U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Big Apple Consulting USA, 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 “[b]ecause the definition of dealers in [the Securities Act] and [the Exchange Act] are very similar, the district court’s analysis was sound”
• holding that the defendants forfeited arguments when the defendants “failed to flesh out [the] arguments, except by referring to them in a footnote” (citing Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014))
• explaining that a litigant's \fleeting footnote explaining\ an argument to the district court \in one sentence ... is insufficient to properly assert a claim on appeal\
• noting that the standard set forth in Janus does not apply to claims under § 17(a) of the Securities Act
• explaining that the failure to flesh out arguments except by referring to them in a footnote is insufficient to properly assert a claim on appeal
• explaining that a litigant’s “fleeting footnote explaining” an argument to the district court “in one sentence . . . is insufficient to properly assert a claim on appeal”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).