Bancorp International Group Inc (fka BCIT)

[weebie]

Fed Court Judgment against TDA

How will all brokers respond to this??

US Court of Appeals

Levy vs TD Ameritrade

June 3, 2014


http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/14/06/133363U.pdf

"After careful review, we conclude the district court erred in determining as a
matter of law that Levy’s state-law claim accrued in 2006.

Levy’s pleadings and exhibits suggest that he took reasonable steps to determine whether he had sustained
an actionable injury, and that his injury was not ascertainable until 2011. TDA’s 2006 response to Levy’s request for a certificate implied that TDA’s
inability to act was temporary; and Levy maintained indirect holding of his BCIT
shares, and he stayed informed of the investigation into BCIT’s unauthorized stock
certificates and whether investors were able to obtain BCIT certificates. In 2011,
TDA still did not provide him a certificate, even though BCIT certificates actually
could be obtained and delivered at that time; and he learned that his BCIT shares may
not have actually been affected by the lock at all. His failure to file suit sooner was
even more reasonable in light of his reliance on TDA’s representations and their
fiduciary relationship. See Powel, 197 S.W.3d at 583 (if defendant is professional
expert, plaintiff has no duty to double check expert’s work; claim accrues when
layman knew or should have known of reason to question expert’s work); Vogel v.
A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 801 S.W.2d 746, 751-52 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)
(stockbroker owes fiduciary duty to customer, even where account is nondiscretionary
and customer, rather than broker, makes decision which stocks to trade). We
conclude that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to when a reasonably prudent
person would have been placed on notice of an actionable injury. See Powel, 197
S.W.3d at 585 (when different conclusions may be drawn from evidence as to
whether statute of limitations has run, it is question of fact for jury to decide).

Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of Levy’s state-law claim under Mo.
Rev. Stat. § 400.8-508, and we otherwise affirm. The case is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion."