Anderson

Anderson v. Clow

Good Law
89 F.3d 1399
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 17, 1996No. 94-56232California5,805 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nelson, J.

ORDER

The opinion filed May 7, 1996, is withdrawn, and the enclosed opinion is substituted in its place. With this new opinion, appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected as moot.

OPINION

The opinion filed May 7, 1996, is withdrawal, and the enclosed opinion is substituted in its place. With this new opinion, appellants’ petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en bane is rejected as moot.

OVER VIEW

Timothy J. Anderson and other class representatives (collectively “Anderson”) who purchased stock in Stae Electronics (“Stae”) between May 7 and July 20, 1992, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their class action under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77o, and Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t. Anderson alleges that Stae, certain of its officers and directors, and its lead underwriters, Alex. Brown & Sons, Inc., and Montgomery Securities (“Alex. Brown” and “Montgomery,” respectively; collectively, “Underwriters”), made material misrepresentations or omissions regarding Stac’s initial public offering…

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.