accord United States v. Leonard, 529 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir.2008). Libaire has not alleged, much less adduced evidence sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to conclude, that his 2005 payment was motivated “solely by the prospects of a return on his investment.” United Hous. Found, v. Forman, 421 U.S. at 852, 95 S.Ct. 2051 (internal quotation marks omitted). To the contrary, the record evidence demonstrates that the 2005 payment was for annual membership dues, which were required by the corporate bylaws and afforded Libaire access to and use of the hunting preserve and related facilities maintained by North Fork. For these reasons, Libaire has failed as a matter of law to satisfy the reasonable expectation of profits element of a security. See, e.g., id. at 852-53, 95 S.Ct. 2051 (<HOLDING>). Because Libaire’s only qualifying purchase of
holding that puffery is not actionable under the securities laws holding that when a purchaser is motivated by a desire to use or consume the item purchased  the securities laws do not ap ply holding that evidence was sufficient to support convictions for willfully engaging in fraudulent conduct in connection with sale of securities because kjnowledge that the act violates the securities laws  is not relevant holding that provision of securities exchange act allowing injunction against one who is violating or will violate securities laws does not confer subject matter jurisdiction over dispute with individual not accused of such violations holding that claims alleging that the debtor fraudulently induced the claimants to retain securities they had purchased from the debtor arise from the purchase or sale of those securities for purposes of  510b