- 5 -
should serve as a clear and unambiguous message to
Golub that the courts are not to be used as vehicles
for harassment.
The Kidder Peabody Litigation
By 1981, approximately the time he instituted the litigation
discussed above, petitioner had opened a brokerage account with
Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc. (Kidder Peabody). He also entered
into an agreement with Kidder Peabody enabling him to deal in
“put” and “call” options. Kidder Peabody agreed to extend credit
to petitioner, enabling him to trade on margin. Pursuant to a
“Customer’s Agreement”, petitioner agreed that Kidder Peabody
could hold the assets in his account as security for all
liabilities that petitioner owed to Kidder Peabody. Under the
agreement, Kidder Peabody had “the right at any time without
notice to apply any cash or credits” in petitioner’s account “to
payment of any * * * debit balances or other obligations” of
petitioner.
In 1986 or 1987, petitioner began to complain that Kidder
Peabody had engaged in unauthorized trades in his account. On
March 20, 1987, George C. Cabell, vice president and associate
general counsel of Kidder Peabody, wrote to petitioner and
explained:
What has occurred is that you have failed to respond to
margin maintenance calls made in connection with
positions in your account with the result that
positions in the account had to be liquidated to
satisfy the maintenance calls. * * *
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011