![Federal Trade Commission v. Tashman](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Federal Trade Commission v. Tashman](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Federal Trade Commission v. Tashman
318 F.3d 1273, 2003.C11.0000027
-
- USD 0.99
-
- USD 0.99
Descripción editorial
[PUBLISH] The investing public is concerned with two factors when confronted with a business opportunity: risk and reward. This point was underscored in a recent case in this Court. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. R.J. Fitzgerald & Co., 310 F.3d 1321(11th Cir. 2002). There, we held that the defendant made misleading statements when it spoke of ""unlimited profit potential"" and ways to ""limit risk"" while, in fact, 95% of the firm's customers lost money on its proposed investments. The representations created a picture of the risk-to-reward ratio that, when compared to reality, was heavily distorted.