United States Second Circuit

An electronically filed prospectus' inaccurate summary of material contained in printed prospectus could not form the basis for a claim under section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933. Additionally, prospectuses taken together would not have misled a reasonable investor as to the true nature of the securities; thus, dismissal of section 11 claim is affirmed.

Appellate Information

• Argued 01/11/2002
• Decided 01/28/2003
• Published 01/28/2003

Judges

• JOHN M. WALKER, Jr., Chief Judge., Before:  JOHN M. WALKER, Jr., Chief Judge, F.I. PARKER and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Second Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• I. Stephen Rabin, Rabin & Peckel LLP (Brian Murray, Rabin & Peckel LLP, Leo W. Desmond, Law Office of Leo W. Desmond, West Palm Beach, FL, on the brief), New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants., David M. Becker, General Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission (Meyer Eisenberg, Deputy General Counsel, Eric Summergrad, Deputy Solicitor, Allan A. Capute, Special Counsel to the Solicitor, on the brief), Washington, DC, as amicus curiae.


• For Appellees:
  
• Martin I. Kaminsky, Pollack & Kaminsky (Edward T. McDermott, Justin Y.K. Chu, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees ILife.com, Andersen, Minford, Grayson, Morse, and Poliner., Jay B. Kasner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Darren E. Bernstein, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees ING Baring Furman Selz, LLC and Warburg Dillon Read, LLC.