For purposes of this section, the following persons shall not be deemed to have effected, participated in, or aided the seller in any way in making, a sale or contract of sale in violation of sections 1707.01 to 1707.50 of the Revised Code:
(A) Any attorney, accountant, or engineer whose performance is incidental to the practice of the person's profession;
(B) Any person, other than an investment adviser, investment adviser representative, bureau of workers' compensation chief investment officer, or state retirement system investment officer, who brings any issuer together with any potential investor, without receiving, directly or indirectly, a commission, fee, or other remuneration based on the sale of any securities by the issuer to the investor. Remuneration received by the person solely for the purpose of offsetting the reasonable out-of-pocket costs incurred by the person shall not be deemed a commission, fee, or other remuneration.
Any person claiming exemption under this division for a publicly advertised meeting shall file a notice with the division of securities indicating an intent to cause or hold such a meeting at least twenty-one days prior to the meeting. The division may, upon receipt of such notice, issue an order denying the availability of an exemption under this division not more than fourteen days after receipt of the notice based on a finding that the applicant is not entitled to the exemption. Notwithstanding the notice described in this section, a failure to file the notice does not create a presumption that a person was participating in or aiding in the making of a sale or contract of sale in violation of this chapter.
(C) Any person whom the division exempts from this provision by rule.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1988–2010 · leading case: Perkowski v. Megas Corp., 563 N.E.2d 378 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
Perkowski v. Megas Corp., 563 N.E.2d 378 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 11דAs a preliminary matter, this court affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment as to the four contracts made before April 11, 1985, the effective date of R.C. 1707.431, the statute under which Polster seeks exemption.”
Boland v. Hammond, 759 N.E.2d 789 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4ד431(B), “Any person, other than an investment advisor or an investment advisor representative, who brings any issuer together with any potential investor, without receiving, directly or indirectly, a commission, fee, or other remuneration based on the sale of any securities by…”
Johnson v. Church of the Open Door, 902 N.E.2d 1002 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2ד43(A) provides that “every person that has participated in or aided the seller [of an unregistered security] in any way * * * [is] jointly and severally liable to the purchaser * * A person who has not received remuneration based on the sale, however, “shall not be deemed to…”
Riedel v. Acutote of Colorado, 773 F. Supp. 1055 (S.D. Ohio 1991). · cites it 4דsection 1707.431(A) (exempting “[a]ny attorney .”
McGraw v. Liberty Airlines, Inc. (In Re Bell & Beckwith), 89 B.R. 632 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1988). · cites it 2דSection 1707.431(A) states that an attorney, accountant, or engineer, whose performance in a transaction is incidental to the practice of their profession, will not be deemed to have “participated” because of that activity.”
Gerlach v. Wergowski, 584 N.E.2d 1220 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 5דAppellees each decided to invest $30,000 in Starburst and $2,500 in Hospitality Pass.”
Kelley v. Ferraro, 188 Ohio App. 3d 734 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “43(B) and that the transaction was exempt from Ohio’s securities regulations under R.C. 1707.431(B). He also asserted that Michael Kelley was aware prior to his investment in the Las Vegas Gladiators that he would be responsible for additional cash contributions, and that in…”
Sorenson v. Tenuta, 577 N.E.2d 408 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2דWhile R.C. 1707.431 later provides exemptions, which may or may not have been applicable herein, it did not apply at the time of the present transaction and cannot be used.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1707.431(A): 2 cases
Riedel v. Acutote of Colorado, 773 F. Supp. 1055 (S.D. Ohio 1991). “section 1707.431(A) (exempting “[a]ny attorney .”
McGraw v. Liberty Airlines, Inc. (In Re Bell & Beckwith), 89 B.R. 632 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1988). “Section 1707.431(A) states that an attorney, accountant, or engineer, whose performance in a transaction is incidental to the practice of their profession, will not be deemed to have “participated” because of that activity.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1707.431(B): 5 cases
Johnson v. Church of the Open Door, 902 N.E.2d 1002 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). “43(A) provides that “every person that has participated in or aided the seller [of an unregistered security] in any way * * * [is] jointly and severally liable to the purchaser * * A person who has not received remuneration based on the sale, however, “shall not be deemed to…”
Perkowski v. Megas Corp., 563 N.E.2d 378 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). “As a preliminary matter, this court affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment as to the four contracts made before April 11, 1985, the effective date of R.C. 1707.431, the statute under which Polster seeks exemption.”
Kelley v. Ferraro, 188 Ohio App. 3d 734 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “43(B) and that the transaction was exempt from Ohio’s securities regulations under R.C. 1707.431(B). He also asserted that Michael Kelley was aware prior to his investment in the Las Vegas Gladiators that he would be responsible for additional cash contributions, and that in…”
Boland v. Hammond, 759 N.E.2d 789 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “431(B), “Any person, other than an investment advisor or an investment advisor representative, who brings any issuer together with any potential investor, without receiving, directly or indirectly, a commission, fee, or other remuneration based on the sale of any securities by…”
Sorenson v. Tenuta, 577 N.E.2d 408 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “While R.C. 1707.431 later provides exemptions, which may or may not have been applicable herein, it did not apply at the time of the present transaction and cannot be used.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.