O’Connor v. R. F. Lafferty & Co., Inc. case brief summary
965 F.2d 893 (1992)
CASE FACTS
Appellant investor held $ 200,000 as her sole asset and invested that with appellees, an investment firm and its employee. Appellant's investments were at time risky and her account did well for years but eventually began to lose money. Appellant then brought an action against appellees under federal securities laws and corresponding state laws and claimed that appellees were liable for investing appellee's money in investments which were unsuitable for her needs. Appellant included a related state tort claim as well.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The district court granted summary judgment on all federal and state securities claims and found that appellant failed to establish that appellees intended to defraud appellant or otherwise acted recklessly when investing her money. The remaining state tort claim was sent to arbitration under an arbitration agreement between appellant and her clearing broker.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court ruling, which granted appellees, an investment firm and its employee, summary judgment on all of appellant investor's claims under federal and state securities laws but one, a related state tort claim which the trial court submitted to arbitration. All dismissals were affirmed and the loan state tort claim was remanded as an arbitration order was not supported.
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
965 F.2d 893 (1992)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant investor challenged a ruling
of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
which granted appellees, an investment firm and its employee, summary
judgment on all of appellant's claims under federal and state
securities laws but one, a related state tort claim which the trial
court submitted to arbitration.CASE FACTS
Appellant investor held $ 200,000 as her sole asset and invested that with appellees, an investment firm and its employee. Appellant's investments were at time risky and her account did well for years but eventually began to lose money. Appellant then brought an action against appellees under federal securities laws and corresponding state laws and claimed that appellees were liable for investing appellee's money in investments which were unsuitable for her needs. Appellant included a related state tort claim as well.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The district court granted summary judgment on all federal and state securities claims and found that appellant failed to establish that appellees intended to defraud appellant or otherwise acted recklessly when investing her money. The remaining state tort claim was sent to arbitration under an arbitration agreement between appellant and her clearing broker.
DISCUSSION
- Appellant challenged all rulings and the court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- All dismissals were affirmed but the remaining tort claim was remanded as the court held that appellees were not intended beneficiaries of the arbitration agreement.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court ruling, which granted appellees, an investment firm and its employee, summary judgment on all of appellant investor's claims under federal and state securities laws but one, a related state tort claim which the trial court submitted to arbitration. All dismissals were affirmed and the loan state tort claim was remanded as an arbitration order was not supported.
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