Haynes v. Anderson & Strudwick, Inc.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This consolidated action involves alleged federal securities laws violations. Specifically, plaintiffs Stuart E. Haynes, Jr. (Haynes, Jr.) and Stuart E. Haynes, Sr. (Haynes, Sr.) claim that defendants Anderson & Strudwick, Inc. (Anderson & Strudwick), a Virginia broker-dealer, and Thomas V. Blanton, Jr. (Blanton), a former employee of Anderson & Strudwick, violated the Securities Act of 1933, § 17(a), 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), (the 1933 Act), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, § 10(b), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), (the 1934 Act), and Rules 10b-5 and 10b-16, 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5, —16, promulgated under the 1934 Act by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Haynes, Sr., also asserts two *1307 pendent claims against defendants, one for conversion and the other for breach of contract. 1 Jurisdiction is obtained under § 22 of the 1933 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77v, and § 27 of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa.

The parties are presently before the Court with respect to defendants’ separate motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ Complaint for lack of standing, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and with respect to Haynes, Jr.’s, motion to dismiss Blanton’s counterclaim, apparently, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The parties have briefed the issues and the motions are ripe for disposition.

I.

Briefly stated, plaintiffs, in their Complaint, make the following allegations which will be accepted as true for present purposes. In September, 1978, plaintiffs consulted Blanton concerning the purchase of stock in Shoney’s, Inc., (Shoney’s) and they placed orders with Blanton to purchase specified amounts of Shoney’s stock. Upon receipt of their transaction statements in October, 1978, plaintiffs learned that Blanton had purchased Shoney’s stock in excess of the orders and, in addition, had purchased shares in C.H.B. Foods, Inc., (C.H.B.) for plaintiffs, along with shares in Sierracin Corporation for Haynes, Sr. Apparently plaintiffs contend that Blanton purchased this stock by placing plaintiffs on margin accounts without authority and extended credit to them in connection with these security transactions without disclosing the terms of the credit agreements in violation of Rule 10b-16.

Upon plaintiffs learning of this transaction, Blanton persuaded them to retain the C.H.B. stock, informing them on the basis of what plaintiffs alleged to be inside information that the price was certain to go up as a result of the imminent takeover of C.H.B. by General Foods Corporation (General Foods). In reliance upon Blanton’s advice and representations, plaintiffs retained the C.H.B. stock and requested Blanton to purchase additional shares of C.H.B.

In November, 1978, Blanton solicited plaintiffs to purchase additional shares of C.H.B. Again, in reliance upon Blanton’s information, plaintiffs directed Blanton to do so. Haynes, Jr., also claims that in January, 1979, Blanton began making unauthorized purchases of C.H.B. stock on behalf of Haynes, Jr. Haynes, Jr., instructed Blanton not to purchase additional shares of C.H.B. stock because he would not pay for them. Haynes, Jr., was assured by Blanton that it would not be necessary for Haynes, Jr., to pay for the purchases.

When the General Foods acquisition of C.H.B. had not materialized by January, 1979, plaintiffs determined to sell their shares of C.H.B. and instructed Blanton accordingly. Blanton again represented to plaintiffs that the acquisition was going to take place and that an increase in the value of the C.H.B. stock was certain. In addition, Blanton disclosed to Haynes, Jr., that he owned several thousand shares of C.H.B. stock himself, so that there was no need for Haynes, Jr., to be concerned. Plaintiffs claim that ultimately Blanton refused to sell their shares of C.H.B. stock.

The takeover of C.H.B. by General Foods did not materialize and in February, 1979, the Securities and Exchange Commission suspended trading in C.H.B. stock. As a result, the price of C.H.B. stock diminished substantially, causing plaintiffs to suffer damages. Plaintiffs claim that throughout the various discussions with and solicitations by Blanton, they were unaware that Blanton’s representations concerning C.H.B. were untrue.

II.

Anderson & Strudwick’s initial ground for dismissal is that the Complaint’s recita *1308 tion of federal securities law violations fails to mention any involvement by Anderson & Strudwick. 2 Anderson & Strudwick asserts that the only specific conduct and statements plaintiffs allege as violating § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 are the alleged conduct and statements of Blanton. It is Anderson & Strudwick’s contention, then, that from the Complaint the only basis for its liability is under the common law doctrine of respondeat superior. Anderson & Strudwick argues, however, that the doctrine of respondeat superior was supplanted in the federal securities laws by Congress’ enactment of “controlling person” provisions in both the 1933 Act 3 and the 1934 Act. 4 Since plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action under the appropriate controlling person provision, § 20(a) of the 1934 Act, Anderson & Strudwick contends that plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed as to the broker-dealer. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, apparently contend that Anderson & Strudwick is subject to liability under both § 20(a), the controlling person provision, and the doctrine of respondeat superior.

