History
  • No items yet
midpage
Rome v. Mandel
2016 COA 192M
Colo. Ct. App.
2016
Read the full case

Background

  • Marc Mandel and Wall Street Radio, Inc. (WSR) operated investment-related services (newsletter, webinars, radio) and two paid membership plans: Master Membership (includes "crystal ball" direct Q&A) and Lead Trader Membership (auto-trading to mirror Mandel's trades through Ditto Trade).
  • Auto-trading: followers link separate brokerage accounts to a lead-trader account so broker-dealer executes identical trades automatically; Ditto Trade required lead traders to attest they were registered or exempt.
  • Mandel was never licensed in Colorado as an investment adviser; a prior 2008 administrative consent order denied his application and barred reapplication and certain associations for ten years due to disclosure failures.
  • The Colorado Securities Commissioner sued (CSA §§ 11-51-101 to -908), alleging unlicensed practice: providing direct personalized advice via crystal ball readings and effectively exercising discretionary trading (lead trader/auto-trading).
  • Trial court granted summary judgment for the Commissioner, ordered $80,000 restitution ($1,000 per Lead Trader subscriber) and entered a permanent injunction broadly restricting defendants’ association with securities professionals; the court found defendants did not qualify for the publishers/newsletter exclusion.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether acting as a lead trader on an auto-trading platform makes one an "investment adviser" requiring licensure under the CSA Commissioner: lead-trader role gives effective investment discretion and personalized advice to followers, bringing defendants within CSA definitions Defendants: lead-trader activity and newsletter fall within publishers/newsletter exclusion (non-personalized press) Held: Yes. Lead-trader service is personalized (not bona fide, regular publication) and required licensure.
Whether crystal ball direct Q&A is covered by the publishers exclusion / requires license Commissioner: direct, subscriber-specific responses are personalized advice outside the exclusion Defendants: crystal ball readings are part of publisher activities/excluded press Held: Crystal ball readings are personalized, market-timed responses and not "regular" publications; licensure required.
Whether requiring licensure here violates the First Amendment Commissioner: CSA construed consistent with Lowe; publishers exclusion preserves press protections; applying CSA to personalized advice is constitutional Defendants: statutory application chills press and violates First Amendment under Lowe and related authority Held: No constitutional violation — application consistent with Lowe; regulating personalized investment advice is permissible.
Whether Commissioner may obtain restitution (subscribers’ fees) and scope of injunction Commissioner: may seek restitution/disgorgement under CSA and equitable restitution; sought $1,000 per Lead Trader subscriber under §11‑51‑604(2.6) Defendants: relief statutory language and injunction overly broad/vague and exceeds authority; First Amendment and vagueness concerns Held: Restitution affirmed on equitable restitution grounds ($80,000). Injunction partly vacated: association ban (Part 1(A)) vacated for vagueness and must be narrowed/defined; "obey-the-law" provision (Part 1(B)) reversed.

Key Cases Cited

  • Lowe v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 472 U.S. 181 (interpreting publishers exclusion in Advisers Act to avoid First Amendment problems)
  • Terry’s Tips, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 409 F. Supp. 2d 526 (D. Vt. 2006) (auto‑trading lead‑trader activity meets investment adviser definition)
  • SEC v. Park, 99 F. Supp. 2d 889 (statutory/exclusion analysis for publications vs. personalized advice)
  • Zeke Coffee, Inc. v. Pappas‑Alstad P’ship, 370 P.3d 261 (Colo. App. 2015) (standards for equitable restitution/remedies)
  • United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316 (1961) (broad equitable remedial authority and injunction formulation)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Rome v. Mandel
Court Name: Colorado Court of Appeals
Date Published: Dec 29, 2016
Citations: 2016 COA 192M; 405 P.3d 387; 2016 COA 192; 2016 Colo. App. LEXIS 1867; Court of Appeals No. 15CA2033
Docket Number: Court of Appeals No. 15CA2033
Court Abbreviation: Colo. Ct. App.
Log In
    Rome v. Mandel, 2016 COA 192M