# Sound Foundation v. SCI Fund II, LLC

> District Court, D. Oregon · February 17, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10395702

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** February 17, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10395702

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a “mere scintilla” of evidence is insufficient to overcome summary judgment
- holding that the Oklahoma Securities Act did not apply to the transaction although the defendant mailed the plaintiff certain correspondence during negotiations from its branch office in Oklahoma

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SOUND FOUNDATION, a foreign No. 3:20-cv-01190-HZ
corporation,
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff,

v.

SCI Fund II, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and HERBERT P.
WILKINS, JR., a Maryland resident,

Defendants.

Britta Warren
Elli Tillotson
Black Helterline LLP
805 SW Broadway, Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97205

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Shannon Armstrong
Kristin Asai
Abigail Gore
Holland & Knight LLP
601 SW Second Ave., Suite 180
Portland, OR 97204

Attorneys for Defendants

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Plaintiff Sound Foundation has four claims remaining against SCI Fund II, LLC
(“Defendant Fund II”) and Herbert P. Wilkins, Jr. (“Defendant Wilkins”), individually and
collectively. Against Defendant Fund II, Plaintiff brings a breach of contract claim. Against
Defendant Wilkins, Plaintiff alleges securities violations under Oregon Revised Statute
(“O.R.S.”) §§ 59.115(1)(b) & 59.115(3), and securities fraud under O.R.S. 59.135. Against both
Defendants, Plaintiff brings claims for fraudulent transfer under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer
Act (“UFTA”), O.R.S. 95.200 et seq.
Plaintiff moves unopposed for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim. Pl.
Mot. Summ. J., ECF 58. Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s other remaining
claims. Def. Mot. Summ. J., ECF 61. For the following reasons, the Court grants both motions.
BACKGROUND
This case centers on an unpaid promissory note and amended note (“the Notes”) between
Plaintiff Sound Foundation and Defendant Fund II. Plaintiff is a foreign corporation registered in
the Cook Islands founded by Derek Sivers. Sivers Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 59. Derek Sivers, the original
buyer of the initial promissory note, assigned his interest in the Notes to Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 5, Ex. 1.
During the period relevant to this motion, Derek Sivers lived outside the United States. Asai
Decl. in Support of Def. Mot. Partial Summ. J. (“Asai Decl. Mot. Summ. J.”) Ex. 1, Sivers Dep.
8:5-18, ECF 63. Dennis Sivers, the father of Derek Sivers, lived in Oregon. Asai Decl. Mot.
Summ. J. Ex. 7 at 10.
Defendant Herbert P. Wilkins is a venture capitalist who works as a managing director
for SCI Management, Inc. Warren Supp. Decl. in Support of Pl. Resp. to Def. Second Mot. to
Dismiss (“Warren Decl. Second Mot. to Dismiss”) Ex. 1, Wilkins Dep. I 8:1-9:3, ECF 40.
Wilkins resides in Maryland. Id. at 7:16-20. SCI Management is based in Delaware. Wilkins
Dep. I 8:14-9:3. SCI Management manages three separate investment portfolios: SCI (“Fund I”),

SCI Fund II, LLC (Defendant Fund II), and SCI Fund III, LLC (“Fund III”) (collectively “SCI
Funds”). Id. at 11:10-12:1; 15:4-15.
Defendant SCI Fund II is a venture capital fund registered in Delaware. Id. 9:6-8; Asai
Decl. in Support of Def. Second Mot. to Dismiss (“Asai Decl. Second Mot. to Dismiss”) Ex. 3,
ECF 35. It has an investment portfolio comprised of multiple companies. Wilkins Dep. I 9:18-
10:21. One of those is Maya Cinemas, a California corporation. Id. 10:14-20. Maya Cinemas
operates six movie theaters in the United States. Asai Decl. in Support of Def. Reply in Support
of Def. Mot. Partial Summ. J. (“Asai Decl. Reply Summ. J.”) Ex. 3, ECF 67. Defendant Wilkins
and Dennis Sivers are board members of Maya Cinemas. Wilkins Dep. I 16:16-20. Fund II also

