SEC CDO Case No. 03-21-070In the Matter of: LOKAL PLATE CORPORATIONENFORCEMENT AND INVESTOR PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, Respondent

Securities and Exchange Commission COMMISSION EN BANC Republic of the Philippines Department of Financi

In the matter of:

LOKAL.PLATE CORPORATION SEC Company Reg. No. CS202005888

Promulgated: 05 January 2023 SEC CDO Case No. 03-21-070

ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTOR PROTECTION (EIPD) DEPARTMENT Movant. X

RESOLUTION

22 March 2021 ("Motion to Lift") filed by Lokal.Plate Corporation ("Lokal.Plate"), through counsel, praying that the Commission issue an Order lifting the Cease and Desist Order dated 09 March 2021(the "Assailed CDO"), the dispositive portion of which reads, in part, thus: For consideration is the Motion to Lift Cease and Desist Order dated

CORPORATION, its owner and CEO BRIAN DY SO, directors, NATHANIEL P. RILE and NINAY P. RILE, representatives, salesmen, solicitors, agents, uplines, enablers, influencers, behalf, are hereby directed to IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND and approved by this Commission, and the corresponding license and/or permit to offer/sell securities are issued. stockholders and officers, CMO SIMON MIGUEL C. DAVID, COO LINUS EMMANUEL V. TAA, CFO CHRISTIAN such as SHAIRA SILVESTRE, and any and all persons, conduit entities and subsidiaries claiming and acting for and on its DESIST from further engaging in, promoting and facilitating investment contracts and/or other activities/transactions, until the requisite registration statements are duly filed with selling and/or offering for sale securities in the form on "WHEREFORE, NATHANIEL C.MAGUNDAYAO, premises considered, Chairman RALPH LOKAL.PLATE

LOKAL.PLATE CORPORATION SEC CDO Case No.03-21- 070 IN THE MATTER OF Page Z of 13 Resolution

under its/their custody, to forestall grave damage and the assets for the benefit of the investors." representatives, promoters, and all persons, conduit entities, real or personal, including but not limited to bank deposits, of which the named persons herein may have any interest, claim or participation whatsoever, directly or indirectly prejudice to all concerned and to ensure the preservation of Finally, the Commission hereby PROHIBITS Lokal.Plate, its partners, operators, directors, officers, salesmen agents, and subsidiaries claiming and acting for and on its behalf from transacting any business involving the funds covered by this CDO in its depository banks, and from transferring disposing, or conveying in any manner, all assets, properties,

Lokal.Plate. through the Office of the General Counsel, a Motion for Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order (the "Motion for Issuance of CDO") against On 04 March 2021, the EIPD filed before the Commission En Banc,

CDO after finding Lokal.Plate is engaged in the unauthorized sale and/or offer of securities in the form of investment contracts. On 09 March 2021, the Commission En Banc issued the Assailed

the corporation is taking investment activities from the public, invoking Section 1 Rule 27 of the 1997 Rules of Court. Documents, praying that an Order be issued requiring the EIPD to produce the reports and complaints it supposedly received showing that On 23 March 2021, Lokal.Plate filed a Motion for Production of

it is not engaged in the business of manufacturing food products.4 Finally, materials that guarantees or ensures profit for any investment.3 Moreover, Lokal.Plate also maintained that it is not required to secure a License to Operate from the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) since franchise agreements is authorized under its Amended Articles of Incorporation ("Amended AoI") which was approved by the Commission, and such franchise agreements are necessary to enable the franchisees to enjoy the benefits and privileges spelled out therein.2 Lokal.Plate further claimed that it has not falsely or deceptively advertised its business, and argued that there is nothing in its advertising In its Motion to Lift, Lokal.Plate maintained that the execution of

1 Motion to Lift Cease and Desist Order. Par. 5 2 Ibid. Par. 6 4 Ibid. Par. 19 3 Ibid. Par. 12

LOKAL.PLATE CORPORATION SEC CDO Case No.03-21- 070 INTUEMATTEDOL Page 3 of 13 Resolution

presumed but must be established by clear, sufficient, positive, and Lokal.Plate argued that the National Bureau of Investigation ("NBI") Letter is not sufficient to prove the commission of fraud, which is never convincing evidence.

