(Download) "Competitive Associates v. Laventhol" by United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Competitive Associates v. Laventhol
- Author : United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Release Date : January 08, 1975
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 67 KB
Description
This is an appeal by plaintiff Competitive Associates, a publicly held mutual fund, from summary judgment entered on July 3, 1974, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in favor of defendants Laventhol, Krekstein, Horwath and Horwath, an accounting firm, and Morton Dear, Robert E. Bier, and Thomas Martino, Jr., three individual employees of that firm. The action is based variously on section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. ? 78j(b), SEC Rule 10b-5, section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. ? 77q, sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. ?? 80b-6(1) and 80b-6(2), common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme to induce plaintiff to retain one Akiyoshi Yamada and his company, Takara Asset Management Corporation, to manage a portion of its portfolio, knowingly certified false and misleading financial statements of Takara Partners, a private investment fund managed by Yamada. As a result, plaintiff avers, it subsequently lost several million dollars from purchases and sales of securities which Yamada, in his capacity as adviser, unlawfully caused it to make. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the investment performance of Takara Partners was generally regarded as the primary measure of Yamadas expertise as an investment adviser, that the statements for the period ended December 31, 1969, certified by Laventhol, Krekstein, were materially false and misleading with respect to the size and quality of the partnerships assets and its profit and loss performance, that Laventhol, Krekstein knowingly and with intent to defraud certified these statements in order to facilitate, aid and abet Yamadas scheme to attract a showcase of investors to Takara, inflate his reputation as a successful investment adviser, and thereby create a dumping ground for securities which he was manipulating. An examination of the record convinces us that under the circumstances of this case, summary judgment was inappropriate; we therefore reverse and remand for trial.
 "Competitive Associates v. Laventhol" by United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}