Georgia Market Centers, Inc. v. Fortson
Decision Date | 04 December 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 25489,25489 |
Parties | , Blue Sky L. Rep. P 70,836 GEORGIA MARKET CENTERS, INC., et al., v. Ben W. FORTSON, J., Commissioner of Securities. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The Founder Purchase Contracts of the appellants are not securities within the meaning of the Georgia Securities Act.
Johnston & Shores, James L. Shores, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., Adams, O'Neal, Steele, Thornton, Hemingway & McKenney, H. T. O'Neal, Jr., Macon, for appellants.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Exec. Asst. Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton and Marion O. Gordon, Asst. Attys. Gen., Robert S. Reeves, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Ben W. Fortson, Jr., as the Commissioner of Securities of Georgia, brought an action against Georgia Market Centers, Inc., a Georgia corporation, Alabama Market Centers, Inc., an Alabama corporation, Continental Marketing Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation, having its principal place of business in Birmingham, Alabama, and two individuals, residents of Bibb County, Georgia, alleged to be agents of the corporate defendants. The Commissioner sought to enjoin the defendants from violating the Georgia Securities Act ( ) by selling or offering to sell Founder Purchase Contracts, alledged to be securities subject to regulation under the Securities Act.
The appeal is from an order which adjudged that the contracts are securities within the meaning of the Georgia law; and ordered that the appellant's motion for summary judgment be denied, the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment be granted, and the appellants be restrained and enjoined from issuing or selling the contracts.
The case was decided on interrogatories and affidavits. In the answer of the appellants to the interrogatories of the Commissioner it was stated that Continental Marketing Associates, Inc., owns all of the capital stock of the other two corporations. Continental denied that it was offering for sale any type of contract in the State of Georgia, describing its plan as follows:
The Master Founder Purchase Contract appearing in the record shows further terms of the contract as follows: The contract may not be transferred except by devise or inheritance, or by designation of a beneficiary by a Founder. A distributor earns a commission of 4% of the retail price of merchandise each time a card distributed by him is used to purchase merchandise at a market center, less certain amounts, and receives additional purchase cards and earns commissions when other distributors and supervisors are enrolled by him. A supervisor earns a commission of 5% of the retail purchase price of merchandise sold to holders of cards distributed by him, less certain amounts, receives additional cards and commissions for distributors and supervisors enrolled by him, and earns a commission of 25% of the commissions earned by the distributors within his sales organization, and other commissions on enrollments within his sales organization. Founders will be given reports on purchases made by holders of the cards distributed by them, and will pay their own expenses. Limitations are placed on the number of Founders which may be enrolled in any market center area. Within 30 days following the enrollment of 60% of the Founders designated for a proposed market center, Continental will acquire land upon which to construct a market center. Founders haave no voice in the management of Continental, and do not share in its profits, or otherwise benefit from its activities, other than earning commissions due the Founders.
The answer to the interrogatories propounded by the Commissioner to the appellants stated that Continental plans seven stores in Georgia, and that there are 1057 Founders enrolled in Albany, 3764 in Atlanta, 2297 in Augusta, 807 in Columbus, 1817 in Macon,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Brewer
...this rule was strictly applied not only by all federal courts, but also by several state courts. E.g., Georgia Market Centers, Inc. v. Fortson, 225 Ga. 854, 171 S.E.2d 620, 623-24 (1969); Gallion v. Alabama Market Centers, Inc., 213 So.2d 841, 845-46 (Ala.1968). In subsequent years, the How......
-
Hirsch v. DuPont
...literally, see, e. g., Gallion v. Alabama Market Centers, Inc., 282 Ala. 679, 213 So.2d 841 (1968); Georgia Market Centers, Inc. v. Fortson, 225 Ga. 854, 171 S.E.2d 620 (1969) (requirement that investors hand out "purchase authority" cards to potential customers in order to earn commissions......
-
Hicks v. State
...L.Ed. 1244 (1946). See Dunwoody Country Club, etc. v. Fortson, 243 Ga. 236, 238–239, 253 S.E.2d 700 (1979); Ga. Market Centers v. Fortson, 225 Ga. 854, 858, 171 S.E.2d 620 (1969). The Howey test “for whether a particular scheme is an investment contract ... look[s] to whether the scheme inv......
-
SECURITIES & EXCH. COM'N v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc.
...463 S.W.2d 205 (Tex. Cr.App.1970); Koscot Interplanetary, Inc. v. King, 452 S.W.2d 531 (Tex.Civ. App.1970); Georgia Mkt. Centers v. Fortson, 225 Ga. 854, 171 S.E.2d 620 (1969); Fidelity Credit Co. v. Bradford, 177 So.2d 635 (La.App.1965); Emery v. So-Soft of Ohio, Inc., 199 N.E.2d 120 (Ohio......
-
Definition of a Security: Risk Capital and Investment Contracts in Washington
...204, 209 (10th Cir. 1975); SEC v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 497 F.2d 473, 483 (5th Cir. 1974); Georgia Mkt. Centers, Inc. v. Fortson, 225 Ga. 854, 171 S.E.2d 620 (1969); State v. Hawaii Mkt. Center, Inc., 52 Hawaii 642, 485 P.2d 105 (1971). See generally D.M.C. of Colo., Inc. v. Hays, [1......