In Pusateri v. E.F. Hutton & Co. (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 247, there was sufficient evidence to support punitive damages against the employer based on its ratification of its employee's churning of the plaintiffs' account. (Id. at p. 255.) There the plaintiffs placed $ 188,000 with the employee broker instructing him to invest it in tax-free bonds and money market accounts so as to provide them with a monthly income of about $ 2,000. (Id. at p. 251.) They specifically told the broker they did not want to invest in stocks. The broker then began making numerous purchases and sales of volatile stocks (over 130 transactions) on a margin account, generating large commissions for the brokerage. Within a year, the plaintiffs' margin loan was about $ 190,000 and their original investment had shrunk by half. (Id. at p. 252.) Several other brokers in the office considered the plaintiffs' account to be a "laughing stock." The office manager had knowledge of the plaintiffs' conservative investment goals, he knew the account had excessive activity and had lost large amounts of money, and he knew the plaintiff had borrowed heavily on a margin loan. The excessive activity in the account prompted the officer manager to call the plaintiffs, but rather than tell them any of the information he only made innocuous inquiries as to whether the plaintiffs were getting along well with the broker. The court held that even though the office manager did not testify that he knew of and approved the employee's activity, the jury could conclude from the circumstantial evidence combined with the evidence of the office manager's direct knowledge of the status of the account, that he had ratified the employee's outrageous and oppressive conduct. (Id. at p. 255.)