United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Gun Soo Oh Park
99 F. Supp. 2d 889, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6325, 2000 WL 559225 (2000)
Rule of Law:
An internet subscription service providing stock tips via email and chat rooms may qualify as an 'investment adviser' rather than a publisher if the advice is not disinterested and is timed to specific market activity; furthermore, a person who encourages investors to purchase securities for a fee while secretly selling their own position in those securities (scalping) assumes a duty to disclose this conflict of interest under securities fraud laws.
Facts:
- Yun Soo Oh Park, operating as 'Tokyo Joe,' established a corporation and a website called 'Tokyo Joe's' where he offered stock advice.
- Park charged subscribers fees ranging from $29 to $299 (later up to $200/month) for access to exclusive emails and a members-only chat room.
- The membership base grew from roughly 200 to 3,800 subscribers, generating over $1.1 million in fees.
- Park communicated stock picks, trading tips, and market reactions to members via direct emails and the interactive chat room.
- Park allegedly engaged in 'scalping': he would purchase shares of a stock, recommend that members buy that stock to inflate the price, and then immediately sell his shares for a profit.
- While selling his own shares, Park frequently advised members to hold the stock for target prices he did not intend to wait for.
- Park allegedly posted false testimonials and misleading performance results to recruit new members.
- Park allegedly accepted compensation from companies to 'tout' their stock without disclosing this compensation to his subscribers.
Procedural Posture:
- The SEC filed a four-count civil complaint against Park and his corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act, the Securities Act, and the Investment Advisers Act.
- The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim) and 9(b) (failure to plead fraud with particularity).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the operator of a fee-based internet website providing stock picks via emails and chat rooms qualify as an 'investment adviser' subject to the Investment Advisers Act rather than an exempt publisher, and does such an operator have a legal duty to disclose a 'scalping' scheme to subscribers under Rule 10b-5?
Opinions:
Majority - District Judge Kocoras
Yes, an internet stock-picking service constitutes an 'investment adviser' when its activities do not meet the 'bona fide' and 'regular circulation' requirements of the publisher's exclusion, and engaging in scalping creates a duty to disclose. The court reasoned that under the Supreme Court's decision in Lowe v. SEC, the definition of 'investment adviser' allows for an exclusion for 'bona fide' publications of 'general and regular circulation.' Park's operation potentially failed the 'bona fide' requirement because the content was allegedly not disinterested commentary but rather promotional material and self-interested 'touting.' It also potentially failed the 'general and regular' requirement because the advice was timed to specific market activity to facilitate Park's scalping scheme rather than published on a rigid schedule. Furthermore, the interactive nature of emails and chat rooms suggested the advice was more 'personalized' than a standard newsletter. Regarding the fraud claims under Rule 10b-5, the court held that while a general duty to disclose usually requires a fiduciary relationship, a defendant assumes a duty to disclose when they occupy a position of trust—evidenced by subscribers paying fees—and actively encourage purchases while secretly selling (scalping). The court rejected First Amendment arguments, noting that fraudulent speech is not protected and that if Park is an investment adviser, he is subject to professional regulation.
Analysis:
This case is significant because it adapted pre-internet securities precedents (like Lowe) to the digital age, specifically addressing how emails and chat rooms function under the Investment Advisers Act. It clarified that the 'Publisher's Exclusion' is not a blanket shield for anyone publishing online; courts will look at whether the publication is 'bona fide' (disinterested) and 'regular.' If an online influencer uses their platform for 'scalping' (pumping and dumping), the court established that they cannot hide behind the lack of a traditional fiduciary duty. By accepting fees and creating a relationship of trust, they assume a duty to disclose their trading conflicts to subscribers. This creates a legal basis for the SEC to pursue online financial influencers who manipulate markets.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Gun Soo Oh Park (2000)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"