DR. JULIUS N. HILL, DR. TOTADA R. SHANTHA, AND DR. RAUL J. HERNANDEZ, PLAINTIFFS-COUNTER DEFENDANTS THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,
v.
BEAR, STEARNS & CO., A PARTNERSHIP AMONG SAMUEL R. SHAPIRO AND OTHER PERSONS UNKNOWN, DEFENDANTS-COUNTER PLAINTIFFS THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

11th Cir. | 1985-05-08
No. 84-8372
759 F.2d 1518 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1985) Positive Treatment
Cited by 46 cases
Opinion of the Court
JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge:

JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge:

This case presents the same issue as the three consolidated actions decided today in which Bear, Stearns & Co., (“Bear Stearns”) is the appellant.1 This case involves an additional appellant, Samuel R. Shapiro, the partner in charge of Bear Stearns’ Atlanta office. The appellees in this action, as trustee for a pension plan and trust, allege that Arnold Whiteman, as agent for Bear Stearns, recommended security investments to them which were purportedly high quality, low risk investments but were instead speculative and, as a result, the pension plan and trust declined in value $190,000.00. Appellees filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Advisors Act, the National Association of Securities Dealers’ Fair Practice Rules, the New York and American Stock Exchange Rules, common law fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud under Georgia statutes.

Pursuant to the customer agreement between Bear Stearns and Appellees, Bear Stearns and Shapiro demanded arbitration. They conceded that claims under the federal Securities Exchange Act were not arbitrable.

The district court denied Bear Stearns’ motion to stay the federal court proceedings pending arbitration of those claims subject to arbitration.

For the reasons set forth in Dimenstien v. Bear, Stearns, we REVERSE the order of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings in light of Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985), and consistent with our opinion in Dimenstien.

. Dimenstien v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 11th Cir., 759 F. 2d 1514 . .

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (23 total)

  • Brown v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield OF Ala., Inc., 898 F.2d 1556 (11th Cir. 1990)
    …ents that have uniformly treated the conclusion that an action is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law subject to de novo review. See, e.g., Harris v. Pullman Standard, Inc., 809 F. 2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir.1987); Anderson v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 759 F. 2d 1518, 1522 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 995, 106 S.Ct. 410, 88 L.Ed.2d 360 (1985); McKnight v. Southern Life & Health Ins. Co., 758 F. 2d 1566, 1569 (11th Cir.1985); Helms v. Monsanto Co., 728 F. 2d 1416 (11th Cir.1984). But Guy should not be re…
    1 / 2
  • Olan Jett v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield OF Ala., Inc., 890 F.2d 1137 (11th Cir. 1989)
    …nts, apart from Guy, have uniformly so stated or assumed. See Harris v. Pullman Standard, Inc., 809 F. 2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir.1987) (this Court finding denial of benefits “arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law”); Anderson v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 759 F. 2d 1518, 1522 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 995, 106 S.Ct. 410, 88 L.Ed.2d 360 (1985) (applying arbitrary-and-capricious standard de novo); Sharron v. Amalgamated Ins. Agency Services, Inc., 704 F. 2d 562, 567 n. 11, 567-69 (11th Cir.1983) (same).3 B…
  • Bruch v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. & Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Ret. Plan for Salaried Emps. & Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Stock Purchase & Sav. Plan, 828 F.2d 134 (3d Cir. 1987)
    …F. 2d 809 (6th Cir.1987); Blakeman v. Mead Containers, 779 F. 2d 1146 (6th Cir.1985); Pabst Brewing Co. v. Anger, 784 F. 2d 338 (8th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Dockray v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 801 F. 2d 1149 (9th Cir.1986); Anderson v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 759 F. 2d 1518 (11th Cir.1985).5 Most of [*139] these courts — though, as we discuss below, not all — have applied this standard without stopping to ascertain whether the plan’s funding obligations gave the plan administrator an interest adverse to the claimants w…

Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw