I need in order Fact Issue Analysis Conclusion Case: Federal Trade commission vs
ID: 449448 • Letter: I
Question
I need in order Fact Issue Analysis Conclusion Case: Federal Trade commission vs Ken Roberts co. Link to article: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1004844.htmlWrite point to point Like this Fact • something.......,, •somethings......,, • somethings....
Issue • • I need in order Fact Issue Analysis Conclusion Case: Federal Trade commission vs Ken Roberts co. Link to article: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1004844.html
Write point to point Like this Fact • something.......,, •somethings......,, • somethings....
Issue • • Fact Issue Analysis Conclusion Case: Federal Trade commission vs Ken Roberts co. Link to article: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1004844.html
Write point to point Like this Fact • something.......,, •somethings......,, • somethings....
Issue • •
Explanation / Answer
Answer:
Fact of the case:
Ken Roberts Co., Ken Roberts Institute, Inc., United States Chart Co., and Ted Warren Corp. (“Roberts”) sell materials that claim to teach investors how to invest. When the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) began investigating online businesses for violations of the FTC Act, the FTC issued subpoenas directed to Roberts.
Facts to the case:
Fact-1 Roberts refused to respond to most of the requests. When a federaldistrict court ordered Roberts to comply, Roberts appealed, arguing that its companies were subject only to other federal agencies whose authority under, in part, the Investment Advisers Act (IAA) preemptedthe FTC’s authority to investigate Roberts’ practices.
Fact-2
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the lower court’s order. “In this case, while it may be true that the IAA and the FTC Act employ different verbal formulae to describe their antifraud standards, it hardly follows that they therefore impose conflicting or incompatible obligations.
Conclusion:
The proscriptions of the IAA are not diminished or confused merelybecause investment advisers must also avoid that which the FTC Act proscribes. Appellants can point to nothing in the background or history of the IAA that demonstrates (or even hints at) a congressionalintent to preempt the antifraud jurisdiction of the FTC over those covered by the new statute. Nor does the subsequent case law interpreting these statutes contain such declarations.”