A review of the law reveals that the circuits are split on the issue presented. In the Ninth Circuit the rule is firmly embedded that the controlling person provision found in § 20(a), and not the doctrine of respondeat superior, is the appropriate standard for determining liability of a broker-dealer for the acts of its employee in violation of the 1934 Act. Zweig v. Hearst Corp., 521 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1025, 96 S.Ct. 469, 46 L.Ed.2d 399 (1975); Douglass v. Glen E. Hinton Investments, Inc., 440 F.2d 912, 914 (9th Cir. 1971); Hecht v. Harris, Upham & Co., 283 F.Supp. 417, 438-39 (N.D.Cal.1968), modified on other grounds, 430 F.2d 1202, 1210 (9th Cir. 1970); Kamen & Co. v. Paul H. Aschkar & Co., 382 F.2d 689, 697 (9th Cir.), cert. granted, 390 U.S. 942, 88 S.Ct. 1021, 19 L.Ed.2d 1129, cert. dismissed, 393 U.S. 801, 89 S.Ct. 40, 21 L.Ed.2d 85 (1967); Jackson v. Bache & Co., Inc., 381 F.Supp. 71, 93-5 (D.C.1974). The Third Circuit is in accord. Rochez Bros., Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F.2d 880, 884-86 (3d Cir. 1975); Thomas v. Duralite Co., Inc., 524 F.2d 577, 586 (3d Cir. 1975). Cf. Sharp v. Coopers & Lybrand, 457 F.Supp. 879, 890-91 (D.C.Pa.1978) (holding that Rochez did not foreclose respondeat superior liability for broker-dealers for the fraudulent acts of their employees). The Eighth Circuit would seem to be in agreement with the Ninth and Third Circuits, though that circuit has not taken a definitive position. Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718, 737-38 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 951, 88 S.Ct. 1043, 19 L.Ed.2d 1143 (1968) (the liability of controlling persons “is governed neither by principles of agency nor conspiracy.” Id. at 738).

The Sixth and Seventh Circuits have taken the position that the controlling person statutes in the 1933 Act and the 1934 Act do pot preclude respondeat superior liability *1309 under the federal securities laws. Holloway v. Howerdd, 536 F.2d 690, 694-95 (6th Cir. 1976); Armstrong, Jones & Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 421 F.2d 389, 361-62 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 958, 90 S.Ct. 2172, 26 L.Ed.2d 543 (1970); Fey v. Walston & Co., Inc., 493 F.2d 1036, 1051-52 (7th Cir. 1974). United States Law Week has recently reported that the Fifth Circuit has taken a similar position in Paul F. Newton & Co. v. Texas, 630 F.2d 1111 (5th Cir. 1980). The First Circuit has not had an occasion to address the issue, however, a district court in that circuit has concluded that § 20(a) and the common law doctrine of respondeat superior are complementary rather than exclusive remedies. Kravitz v. Pressman, Frohlich & Frost, Inc., 447 F.Supp. 203, 214 (D.Mass.1978).

The Tenth Circuit has not expressly decided the controlling person-respondeat superior issue. See Kerbs v. Fall River Indus., Inc., 502 F.2d 731, 741 (10th Cir. 1974); Richardson v. MacArthur, 451 F.2d 35, 41-42 (10th Cir. 1971).

The position of the Second Circuit is difficult to discern. Apparently as a result of that circuit’s decision to consider the issue on a case by case basis, it has authority seeming to support both positions. Compare SEC v. Geon Indus., Inc., 531 F.2d 39, 54-56 (2d Cir. 1976); SEC v. Management Dynamics, Inc., 515 F.2d 801, 811-13 (2d Cir. 1975); Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., Inc., 424 F.Supp. 1021, 1043-44 (S.D.N.Y.1977), nonacq., 570 F.2d 38, 48 (2d Cir. 1978) with Lanza v. Drexell & Co., 479 F.2d 1277, 1299 (2d Cir. 1973); Barthe v. Rizzo, 384 F.Supp. 1063, 1068-70 (S.D.N.Y.1974); Gordon v. Burr, 366 F.Supp. 156, 167-68 (S.D.N.Y.1973), partially modified on other grounds, 506 F.2d 1080 (2d Cir. 1974); SEC v. Lums, Inc., 365 F.Supp. 1046, 1061-64 (S.D.N.Y.1973).