additional evidence consisting of advertising materials and online posts which showed that with a PhP12,888.00 investment, a monthly earning ranging from PhP40,000.00 to PhP80,000.00, plus bonuses is guaranteed.7 conduct of its investigation showed that Lokal.Plate is engaged in the cannot be sold or offered to the public in the absence of the required secondary license from the Commission. Finally, the EIPD belied the claim of Lokal.Plate that it did not guarantee profits by presenting Motion to Lift, where it averred that the evidence it obtained from the that the online franchising scheme of Lokal.Plate, which has shown signs of being a franchise scam,6 partakes of the nature of securities which sale/offer of securities in the form of an investment contract,s which the latter failed to controvert in its Motion to Lift. Further, the EIPD argued On 14 April 2021, the EIPD filed its Comment/0pposition to the

of securities, as the elements of the Howey Tests are absent. Lokal.Plate specifically claimed that (a) there is no investment of money from the reiterated its previous arguments that it is not engaged in the sale or offer public; (b) there is no pooling of resources; (c) there is no promise of guaranteed profits; (d) the franchisees earn income thru their own efforts; (e) it is not a distributor, repacker, seller or trader of food; and (f) the EIPD's cited online articles are not known legal authorities, and renders the same hearsay evidence. On 21 April 2021, Lokal.Plate filed its Reply (Rejoinder), where it

that in its review of the AFS of Lokal.Plate, it was discovered that there is no franchising to speak of. Reply (Rejoinder), where it reiterated its previous arguments and added In its Comment/Opposition dated 14 May 2021 to Lokal.Plate's

reason to disturb or reconsider the Assailed CDO. evidence presented by the parties, the Commission finds no cogent After a careful consideration of the arguments and the pieces of

securities as follows: Section 3.1 of the Securities Regulation Code (SRC) defines

5 Comment/Opposition. Pars. 4, 5, 8 and 9 7 [bid. Par. 33 6 Id. Pars. 25 to 29

LOKAL.PLATE CORPORATION SEC CD0 Case No.03-21- 070 IN THE MATTER OF:

Page 4 of 13 Resolution

whether written or electronic in character. It includes: "Section 3. Definition of Terms. - 3.1. "Securities" are shares, participation or interests in a corporation or in a commercial enterprise or profit-making venture and evidenced by a certificate, contract, instruments,

XXX XXXXXX

(b) Investment contracts, certificates of interest or participation in a profit sharing. agreement, certificates of deposit for a future subscription; xxx (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

(SRC-IRR) defines an "investment contract" as follows: Rule 26.3.5 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the SRC

seeks to use the money or property of others on the promise of profits. (Emphasis supplied) "An investment contract means a contract transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits primarily from the efforts of others. It is presumed to exist whenever a person

to be known or considered to be such, in the financial world. Thus, in the and variable schemes devised by those who seek to use the money of others on the promise of profits. money put in by the public who expects a return of their investment. From this perspective, and applying the rule on broadly construing the term "securities," the term investment contract should include and cover all forms and varieties thereof which are known or considered, or ought Court ruled that the term "securities" embodies a flexible rather than static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless the purported issuer is using, or will be using, to further his business, is case of Gabionza vs. Court of Appeals ("Gabionza Case"), the Supreme The law considers investment contracts as securities because what

investing public, thus: for a prior hearing if, based on its evaluation of available information and relevant documents, the same will operate as a fraud or prejudice the issue cease and desist orders (CDO) motu proprio and without the need It is in this context that the SRC gave the Commission authority to

8 G.R. No. 161057, 12 September 2008.

LOKAL.PLATE CORPORATION SEC CD0 Case No.03-21- 070 IN THE MATTER OF: Page 5 of 13 Resolution

"The Commission, after proper investigation 1r

aggrieved party,may issue a cease and desist order fraud on investors or is otherwise likely to cause grave public."9 (Emphasis supplied) verification, motu proprio or upon verified complaint by any without the necessity of a prior hearing if in its judgment the act or practice, unless restrained, will operate as a or irreparable injury or prejudice to the investing

