Pinter v. Dahl
United States Supreme Court
486 U.S. 622, 108 S.Ct. 2063, 100 L.Ed.2d 658 (1988)
- Written by Rocco Sainato, JD
Facts
Maurice Dahl (plaintiff) invested $20,000 with B.J. Pinter (defendant), the owner of an oil and gas company, to acquire oil and gas leases. Pinter located leases for Dahl, and Dahl eventually invested $310,000 in various leasehold properties. Dahl then proceeded to encourage his friends and family members to also invest with Pinter. Many of Dahl’s friends and family members also invested and received unregistered oil-and-gas interests in return. When Pinter failed to drill for oil successfully, Dahl and the other investors brought suit against Pinter, alleging that Pinter unlawfully sold them unregistered securities. The investors sought rescission of their subscription agreements with Pinter under Section 12(1) of the Securities Act. Pinter filed a counterclaim against Dahl, alleging that Dahl fraudulently induced Pinter to issue unregistered securities to other investors. Pinter also raised an in pari delicto defense to Dahl's claims, asserting that Dahl's own wrongful conduct should bar his recovery. The district court held a bench trial and ultimately found in favor of Dahl and the other investors. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the in pari delicto defense was unavailable and that Dahl was not a seller of Pinter's securities for purposes under Section 12(1). The United States Supreme Court granted Pinter's petition for certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.