The position of the Fourth Circuit is ambiguous. In Johns Hopkins University v. Hutton, 297 F.Supp. 1165, 1210-13 (D.Md. 1968), aff’d in part, rev’d in part & remanded, 422 F.2d 1124 (4th Cir. 1970), Judge Kaufman, in the District Court, addressed the controlling person — respondeat superior issue in the context of the controlling person provision found in § 15 of the 1933 Act. The defendant broker-dealer argued that the^measure of its liability for the acts of its employees in violation of § 12(2) of the 1933 Act, was to be determined under § 15. Judge Kaufman ruled that § 15 did not apply to employer (broker-dealer) — employee relationships. Id. at 1211. Recognizing that there was scant legislative history on the subject, Judge Kaufman nevertheless concluded that Congress did not intend § 15 “to serve as a limitation on liability.” Id. (footnote omitted). Rather, controlling person liability was intended to “supplement, and extend beyond, common law principles of agency and respondeat superior.” Id. at 1212. It appears that the primary basis for Judge Kaufman’s decision was a concern that “[a] contrary conclusion would in effect give blessing to a hear-no-evil, see-no-evil approach by partners of a brokerage house which is hardly in keeping with the remedial purpose of the ’33 Act.... ” Id.

On appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed this portion of Judge Kaufman’s opinion, stating that a broker-dealer “is liable, under familiar principles, for the tortious representations of its agent. Restatement (Second) of Agency §§ 257, 258 (1958).” Johns Hopkins University v. Hutton, 422 F.2d 1124, 1130 (4th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 916, 94 S.Ct. 1622, 40 L.Ed.2d 118 (1974). The Fourth Circuit agreed with Judge Kaufman’s analysis that “Section 15 of the Act [15 U.S.C. § 77o] was not intended to insulate a brokerage house from the misdeeds of its employees.” Id.

In Carras v. Burns, 516 F.2d 251 (4th Cir. 1975), the Fourth Circuit reaffirmed Johns Hopkins, holding that a broker-dealer’s “liability for churning would not depend solely on its lack of supervision, but would also arise from familiar principles of an employer’s vicarious liability. Johns Hopkins University v. Hutton, 422 F.2d 1124, 1130 (4th Cir. 1970).” Id. at 259. 5 The claim in Car *1310 ras, like the claim presently before this Court, arose under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act. Thus, under the doctrine of stare decisis, Carras would be controlling here if there were not conflicting case law in the Fourth Circuit.

In Carpenter v. Harris, Upham & Co., Inc., 594 F.2d 388 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 868, 100 S.Ct. 143, 62 L.Ed.2d 93 (1979), the Fourth Circuit made its most recent examination of the controlling person provisions in the 1933 and 1934 Acts. In that case plaintiffs sought to hold a brokerage firm liable under either § 15 of the 1933 Act or § 20(a) of the 1934 Act, or both, for the acts of its employee which caused plaintiffs to suffer losses as purchasers of unregistered securities. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the brokerage firm. In affirming, Judge Hoffman, sitting by designation, made the following observations for the court concerning controlling person provisions:

Noteworthy in each provision is the inclusion of a defense from liability based on “good faith” or lack of knowledge or reasonable belief. When originally passed by Congress, § 15 of the 1933 Act held controlling persons absolutely liable for § 11 and § 12 violations by controlled persons. Congress, in passing the 1934 Act, amended § 15 of the earlier Act, adding the language beginning at “unless the controlling person had no knowledge of or reasonable ground to believe in the existence of facts by reason of which the liability of the controlled person is alleged to exist.” Likewise, the controlling person provision in the new Act, § 20(a), contained the “good faith” defense to liability. Clearly Congress had rejected an insurer’s liability standard for controlling persons in favor of a fiduciary standard — a duty to take due care. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lum’s, Inc., 365 F.Supp. 1040, 1063 (S.D.N.Y.1973); see Annot. 32 A.L.R.Fed. 714, 719. The intent of Congress reflected a desire to impose liability only on those who fall within its definition of control and who are in some meaningful sense culpable participants in the acts perpetrated by the controlled person. Lanza v. Drexel & Co., 479 F.2d 1277, 1299 (2nd Cir. 1973). The Supreme Court has noted that in each instance where Congress has created express civil liability in favor of purchasers or sellers of securities, it has clearly specified whether recovery was to be premised on knowing or intentional conduct, negligence, or entirely innocent mistake. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfeider, 425 U.S. 185, 207-209, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 1387-1388, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976). The controlling persons provisions contain a state-of-' /mind condition that requires a showing oft I something more than negligence to establish liability. Id. at nn. 27-28.