Commission of its authority to issue a CDO. Stated otherwise, the law actually defrauded before it takes action. Substantial evidence that a scheme, practice, or device is likely to defraud or cause grave or justify the issuance of a CDO. In Securities and Exchange Commission vs. matters relating to the protection of the investing public, proof of the existence of actual fraud is not necessary to warrant the exercise by the does not expect the Commission to wait until the investing public is irreparable injury or prejudice to the investing public will suffice to CJH Development Corp.,10 the Supreme Court explained the reason for the grant of such authority, to wit: The afore-quoted provision crystalizes the policy of the law that in

unnecessary that it results from a verified complaint from an whenever the Commission finds it appropriate to issue a for this provision, as any delay in the restraint of acts order may be issued by the SEc motu proprio, it being aggrieved party. A prior hearing is also not required cease and desist order that aims to curtail fraud or grave or irreparable injury to investors. There is good reason that yield such results can only generate further injury to the public that the SEC is obliged to protect." (Emphasis "The law is clear on the point that a cease and desist supplied)

issuance of the Assailed CDO. By express provision of the law, a CDO may should not be given credence insofar as it alleged fraud and illegality,11 be validly issued motu proprio if the Commission is convinced that there is a likelihood that an act will defraud or prejudice the investing public. this Commission maintains and so holds that such letter, together with the other pieces of evidence presented by the EIPD, amply justifies the Thus, contrary to the argument of Lokal.Plate that the NBI Letter

11 Verified Motion to Lift Cease and Desist Order. Pars. 22 to 24 10 G.R. No. 2103 16, Novembher 28, 2016 9 Sec. 64.1 of the SRC

LOKAL.PLATE CORPORATION SEC CD0 CaSe No.03-21- 070 IN THE MATTER OF

Page 6 of 13 Resolution

implementing its various franchise agreements which are authorized under its Amended Aol.12 Under the said franchise agreements, for a specifically consists of a monetary earning in the amount ranging from sale or offer of unauthorized securities, and that it is mainly consideration of PhP12,888.00 representing the one time-franchise fee, Lokal.Plate agreed to grant its franchisees the right to receive the benefits set out in Section VI therein. The evidence on record, however, shows that the benefit that LokalPlate is promising to its franchisees PhP40,000 to PhP80,000 per month, to wit: In its Motion, Lokal.Plate maintained that it is not engaged in the

TiokalPlate

KUMITA SAPAMAMGITAN NG MAY PERASA BAHAY!

EARN

0 0

MOMIHLYI

MAGINGI 11

ONLINEFRANCHISEENOW!

materials posted online, shows that Lokal.Plate is selling or offering a incentives, which are different from what is in the franchise agreement, variety of investment packages that comes with specific benefits or to wit: Further, the evidence on record, specifically the advertising

- Processing, Packaging, and Distribution : Authorized dealer of all Lokal.Plate's merchants (1) Php 3,000 Inclusions :10% Profit in Every Purchase

12 Motion to Lift Cease and Desist Order. Par. 4

LOKAL.PLATE CORPORATION SEC CDO Case No.03-21- 070 IN THE MATTER OF Page 7 of 13 Resolution

: Php 12,000 Worth Marketing Fee Lifetime Free : Mobile Application (Soon) : Php 3,000 Worth of Franchise Initial Stock : Personal ShopLink

Note: Monthly maintenance (1,500 worth of food)

: Php 12,000 Worth Marketing Fee Lifetime Free : Personal ShopLink :20-25% Profit in Every Purchase (2) Php 9,888 Inclusions : Mobile Application {Soon} :3-7 Delivery Days (Wed-Sun) Authorized dealer of all Lokal.Plate's merchants Processing, Packaging, and Distribution Php 3,000 Worth of Franchise Initial Stock Php 1,500 Franchise Referral Income

Note: Monthly maintenance (1,500 worth of food)

:10% Profit in Every Purchase :3-7 Delivery Days (Wed-Sun) (3) Php 4,888 inclusions : Authorized dealer of all Lokal.Plate's merchants Php 3,000 Worth of Franchise Initial Stock Mobile Application (Soon) Personal ShopLink Php 300.00 Reseller Referral Income Php 12,000 Worth Marketing Fee Lifetime Free Processing, Packaging, and Distribution

