In Gunderson, plaintiffs alleged that defendant ADM Investors Services ("ADMIS") knew or should have known that its agents were making fraudulent misrepresentations to plaintiffs (mostly Iowa farmers) in connection with certain hedging agreements.
Summary of this case from Erickson v. Horing99-4032.
August 16, 2000.
Appeal from N.D.Iowa.
Decisions Without Published Opinions Reversed
In Gunderson, plaintiffs alleged that defendant ADM Investors Services ("ADMIS") knew or should have known that its agents were making fraudulent misrepresentations to plaintiffs (mostly Iowa farmers) in connection with certain hedging agreements.
Summary of this case from Erickson v. HoringFull title:Gunderson v. ADM Investor Services, Inc
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Date published: Aug 16, 2000
On August 16, 2000, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded finding that the Producers had…
Asa-Brandt, Inc. v. ADM Investor Services, Inc.On appeal, we noted that in determining whether an agency relationship exists, the question hinged on the…