Ritch v. Robinson-Humphrey Co. case brief summary
748 So.2d 861 (1999)
CASE FACTS
The court had to decide whether in an action under Ala. Code § 8-6-19(a)(1) the buyer had to prove that the seller's violation of Ala. Sec. R. 830-X-3-.12 induced or caused the buyer to purchase the security. As to the certified question, the court stated that the plain meaning of the statute must be given effect. Thus, there was no indication that the buyer had to prove the seller induced such action.
CONCLUSION
The court answered the certified question stating that the state legislature did not intend that a harmed buyer prove a causation element.
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
748 So.2d 861 (1999)
CASE SYNOPSIS
In a case asserting violations of
securities laws pursuant to Ala. Code § 8-6-19(a)(1), the court
addressed certified question from the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.CASE FACTS
The court had to decide whether in an action under Ala. Code § 8-6-19(a)(1) the buyer had to prove that the seller's violation of Ala. Sec. R. 830-X-3-.12 induced or caused the buyer to purchase the security. As to the certified question, the court stated that the plain meaning of the statute must be given effect. Thus, there was no indication that the buyer had to prove the seller induced such action.
CONCLUSION
The court answered the certified question stating that the state legislature did not intend that a harmed buyer prove a causation element.
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