holds investments in Tap It, Human Network Labs, and Diamond Ventures, LLC. Warren Decl.
in Support of Pl. Resp. to Def. Mot. Partial Summ. J. (“Warren Decl. Resp. Summ. J.”) Ex. 8,
Wilkins Dep. II 16:6-12, ECF 65.
In or about January 2017, Derek Sivers agreed to provide Defendant Fund II with a short-
term loan of $700,000. Sivers Decl. ¶ 2; Am. Compl. Ex. 1 (2017 Promissory Note). Dennis
Sivers called Derek Sivers to suggest that Derek Sivers make a short-term loan to help Wilkins
out. Sivers Dep. 28:24-29:3. Dennis Sivers suggested that his son charge a high interest rate and
that the loan would be repaid within a few months. Id. at 29:4-5. Dennis Sivers stated that
Wilkins was a friend and associate and “was good for it.” Id. at 29:1, 29:6-7. Dennis Sivers told
Derek Sivers that the purpose of the loan was to help Wilkins start his marijuana business so that
he could obtain a long-term loan. Id. at 29:7-9. Derek Sivers agreed to the loan if it was short-
term and for a high interest rate. Id. at 29:10-11. Peggy Faber, an employee at Dennis Sivers’s
office in Oregon, drafted the note. Id. at 29:11-13.
During negotiations, Derek Sivers was included in emails, but did not actively participate

in the negotiations, which his father conducted on his behalf. Id. at 29:14-20. Dennis Sivers
advised his son to charge a very high interest rate and high monthly fees to reinforce that the loan
would be short-term. Id. at 30:3-7. The Initial Note was initially contemplated to be between
Derek Sivers and Morris Medical LLC, a Maryland cannabis business. Wilkins Dep. I 30:25-
31:4.
However, Dennis Sivers emailed Defendant Wilkins to request that the loan be secured
by Maya Cinemas stock, and Wilkins agreed. Asai Decl. Mot. Summ J. Ex. 3 at 1. Wilkins then
advised Dennis and Derek Sivers by email: “The note is structured such that the debtor needs to
control the collateral. Therefore I am changing the Borrower to SCI Fund II, LLC as it is the

entity that owns the Series B & B-1 Maya stock.” Asai Decl. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 4 at 1. Derek
Sivers was unaware of his father’s and Wilkins’s roles with Maya Cinemas. Sivers Dep. 30:14-
18. He did not request collateral for the loan. Id. at 37:14-16. He was not involved in negotiating
the security for the loan. Id. at 34:8-12. He did not know how the loan was secured before
making the loan. Id. at 34:20-22. He testified that he had done no investigation into the value of
Maya Cinemas stock because the loan was meant to be a short-term loan and he “ha[d] no
interest in Maya stock” and believed that Sound Foundation did not want to own it. Id. at 37:21-
38:5.
The promissory note listed Derek Sivers as payee and Defendant Fund II as debtor. Am.
Compl. Ex. 1 at 1. The Note provides a Portland, Oregon, address for Derek Sivers and a
Baltimore, Maryland, address for Defendant Fund II. Id. at 4. Defendant Wilkins signed the Note
as a managing member of Defendant Fund II. Id. Plaintiff explained that the Note lists an Oregon
address for Derek Sivers based on Dennis Sivers’s residence in Oregon and because Derek

Sivers “maintained an Oregon mailing address for taxes and bank accounts[.]” Asai Decl. Mot.
Summ. J. Ex. 7 at 10. The original Note matured on January 10, 2018. Am. Compl. Ex. 1 at 1.
The loan was secured by shares of Maya Cinemas stock. Id. at 2.
Derek Sivers wired the funds to Fund II on January 13, 2017. Warren Decl. Resp. Summ.
J. Ex. 1 at 3. The majority of the funds, $650,000, were transferred to Fund III on January 24,
2017. Warren Decl. Resp. Summ. J. Ex. 1 at 3, Ex. 2 at 3. The same day, they were transferred to
Doctor’s Orders Maryland. Warren Decl. Resp. Summ. J. Ex. 2 at 3. This entity, a cannabis
enterprise, is now known as Culta. Wilkins Dep. II 32:19-25. In exchange for the funds, Fund III
gave Fund II an interest-bearing promissory note for $700,000. Warren Decl. in Support of Pl.

