In this May 10, 2011 post, I wrote that U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White had ruled that privity is required under Section 25500. Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P96,262 (March 28, 2011). I noted, however, that the leading treatise on California’s securities laws had stated the opposite. Harold Marsh Jr. & Robert H.Volk, Practice Under the California Securities Laws § 14.05.
In the case that I wrote about yesterday, In re Nuveen Funds/City of Alameda 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52135 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2011), Judge Susan Illston held that privity is not a requirement under Section 25500. In support, Judge Illston cites California Amplifier Inc. v. RLI Ins. Co., 94 Cal. App. 4th 102, 109 (2001).
Please see article below.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Commercial Law & Contracts Updates, Securities Law 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