Laserfiche WebLink
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, v. SECURITY RARE COIN & BULLIO... Page 2 of 6 <br /> . FTC v. Singer, Inc. <br /> 1978 <br /> . Nelson v. Serwold <br /> 1960 <br /> . Mitchell v. Robert De Mario Jewelrv <br /> 1946 <br /> • Porter v. Wa_r_ner Holding Co• <br /> (Only cases currently available in AltLaw are listed.) <br /> Robert Brunig, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellants. <br /> Melvin Orlans, F.T.C., Washington, D.C., for appellee. <br /> Before LAY, Chief Judge, HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. <br /> WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. <br /> 1 <br /> Security Rare Coin & Bullion Corporation, Central Coin Exchange, Inc., Angela Corporation, and William Ulrich <br /> (collectively, Security Coin), entities that fraudulently marketed rare coins to consumers for investment purposes, <br /> appeal from the district court's1 order that permanently enjoined Security Coin from making misrepresentations <br /> concerning the value of coins offered for sale and its buy-back policy concerning those coins, and from the order <br /> granting the monetary equivalent of rescission for customers that Security Coin deceived. We affirm. <br /> I. <br /> 2 <br /> Security Coin was in the business of selling rare coins, a highly technical and specialized commodity unfamiliar to <br /> most consumers. Security Coin marketed foreign and domestic coins through telephone solicitation, direct mail, <br /> and advertisements in its own financial publications and in national newspapers. Security Coin represented its <br /> coins as excellent low-risk investments sold at or near market value with superior liquidity and profit potential. <br /> Security Coin sought to overcome consumer resistance and concern about risk by heavily promoting the <br /> existence of a "buy-back" policy, under which it would repurchase coins at a discount from its current sales prices. <br /> These promotions resulted in substantial sales of coins. <br /> 3 <br /> Security Coin graded the value of its own coins and arbitrarily marked up the price of the coins sold to consumers <br /> two or three times the wholesale price. Because the coins would have to double or triple in value before any gain <br /> could be realized, Security Coin's representations as to their investment value were fraudulent. <br /> 4 <br /> http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/477126 12/5/2008 <br />