For Your Data Taylor V. Perdition Minerals Group, Ltd. Example Brief
August 07, 2020
Edit
Taylor v. Perdition Minerals Group, Ltd. illustration brief summary
766 P.2d 805 (1988)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs sued the defendants to rescind the buy of sure enough securities in addition to to recover the buy toll paid based upon violations of registration in addition to misrepresentations nether the Kansas Securities Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1268(b). Plaintiffs had purchased stock inwards accused society based upon accused directors' statements the stock was worth a sure enough toll in addition to that an audit was to move conducted. After no audit was conducted, plaintiffs became concerned close their investment. After the plaintiffs ran a cheque on the accused society they constitute that the fiscal statements of the accused society did reverberate the plaintiffs' investment. They likewise constitute that the stock that they purchased had never been registered.
DISCUSSION
The courtroom concluded that the grant of summary judgment was improper, belongings that directors under §17-1268(b) were dependent area to strict liability equally nonselling parties unless a statutory defense forcefulness of lack of cognition was proven.
CONCLUSION
Court reversed the district court's gild granting summary judgment, in addition to remanded the illustration for trial.
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation inwards a Nutshell, tenth (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, fifth Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials
766 P.2d 805 (1988)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiffs appealed an gild of the Sedgwick District Court (Kansas) granting summary judgment inwards favor of the defendants.CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs sued the defendants to rescind the buy of sure enough securities in addition to to recover the buy toll paid based upon violations of registration in addition to misrepresentations nether the Kansas Securities Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1268(b). Plaintiffs had purchased stock inwards accused society based upon accused directors' statements the stock was worth a sure enough toll in addition to that an audit was to move conducted. After no audit was conducted, plaintiffs became concerned close their investment. After the plaintiffs ran a cheque on the accused society they constitute that the fiscal statements of the accused society did reverberate the plaintiffs' investment. They likewise constitute that the stock that they purchased had never been registered.
DISCUSSION
The courtroom concluded that the grant of summary judgment was improper, belongings that directors under §17-1268(b) were dependent area to strict liability equally nonselling parties unless a statutory defense forcefulness of lack of cognition was proven.
CONCLUSION
Court reversed the district court's gild granting summary judgment, in addition to remanded the illustration for trial.
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation inwards a Nutshell, tenth (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, fifth Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials