Court Opinion

ID: 9545762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:19:18.944296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:31.748436
License: Public Domain

Pearson, J.
(dissenting)—I dissent for the reasons given in my dissent in Haberman v. WPPSS, 109 Wn.2d 107, 179-90, 744 P.2d 1032, 750 P.2d 254 (1987). RCW 21.20-.430(1), by its plain language, requires privity of the seller and the person buying the security. My views are reinforced by Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 100 L. Ed. 2d 658, 108 S. Ct. 2063 (1988). As the majority acknowledges, Pinter now requires a strict privity analysis of the term "seller" under section 12(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77Z(1).
The underpinnings of Haberman came from lower federal court decisions which are no longer authoritative in light of the Pinter ruling. It is an anomaly for the majority to adhere to a "substantial contributive factor" analysis which has now been discredited by the United States Supreme Court.
I also disagree that a negligent misrepresentation claim survives summary judgment. My reasons are contained in my dissent in Haberman v. WPPSS, supra.
Andersen, J., concurs with Pearson, J.