In the Matter of Forcerank L.L.C.
Securities and Exchange Commission
Securities Act Rel. No. 10232 (2016)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
Forcerank L.L.C. (defendant) operated mobile-phone games in which players competed against each other to predict the order in which 10 securities would perform. Players paid an entry fee to play in the game, and they received points based on the accuracy of their predictions. The players with the most points won cash prizes. Forcerank kept 10 percent of the entry fees. Forcerank also collected data from the players regarding their opinions on the performance of various securities and intended to sell the data to institutional investors. Forcerank marketed the game through press releases, podcasts, social media, and other methods. The advertising often described Forcerank as daily fantasy sports for stocks. There were no restrictions on player eligibility, and Forcerank made no inquiries regarding their assets. The contests did not entail any registration statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and they were not effectuated through any national securities exchange. The SEC instituted a cease-and-desist proceeding against Forcerank based on allegations that Forcerank violated the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.