Bowman & Bourdon, Inc. v. Robert E. Rohr

First Circuit

Bowman & Bourdon, Inc. v. Robert E. Rohr

417 F.2d 780, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10263

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedOctober 28, 1969

Docket7347

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 417 F.2d 780 (Bowman & Bourdon, Inc. v. Robert E. Rohr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowman & Bourdon, Inc. v. Robert E. Rohr, 417 F.2d 780, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10263 (1st Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The facts in this case are set out in the district court’s opinion. Bowman & Bourdon, Inc. v. Rohr, 296 F.Supp. 847 (D.Mass.1969). We have reviewed the evidence. The court’s findings are warranted and we see no error of law.

We believe, in particular, that the court was warranted in finding that Bowman was misled. The failure to disclose the inventory unit cost changes involved here meets the test of materiality set forth in Rogen v. Ilikon Corp., 361 F.2d 260 (1st Cir. 1967). Furthermore, rescission is an appropriate remedy in this case. 3 Loss, Securities Regulation 1793-1794 (1961); see Mott v. Tri-Con-tinental Financial Co., 330 F.2d 468, 471 (2d Cir. 1964); Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 69 F.Supp. 512, 514 (E.D.Pa. 1946).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The facts in this case are set out in the district court’s opinion. Bowman & Bourdon, Inc. v. Rohr, 296 F.Supp. 847 (D.Mass.1969). We have reviewed the evidence. The court’s findings are warranted and we see no error of law.

We believe, in particular, that the court was warranted in finding that Bowman was misled. The failure to disclose the inventory unit cost changes involved here meets the test of materiality set forth in Rogen v. Ilikon Corp., 361 F.2d 260 (1st Cir. 1967). Furthermore, rescission is an appropriate remedy in this case. 3 Loss, Securities Regulation 1793-1794 (1961); see Mott v. Tri-Con-tinental Financial Co., 330 F.2d 468, 471 (2d Cir. 1964); Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 69 F.Supp. 512, 514 (E.D.Pa. 1946).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 F.2d 780, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-bourdon-inc-v-robert-e-rohr-ca1-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack