decided that § 80A.01(b), as a derivative of § 17(a)(2), “does not require scienter, but supports a negligence based theory of recovery.” Sprangers, 394 N.W.2d at 503. Although the Minnesota cases on § 80A.01 subsequent to Sprangers may appear at first glance to be in conflict because the subparts of the statute are not always referenced, the Minnesota Supreme Court cited to Sprangers with approval when ruling on a securities case involving an unsuitability claim. Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund v. Allison-Williams Co., 519 N.W.2d 176, 179 (Minn.1994) (citing Sprangers’s holding that a “seller of stock may be liable for misrepresentation [under § 80A.01(b) ] irrespective of scienter”). That court also referenced § 80A.01(a) in Foley v. Allard, 427 N.W.2d 647, 650 (Minn.1988) (<HOLDING>). Sprangers is the state’s most thorough
holding that this subpart does require scienter holding that 20 of individual defendants holdings raised an inference of scienter holding that this rule does not require the creation of an inventory of documents to be produced holding that this court does not necessarily require the claim to be specifically raised in an eeoc charge provided that it satisfies this scopeofinvestigation test holding the pslra standard for pleading scienter is more stringent than the second circuits standard prior to the act and that motive and opportunity is not an independent basis to show defendants had scienter