![Wang v. Gordon](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Wang v. Gordon](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Wang v. Gordon
C07.40368; 715 F.2d 1187 (1983)
-
- € 0,99
-
- € 0,99
Publisher Description
CUMMINGS, Chief Judge. The principal question before us is whether defendant Earl Dean Gordon was an investment adviser within the meaning of Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-1, et seq.). The district court held that he was not and therefore dismissed the action for failure to state a claim.