AMR Realty Co. v. State, Bureau of Securities
| Decision Date | 29 September 1977 |
| Citation | 153 N.J.Super. 84,379 A.2d 59 |
| Parties | , Blue Sky L. Rep. P 71,376 AMR REALTY COMPANY and Harry Lipkin, Appellants, v. STATE of New Jersey, BUREAU OF SECURITIES, Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Peter J. Calderone, Perth Amboy, for appellants (Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Perth Amboy, attorneys; Norman Tanenbaum, Paterson, of counsel and on the brief).
Sherman T. Brewer, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent (William F. Hyland Atty. Gen., attorney; Erminie L. Conley, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel).
Before Judges MATTHEWS, SEIDMAN and HORN.
In an earlier opinion, reported at 149 N.J.Super. 329, 373 A.2d 1002 (1977), we held, contrary to the view adhered to by the Bureau of Securities, that in the light of United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837, 95 S.Ct. 2051, 44 L.Ed.2d 621 (1975), reh. den. 423 U.S. 884, 96 S.Ct. 157, 46 L.Ed.2d 115 (1975), shares in a housing cooperative which entitle the purchaser to lease an apartment in the cooperative and do not possess the common attributes of stock are not securities within the intendment of our Uniform Securities Law, N.J.S.A. 49:3-47 et seq. We remanded the matter for a further hearing because, while the hearing examiner had sought to distinguish the shares involved in this matter from those in Forman, we found no support in the record for his findings. Accordingly, we directed the Bureau Chief, upon full presentation of all available data, to make supplemental findings and conclusions which would contain a reasoned explanation of why the shares here in question were (or were not, as the case may be) securities under the Uniform Securities Law, applying the principles enunciated in Forman and followed in Grenader v. Spitz, 537 F.2d 612 (2 Cir. 1976), cert. den. 429 U.S. 1009, 97 S.Ct. 541, 50 L.Ed.2d 619 (1976). Because of the remand, we expressed no opinion on the issue raised by appellants respecting the excessiveness of the penalties imposed.
In compliance with our direction, a further hearing was held, leading to a determination by the Bureau Chief that the cooperative interests involved in this case did not constitute securities under N.J.S.A. 49:3-27 or 49:3-49(m).
Appellants state in a supplemental letter brief on remand that they are "no longer interested in pursuing any further legal proceedings in this matter and that the issues in this case as they relate to (them) * * * are, in effect, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Presten v. Sailer
...A.2d 1072 (App.Div.1985); AMR Realty Co. v. State, 149 N.J.Super. 329, 334-335, 373 A.2d 1002 (App.Div.1977), app. dism. 153 N.J.Super. 84, 379 A.2d 59 (App.Div.1977). We thus consider whether the ownership of shares in a cooperative constitutes holding an "interest in" or "concerning" real......
-
Commodity Futures Trading Com'n v. American Metals
...or a third party." AMR Realty Corp. v. State Bureau of Securities, 149 N.J.Super. 329, 373 A.2d 1002, appeal after remand 153 N.J.Super. 84, 379 A.2d 59 (1977) citing Securities and Exchange Commission v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 66 S.Ct. 1100, 90 L.Ed. 1244 (1946). Similarly, federal ......
-
Bonner Properties, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Franklin Tp.
...see N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.7 c; AMR Realty Co. v. State, 149 N.J.Super. 329, 334, 373 A.2d 1002 (App.Div.1977), app. dism. 153 N.J.Super. 84, 379 A.2d 59 (1977); or horizontal property regime, see N.J.S.A. 46:8A-6, the aforementioned statutes do not apply to In the view of Quail Brook the lacuna......
-
Spencer Gifts, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation
...do so. Similarly, in AMR Realty Co. v. Securities Bureau, 149 N.J.Super. 329, 373 A.2d 1002 (1977), app. dism. after remand, 153 N.J.Super. 84, 379 A.2d 59 (1977), the Appellate . . Division refused to follow the Bureau of Securities' interpretation of the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law,......