Securities & Exchange Commission v. Kramer

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that an introduction alone was not enough to qualify defendant as a broker under Section 15(a)
• stating that the factors to be given the most weight are “those factors typically associated with broker activity”
• identifying the factors listed in Hansen as the most frequently cited for determining whether a person qualifies as a broker
• listing \working as a consultant rather than an employee of the issuer\ as a fact supporting the determination that a party acted as an unregistered broker
• finding the argument that a deposition would intrude on the work product of SEC attorneys because the SEC lacked independent knowledge of the facts to lack merit
• identifying factors that courts have relied upon, articulated in both scholarly literature and judicial precedent, to determine whether someone meets the statutory broker definition under the Exchange Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).