BOWMAN & BOURDON, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. Robert E. ROHR et al., Defendants, Appellants, 417 F.2d 780

PER CURIAM. The facts in this case are set out in the district court’s opinion. Bowman & Bourdon, Inc. v. Rohr, 296 F.Supp. 847 (D.Mass.1969). We have reviewed the evidence. The court’s findings are warranted and we see no error of law. We believe, in particular, that the court was warranted in finding that Bowman was misled. The failure to disclose the inventory unit cost changes involved here meets the test of materiality set forth in Rogen v. Ilikon Corp., 361 F.2d 260 (1st Cir. 1967). Furthermore, rescission is an appropriate remedy in this case. 3 Loss, Securities Regulation 1793-1794 (1961); see Mott v.

Tri-Con-tinental Financial Co., 330 F.2d 468, 471 (2d Cir. 1964); Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 69 F.Supp. 512, 514 (E.D.Pa. 1946). Affirmed.