Levitz v. Warrington

I respectfully dissent. The trial court’s findings of fact adequately support its determination that Levitz was a “purchaser” under the Utah Uniform Securities Act (Securities Act). I would affirm the trial court’s decision on Warrington’s cross-appeal. In any event, I would reach the substantive issues raised by Levitz in his appeal as to damages.

ANALYSIS

Adequacy of the Findings

The issue before this court on Warring-ton’s cross-appeal is whether Levitz, having never received stock despite losing $64,650 to Energex, has standing to sue as a purchaser under the Securities Act. The trial court…