Opinion ID: 502715
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant Granada

Text: 33 In their complaint, the Jensens assert that Granada failed to properly supervise Snellings or Bradshaw or to notify the Jensens upon learning of Snellings' misconduct, rendering Granada secondarily liable through their status as controlling persons under Sec. 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78t. 7 Additionally, they claim Granada is primarily liable for failure to deliver a private placement memorandum to the Jensens. 34 A review of the record reveals that the Jensens had sufficient facts by July 1979 to cause a reasonable person to inquire further as to any wrongdoing or responsibility of Granada. The Jensens were concerned that Eller, Granada's President, never gave them the same figure twice as to the amount of their losses. In March 1979, Mildred Ewing told her daughter, Esther Jensen, that she thought that Granada had stolen $70,00 each from her, the Jensens, and Robert Ewing. In his first memorandum, received by the Jensens in July 1979, Weathers disclosed the secret relationship between Granada and Hutton. 35 Moreover, the limitations period ran notwithstanding the secondary nature of Granada's liability for the misconduct of Bradshaw and Snellings. If they had diligently investigated their claim against Bradshaw and Snellings, they would have also learned of Granada's secondary liability within the requisite limitations period. Indeed, as with the other defendants, it appears that the facts and knowledge concerning Granada gathered by the Jensens by July 1979 formed not only the basis of Zimmerman's conclusion that they had a possible securities fraud case against all the defendants herein, but also the basis of the complaint filed on their behalf nearly two years later. Additionally, the Jensens charge Granada with failure to furnish a private placement memorandum. They certainly knew all along that one had never been delivered to them. 36 Accordingly, we conclude that the record contains ample evidence to prove that the Jensens' federal securities law claims were barred by the statute of limitations as to all defendants.