Wuliger v. Christie’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Therefore, in determining whether the Alpha viatical investment met the requirements under Howey , this Court is mindful of the Supreme Court’s admonition in Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332 , 88 S.Ct. 548 , 19 L.E.2d 564 (1967), which advocated a more expansive approach to interpreting the term “securities.” This Court believes such approach should be “flexible rather than a static principle” since it must be applied to all types of schemes aimed at investors. Howey , at 299, 66 S.Ct. at 1103 . It applying the “efforts of others” prong, this Court is of the view that the promoter’s selection of the vehicle, in this instance a viatical policy, is critical to the investor’s expectation of profit. Once the investor agreed to purchase a viatical settlement, Alpha, like Liberte, would match the viatical settlement in an insurance policy maintained by Alpha. There is nothing to suggest the investor was involved or instrumental in the selection of the appropriate viatical policy, relying on the promise of the agent, broker or Alpha that their money would be in a matched policy. Thus, in this Court’s view, it is not the date of the viator’s death which establishes the success of the investment but the selection by the promoter of the policy into which the investor’s money is placed, based upon its expertise in assessing the via-tor’s life expectancy and other variables, which drives the success of the investment. It is this conduct which constitutes efforts of others under the bro”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 363 F. Supp. 2d 917 - Wuliger v. Anstaett

2. “Recently, the same Ohio appellate court affirmed a decision from the Ohio Division of Securities finding the sale of viatical settlement contracts, sold prior to October 5, 2001, were securities. Rumbaugh v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 155 Ohio App.3d 288 , 800 N.E.2d 780 (2003). In its analysis the appellate court in Rumbaugh presented a more extensive analysis and gave deference to the position of the Ohio Division of Securities as contrasted to that of the Glick panel. Examining the circumstances of that case under the George factors, the panel in Rumbaugh held that a viatical investment which predated the amendment to the Ohio securities law was, nevertheless, a security in the absence of statutory language to the contrary. Moreover, the Rumbaugh court recognized the broad treatment and application afforded to Ohio’s Blue Sky Laws 2 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 363 F. Supp. 2d 917 - Wuliger v. Anstaett

3. “[I]n keeping with the ultimate goal of maximizing the estates for the benefit of the investors, [the Receivers] are empowered to represent and pursue the interests of the investors directly. The Receivers shall further continue to carry out their duties and obligations as set forth by previous and existing Order of the Court. Finally, the Receivers shall continue to coordinate their efforts with class counsel to recover, protect and preserve receivership assets.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 363 F. Supp. 2d 917 - Wuliger v. Anstaett