4619 Statements about how and when bridge notes would be paid, made by a securities dealer to induce persons to invest, were material representations, and if they were false and influenced investors' decisions, could result in liability for misrepresentation; if a complaint sufficiently alleges fraud (i.e., intentional misrepresentation), it necessarily follows that it sufficiently alleges negligent misrepresentation; a securities broker does not owe a fiduciary duty to an investor unless the broker undertakes to advise the investor about investment decisions.CitationAPOLLO v ROTH (Bridge Notes) 158 CA4 226 [See: CorpC 25000 etseq; Committee v General Foods 35 C3 197; Shamsian v ARCO 107 CA4 967, T/AT 5/03; Residential v Cal-Western 108 CA4 807, T/AT 6/03; Small v Fritz 30 C4 167, T/AT 5/03]
|
|