Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TeamTi who wrote (56950)	5/30/2000 7:42:00 PM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 122087

Tokyo Joe seeks appeal on motion to dismiss WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) - Lawyers for the creator of the Tokyo Joe investment Web site, Yun Soo Oh Park, sought on Tuesday to appeal a federal judge's decision that let fraud charges stand against their clients. The lawyers asked Judge Charles Kocoras to allow an immediate appeal to his May 4 ruling that kept in play charges that Park, also known as Tokyo Joe, and his company fraudulently took $1.1 million in fees from members of his Web site. In exchange for the fees, the Securities and Exchange Commission accused him of disseminating investment advice, daily stock picks and access to a private chat room where he allegedly promoted stocks without disclosing his interests. Under U.S. law, the court can grant an immediate appeal in this situation if it involves a controlling question of law, if there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and if an immediate appeal could ultimately advance the termination of the litigation, Park's lawyers said in their motion. The motion claimed that the accusations are not covered by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and there are conflicting issues in the judge's ruling and case law that warrant review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. "The '40 Act was intended to regulate only those individuals who provide personalized investment advice and that defendants, therefore, are not subject to regulation under the '40 Act because they provide nonpersonalized investment advice over the Internet," the motion said. The motion obtained by Reuters was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Park's lawyers filed in March a motion to dismiss the SEC charges arguing that the literature disseminated had expressed personal ideas and opinions over the Internet and therefore did not constitute investment advice and thus Park owed no fiduciary duty to the subscriber. Judge Kocoras denied the motion earlier this month stating "initially that the defendants meet the basic definition of an 'investment adviser.'" A lawyer for the SEC said it would oppose the request and added there was no need for an immediate appeal. "If there is going to be appellete review it should come in the normal course, which is not ordinarily done until the case is resolved," said Thomas Szromba, the SEC's chief litigator for the case. "The judge considered all those arguments and rejected each one of them. We think he got it right and we think it's going to stand on appeal when the case is finally resolved." 18:38 05-30-00