Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Fango, LLC and Imani Butler Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
fango-llc-and-imani-butler
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment Law
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving Fango, LLC and Imani Butler

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable

Fango, LLC and Imani Butler vs. Douglas M. Jacoby and John R. Ashcroft

Appellant

Fango, LLC and Imani Butler appealed a circuit court judgment that affirmed the Commissioner of Securities' finding that they committed three violations of the Missouri Uniform Securities Act. The violations stemmed from misrepresentations to an investor regarding the use of investment funds, the investor's promised role as CFO, and the expected return on investment. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, concluding that the administrative petition was not time-barred, the investment constituted a security, and the Commissioner's findings of fraud were supported by competent and substantial evidence.