4
The facts alleged in the Amended Complaint, if proven, would 5
not show that Bear Stearns directed the fraud or instructed Baron 6
or Dweck 1 to set up sham transactions. There is a real danger of 7
harm to the financial industry in allowing such allegations to 8
suffice to subject clearing brokers to the cost of discovery and 9
perhaps a trial even though there is no evidence of participation 10
by the brokers in the fraud or manipulation. The potential of 11
such litigation would deter clearing brokers from engaging in 12
normal business activities -- guaranteeing performance, extending 13
credit, and therefore often monitoring the financial condition of 14
introducing brokers -- and drive up costs of trading generally. 15
See Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, 552 U.S. 16
148, 163-64 (2008) (“extensive discovery and the potential for 17
uncertainty and disruption in a lawsuit allow plaintiffs with 18
weak claims to extort settlements from innocent companies,” and 19
because “contracting parties might find it necessary to protect 20
against these threats, [this may] rais[e] the costs of doing 21
1 Isaac R. Dweck is sued individually and as a custodian for Nathan
Dweck, Barbara Dweck, Morris I. Dweck, Ralph I. Dweck, and Jack Dweck.
Although appellants refer broadly to “the Dwecks,” their allegations regarding
the Dwecks seem to involve only Isaac R. Dweck.
8

-- 8 of 26 --

business” and “[o]verseas firms . . . could be deterred from 1
doing business” in United States security markets.). The 2
complaint similarly alleges that Bear Stearns lent Baron money 3
and propped it up, but this activity is integral to the ordinary 4
clearing function of a clearing broker. 2 Finally, appellants 5
fail to claim that Bear Stearns’ alleged “control” was sufficient 6
to render it a Section 20(a) control person with respect to 7
Baron. The petition for panel rehearing with respect to Bear 8
Stearns is, therefore, denied. 9
II. 10
We also address arguments, echoed in appellants’ petition 11
for rehearing, made in an amicus brief filed by the SEC. The SEC 12
2 Appellants additionally argue that (1) they relied on Bear Stearns’s
confirmation statements in future purchases of stock; (2) the confirmations
and monthly statements were themselves manipulative acts directed at
plaintiffs; and (3) the panel overlooked binding state court precedent as to
aiding and abetting liability. None of these arguments warrant rehearing.
Arguments (1) and (2) may be rejected because appellants have still
failed to sufficiently allege conduct not involving the ordinary functions of
a clearing broker, as discussed above.
Argument (3) -- regarding plaintiffs’ state law claim of aiding and
abetting fraud -- may also be easily dismissed. The District Court here
dismissed that claim on the basis that “[a]s a matter of law, clearing brokers
are not responsible or liable for the fraudulent sales practices of the
introducing broker.” Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 592 F. Supp. 2d 410, 426
(S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Greenberg v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 220 F.3d 22, 29 (2d
Cir. 2000)). Although Judge Crotty relied on federal rather than state
precedent, the Greenberg case’s holding on this point is expressly as to New
York state aiding and abetting liability. New York state law is not to the
contrary, and we have recently reaffirmed exactly this principle. See In re
Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litig., 730 F.3d 170, 185 (2d Cir. 2013)
(“[T]he mere performance of routine clearing services cannot constitute the
aiding and abetting of fraud under New York law.” (emphasis added)); Levitt,
710 F.3d at 466 (“Not does the ‘simple providing of normal clearing services
to a primary broker who is acting in violation of the law . . . make out a
case of aiding and abetting against the clearing broker.’” (quoting Greenberg,
220 F.3d at 29)).
9

-- 9 of 26 --

incorrectly reads our opinion as holding that, in any and all 1
manipulation cases, liability attaches only to persons who 2
communicate a misrepresentation to a victim. The SEC argues that 3
“[t]he essence of manipulation is not a misrepresentation, but 4
market activity -- the buying and selling of shares -- that 5
itself creates a ‘false pricing signal.’ A manipulative 6
transaction, such as parking, is an ‘intentional interference 7
with the free forces of supply and demand’” (quoting ATSI, 493 8
F.3d at 100; In re Pagel, Inc., 33 S.E.C. 1003, 1985 WL 548387, 9
*3 (1985), aff’d, 803 F.2d 942 (8th Cir. 1986)). Arguing that 10
our opinion conflated manipulative conduct with 11
misrepresentations, the brief further states: 12
This Court has similarly recognized that 13
engaging in manipulative acts -- practices 14
‘that are intended to mislead investors by 15
artificially affecting market activity’ -- 16
are violations distinct from making 17
‘misrepresentations.’ Ganino v. Citizens 18
Utils. Co., 228 F.3d 154, 161 (2d Cir. 2000). 19
Emphasizing that distinction is this Court’s 20
ruling that a manipulation claim requires 21
‘market activity aimed at deceiving investors 22
as to how other market participants have 23
valued a security.’ ATSI, 493 F.3d at 99- 24
100, 105 (emphasis added). 25
26
[Pet. Panel Rehear. 4] 27
We write only to state the obvious: our opinion did not 28
require that reliance by a victim on direct oral or written 29
communications by a defendant must be shown in every manipulation 30
case. Indeed, we agree with the propositions of law asserted by 31
10

