Johnson v. Colip case brief summary
658 N.E. 2d 575 (1995)
CASE FACTS
Action was commenced by two complaints in which plaintiffs alleged that the partnership interests they contracted to buy were sold in violation of the Indiana Securities Act, Ind. Code § 23-2-1-1 et seq. (1982 & 1983 Supp.). Plaintiffs contended that the prospectuses used in the sale contained misleading, untrue statements of material fact, or omitted material facts. Complaints were amended to allege that defendant attorney acted in concert with other defendants in preparing the misleading prospectuses and that defendant attorney effectuated or attempted to effect purchases or sales of securities.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the court held that a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether defendant attorney's affirmative conduct or failure to act made it more likely than not that the investors would purchase the securities and therefore constituted an attempt to effect the purchase or sale of securities; thus, summary judgment was not appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Judgment reversed and remanded to trial court for further proceedings consistent with opinion on the ground that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendant attorney attempted to effect the purchase or sale of securities as an "agent."
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation in a Nutshell, 10th (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, 5th Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials
658 N.E. 2d 575 (1995)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiffs appealed from decision of
the Johnson Circuit Court (Indiana) awarding summary judgment to
defendant in case alleging violations of the Indiana Securities
Act, Ind. Code § 23-2-1-1 et seq. (1982 & 1983 Supp.).CASE FACTS
Action was commenced by two complaints in which plaintiffs alleged that the partnership interests they contracted to buy were sold in violation of the Indiana Securities Act, Ind. Code § 23-2-1-1 et seq. (1982 & 1983 Supp.). Plaintiffs contended that the prospectuses used in the sale contained misleading, untrue statements of material fact, or omitted material facts. Complaints were amended to allege that defendant attorney acted in concert with other defendants in preparing the misleading prospectuses and that defendant attorney effectuated or attempted to effect purchases or sales of securities.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the court held that a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether defendant attorney's affirmative conduct or failure to act made it more likely than not that the investors would purchase the securities and therefore constituted an attempt to effect the purchase or sale of securities; thus, summary judgment was not appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Judgment reversed and remanded to trial court for further proceedings consistent with opinion on the ground that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendant attorney attempted to effect the purchase or sale of securities as an "agent."
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation in a Nutshell, 10th (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, 5th Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials
No comments:
Post a Comment