More On Privity And Section 25500

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[5].[1]

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.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.


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

Written by:

more+
less-

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×
×