Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,248 Stephen J. Pollack v. Laidlaw Holdings, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the IAA was “intended to complement, rather than substitute for, the 1933 and 1934 Acts” (emphasis added)
• holding that false promises that investments are guaranteed and secured do not provide risk-mitigation sufficient to avoid application of the securities laws
• concluding that “the broad-based, unrestricted sales to the general investing public alleged in the complaint support[ed] a finding that these instruments are within the scope of the federal securities laws”
• finding that a note was a security, in part, because of “broad-based, unrestricted sales to the general investing public
• observing that it was “not . . . a close question” that the buyers of bonds had an investment motivation where they would earn “a fixed rate of return in the form of interest” on the bonds
• declining to decide whether state law can be the source of such alternative protection under Reves

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).