The most obvious manner in which to establish liability as a controlling person is to prove that a person acted under the direction of the controlling person. This most commonly occurs in an employer-employee relationship. The lack of such a relationship is not determinative, however. Hawkins v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Beane, 85 F.Supp. 104 (W.D. Ark.1949). In order to satisfy the requirement of good faith it is necessary *1311 for the controlling person to show that some precautionary measures were taken to prevent an injury caused by an employee. Securities & Exchange Commission v. First Securities Company of Chicago, 463 F.2d 981, 987 (7th Cir. 1972); Hecht v. Harris, Upham & Co., 430 F.2d 1202, 1210 (9th Cir. 1970). See also, Zweig v. Hearst Corporation, 521 F.2d 1129, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 1975).

The primary duty owed by a broker-dealer to the public is to supervise its employees in an adequate and reasonable fashion. While the standards of supervision may be stringent, this does not create absolute liability for every violation of the securities laws committed by a supervised individual. SEC v. Lum’s, Inc., 365 F.Supp. at 1064. It is required of the controlling person only that he maintain an adequate system of internal control, and that he maintain the system in a diligent manner. Hecht v. Harris, Upham & Co., 430 F.2d at 1210.

Id. at 393-94 (footnote omitted).

Conspicuously absent from Carpenter is any reference to the Fourth Circuit’s prior decisions in Johns Hopkins and Carras. To the contrary, Judge Hoffman cites and relies upon Zweig v. Hearst Corp., supra; Lanza v. Drexell & Co., supra; and SEC v. Lum’s, Inc., supra, all of which clearly support the theory that a broker-dealer’s liability for the acts of its employee is measured under the controlling person provisions to the exclusion of agency principles of liability. The entire tenor of Carpenter is drastically different from that of Johns Hopkins and Carras. In the earlier cases, broker-dealer liability was vicarious, that is to say, absolute where an employee was in violation of federal securities laws. In Carpen fer, under the controlling person provisions, the Fourth Circuit determined that liability attaches to broker-dealers “who are in some meaningful sense culpable participants in the acts perpetrated by the controlled person.” Carpenter, supra, at 394.

After wrestling with the cases, this Court is of the opinion that the two lines of authority are irreconcilable. Admittedly, Carpenter does not expressly address the controlling person — respondeat superior issue as in Johns Hopkins and Carras. This in fact is the Court’s major problem with Carpenter. Nonetheless, it is obvious that the Court cannot find only those broker-dealers liable under § 20(a) of the 1934 Act “who are in some meaningful sense culpable participants in the acts perpetrated by the controlled person,” and at the same time find broker-dealers absolutely liable under the common law doctrine of respondeat superior. The Court is thus faced with a dilemma as to which line of authority to follow in this case. 6

The Court concludes that Carpenter is controlling here. The panel decided in Carpenter, in contrast to the decision in Johns Hopkins and the decisions in other circuits, 7 that the controlling person provisions apply to employer (broker-dealer)— employee relationships, as in this case. See Carpenter, supra, at 394 (controlling person liability “most commonly occurs in an employer-employee relationship”). Johns Hopkins and Carras have been overruled sub silentio on this point. In addition, Judge Hoffman concluded that “[cjlearly Congress had rejected an insurer’s liability standard for controlling persons in favor of a fiduciary standard — a duty to take due care.” Id. Judge Hoffman further stated that “[w]hile *1312 the standards of supervision [imposed upon a broker-dealer] may be stringent, this does not create absolute liability for every violation of the securities laws committed by a supervised individual.” Id. As these conclusions are in direct conflict with those in Johns Hopkins and Carras, the Court must conclude that the earlier cases have been superseded by Carpenter.

