California’s Secured Promissory Note Exemption

The line between real property transactions and securities transactions is not always clear.  California Corporations Code Section 25100(p) provides an exemption for a promissory note secured by a lien on real property provided it is neither: (a) one of a series of notes of equal priority secured by interests in the same real property; or

A Criminal Waste Of Space Foments Securities Law Problem

California Court of Appeal Justice William W. Bedsworth writes the popular syndicated column “A Criminal Waste of Space”.  In this month’s column, Justice Bedsworth expounds on the highly improbable case of a man who purchased a Pick-9 ticket at the track and somehow managed to pick all nine winners.  Szadolci v. Hollywood Park Operating Company,

California, Nevada and 38 Other States Have These, But Delaware Doesn’t

According to the National Center for State Courts, forty states, including California and Nevada, have established intermediate courts of appeal.  California’s Court of Appeal was established by a constitutional amendment adopted by the voters in November 1904.  Originally, the Court of Appeal was comprised of three districts, with the First District sitting in San Francisco,

California Reverts To Former Securities Anti-Fraud Statute

Readers of this blog will recall my chariness of a 2013 amendment to California’s basic securities anti-fraud statute.  See California Creates Complete Chaos By Rewriting Anti-Fraud Statute, But “We Are Against Fraud Aren’t We?”  Although I identified a host of issues, my fundamental concern was that by rewriting California Corporations Code Section 25401, the legislature

Section 10(b) Claim Receives a Do-Wacko-Do

So many Section 10(b) claims involve claims of misrepresentation that it easy to forget that the rule also makes it unlawful to use manipulative devices in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.  However, a recent ruling by Judge Margaret M. Morrow considered whether a plaintiff had adequately pled a claim of manipulative conduct in

Failure To Disclose Finder’s Fee Found Not To Be Actionable

This interesting, but atypical case, involves one of the many possible issues that can arise from the use of unlicensed finders to raise securities. Five years ago, Daniel Azouri met Marvin Lipschultz at the Cannes Film Festival.  Mr. Azouri suggested that Mr. Lipschultz invest in a movie venture.  Mr. Lipschultz invested a total of $220,000

CAFA Filings Spike in 2013

CAFA Filing Chart

  On February 18 2005, Congress enacted the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), P.L. No. 109-2 (28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, and 1711 – 1715). In enacting the CAFA, Congress sought to protect consumers and investors from settlements in which plaintiffs’ attorneys received significant fees but class members received little or even less. In one

Investors Claim Failure To Qualify Justifies Issuer’s Return Of Investment

The remedy for failure to qualify the sale of a security is either rescission or damages.  Cal. Corp. Code § 25503.  Thus, one typically expects to see investors alleging a failure to qualify as grounds for returning their investments.  In a recent case, however, investors argued that a failure to qualify justified not returning their investments

Section 25501.5 – I Ask Again What Do It Mean?

Corporations Code Section 25501.5 generally authorizes an action for rescission (or damages, if the security is no longer owned) by any person “who purchases a security from or sells a security to a broker-dealer that is required to be licensed and has not”.  A right of rescission makes sense when the unlicensed broker-dealer is acting

Applying Today’s Statute To Yesterday’s Offer And Sale

In September 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 538 (Hill) into law.  This bill fundamentally rewrote a key anti-fraud provision of the Corporate Securities Law of 1968 – Corporations Code Section 25401.  At the time, I cast a chary eye on the amendment and predicted that it would lead to judicial confusion.  See California Creates Complete