More On Privity And Section 25500

In this May 10, 2011 post, I wrote that U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White had ruled that privity is required under Section 25500. Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P96,262 (March 28, 2011).  I noted, however, that the leading treatise on California's securities laws had stated the opposite.  Harold Marsh Jr. & Robert H.Volk, Practice Under the California Securities Laws § 14.05[5].[1]

In the case that I wrote about yesterday, In re Nuveen Funds/City of Alameda 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52135 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2011), Judge Susan Illston held that privity is not a requirement under Section 25500.  In support, Judge Illston cites California Amplifier Inc. v. RLI Ins. Co., 94 Cal. App. 4th 102, 109 (2001).

[1] I am a practice consultant for Practice Under the California Securities Laws. However, my compensation is not based on sales of the book.