In so concluding, the Court is not unmindful of the fact that if respondeat superior were applicable, then, in many cases a broker-dealer could be liable both under the common law doctrine and under the applicable controlling person provision. In many cases, though, a broker-dealer could exculpate himself under § 20(a) by proving his “good faith,” yet be absolutely liable under respondeat superior. The second situation would amount to a circumvention of the good faith defense. Once it is determined that the controlling person provisions are applicable to a broker-dealer, as the Fourth Circuit has done in Carpenter, the broker-dealer is entitled to the defenses provided therein. Moreover, the intent of Congress that controlling persons have certain defenses should not be thwarted by resort to common law agency principles that emasculate the controlling person defenses. See Roehez Bros., Inc. v. Rhoades, supra, at 885-86; Jackson v. Bache & Co., Inc., supra, at 95. Thus, the Court concludes that the two theories of liability cannot sensibly or fairly operate concurrently, nor does the Court believe that they were intended to do so. The inescapable implication from Carpenter is that § 20(a) is the exclusive standard of liability for a broker-dealer. This holding the Court is bound to follow.

The Court does so with some unease. It is generally understood that the federal securities laws were enacted by Congress for the benefit and protection of the investing public. Without the adoption of any controlling person provision in the 1933 or 1934 Acts, investors, such as plaintiffs, would have had a cause of action against a brokerage firm, such as Anderson & Strudwick, under agency principles for the fraudulent conduct of its employees. Upon the proof of a master-servant or principle-agent relationship, the broker-dealer’s liability would have been absolute. With the enactment of § 15 of the 1933 Act and § 20(a) of the 1934 Act, Congress created a new class of defendants in securities cases — those “controlling persons” who could potentially evade liability for securities law violations by exercising their power through “dummy” corporations or by creating some other legal barrier. See Note, The “Controlling Persons” Liability of Broker-Dealers for Their Employees’ Federal Securities Violations, 1974 Duke L.J. 824, 833-34 (1974) (hereinafter as “1974 Duke L.J.”); Comment, The Controlling Persons Provisions: Conduits of Secondary Liability Under Federal Securities Law, 19 Vill.L.Rev. 621, 622-26 (1974) (hereinafter as “19 Vill.L.Rev.”). Controlling persons, such as officers, directors and stockholders had theretofore been unavailable to suit by investors. Thus, the investing public’s remedy for violations of the 1933 and 1934 Acts was expanded by the adoption of § 15 and § 20(a), respectively.

The problem encountered with the controlling person liability under § 15 was that it, too, was absolute. Apparently upon the insistence of officers and directors of brokerage firms, § 15 was amended in 1934 to provide a defense to controlling persons where they “had no knowledge of or reasonable ground to believe in the existence of facts” to support a securities law violation. See 19 Vill.L.Rev., supra, at 624. Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act was enacted with a similar defense of “good faith.”

There appears, however, to be no legislative history that determines irrefutably that broker-dealers were intended by Congress to be included in the class of controlling persons. See 1974 Duke L.J., supra, at 833-34. There is some brief legislative history to § 20(a) from which it may be inferred that Congress intended controlling person liability to include broker-dealers:

In this section ... when reference is made to “control,” the term is intended to include actual control as well as what has been called legally enforceable control. ... It would be difficult if not impossible to enumerate or to anticipate the many ways in which actual control *1313 may be exerted. A few examples of the methods used are stock ownership, lease, contract, and agency... .

H.R.Rep.No.1383, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 26 (1934) (emphasis added). See also 1974 Duke L.J., supra, at 834.

If Congress intended for § 15 of the 1933 Act and § 20(a) of the 1934 Act to apply to employer-employee relationships, as the Fourth Circuit has in effect concluded in Carpenter, supra, at 394, the end result is that the controlling person provisions act as limitations, rather than expansions, on liability for broker-dealers. Rather than being subject to vicarious liability merely upon the showing of an agency relationship, broker-dealers have a defense which had theretofore been unavailable. As a result the investing public has a less effective remedy under the securities laws against broker-dealers for the fraudulent conduct of employees, than under the common law. If Congress did indeed intend this result, no doubt the investing public will ask Congress not to do. it any more favors. The Court believes that such a Congressional intent to limit broker-dealer liability would be curious since it is most often the reputation of the broker-dealer upon which the investor relies in making securities transactions. In this regard, the argument made by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its amicus brief on Petition for Certiorari in Paul H. Aschkav & Co. v. Kamen, 390 U.S. 942, 88 S.Ct. 1021, 19 L.Ed.2d 1129 (1968), has at least a surface persuasiveness:

