Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Cromeans v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc.

69 F. Supp. 3d 934 (2014)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 26,900+ case briefs...

Cromeans v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc.

United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri

69 F. Supp. 3d 934 (2014)

Facts

Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. (Morgan Keegan) (defendant) retained Armstrong Teasdale, LLP (Armstrong Teasdale) to prepare an offering statement in connection with the issuance of bonds that John Cromeans (plaintiff) later purchased. The offering statement indicated that Armstrong Teasdale was not aware of any facts that would lead it to believe that the offering statement contained misrepresentations or omitted material facts. Armstrong Teasdale also had a contract with the Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED) to work toward attracting Chinese businesses to Missouri. Pursuant to that contract, Armstrong Teasdale’s agent, Edward Li, investigated a Chinese company, Mamtek. Li reported to Armstrong Teasdale and DED that a Mamtek plant had not commenced manufacturing and could not do so because it was unable to satisfy zoning requirements. Armstrong Teasdale’s offering statement, however, reported that the plant was operational. Cromeans asserted claims against Armstrong Teasdale for legal malpractice and negligent misrepresentation, alleging that when he purchased the bonds, he relied to his detriment on the offering statement’s false representation that the Mamtek plant was operational. The district court granted summary judgment to Armstrong Teasdale. Cromeans filed a motion to vacate the order, which the court initially denied. However, the court then reconsidered the question of whether Armstrong Teasdale was entitled to summary judgment on Cromeans’s negligent-misrepresentation claim.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Laughrey, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 540,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 540,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,900 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 540,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 26,900 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership