Emptores Caveant! Buyer Liability In Securities Offerings

more+
less-

Much of the focus of securities litigation is on the liability of sellers, but what about buyers? Can buyers prevaricate with impunity?

Corporations Code Section 25401 prohibits misstatements and omissions of material facts. Section 25401 explicitly covers persons who “buy” or who “offer to buy” a security. California’s insider trading statute, Section 25402, also reaches purchases. Although not California cases, two recent examples of buyers running afoul of the securities laws caught my eye.

Recently, the Nevada Secretary of State issued this press release announcing the arrest of an individual who allegedly offered to purchase securities utilizing “misrepresentations, omissions, and/or acts or practices which were fraudulent or deceitful. Here’s a copy of the criminal complaint. It’s probably not helpful that the state is alleging that this misconduct occurred while the defendant was scheduled to begin serving a sentence for similar offenses.

Perhaps a more interesting case is that of Xun Energy, Inc. v. Kennedy, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39934 (S.D. Ill., March 22, 2013) in which an issuer sued a purchaser for breach of contract for failing to buy $10 million in common stock. In opposing the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the defendant raised several affirmative defenses, including that the contract violated the Securities Act of 1933 ”because Kennedy [the defendant] was not an accredited investor”. The plaintiffs prevailed, however, because Judge J. Phil Gilbert found that “based on the evidence provided by Xun Energy [the plaintiff] and the lack of evidence presented by Kennedy, no reasonable jury could conclude that it was unreasonable for Xun Energy to believe that Kennedy had a net worth in excess of $1,000,000.” Here’s the Judge Gilbert’s description of that evidence supporting the plaintiff’s reasonable belief:

Xun Energy points to the fact that Kennedy approached Xun Energy with the offer to purchase $10,000,000 worth of stock. In support of the proposition that Xun Energy believed that Kennedy was an accredited investor, Xun Energy also provides the affidavit of Mikolajczyk in which he attests that he believed Kennedy had $10,000,000 to invest, Kennedy had informed him that she had $300,000,000 in Panama and $500,000,000 in Turkey, and that Kennedy’s biography and emails indicated she had the money and experience to be a “sophisticated investor.” Doc. 59. To support the reasonableness of this belief, Xun Energy attaches the affidavit of Guibert in which she attests that she believed Kennedy had the funds to make the transaction and was a “sophisticated investor.” Doc. 58. Further, Xun Energy attaches emails from Kennedy in which she states, “I work with accounts and clients all over the world,” and explaining that she is in the process of transferring funds to New York from funds “parked in Euros in London.” Doc. 59-11. Kennedy also provided to Xun Energy a copy of a contract between herself and Buyer Group International, Inc., in which she purportedly engaged in a transaction worth $10,000,000.

 

Topics:  Buyers, Liability, Securities Litigation

Published In: General Business Updates, Securities Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »