|
requirement is extremely broad. Two Minnesota appellate cases have made it clear that
<br />the activities for which a broker's license is required are much broader than traditional
<br />brokerage services.
<br />In PEMS Co. Intl, Inc. v. Temp Air, Inc., the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a
<br />license is required for a "finder," which is described as:
<br />an intermediary who brings together parties for a business opportunity,
<br />and differs from a broker because the finder merely brings two parties
<br />together to make their own contract; a finder locates, introduces, and
<br />brings parties to a transaction together, while a broker does more,
<br />attempting to bring the parties to agreement.
<br />PEMS Co. Intl, Inc. v. Temp Air, Inc., No, A10 -834, 2011 WL 69098, at *4 (Minn. Ct.
<br />App. Jan. 11, 2011) (quoting 12 Am. Jur. 2d Brokers § 3 (West 2010)). In that case, a
<br />consulting company, PEMS, was hired to act as a "finder," or to identify and vet possible
<br />buyers of a company. Id. at *5. It also acted as a gate keeper between the owner and
<br />potential buyer, Id. The court held that, even though PEMS did not negotiate the actual
<br />sale of the business —as a traditional broker would do— PEMS's services still fell within
<br />the "broad range of conduct" for which a license is required. Id. at *6.
<br />Likewise, in Bridgeplace Associates, L.L.C. v. Lazniarz, the Minnesota Court of Appeals
<br />concluded that a license is also required for a developer who is being compensated for
<br />using his "good will" in a relationship to help effect a sale of land from one owner to
<br />another. Bridgeplace Associates, L.L. C, v. Lazniarz, No. A04 -2218, 2005 WL 1869657,
<br />at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2005). In that case, Lazniarz, a developer, was offered
<br />compensation for using his pre - existing relationship with a landowner to help effect a
<br />sale between the landowner and another developer. Id. at *3. Lazniarz had been
<br />negotiating a sale of land for his own development. Id. at *2. But when he was unable to
<br />find an investor, he ultimately entered into an agreement with another developer —the
<br />developer would pay Lazniarz if Lazniarz could convince the owner of the land to sell the
<br />land and the neighboring parking lot to the developer. Id. The court agreed with the
<br />district court that "Where is no doubt that [Lazniarz] was trying to effect a sale of the
<br />property ... so that [he] would realize the anticipated ... compensation." Id. at *13. It
<br />therefore concluded that Lazniarz was required to have a license. Id.
<br />Here, at a minimum, Lazan acted as a finder in exchange for promised commission.
<br />Lazan agreed to "solicit the interest of various prospective end - users[,] ... coordinate the
<br />efforts of all team members to provide a uniform front to the development community,
<br />and assist in the evaluation, consideration, negotiations, and deal structuring on any
<br />disposition of land within the development area." In exchange for these services,
<br />Landform was promised 2% of the "total capital cost of the end use of the parcel or
<br />property sold or developed." In other words, Lazan engaged in the exact same services as
<br />PEMS and Lazniarz, and like PEMS and Lazniarz, it was required to have a license to do
<br />so. See PEMS, 2011 WL 69098; Lazniarz, 2005 WL 1869657.
<br />4
<br />
|