the value of the security when the buyer disposed of it and interest at six percent per year from the date of disposition.” Thus, a claim of a violation of § 8-6-19(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975, requires (1) a sale or an offer to sell a security (2) by means of a false statement or omission (8) of material fact and (4) the ignorance of the buyer as to the untruth or omission. The parties dispute whether the Nexity defendants made misrepresentations and omissions of “material” facts. 1. Applicable Standard of Materiality Because there are few Alabama cases construing the Alabama Securities Act, we review federal cases construing federal securities law to aid in properly interpreting the corresponding provisions of the Alabama Securities Act. See Buffo v. State, 415 So.2d 1158, 1162 (Ala.1982) (<HOLDING>). Section 8-6-19(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975, is
recognizing the power of federal courts to decide cases is restricted by the cases and controversies clause of article iii holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law holding same and citing cases holding that the contention that all employment discrimination cases should be analyzed as mixedmotive cases is meritless holding that because there are few alabama cases construing  8617 alacode 1975 federal cases should be reviewed