Note: Monthly maintenance (1,500 worth of food)

(4) Php 12,888 Inclusions

:15%-20% Profit in Every Purchase :Mobile Application (Soon) : Personal ShopLink : Php 12,000 Worth Marketing Fee (Free) No Royalty Fee Processing, Packaging, and Distribution One-time Payment

LOKAL.PLATE CORPORATION SEC CDO Case No.03-21- 070 IN THE MATTER OF Page 8 of 13 Resolution

: Free Training : Fast ROI (Return of Investment)

PhP12,888.00 and a monthly purchase of PhP1,500.00 can never qualify Lokal.Plate, a person who agrees to part with PhP12,888.00 is assured to he/she will only have a minimum monthly purchase of PhP1,500.00.13 This negates the claim of Lokal.Plate that it did not give any guarantee to the franchisees of a sure profit or return of investment. Verily, an earning of at least PhP40,000.00 per month for a one-time investment of earn at least PhP40,000 to a maximum of PhP80,000 per month, even if as a commission, contrary to the vigorous assertion of Lokal.Plate. The foregoing reveals that under the investment scheme of

is bolstered by the absence of any proof that Lokal.Plate is indeed affiliated with the food manufacturers or distributors it identified. In fact, Lokal.Plate admitted to have executed franchise agreements, the food sales--it not being the manufacturer or distributor thereof. This of an admission that Lokal.Plate is not engaged in the food manufacturing and/or distribution business, which allegedly dispenses it from the requirement to secure the required License to Operate from the FDA.14 collected franchise fees, and promised its franchisees a monthly return of PhP40,000 to PhP80,000 for the main purpose of "promoting its Commission is convinced that the monthly return of PhP40,000 to PhP80,000 can only come from new investments which Lokal.Plate will get from the investing public since Lokal.Plate does not earn income from affiliate local restaurants and merchants."15 Under this scheme, the Interestingly, the promise of a monthly return was made in the face

and the PhP12,888.00 franchise fee that it collects from the franchisees offered to the public are securities in the form of investment contracts, are investments. The allegations and arguments presented by Lokal.Plate in support of its Motion to Lift, which includes the franchising scheme, failed to trounce the evidence presented by the EIPD showing that all the elements of the Howey Test are present. Commission holds that the franchise agreements that Lokal.Plate sold or Stripped of its unsupported claims and bare allegations, this

consistent with the broad concept of "securities" under the SRC, the term "security" has evolved to be considered as any transaction whose At this juncture, it is important to emphasize that in relation to, and

1 Ibid. Par. 5 (see Section IV.a.i f the Terms and Conditions of the Franchise Agreement) 15 Ibid. Par. 18 14 Ibid. Par. 19

LOKAL.PLATE CORPORATION SEC CDO Case No.03-21- 070 IN THE MATTER OF: Page 9 of 13 Resolution

been accorded a broad meaning to cover a series or a nexus of events, such as transfers of money and property, written or oral promises and agencies in foreign jurisdictions have in fact succeeded in finding and features of a security by conglomerating a number of events into a composite transaction.16 under securities laws. Relative thereto, the word "transaction" has also representations, and even surrounding circumstances. The courts and confirming that a transaction is endowed with all the distinguishing characteristics distinguish it from the generality of transactions so as to create a need for the special fraud procedures, protections, and remedies

determining if a transaction is a security, consideration should be made on the reasonable protection that it affords to those who risk their capital, thus: of Corporations,17 the California Court of Appeals emphasized that in In the United States (US) case of Hamilton Jewelers vs Department

the Corporate Securities Law." (Italics added.) In so stating. A.L.R.2d 1135], where the state Supreme Court pursued the same "crucial question" despite the fact that the transaction Rptr. 869], "No hard and fast rule fixes that which constitutes a 'security' Rather, the question is determined on a case by case basis. The crucial question is whether the [37 Cal. App. We cited Silver Hills Country Club v. Sobieski (1961) 55 Cal. 2d 811, at page 814 [13 Cal. Rptr. 186, 361 P.2d 906, 87 there involved came within the literal statutory definition of "security" (former Corp. Code, S 25008). Packing Co. (1964) 231 Cal. App. 2d 421, at page 424 [41 Cal. 3d 335] transaction comes within the regulatory purpose of "However, as this court pointed out in Sarmento v. Arbax

