BOWMAN BOURDON, INC., v. ROHR

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 7347.

Attorney(S)

Philip M. Cronin, Boston, Mass., with whom Phillip S. Cronin, Plymouth, Mass., and Withington, Cross, Park Groden, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellants. Richard W. Renehan, Boston, Mass., with whom Richard S. Chute and Hill Barlow, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellees.

Judges

Bailey Aldrich
Edward Matthew McEntee
Frank Morey Coffin

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

BOWMAN BOURDON, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. Robert E. ROHR et al., Defendants, Appellants.

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-Continental 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.

BOWMAN BOURDON, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. Robert E. ROHR et al., Defendants, Appellants.

Comments