Utco Law Firm

UTCO Law Firm is a full-service law firm established in Istanbul in 2018 to provide accurate, fast and high-quality local and cross-border legal services to its domestic and multinational clients. Our firm is able to provide general legal advice, transactional advice and dispute resolution. Our firm is composed of experienced and multilingual lawyers. Mr. Basile argues that a constitutional problem «arises in balance» because «the remedies provided for therein are meaningless» when applied in a lawsuit against a buyer. (Note from Mr. Basile in support of the request for dismissal at 9 a.m.) The experience of our lawyers covers a wide range of industries and industries. In addition, our lawyers are familiar with labour law, administrative and tax law, energy law, environmental and mining law, infrastructure, real estate and construction, health and pharmaceuticals, intellectual property, IT, tourism and hospitality, transport and logistics, insurance law, data protection, electronic commerce, competition law, international trade law, banking, financial and financial market law. The plaintiffs are Sunrise Financial, Inc., a public Utah, and UTCO Associates, Ltd., a Utah limited partnership. According to their complaint, she and two people, Carl Martin and John E. Worthen, sold two million shares of Vu-Data Corporation at $1 per share, for which they never received payment.

Five purchasers of the share, the company acting as broker and an account manager employed by the broker are named as defendants. The Supreme Court stated that affidavits in support of the plaintiffs` standing are admissible: Finally, PaineWebber notes that the conversion, negligence and fiduciary claims do not claim that PaineWebber was authorized by CKN to transfer $2 million of its client`s funds to it. The Court finds that such authorization is not a necessary element of the plaintiffs` common law claims. The plaintiffs have filed claims for legal protection, although the evidence may ultimately support the conclusion that PaineWebber did not owe them a fiduciary duty. [3] The latter agreement also seeks to assign Mr. Worthen`s interests to the applicants, but his signature is lacking. The defendants assert that the Federal and State Securities Act claims are deficient because there are no facts that prove a «purchase or sale» of securities. The applicants admit that some of their affidavits are inadequate. They are no longer asking the court to consider numbers 6 and 7 of the Martineau affidavit or any part of the green affidavit.

(Brief against strike motion at pages 3, 5 and 7.) The plaintiffs invoked the primary liability against PaineWebber. Although their allegations of secondary liability are ineffective, they also allege that PaineWebber itself provided false information on which the applicants relied. [5] The defendant`s requests to dismiss on the ground that the indispensable parties did not intervene were therefore dismissed. While some of its terms are more appropriate for lawsuits against sellers than buyers, the court does not consider this law to be unconstitutionally vague. The prohibited behaviour is very clear. In addition, the court could provide an appropriate remedy against its terms once the exact nature of the plaintiffs` property has been clarified. For example, if the evidence shows that the plaintiffs no longer own the securities, but never received consideration for the sale, they would be entitled to a measure of «damages» other than one based on «consideration paid.» PaineWebber argues that these allegations do not «strongly infer» fraudulent intent. The court disagrees. The plaintiffs cite four material misrepresentations by PaineWebber and then claim that «PaineWebber intended and also used its position as an intermediary in the sale to defraud sellers.» (Complaint, ¶ 26.) In addition, they claim: *1003*1004*1005 David R. King, Kruse Landa & Maycock, Salt Lake City, UT, for the plaintiffs.

Mr. Basile cites Watts v. Des Moines Register & Tribune, 525 F. Supp. 1311, 1319 (S.D.Iowa 1981), for stating that «a certain transfer of ownership is essential to comply *1008 with the buying or selling element of a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. (Brief from Mr. Basile in support of motion to dismiss, p. 5.) In Watts, the Court stated that «a purchase or sale must be defined broadly.» and may include transactions that bear little resemblance to traditional buying and selling. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the mere creation of a voting trust did not constitute a «purchase or sale» since it did not fundamentally change the nature of the members` investments. Id. United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division.

*1006 The plaintiffs submitted affidavits from Leland A. Martineau, director and director of Sunrise Financial, Inc., and Alvin B. Green, an attorney who represented the sellers in their corporate actions.