Taylor v. Perdition Minerals Group, Ltd. case brief summary
766 P.2d 805 (1988)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs sued the defendants to rescind the purchase of certain securities and to recover the purchase price paid based upon violations of registration and misrepresentations under the Kansas Securities Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1268(b). Plaintiffs had purchased stock in defendant company based upon defendant directors' statements the stock was worth a certain price and that an audit was to be conducted. After no audit was conducted, plaintiffs became concerned about their investment. After the plaintiffs ran a check on the defendant company they found that the financial statements of the defendant company did reflect the plaintiffs' investment. They also found that the stock that they purchased had never been registered.
DISCUSSION
The court concluded that the grant of summary judgment was improper, holding that directors under §17-1268(b) were subject to strict liability as nonselling parties unless a statutory defense of lack of knowledge was proven.
CONCLUSION
Court reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment, and remanded the case for trial.
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
766 P.2d 805 (1988)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiffs appealed an order of the
Sedgwick District Court (Kansas) granting summary judgment in favor
of the defendants.CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs sued the defendants to rescind the purchase of certain securities and to recover the purchase price paid based upon violations of registration and misrepresentations under the Kansas Securities Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1268(b). Plaintiffs had purchased stock in defendant company based upon defendant directors' statements the stock was worth a certain price and that an audit was to be conducted. After no audit was conducted, plaintiffs became concerned about their investment. After the plaintiffs ran a check on the defendant company they found that the financial statements of the defendant company did reflect the plaintiffs' investment. They also found that the stock that they purchased had never been registered.
DISCUSSION
The court concluded that the grant of summary judgment was improper, holding that directors under §17-1268(b) were subject to strict liability as nonselling parties unless a statutory defense of lack of knowledge was proven.
CONCLUSION
Court reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment, and remanded the case for trial.
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