Canizaro v. Kohlmeyer & Co.
| Decision Date | 02 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-2014,74-2014 |
| Citation | 512 F.2d 484 |
| Parties | Joseph C. CANIZARO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KOHLMEYER & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Peter J. Butler, New Orleans, La., Paul E. Hurley, P. J. Stakelum, III, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Charles Kohlmeyer, Jr., Charles E. Hamilton, III, Earl S. Eichin, Jr., New Orleans, La., Roger L. Waldman, New York City, for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before THORNBERRY, SIMPSON and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
The appellant, Canizaro, brought suit in the Southern District of New York against a number of New York defendants for damages for claimed violations of Section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Title 15 U.S.C. § 77l(2), and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 promulgated pursuant to § 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Title 15 U.S.C. § 78j, and on various state law principles in connection with a purchase by Canizaro of certain securities in May 1970. A New Orleans, Louisiana based registered broker-dealer, Kohlmeyer & Company (Kohlmeyer), the appellee herein, served as Canizaro's broker or seller in the actual consummation of the purchase, and was named as a defendant in addition to the New York defendants. Upon Kohlmeyer's motion, the case against the appellee was severed and transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Following a full-scale trial on the merits, the district court found for the defendant-appellee on all counts 1 and entered the judgment appealed from. For reasons well stated by the trial court we agree that the plaintiff-appellant Canizaro failed to prove a violation of either § 12(2) or of Rule 10b-5, or to prove a case under applicable Louisiana law.
1 The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the trial court are reported at 370 F.Supp. 282.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryder Intern. Corp. v. First American Nat. Bank
...F.2d at 846 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). See also Canizaro v. Kohlmeyer & Co., 370 F.Supp. 282, 287 (E.D.La.1974), aff'd 512 F.2d 484 (5th Cir.1975) (no liability under section 12(2) because the defendant "merely 'checked the deal out,' answered several of Canizaro's questions as re......
-
Lawler v. Gilliam
...it. Katz v. Amos Treat & Co., supra, 411 F.2d at 1053; Canizaro v. Kohlmeyer & Co., 370 F.Supp. 282, 286-88 (E.D.La.1974), aff'd 512 F.2d 484 (5th Cir. 1975); See generally III L. Loss, Securities Regulation 1712-20 (2d ed. 1961). The status of Cocke and Gilliam must be determined by these ......
-
Moody v. Bache & Co., Inc.
...I. duPont, 369 F.Supp. 1099 (N.D.Tex.1974); see also Canizaro v. Kohlmeyer & Co., 370 F.Supp. 282 (E.D.La.1974), aff'd per curiam, 512 F.2d 484 (5th Cir. 1975). For reasons stated earlier, the present case cannot be classified as a brokerage case, but we nevertheless regard the jury's findi......
-
McDonald v. Alan Bush Brokerage Co.
...C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5.9 Appellants cite to Canizaro v. Kohlmeyer & Company, 370 F.Supp. 282 (E.D.La.1974), affd. on other grounds, 512 F.2d 484 (5th Cir.1975), for the proposition that, when a broker solicits or recommends the purchase of a security, the broker must have a reasonable basis ......
-
Secondary Liability Under Securities Act Section 12
...Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) Para. 94,966 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). 29. See, Canizaro v. Kohlmeyer & Co., 370 F.Supp. 282 (E.D. La. 1974), aff'd, 512 F.2d 484 (5th Cir. 1975); Rinder v. Stockcross [1981 Tran. Binder], Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) Para. 97,885 (D. Mass. 1981); and Lewis v. Walston & Co., supra......