-- 10 of 26 --

the SEC that, in a manipulation claim, a showing of reliance may 1
be based on “market activity” intended to mislead investors by 2
sending “a false pricing signal to the market,” upon which 3
victims of the manipulation rely. ATSI, 493 F.3d at 100. 4
However, the discussion in ATSI of “false pricing signal[s] 5
to the market” is derived from the Supreme Court’s use of the 6
efficient market hypothesis to establish a rebuttable presumption 7
of reliance based on the effect of misrepresentations on the 8
market price of securities. Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 9
224, 241-45 (1988). ATSI extended a variation of that theory to 10
market prices affected by manipulation. In the present case, 11
however, there is no claim that there existed a market in any 12
sense of the word for the shares Baron sold to appellants. The 13
shares in question are not alleged to have been traded in any 14
structure reasonably viewed as an independent market with 15
publicly reported prices purportedly representing arms-length 16
transactions based on supply and demand. See ATSI, 493 F.3d at 17
100-01 & n.4. Therefore, there is not a claim that the inflated 18
prices paid by appellants were based on “false pricing signal[s] 19
to the market.” The allegations in the present complaint state 20
only that Baron sold shares to appellants at prices that were 21
manufactured by Baron salespeople but were represented as set by 22
trading in a market that was falsely represented to exist. 23
The appellants’ and the SEC’s concerns that our opinion 24
11

-- 11 of 26 --

disregarded ATSI are, therefore, wholly unfounded. Not only did 1
our opinion cite ATSI repeatedly and quote extensively from it, 2
but it read ATSI in a way favorable to manipulation claims. Our 3
opinion stated the “market” “signaled” by manipulative conduct 4
need not be fully efficient -- a highly efficient market is an 5
unlikely site for manipulation, see Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & 6
Co. Inc., 716 F.3d 18, 21 n.2 (2d Cir. 2013) -- and suggested 7
that a future court might create a rebuttable presumption of 8
reliance in a less-than-efficient market context. See id. What 9
we did not, and could not, say was that ATSI’s holding and 10
rationale applies where no actual ongoing market for the 11
securities in question exists. 12
Our point is illustrated by the claims against Dweck. There 13
is no allegation that Dweck’s parking transactions, and their 14
purported prices, were ever reported in a market. Indeed, there 15
is no allegation that the “prices” used in the parking 16
transactions -- or in sham transactions by others coordinated 17
with the parking -- were ever made known to the buyers of the 18
securities in question or that the securities were sold to 19
appellants at prices “signaled” by the prices used in the parking 20
or coordinated transactions. There are, in short, no factual 21
allegations that Dweck’s parking transactions sent “a signal” to 22
any identified market or that any buyer or seller relied upon the 23
parking prices. In the entire 116-page complaint, appellants 24
12

-- 12 of 26 --

have not specifically pleaded a causal link between any single 1
stock purchase or sale and a corresponding parking by Dweck or 2
coordinated transactions by others. See ATSI, 493 F.3d at 106- 3
07. 4
Even though each of the individual plaintiffs must show 5
reliance on a misrepresentation for which the particular 6
defendant is responsible, there is no factual allegation by any 7
of the eleven individual plaintiffs as to how the various 8
“signals,” “appearances,” or “illusions” emphasized in the 9
dissent as created by Dweck’s parking moved the price they paid 10
for particular shares. Much of the dissent turns on an attempt 11
to confine the purposes of “parking” to avoiding downward 12
pressure on a security’s market price. But parking, a tactic 13
that we agree can be a serious violation, can have many purposes. 14
To establish this, we need look no further than the SEC’s own 15
description of Baron’s frauds. Having found the lack of an 16
independent market for the securities fraudulently sold by Baron, 17
the SEC stated that “[w]hile persons may park stock for a variety 18
of reasons[,] Baron parked stock to maintain the appearance of 19
compliance with the commission’s net capital rules.” In re Bear, 20
Sterns Secs. Corp., 705 S.E.C. 537, 1999 WL 569554, *3 n.6 21
(1999). 22
We do not reject the “signals” theory. Far from it. We 23
simply recognize that it is a red herring given the nature of 24
13

