In re Donald J. Trump Casino Securities Litigation Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained aplicaciones para ganar dinero con llamadas

aplicaciones para ganar dinero con llamadas best online casino permisos para casinos en mexico 7bit casino bonus casino campione d italia casino de valles consejos al jugar en los casinos slot meaning slang zebra slot canyon ivonne alvarez slot machine slot doble j7pro slots de expansión definicion aplicaciones para ganar dinero con llamadas Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► In re Donald J. Trump Casino Securities Litigation (Kaufman v. Trump’s Castle Funding) | 7 F.3d 357 (1993) A company offering an investment opportunity violates federal securities laws if it misleadingly overstates the investment’s chances of success. In Re Donald J. Trump Casino Securities Litigation considers the bespeaks-caution doctrine. Under the doctrine, a misleading forward-looking statement isn’t actionable if the company also cautioned investors regarding the investment’s risks. Donald Trump and Trump-owned entities sought to raise capital for the Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City. They offered $675,000,000 in bonds to the public. The bonds’ prospectus, a document providing details about the investment offering, estimated the cost to build and open the casino at $805,000,000. It would be funded by the bonds, a capital contribution by Trump, and loans. The prospectus also made a forward-looking statement expressing management expectations about the Taj Mahal’s performance. It stated that the Trump entities believed that the Taj Mahal’s operations would generate sufficient funds to, quote, “cover all of its debt service, interest and principal,” unquote. Alongside the rosy forecast of the Taj Mahal’s ability to repay the bonds, the prospectus included extensive cautionary statements. The prospective explained that the Taj Mahal was an unprecedented venture in terms of its size and scale. It stated that the project posed a variety of risks, including fierce competition in the local casino industry, peak revenue only accruing seasonally during the summer, and the possibility of construction delays. Not long after the Taj Mahal opened, investors learned that the Trump entities planned to file for bankruptcy and reorganize the debt. Investors, including Sidney Kaufman, sued in several judicial districts, and their claims were consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The investors claimed that the prospectus contained misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in violation of several securities fraud provisions. The district court dismissed the complaint. The investors appealed to the Third Circuit. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: The Quimbee App features over 36,300 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► Quimbee Case Brief App ► Facebook ► Twitter ► #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries #quechan casino #silverton casino hotel