JOSEPH C. CANIZARO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
KOHLMEYER & COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the district court's judgment for the defendant, finding the plaintiff failed to prove violations of federal securities laws or state law.
Plaintiff purchased securities in May 1970, alleging violations of federal securities laws and state law principles. The case against his broker, Kohl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Section 12(2) Of The Securities Act Of 1933 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The appellant, Canizaro, brought suit in the Southern District of New York against a number of New York defendants for damages for claimed violations of Section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Title 15 U.S.C. § 777(2), and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 promulgated pursuant to § 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Title 15 U.S.C. § 78j, and on various state law principles in connection with a purchase by Canizaro of certain securities in May 1970. A New Orleans, Louisiana based registered broker-dealer, Kohlmeyer & Company (Kohlmeyer), the appellee herein, served as Canizaro’s broker or seller in the actual consummation of the purchase, and was named as a defendant in addition to the New York defendants. Upon Kohlmeyer’s motion, the case against the appellee was severed and transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Following a full-scale trial on the merits, the district court found for the de fendant-appellee on all counts 1 and entered the judgment appealed from. For reasons well stated by the trial court we agree that the plaintiff-appellant Cañizaro failed to prove a violation of either § 12(2) or of Rule 10b — 5, or to prove a case under applicable Louisiana law.
The judgment below was right, and is in all respects
Affirmed.
. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the trial court are reported at 370 F.Supp. 282.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McDONALD v. Alan Bush Brokerage Co. & William R. Dodson, 863 F.2d 809 (11th Cir. 1989)
-
Moody v. Bache & Co., 570 F.2d 523 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
Ryder Int'l Corp. v. First Am. Nat'l Bank, 943 F.2d 1521 (11th Cir. 1991)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence