BOWMAN & BOURDON, INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, APPELLEES,
v.
ROBERT E. ROHR ET AL., DEFENDANTS, APPELLANTS
BOWMAN & BOURDON, INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, APPELLEES,
ROBERT E. ROHR ET AL., DEFENDANTS, APPELLANTS
417 F.2d 780
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (1969)
Caution
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The facts in this case are set out in the district court’s opinion. Bowman & Bourdon, Inc. v. Rohr, 296 F.Supp. 847 (D.Mass.1969). We have reviewed the evidence. The court’s findings are warranted and we see no error of law.
We believe, in particular, that the court was warranted in finding that Bowman was misled. The failure to disclose the inventory unit cost changes involved here meets the test of materiality set forth in Rogen v. Ilikon Corp., 361 F. 2d 260 (1st Cir. 1967). Furthermore, rescission is an appropriate remedy in this case. 3 Loss, Securities Regulation 1793-1794 (1961); see Mott v. Tri-Con-tinental Financial Co., 330 F. 2d 468, 471 (2d Cir. 1964); Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 69 F.Supp. 512, 514 (E.D.Pa. 1946).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
James v. Meinke, 778 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1985)
-
Republic Tech. Fund, Inc. v. The Lionel Corp., 483 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1973)
-
United States Steel & Carnegie Pension Fund, Inc. v. Orenstein, 557 F.2d 343 (2d Cir. 1977)
Authorities Cited
- Rogen v. Ilikon Corp., 361 F.2d 260 (1st Cir. 1966)
- Mott v. Tri-Continental Fin. Corp., 330 F.2d 468 (2d Cir. 1964)