-- 13 of 26 --

appellants’ claims. The pleading gaps described above are hardly 1
unintentional. The complaint seeks damages from all defendants 2
for all losses of all plaintiffs whether or not a particular 3
defendant is alleged to have engaged in a sham transaction in a 4
security purchased by a particular plaintiff. For example, 5
appellants’ claims against Dweck lump together sales of 6
securities that Dweck did not park with those of securities he 7
did park. Appellants claim that Dweck is liable for all of the 8
losses of all of the plaintiffs whether or not the securities 9
they bought were the subject of Dweck’s parking transactions. 3
10
Clearly, ATSI’s reference to false pricing signals to a market 11
necessarily has to involve -- in private actions for damages -- 12
allegations of: (i) particular securities (ii) manipulated by 13
particular defendants (iii) causing the losses to the particular 14
buyers. See ATSI, 493 F.3d at 101-02. Appellant claims fail to 15
meet that requirement. 16
To sum up, the facts alleged in this complaint do not 17
involve any ongoing market affected by false pricing signals by 18
Dweck. What they involve are misrepresentations to the victims 19
by Baron salespeople as to how the price they were charging for 20
particular securities was arrived at. Dweck’s role in parking 21
3 The complaint alleges on page 107 that Dweck is liable for losses in
the “Manipulated Securities.” Page 3 of the complaint defines “Manipulated
Securities” to include several companies whose stock Dweck is not alleged to
have parked or manipulated.
14

-- 14 of 26 --

certain securities was unknown to, and not relied upon by, those 1
who purchased identical securities, much less by those who 2
purchased securities not parked by Dweck. Although the complaint 3
occasionally references an “inflated” market or “price 4
movements,” there is no allegation that customers relied on 5
publicly reported prices 4 or anything other than the fraudulent 6
representations of Baron salespeople. For all that appears in the 7
complaint, the stock parking may have been intended to deceive 8
regulators, as actually found by the SEC, 70 S.E.C. 537, 1999 WL 9
569554, *3-4, and perhaps Bear Stearns, but is not alleged to 10
have caused particular transactions. Our dissenting colleagues’ 11
discussion of market manipulation, while indisputable in the 12
abstract, is used to create a theory of manipulation in the 13
4 The SEC’s amicus brief states, in a footnote, that “the Commission
previously found, and as judicially noticeable material confirms (i.e., news
items, trading records, and public filings) the relevant securities traded ‘in
over-the-counter markets’ (i.e., NASDAQ) and on AMEX. In re Bear, Stearns
Secs. Corp., 54 S.E.C. 224, 228 (1999).” The citation has not led us to any
SEC decision, much less one “finding” public trading of the securities in
question. What the footnote may be referencing is a 1999 SEC decision, see In
re Bear, Stearns Secs. Corp., 70 S.E.C. 537, 1999 WL 569554, *2 (1999), that
includes a cursory description of Baron’s intended activities when it was
founded in 1992: “Bressman and others established Baron in 1992 to underwrite
the issuance of securities of small issuers trading in the over-the-counter
markets, and to carry on market-making and retail sales of such securities.”
This description hardly suffices to remedy the lack of any allegations in the
complaint that transactions in the relevant securities and their pricing were
publicly available or that the prices communicated by Baron salespeople were
in any way related to publicly reported prices. Finally, and dispositively,
even if publicly reported transactions with a connection to sales by Baron
were alleged, they would not support the claims asserted in the complaint,
which seeks to hold all defendants liable for all of the plaintiffs’ losses.
The suggestion that we take judicial notice of various unidentified documents
that may or may not show public trades seems rather anomalous in light of the
failure of the 116-page complaint to mention them and of the amicus brief’s
failure to provide detail. In any event, even if we discovered some public
trading, that would not remedy the other problems described above.
15