follows: "Section 25008 defines a security broadly to ingeniously devised, to attract risk capital." (Id. At p. 814.) (Italics added.) "Since the act does not make profit to the supplier of capital the test of what is a security, it seems all the more clear that its objective is to afford those who risk The purpose of the Corporate Securities Law (former Corp. Code, S 25000 et seq.) was explained by the court in Silver Hills Country Club v. Sobieski, supra,55 Cal. 2d 811, as protect the public against spurious schemes, however

16 Coffey, Ronald., The Economic Realities of a "Security" Is there a More Meaningful Formula., Case (https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/37/330.html) Western Reserve Law Review, Article 3, Volume 18, Issue 2 (1967) 17 Civ. No. 14067. Court of Appeals of California, Third Appellate District. February 15, 1974

LOKAL.PLATE CORPORATION SEC CDO Case No.03-21- 070 IN THE MATTER OF Page 10 of 13 Resolution

their capital at least a fair chance of realizing their objectives in legitimate ventures whether or not they expect a return on their capital in one form or another." (Emphasis supplied)

investors is "inextricably woven" with the ability of the promoter to carry out a common enterprise for the benefit of those whose investments are relevant for purposes of determining if securities law apply. Hence, in the case of SEC vs Latta,18 the federal court ruled that "unless the defendant buyer's initial investment and the success of the enterprise as an integral part of a transaction, where the fate of the former is considered critically is successful in that undertaking the contracts will remain scraps of worthless paper. This is a situation in which the economic welfare of solicited." We underscore that courts in the US look at the preservation of the

safeguards and ample protection to the investing public, our Supreme held in Power Homes Unlimited Corporation vs Securities and Exchange just like the term "securities," embodies a flexible principle that is intended to cover schemes devised by persons who seek to use the money of others on the promise of profits, thus: Commission19 (Power Homes Case), that the term "investment contract, Court has adopted the doctrine in the US case of SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., and Consistent with the thrust and intent of the SRC to provide

Securities Act. Thus, it ruled that the use of the catch-all term "investment contract" indicated a congressional transactions. It established a test to determine whether a transaction falls within the scope of an "investment investment contract under R.A. No. 8799. Our definition of an investment contract traces its roots from the 1946 United the Howey transaction constituted an "investment contract" Supreme Court, recognizing that the term "investment contract" was not defined by the Act or illumined by any legislative report,held that "Congress was using a term whose meaning had been crystallized" under the state's "blue sky" laws in existence prior to the adoption of the intent to cover States (US) case of SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. In this case, the US Supreme Court was confronted with the issue of whether under the Securities Act's definition of "security." The US "It behooves us to trace the history of the concept of an wide range of investment

19 G.R. No. 164182, February 26, 2008 18 250 F. Supp. 170 (N.D.Cal.N.Div.1965)

LOKAL PLATE CORPORATION SEC CDO Case No.03-21- 070 IN THE MATTER OF Page 11 of 13 Resolution

contract." Known as the Howey Test, it requires E

Howey Test "embodies a flexible rather than a static countless and variable schemes devised by those who profits." Needless to state, any investment contract covered fraudulent practices." (Emphasis supplied) the efforts of others. Although the proponents must establish principle one that is capable of adaptation to meet the seek the use of the money of others on the promise of by the Howey Test must be registered under the Securities Act, regardless of whether its issuer was engaged in transaction, contract, or scheme whereby a person (1) makes an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with the expectation of profits, (4) to be derived solely from all four elements, the US Supreme Court stressed that the

transaction is considered an investment contract once it is shown by play, considering that purchasers who are normally untrained in finance, substantial evidence that the proponent is offering to the public an opportunity to contribute money and to share in the profits of the operations. In this regard, the importance of a "common enterprise" managed by the proponent in furtherance of the business comes into merely rely on the proponent's knowledge and expertise in carrying out the grand investment scheme. On the basis thereof, this Commission has consistently held that a

