Whether a purchaser may maintain an action for fraud and deceit based solely on false representations a corporation made to the Michigan securities commission, when the purchaser neither knew of nor relied on those representations when purchasing securities.
Holding
No. Statements made to the securities commission to obtain permission to sell securities do not support a purchaser’s fraud action unless they were intended to influence the purchaser and actually did so.
Reasoning
The securities-law filing requirement served a regulatory purpose. A foreign corporation submitted financial information and related materials so that the commission could decide whether to permit securities sales in Michigan. The application was directed to the commission, not issued as an inducement for members of the public to purchase the securities.
The statute itself rejected any suggestion that the commission’s authorization guaranteed the quality or safety of the securities. Each certificate was required to state prominently: “The commission does not recommend the purchase of this security.” Although knowingly deceiving the commission was a misdemeanor, that criminal prohibition did not transform regulatory filings into representations made to prospective investors.
A fraud-and-deceit claim requires a sufficiently direct relationship between the false statement and the person claiming injury. Ordinarily, the representation must be made to that person, to the public or a class that includes that person, or with an intent to influence that person’s conduct. A statement made only to a government regulator for the purpose of obtaining a license or approval is too remote from a later investor’s decision to purchase.
Dinsmore did not claim that he knew about or relied on the company’s disclosures to the commission when he bought the securities. The commission’s public records were available for his inspection, but he did not examine them until long after his purchase. Because the alleged misrepresentations neither reached him nor influenced his purchase, they could not establish actionable fraud against him.
The court found support in decisions holding that false statements in regulatory certificates or prospectuses create liability only for persons whom the statements were addressed or intended to influence. Like the purchasers in those cases, Dinsmore could not recover merely because the company obtained permission to conduct business or sell securities through allegedly false statements to a public official.