a union may be held liable under the Norris-LaGuardia Act “for the unlawful acts of ... agents” provided that there exists “clear proof of actual participation in, or actual authorization of, such acts, or of ratification of such acts after actual knowledge thereof.” 29 U.S.C. § 106 (1982). Our Metallic Lathers decision applied common law principles of agency to an unfair labor practice claim in a fact situation similar to this one — the liability of an international union for having affirmed, through the intraunion appellate process, the imposition of unlawful discipline on union members by a union local. Because such a claim can either be brought as an unfair labor practice claim under the NLRA or as a free standing LMRDA claim, see, e.g., Doty v. Sewall, 784 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); Grand Lodge of International Association of
holding that the same reasoning regarding opinions that is used under sections 11 and 12 of the securities act of 1933 applies to claims under sections 10b and 20a of the 1934 act as these claims all share a material misstatement or omission element holding that the plaintiffs stated a claim under sections 315b and c of the tia recognizing corrupt or malicious motives exception to sections 2  201 and 2  206 of the act recognizing an overlap between section 8b1a of the nlra and sections 411 and 412 of the lmrda holding that section 20 claims are governed by section 1658b bjecause section 20 merely creates a derivative liability for violations of other sections of the act