Their efforts would contribute substantially to the success or failure of the venture. We cannot say that the residue of decision-making and responsibility left to the Seligsons under the franchise agreement was nominal. Therefore, we hold that the franchise agreement between Plum Tree and the Seligsons was not an investment contract and thus not a security within the meaning of the securities laws. Count IV of the defendants' counterclaim will be dismissed. One additional matter remains.
Judicial economy dictates that the request be granted.