-- 15 of 26 --

absence of a market. 1
Given these facts, Stoneridge clearly applies to the claims 2
against Dweck. There is no presumption of reliance based on any 3
identifiable market, and -- given the lack of an allegation that 4
any plaintiff knew of the stock parking or prices used therein -- 5
no allegation of reliance upon the parking transactions. See 6
Stoneridge, 552 U.S. at 159-60. 7
Finally, as we noted in our opinion, although claiming that 8
defendants are liable for all losses of all investors caused by 9
Baron, whether or not the losses involved sham transactions by a 10
particular defendant, appellants have never offered either a 11
theory of vicarious liability under state law or of controlling- 12
person liability under federal law. The SEC’s amicus brief fails 13
even to purport to fill this gap. 14
15
16

-- 16 of 26 --

LOHIER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: 1
The majority opinion today denies a petition for rehearing that I would 2
have granted in part. I nevertheless commend my panel colleagues for clarifying 3
that the initial majority opinion in this case did not hold that the Supreme Court’s 4
decisions in Stoneridge and Janus 1 require a plaintiff claiming market 5
manipulation to allege that a defendant directly communicated false information 6
to a victim. Majority Op. at 10–11. Because that opinion initially appeared to 7
foreclose the plaintiffs’ market manipulation claim against Israel Dweck, even 8
though plaintiffs alleged that he had engaged directly in a manipulation of 9
securities, I dissented on the ground that the opinion conflated the elements of a 10
misrepresentation claim and those of a manipulation claim. In particular, it 11
appeared to ignore the well‐established theory of reliance based on the 12
fraud‐on‐the‐market doctrine. See Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., 716 F.3d 13
18, 29 (2d Cir. 2013) (Lohier, J., dissenting). As the Supreme Court recently 14
reaffirmed, that doctrine remains alive and well. See Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. 15
John Fund, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2398, 2409, 2413–15 (2014). 16
1 Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific‐Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148
(2008); Janus Capital Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 131 S. Ct. 2296 (2011).
1

-- 17 of 26 --

Prompted in part by the compelling arguments advanced by the Securities 1
and Exchange Commission as amicus curiae in support of the appellants’ petition 2
for rehearing, the majority’s denial of the petition helpfully corrects the 3
misimpressions left by the original majority opinion. For example, it recognizes 4
that we have never required “that reliance by a victim on direct oral or written 5
communications by a defendant must be shown in every manipulation case.”2
6
Majority Op. at 10–11. It also clarifies that “in a manipulation claim, a showing of 7
reliance may be based on ‘market activity’ intended to mislead investors by 8
sending ‘a false pricing signal to the market,’ upon which victims of the 9
manipulation rely.” Id. at 11. Of course, I agree; as I explained in my prior 10
dissent, to read our jurisprudence otherwise would be a mistake. See Fezzani, 11
716 F.3d at 28–29 (Lohier, J., dissenting). 12
Nevertheless, I continue to dissent from the majority’s ongoing refusal to 13
let the plaintiffs’ claims against Dweck proceed. We should grant the petition for 14
rehearing and vacate the District Court’s dismissal of those claims. The majority 15
opinion’s denial of the petition is wrong because, in the process of correcting one 16
2 Here, I would replace the phrase “every manipulation case” with “any
manipulation case.”
2

-- 18 of 26 --

apparent error in the original opinion, it falls prey to two others. 1
The opinion’s first error is to suggest that the claims against Dweck 2
founder because they “lump together sales of [manipulated] securities that 3
Dweck did not park with those of securities he did park,” even though the 4
plaintiffs also allege that Dweck is responsible for losses in both categories of 5
securities. Majority Op. at 13. This is not a reason to dismiss these claims. As an 6
initial matter, the plaintiffs’ treatment of the parked and unparked securities 7
together does not justify dismissing the complaint as to those securities that 8
Dweck is alleged to have parked. More importantly, the opinion ignores the fact 9
that the alleged manipulative scheme here, like most “pump and dump” stock 10
manipulation schemes, involves a cluster of interdependent securities that the 11
defendants—Dweck included—manipulated in tandem by parking certain shares 12
of those securities with knowing nominees while selling other shares to 13
unwitting victims. As the complaint describes it, “[i]f one security propped up 14
by the misconduct of defendants failed, all would fail.” J.A., Vol. II, at 255. In 15
other words, Dweck’s parking of certain securities helped to sustain the 16
defendants’ manipulation of all of the securities, and the allegations in the 17
complaint as to Dweck’s role in the manipulation support a claim for losses 18
3

