BULLETIN: U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer has rejected AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin’s sweeping claim that the indictment against him should be dismissed because ASD met none of the three prongs of the “Howey Test” under federal securities laws and a Supreme Court precedent that determines what constitutes an “investment contract.”
Collyer’s refusal to dismiss the indictment may deal a crushing blow to autosurf operators monitoring the ASD case from the murkiest corners of the Internet and hoping that the Howey Test somehow could provide a legal cover to line up suckers and steal millions of dollars from them.
In a pointed, 15-page memo, Collyer walked through all of Bowdoin’s Howey challenges, concluding that a jury reasonably could find that ASD met all three prongs. Specifically, the judge ruled that a jury could find that ASD members were “investing,” that there was a “pooling of investment funds, shared profits, and shared losses” and that “ASD members were paid based on the efforts of others.”
Citing evidence that some ASD members apparently refuse to believe exists despite the fact it is part of the public record of the case, Collyer ruled that part of ASD’s current defense was at odds with statements that appeared on ASD’s own website and in offering materials.
“Based on the allegations set forth in the Indictment, the evidence already before the Court, and the government’s proffers of expected trial evidence, the Court finds that the allegations, if proven, would be sufficient to permit a jury to find that ASD members were investing,” Collyer ruled.
Dozens of ASD members claimed in pro se court filings in 2009 — when the case was in civil court — that “NO EVIDENCE” existed against ASD.
Collyer’s ruling also addressed the subject of payments to members, which ASD called “rebates.”
“Contrary to Mr. Bowdoin’s characterization of the ASD business, ASD’s promise to pay back 125% of the value paid to ASD by an advertiser strongly indicates that the joining of ASD via the purchase of an ‘advertisement’ on the rotator in fact constituted an ‘investment for a financial return,” Collyer ruled.
And, Collyer noted, “these alleged facts smack of an investment.
“Indeed,” she continued, “the government proffers that Mr. Bowdoin awarded ad packages to employees in the way that an employer awards bonuses. It argues that Mr. Bowdoin and the employees of AS[D] treated the ‘ad packages’ as shares from which they could expect to earn returns.”
Collyer cited passages allegedly spoken by Bowdoin himself in offering materials. Meanwhile, she rejected Bowdoin’s claim that the government’s assertion that he was selling “investment contracts” was unconstitutionally vague.
“Mr. Bowdoin’s attack on the facial vagueness of the term ‘investment contract’ as a type of security covered by the Securities Act is without merit,” she ruled. She noted that, despite the fact Bowdoin had argued that ASD met none of the Howey prongs, “Bowdoin did not provide evidence through affidavits or otherwise as to how ASD actually operated — or any other basis — from which the Court could draw legal conclusions on whether ASD operations met the Howey test.”
The prosecution, on the other hand, had supplied actual evidence, had entered it in the record of the case and provided a basis for the court to make preliminary determinations about what a jury potentially could find after considering the evidence, according to the ruling.
Bowdoin’s own words from promos appeared in the ruling. Although he argued to Collyer earlier this year that money sent in by members did not constitute an investment, “[d]irect statements from ASD seemingly contradict this defense,” the judge ruled.
Citing evidence entered by the government, Collyer pointed to a passage on ASD’s own website that said, “[a]dvertisers will be paid rebates until they receive 125% of their ad packages.”
And Collyer noted there is both written and recorded evidence, including at least one email attributed to Bowdoin is which he allgedly wrote, “[l]et’s don’t [sic] use the words investment and returns. Instead, lets [sic] use ad sales and surfing commissions. The Attorney Generals in the U.S. don’t like for us to use these words in our program.”
Prosecutors have argued for nearly three years that ASD engaged in wordplay to skirt securities laws and that Bowdoin was well aware that he was selling securities.
Bowdoin’s “motion to dismiss the Indictment ignores the teaching of the Supreme Court — that courts should examine the substance, not form, of a transaction and evaluate its economic reality,” Collyer ruled.
Read the ruling.
