Robinson v. Glynn
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
349 F.3d 166 (2003)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Thomas Glynn (defendant) was the chairman of GeoPhone Company, LLC (GeoPhone). James Robinson (plaintiff) agreed to loan Glynn $1 million so that Glynn could test a technology he had developed called Convolutional Ambiguity Multiple Access (CAMA). Robinson agreed to a letter of intent to invest an additional $24 million if the CAMA technology worked in the field test. Glynn then performed the field test without the CAMA technology, and told Robinson that the test had been a success. Robinson then invested the rest of the money according to the letter of intent. Under the ensuing contract, Robinson appointed two members of the GeoPhone board and assumed one of the seats himself, in addition to assuming the role of treasurer. Eventually, Robinson found out that the CAMA technology had not been used in the initial test and he filed suit, alleging that Glynn had committed federal securities fraud, in that Robinson’s interest in GeoPhone was an investment contract, stock, or both. The district court dismissed the claim on the grounds that Robinson’s membership interest in GeoPhone did not constitute a “security” under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which defines “security” as any note, stock, security future, bond, debenture, investment contract, or any instrument or interest commonly known as a security. Robinson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilkinson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