-- 19 of 26 --

associated with the overall market manipulation scheme. 1
The opinion makes a second, more serious set of errors. It misunderstands 2
the relationship between parking transactions and the fraud‐on‐the‐market 3
doctrine, and it confuses the “signals” theory relating to parking transactions—a 4
theory the opinion purports to embrace, see Majority Op. at 13—with the direct 5
misrepresentation theory. In unraveling these errors, I think it useful to define 6
“parking,” which, in the context of market manipulation, is no mere infraction; 7
people go to prison for it. See, e.g., United States v. Russo, 74 F.3d 1383, 1386, 8
1393 (2d Cir. 1996); United States v. Regan, 937 F.2d 823, 829–30 (2d Cir.), 9
amended by 946 F.2d 188 (2d Cir. 1991). We have described “parking” as 10
follows: “[A]n artificial device to avoid depressing the market price [that] . . . 11
occurs when a broker, unable to keep securities in his trading account, ostensibly 12
sells the same to another broker, with the understanding that the same securities 13
will be purchased back by the ostensible seller before the settlement date. In this 14
manner the shares are not sold into the [open] market.” United States v. Corr, 15
543 F.2d 1042, 1045 n.5 (2d Cir. 1976); see also United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 16
1285, 1290 (2d Cir. 1991) (“‘Parking’ refers to a transaction in which a 17
broker‐dealer buys stock from a customer with the understanding that the 18
4

-- 20 of 26 --

customer will buy the stock back at a later date for the purchase price plus 1
interest and commissions . . . [with] no market risk to the broker‐dealer who is 2
the owner of the shares in name only.”). An illegal parking transaction keeps a 3
significant number of shares in the hands of a “friendly” nominee who agrees not 4
to sell the security and thereby avoids placing downward pressure on the share 5
price, as might occur if the security were sold legitimately on the open market. In 6
turn, keeping the parked shares out of the market supply enables the defendant 7
to maintain better control over the tradeable shares and to manipulate the share 8
price more easily. 9
So defined, parking indisputably reflects an illegal sham transaction, an 10
artificial device designed to avoid depressing the market price of a security. We 11
previously have recognized the tie between parking transactions and a fraud on 12
the market. See Russo, 74 F.3d at 1393 (endorsing a theory pursuant to which a 13
broker‐dealer for whom defendants worked engaged in stock parking and 14
thereby “perpetrated a fraud on the market by divorcing the financial risk of 15
owning [the parked stock] from legal ownership of the stock”). Commentators 16
have confirmed the connection. See, e.g., Lewis D. Lowenfels & Alan R. 17
Bromberg, Securities Market Manipulations: An Examination and Analysis of 18
5

-- 21 of 26 --

Domination and Control, Frontrunning, and Parking, 55 Alb. L. Rev. 293, 339–41 1
(1991). 2
The majority opinion does not quibble with the fact that the complaint 3
alleges a parking transaction more or less as defined above. Instead, it derides 4
the complaint for not alleging that the specific prices used in Dweck’s parking 5
transactions “were ever reported in a market” or that the “‘prices’ used in the 6
parking transactions . . . were ever made known to the buyers of the securities in 7
question or that the securities were sold to appellants at prices ‘signaled’ by the 8
prices used in the parking . . . transactions.” Majority Op. at 12. But this 9
misunderstands one of the primary functions of parking schemes such as the one 10
alleged here: to conceal rather than transmit real price information. Here, the 11
relevant “signals” are not false pricing signals about the specific “prices used in 12
the parking transactions,” but rather include: (1) creating the false appearance of 13
trading volume or activity in the parked security, (2) making it appear that 14
Dweck (and others) rather than the broker‐dealer was the beneficial owner of the 15
security who bore the financial risk of ownership, when, in fact, Dweck’s 16
financial risk as a nominal holder of the securities was divorced from his legal 17
ownership, (3) masking the number of shares of the manipulated securities that 18
6

