The court asked whether a misrepresentation in a prospectus was corrected by a circular issued after shares had been allotted to investors who had relied on the prospectus.
Held: It was not, and that what would have been required was a clear statement in the circular calling attention to the fact that there was a serious error in the prospectus.
Lord Halsbury LC
(1888) 41 Ch 348
England and Wales
Cited – Peekay Intermark Ltd and Another v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ComC 25-May-2005
The claimant alleged mis-selling of an emerging markets investment product. The defendant claimed that whilst there might have been a misrepresentation, by the time the contract was formed, correct information had been provided and incorporated in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.226116