Many, probably a majority, of the frauds practiced by securities firms involve misconduct by employees — typically by sales representatives who make false or unfounded representations with respect to securities. It is the Commission’s experience that from time to time salesmen actually whet the appetites of gullible public customers by representing that they are breaking their employers’ rules by giving them a special deal; for example, by giving them more than the prescribed quota of a new issue of securities. But, whatever the representations made by the salesmen or other employees of the broker-dealer, we have found that investors customarily rely primarily on the integrity, reputation, and responsibility of the firm itself rather than on the character of the particular employee with whom they happen to be dealing.

Ruder, Multiple Defendants in Securities Law Fraud Cases: Aiding and Abetting, Conspiracy, In Pari Delicto, Indemnification, and Contribution, 120 Univ.Pa.L.Rev. 597, 607 (1972) (hereinafter as “Ruder”), quoting SEC amicus brief, supra, at 23.

The Court recognizes that the major problem with the argument against a congressional intent to include broker-dealers as controlling persons is the language of the controlling person provisions themselves. Section 15 applies to “[ejvery person who, by or through stock ownership, agency or otherwise ... controls any person liable under section 11 or 12.... ” 15 U.S.C. § 77 o (emphasis added). Section 20(a) applies to “[ejvery person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person liable under any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation thereunder.... ” 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a) (emphasis added). Although the Court believes that a good argument could be mounted for public policy considerations against the application of the controlling person provisions to broker-dealers, the language of the statutes impels to the contrary. See generally 1974 Duke L.J., supra, at 838; 19 Vill.L.Rev., supra, at 627.

Since the Court has interpreted Carpenter as holding that the controlling person provisions are the sole standard of liability of broker-dealers for the acts of their employees, it is appropriate for the Court to briefly address the concern expressed by Judge Kaufman and others that such a conclusion will result in “a hear-no-evil, see-no-evil approach by partners of a brokerage house.” Johns Hopkins University v. Hutton, supra, 297 F.Supp. at 1212. The Court hopes and believes that this concern is not well-founded. The concern of a hear-no-evil, see-no-evil approach obtains, the Court believes, as a result at a failure to appreci *1314 ate the utility of the good faith defense in § 20(a) and § 15. The defense should be applied on a sliding scale so that what may be good faith in one case may not necessary constitute good faith in another. As one commentator has suggested:

the exculpating standard should be applied with varying degrees of stringency according to the circumstances of the individual case, so as best to accommodate the conflicting interests of the investing public and the business community.

Note, The Burden of Control: Derivative Liability Under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 N.Y.Univ.L. Rev. 1019, 1036 (1973) (hereinafter as “48 N.Y.Univ.L.Rev.”).

For example, the courts are in general agreement that a more stringent supervisory duty should be imposed upon a broker-dealer than upon an officer or director of a brokerage firm. See, e. g., Kravitz v. Pressman, Frohlich & Frost, Inc., supra, at 213; Rochez Bros., Inc. v. Rhoades, supra, at 886; SEC v. Lum’s, Inc., supra at 1064; Hecht v. Harris, Upham & Co., supra, 283 F.Supp. at 438; Lorenz v. Watson, 258 F.Supp. 724, 732-33 (E.D.Pa. 1966). See 48 N.Y.Univ.L.Rev., supra, at 1036-39. Thus, in practice it will be more difficult for a broker-dealer to exculpate himself using the good faith defense than for an officer or director. This would seem to be entirely appropriate since the broker-dealer is usually in a better position to prevent the violation of the securities laws. Of course, the courts will also want to take other circumstances into account, such as the egregiousness of the violation, its duration, the agent’s experience with the company, evidence of lax applications of safeguards and the like. See generally 48 N.Y. Univ.L.Rev., supra, at 1034 — 41. Admittedly, an investor does not have the same access to the deep pockets of the broker-dealer under § 20(a) and § 15 as he would have had under common law agency principles. Nevertheless, “[i]t is ... difficult to imagine how a brokerage firm could reasonably argue that an ostrich-head-in-the-sand approa