Opinion ID: 478360
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mayer's Claims of Deception

Text: 23 As described by the district court, Mayer claims, on the basis of the above events, that defendants violated Secs. 11 and 12(2) of the 1933 Act and Sec. 10(b) of the 1934 Act, in that 24 1) OFS and Integrated failed to disclose that they valued the Integrated stock at $10/share knowing that the stock did not have this value; 25 2) OFS and Integrated failed to disclose that they valued Integrated stock at $10/share to permit an accelerated payout and the consequent misallocation of shares to the general partners; 26 3) OFS and Integrated failed to disclose that the $10 per share price, and not the market value, was used to compute when payout had been reached; 27 4) OFS made a materially false and misleading statement in correspondence to the limited partners when it said that [Bache] was underwriting the Exchange Offer; and 28 5) OFS made a false and misleading statement in correspondence to the limited partners when it stated that the shares' market value might drop initially but would then zestily rebound. 29 Mayer III, 611 F.Supp. at 636-37. 30 Although OFS had complete control of the partnership affairs and the consent of the limited partners was not required for OFS to agree to the Exchange Offer, Mayer's contention was that had the material facts been fully and accurately disclosed, she could have brought an action in state court to prevent consummation of the exchange she believed to be unfair.