Securities and Exchange Commission v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
497 F.2d 473 (1974)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Koscot Interplanetary, Inc. (Koscot) (defendant) operated a pyramid scheme. At the bottom, beauty advisors sold cosmetics. Beauty advisors could pay $1,000 to become supervisors and $5,000 to become distributors, receiving the cosmetics at greater discount and selling them to supervisors. Scheme participants who recruited others to join the scheme and move up the ranks received financial compensation. Consequently, many distributors were attracted to the position because of the money to be earned by high-pressure recruiting. Recruiters solicited prospects to attend opportunity meetings, but recruitment guidelines instructed not to provide much information beforehand. Further, the meetings involved a script preprepared by Koscot. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (plaintiff) sued Koscot, alleging, among other things, that the recruitment part of Koscot’s business qualified as an investment contract, making it a security. The SEC then argued that Koscot failed to comply with the registration requirement of the Securities Act of 1933 and violated the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Koscot disagreed, arguing that its scheme did not involve the sale of a security and was not subject to the acts. The district court held in Koscot’s favor. The SEC appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gewin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.