|
|
The Sleepy Eye Herald Dispatch - Sleepy Eye, MN
  • Attorney’s argue for dismissal in Reinarts vs. Braulick SBM case

  • Brown County District Court Judge Greg Anderson took under advisement May 11, a request made by attorneys representing Laurie Braulick and Alan Roeser, representatives of Investment & Insurance Services of New Ulm, to dismiss the case brought against them  in February by the Farrish Johnson Law Office of Mankato, on behalf of Lester Reinarts of Sleepy Eye.

     


    • email print
  • Brown County District Court Judge Greg Anderson took under advisement May 11, a request made by attorneys representing Laurie Braulick and Alan Roeser, representatives of Investment & Insurance Services of New Ulm, to dismiss the case brought against them  in February by the Farrish Johnson Law Office of Mankato, on behalf of Lester Reinarts of Sleepy Eye.
    According to the complaint, Roeser sold, managed and gave advice to Reinarts concerning SBM certificates issued beginning in April, 2001.
    The complaint alleges that Roeser told Reinarts the SBM Certificates were safe investments.
    Management and advice for Reinarts SBM certificates was turned over to Braulick who was working for Investment & Insurance Services of New Ulm.
    The complaint alleges that Roeser and Braulick knew, or should have known, at the time of the sale that the SBM?certificates were questionable, risky or unsafe.
    The lawsuit alleges negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and violation of securities regulations and damages greater than $50,000.
    Attorneys for the defendants said that the statute of limitations would apply to this case since the date mentioned in the complaint begins with a purchase of SBM certificates sold by Investment and Insurance Services of New Ulm in April, 2001.
    The defendants attorneys argued that they did not believe there was adequate claims that led to fraud or breach of fiduciary duty regarding the certificates sold.
    Attorneys representing Reinarts brought a motion to the court asking to amend the current complaint.
    The attorneys for Reinarts argued that the statute of limitations was not an issue and that the dates of purchase of the SBM certificates were included in the complaint as a basis for the case. At the time, the attorneys argued, there was no just cause to prove damages until the certificates matured and the plaintiff did not receive payments beginning in 2006.
    Judge Anderson said he would take this matter under advisement and come back with a decision in the near future, although a hearing date for his decision was not set.

        calendar