investment contract which should be registered with the Commission prior to the sale or offer thereof. a transaction or scheme where a person uses or intends to use money or property of others with a promise of profits is presumed by law to be an More importantly, it should be emphasized that in our jurisdiction,

its so-called member-franchisees and the investing public were enticed to part with their hard-earned PhP12,888.00, and agreed to make a monthly purchase of PhP1,500.00. the public through its website and social media accounts offer a guaranteed return ranging from PhP40,000.00 to PhP80,000.00 plus bonuses and incentives. This is the main consideration and reason why franchising transactions) that are being sold or offered by Lokal.Plate to In the instant case, the various investment packages (masked as

investment packages with. guaranteed monthly earnings, referral managed, and maintained consists in the sale or offer of its various The "common enterprise" which Lokal.Plate has operationalized,

LOKAL.PLATE CORPORATION SEC CD0 Case No.03-21- 070 IN THE MATTER OF: Page 12 of 13 Resolution

incomes and other incentives. The fortunes of the franchisees of Lokal.Plate are linked to each other, and are clearly essential to the success of the business. In other words, the continued sale of the investment packages (through the franchise agreements which were used as fronts) and the entry of new investors who will in turn become

investment packages to the public, and thus assure its continued marketing materials to facilitate the continued sale or offer of its sellers or agents of Lokal.Plate facilitate and ensure the payment of the guaranteed monthly earnings, bonuses and incentives. It is therefore not surprising to see that the earnings of PhP40,000.00 to PhP80,000.00 and bonuses were showcased by Lokal.Plate in all its presentations and operations.

elements of the Howey Test, i.e., investment in money,2o common enterprise,21 expectation of profits, which are made possible through the efforts of others,22 which this Commission exhaustively discussed in the Assailed CDO. The foregoing establishes and affirms the existence of all the

against Lokal.Plate Corporation, its officers, .directors, agents, representatives, conduits, assigns, and any and all persons/entities Desist Order dated 22 March 2021 filed by Lokal.Plate Corporation is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The CEASE AND DESIST ORDER issued claiming and acting for and in behalf and under their authority is hereby made PERMANENT. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Lift Cease and

Lokal.Plate Corporation, and {b} post copies of the Resolution at the DIRECTED to: (a) serve this Resolution to the President, General Manager, Corporate Secretary, Treasurer, or In-House Counsel of entrance of the main offices and/or branches, if any, of Lokal.Plate Corporation. The Enforcement and Investor Protection Department is hereby

results. It reasoned out that its flexible reading is in accord with the statutory policy of affording broad protection to the public. Because of this, it is no longer necessary that the expected profit accrue solely from the efforts of others. (SEC v. Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, Inc.474 F. 2& 476, 414 U.S. 821, 94 (1973) 2 " An investment of money occ that subjects himself to financial loss." (SEC v. International Mining Exchange, Inc., 515 F. Supp. 1062.) joint participation by investors in the same investment enterprise, achieved by pooling the invested funds for a common purpose, is required in order to satisfy the common enterprise element." (Wasnowic v. Chicago 22 The U.S. Supreme Court held that the clement that profits must come "solely" from the efforts of others 21 "A common enterprisc is deemed created when two (2) or more investors "poo1" their resources. Thus, Bd. of Trade 352 F Supp 1066.) should be liberally construed because a literal reading of the requirement "solely" would lead to unrealistic curs when an investor commits money to an enterprise or venture in a manner

LOKAL.PLATE CORPORATION SEC CDO Case No.03-21- 070 IN THE MATTER OF: Page 13 of 13 Resolution

Commission for their information and appropriate action. website, and furnished to the relevant operating departments of the Let a copy of this Resolution be also posted in the Commission's

FURTHER DIRECTED to submit a formal compliance report, by way of a pleading, to the Commission En Banc WITHIN TEN {10} DAYS from receipt of this Resolution. The EIPD, in coordination with other concerned departments, is

SO ORDERED.

Makati City, Philippines.

EMILIO B/AQUINO Chairperson

JAVEY PAUL D. FRANCISCO* KELVM AEF

Commissioner Commissioner

KARLO $. BELLO Commissioner MCJILYBRYANT T. FERNANDEZ Commissioner

*Commissioner on Leave