United States v. Jamie Matlick Farris, United States of America v. Marcus Theodore Baumann, United States of America v. Carl Richard Tamuty

How courts have described this case

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

• distinguishing the 17 case from Amfac Mortg. Corp. v. Ariz. Mall of Tempe, Inc., 583 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 18 1978) in part on the fact that in Amfac the promissory note was offered to one 19 sophisticated investor only
• as in Carman, promoter not only agreed to act as collection service on notes, but also promised to pay off principal in cash at noteholder’s option in event of default
• “[T]he reckless disregard for truth or falsity is suffi- cient to sustain a finding of securities fraud.”
• “It is too late in the day more than 32 years after the Supreme Court’s decision in [Howey] to say that the term ‘security’ is impermissibly vague.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).