-- 22 of 26 --

the broker‐dealer actually controlled, and (4) creating the illusion that the parked 1
securities were trading on the open, liquid market, when in fact they were not. In 2
my view, several paragraphs in the complaint plausibly allege that these signals, 3
among others, were transmitted to the market. For example: 4
10. Defendant[] Isaac R. Dweck . . . also engaged in 5
parking transactions with the purpose and effect of 6
creating a false appearance of an active trading market 7
with the intent of inflating the trading price of the 8
Manipulated Securities and causing investors, such as 9
plaintiffs to purchase the Manipulated Securities. 10
131. Parking misl[ed] regulators and customers about 11
the amount of Baron Stocks in Baron’s own inventory, 12
and fictitiously improved Baronʹs net capital . . . . The 13
placement of such stock also artificially maintained the 14
price of the Manipulated Stocks. The “parking” was 15
done with the purpose and had the effect of creating a 16
false impression in the minds of Baron customers of the 17
value and liquidity of the “parked” securities and 18
induced Baron customers, including plaintiffs, to make 19
investments based on Baron’s illusion of trading 20
activity. 21
221. . . . [Plaintiffs] were unaware that the market for 22
Baron stocks was entirely a fictional mirage. Month 23
after month, they had received confirmations and 24
monthly statements from Bear Stearns which indicated 25
that the Baron stocks were trading in a bona fide 26
market. Publicly available information on these stocks 27
further confirmed an active market where large 28
numbers of shares traded freely. . . . [None of the] 29
7

-- 23 of 26 --

plaintiffs[] knew that Bear Stearns, the Dweck 1
Defendants, . . . and all other defendants knew that 2
Baron simply cr[e]ated the illusion of an active market 3
through parking, wash sales, unauthorized purchases 4
and fraud. 5
319. . . . Defendants’ fraudulent and manipulative 6
activities as described herein created the appearance 7
that the price at which the Manipulated Securities 8
traded reflected bona fide supply and demand in a 9
freely functioning market. The increasing prices of the 10
Manipulated Securities appeared to indicate increasing 11
value, placed by the market, on the businesses 12
underlying the securities. Thus, . . . the appearance of 13
an active, rising market induced plaintiffs to purchase 14
those securities in reliance upon the “wisdom of the 15
marketplace.” Instead, the values placed by the market 16
on the Manipulated Securities were fictitious and solely 17
a result of defendants’ manipulative practices. 18
J.A., Vol. II, at 243, 281, 310, 340. 19
20
The majority opinion summarizes its reasons for denying the petition by 21
suggesting that the plaintiffs did not rely on the signals conveyed by Dweck’s 22
parking transactions, but relied instead on “misrepresentations by Baron sales 23
people as to how the price they were charging for particular securities was 24
arrived at.” Majority Op. at 14. The opinion concludes that “Dweck’s role in 25
parking certain securities was unknown to and not relied upon by those who 26
purchased” the securities. Id. On the one hand, to the extent that the majority 27
8

-- 24 of 26 --

opinion can be understood to conclude that the plaintiffs failed to allege reliance 1
on Dweck’s role, it misses the point of the manipulative scheme, which was to 2
conceal rather than disclose Dweck’s role as a confederate who parked securities. 3
On the other hand, to the extent that the opinion suggests that the plaintiffs 4
inadequately alleged reliance on the effect of Dweck’s parking, as well as other 5
components of the manipulative scheme, that suggestion is contradicted by the 6
allegations quoted above. 7
I can’t help but to end by noting that the majority opinion trots out 8
Stoneridge yet again to reject the claims against Dweck, this time on the ground 9
that the plaintiffs did not allege “reliance upon the parking transactions.” 10
Majority Op. at 15. I have previously explained and will not repeat why 11
Stoneridge does not apply to claims of market manipulation such as the one 12
alleged here, or why plaintiffs were not obliged to allege reliance on the parking 13
transactions themselves. 14
9

-- 25 of 26 --

I respectfully dissent from the denial of the petition for rehearing as to the 1
claims against Dweck.3
2
3 The appellants’ arguments in their petition for rehearing relating to Bear
Stearns and the summary order in this case are not without force. Nevertheless, I
agree with my panel colleagues that the appellants’ nearly exclusive reliance on
Levitt v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., 710 F.3d 454 (2d Cir. 2013), is misplaced.
Levitt is not necessarily inconsistent with the summary order and, as a technical
matter, fails to provide a basis for rehearing under Rule 40(a) of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure. I therefore concur in the result as to Bear Stearns. I do
not necessarily join the majority’s other reasons for rejecting the petition for
rehearing as to Bear Stearns. See, e.g., Majority Op. at 8 (“There is a real danger
of harm to the financial industry in allowing such allegations to suffice to subject
clearing brokers to the cost of discovery and perhaps a trial even though there is
no evidence of participation by the brokers in the fraud or manipulation.”).
10

-- 26 of 26 --