In Matek v. Murat, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the question of whether an interest in a general partnership amounts to a "security" should be determined only the legal effect of the agreement between the parties. The decision came at a time when the definition of "security" was expanding to include diverse economic entities. The effect of the decision was to consolidate, rather than expand, the scope of security regulation. This Note analyzes Matek in light of previous decisions from other circuits. The analysis applauds the Matek decision for effectively reducing unwarranted claims, and yet remaining faithful to the purpose behind securities regulation.
Jeffrey D. Winter,
Matek v. Murat: Back to Terms of Agreement,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol26/iss3/9