This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Armstrong (D) had a contract with the Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED) to assist DED in attracting Chinese businesses to Missouri. DED wanted a background check on a Chinese company, Mamtek. DED contacted Armstrong (D's) agent in China, Mr. Li, to obtain whatever information he could about Mamtek. Li made a phone call and did an internet search. Li reported that Mamtek's plant in Fujian Province, China, never started to manufacture, and that it could not because it did not meet the 'zoning' requirements for that location. Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. (Morgan (D)) had also hired Armstrong Teasdale (D) to help prepare an offering statement for bonds. Armstrong (D) reported that the same exact plant was operational. P who purchased the bonds initiated suit for legal malpractice and negligent misrepresentation. P claimed he relied to his detriment on Armstrong’s (D) representation that the Mamtek plant in Communist China was operational. P claimed that Armstrong (D) made an affirmative misstatement of fact when it said 'no facts have come to our attention which lead us to believe that the Official Statement contains' misrepresentations or omitted material facts. The court granted summary judgment to Armstrong (D). P moved to vacate, which was denied. Upon reconsideration, the court addressed whether D was entitled to summary judgment on P’s negligent misrepresentation claim.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.