For Your Data Robinson V. Glynn Representative Brief
April 28, 2015
Edit
Robinson v. Glynn case brief summary
349 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2003)
CASE FACTS
The private claimed that his membership involvement inwards the fellowship qualified equally either an investment contract or stock under 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 77b(a)(1) and 78c(a)(10). The individual's involvement was non an investment contract equally he was non a passive investor heavily theme on the efforts of others. Rather, he had the ability to appoint 2 board members, was a board fellow member himself, in addition to was a fellow member of the executive commission to which extensive responsibleness had been delegated. He equally good served equally treasurer in addition to the fellowship had to larn his blessing to incur whatever indebtedness exterior the normal course of education of business.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The judgment was affirmed.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law
349 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2003)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff private sued accused telecommunication designer, pattern company, in addition to evolution company, alleging that the designer committed federal securities fraud when he sold the private a partial involvement inwards the evolution company. The United States of America of America District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore, dismissed the claim on a motion for summary judgment. The private appealed.CASE FACTS
The private claimed that his membership involvement inwards the fellowship qualified equally either an investment contract or stock under 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 77b(a)(1) and 78c(a)(10). The individual's involvement was non an investment contract equally he was non a passive investor heavily theme on the efforts of others. Rather, he had the ability to appoint 2 board members, was a board fellow member himself, in addition to was a fellow member of the executive commission to which extensive responsibleness had been delegated. He equally good served equally treasurer in addition to the fellowship had to larn his blessing to incur whatever indebtedness exterior the normal course of education of business.
DISCUSSION
- The individual's lack of technological expertise did non foreclose him from meaningfully exercising his administration rights given that he reviewed the evolution company's applied scientific discipline in addition to fiscal records in addition to disapproval of for sure disbursements in addition to proposed licenses.
- The individual's involvement was non a stock equally the company's members did non portion inwards the profits inwards proportion to the release of shares, the individual's interests were non freely negotiable, in addition to the parties viewed the individual's investment equally a membership interest.
CONCLUSION
The judgment was affirmed.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law