Court Opinion

ID: 9845161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:16:03.565057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:53.048388
License: Public Domain

CARTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
Irrespective of the frauds that defendant may have perpetrated or the crimes he may be guilty of, he is not guilty of securities fraud under the definition of “security” that this court has fashioned. Under that definition, it is necessary that the arrangement or scheme that the State claims to be a security evidence a reasonable expectation of profit “to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others.”
The majority’s conclusion that the backers’ anticipated profits were to be derived from the managerial efforts of Tyler’s National Cordless Phone Privacy Advocacy Group is not sustainable. It appears without dispute that any anticipated profits from the transactions upon which the present prosecution is based would be entirely dependent on the amount to be recovered in a proposed “reinstated” lawsuit against Scott County. Given the theory of the proposed litigation, such recovery, if realized, would be compensation for provable injury sustained by the plaintiff as a result of alleged violations of constitu*558tional rights by law enforcement officials. Those alleged violations occurred prior to the time that Tyler’s advocacy group was formed. The recovery would simply be the product of applying the law to events that antedated the formation of that organization.