Monroe v. Hughes

Good Law
31 F.3d 772·94 Daily Journal DAR 10168·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18003·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5550
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 21, 199492-35306California2,432 words

Opinion

Opinion

31 F.3d 772 63 USLW 2078 , Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,331 James G. MONROE and Penelope E. Monroe, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gary C. HUGHES; Thomas R. Hudson; and Deloitte & Touche, fka Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-35306. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 30, 1993. Decided July 21, 1994. Karen Kennard, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, San Francisco, CA, and Eric H. Fisher, Associate Gen. Counsel, New York City, for defendant-appellee Deloitte & Touche. Henry Kantor, Kantor and Sacks, Portland, OR, and Keith E. Tichenor, Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, O'Leary & Conboy, Portland, OR, for plaintiffs-appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Before: BROWNING, SCHROEDER and HALL, Circuit Judges. SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge: 1 In this suit, investors in a failed company allege various Securities Act violations. The defendants include an accounting firm that provided the audit report accompanying the prospectus for the securities purchased by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim that the accountants violated…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.