No, thats not correct.......................
Cartman, the concept of "respondeat superior" (also refered to as the 'master-servant rule') you bought up applies while performing expected work duties during the course of normal employment times (for simple example, an employee has a traffic accident and does property damage or injury while using a company vehicle and during work hours while in the course of his/her normal expected duties). It does not extend outside those duties of employment (or "work place") except in certain cases for certain "career fields" such as police, military, medical, etc... those things where there is a legal obligation towards society of some sort by virtue of training and (or) unique expertise.
Clearly (if things are as alleged in the complaint) Hague was not performing normal expected work duties and what the alleged offenses are were performed by him intentionally discarding the obligation of duty and abusing his position of trust. "respondeat superior" also does not apply for crimes or intentional violations of law because these are not considered in the scope of employment or employment duties.
"respondeat superior" does not apply in the case of the SEC complaint or in the case of the criminal charges against Hague, so the company would not be held responsible for his actions because the alleged offenses are crimes or intentional violations of law and were not in performance of normal expected work dtuties.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
