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.
Please see full publication below for more information.
