Section 2
- Citation
- Section 2
- Parent Document
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 1975-10-06
Other Sections in This Document (195)
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
- Section 2
Full Text
1,093 charsThis test, in shorthand form, embodies the essential attributes that run through all of the Court's decisions defining a security. The touchstone is the presence of an investment in a common venture premised on a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others. By profits, the Court has meant either capital appreciation resulting from the development of the initial investment, as in Joiner, supra (sale of oil leases conditioned on promoters' agreement to drill exploratory well), or a participation in earnings resulting from the use of investors' funds, as in Tcherepnin v. Knight, supra (dividends on the investment based on savings and loan association's profits). In such cases the investor is "attracted solely by the prospects of a return" on his investment. Howey, supra, at 300. By contrast, when a purchaser is motivated by a *853 desire to use or consume the item purchased"to occupy the land or to develop it themselves," as the Howey Court put it, ibid.the securities laws do not apply.[17] See also Joiner, supra.[18]