Resp. to Def. Mot. to Dismiss (“Warren Decl. Mot. to Dismiss”) Ex. 9 at 4, ECF 20. The Fund
III promissory note was dated the same day as the initial Note. Am. Compl. Ex. 1 at 1
(promissory note from Fund II to Derek Sivers for $700,000 dated January 10, 2017); Warren
Decl. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 9 at 4 (promissory note from Fund III to Fund II for $700,000 dated
January 10, 2017).
Fund II transferred $25,000 of the remaining $50,000 of the Sivers Funds out of the
account on February 14, 2017. Warren Decl. Resp. Summ. J. Ex. 1 at 7. The funds were
transferred to an account for SCIM, Inc. (SCI Management, Inc.). Id. Ex. 4 at 7. Prior to this, on
February 8, 2017, SCIM, Inc., transferred $25,000 to Martch Innovations. Id. The final $25,000
of the Sivers Funds was withdrawn from the Fund II account on March 3, 2017. Id. Ex. 1 at 11.
These funds were also transferred to the account for SCIM, Inc. Id. Ex. 4 at 11. The same day,
SCIM transferred $25,000 to Martch Innovations. Id. Martch Innovations was the predecessor of
Trellis Holdings OP, LLC, a cannabis enterprise. Wilkins Dep. II 68:14-17. Defendant Wilkins
could not identify any promissory note reflecting a transfer of the Sivers funds to Martch

Innovations. Id. at 68:6-69:18.
A bank statement for Fund II for January 2017 shows a beginning balance of $147.00
Warren Decl. Summ. J. Ex. 1 at 1. The February 2017 statement shows an ending balance of
$25,117.00 Id. at 5. The March 2017 statement shows an ending balance of $117.00. Id. at 9.
Fund III has investments in three companies: Morris Medical, Salthouse Energy
Advisors, and Company Listing Central. Wilkins Dep. II 18:19-19:1. Morris Medical is a
holding company for cannabis investments. Id. at 32:8-9. Its holdings are Morris Medical Oregon
and Morris Medical Maryland. Id. at 32:11-13. Morris Medical Oregon owns Trellis Holdings
OP, LLC. Id. at 32:15-18. Morris Medical Maryland owns Culta, LLC; Heirloom, LLC, and

CULTA Ventures. Id. at 32:19-22. The prior name was Doctor’s Orders Maryland. Id. at 32:23-
25.
Derek Sivers testified that he thought he would be loaning funds to Wilkins’s “marijuana
growing businesses.” Sivers Dep. 34:13-16. He stated that he did not learn the name of the
business prior to making the loan. Id. at 34:17-19, 40:19-25. He testified that the only
information his father gave him before he made the loan was that Wilkins was “a good guy that
came from a wealthy family” who was “good for” the loan. Id. at 35:11-17. Derek Sivers
testified that he trusted his father’s judgment regarding Wilkins and stated, “Honestly the fact
that my dad was vouching telling me that I could trust this guy and it would be only a few
months it seemed cut and dry that I didn’t need to do much diligence since my dad knows him
and trusts him.” Id. at 41:7-13. He testified that no one told him that Fund II was the name of the
marijuana growing business but that he assumed it was when he saw it on the loan document. Id.
at 41:14-17.
In June 2017, Wilkins emailed Derek Sivers to discuss extending the loan. Sivers Dep.

39:7-22. In February 2018, Derek Sivers agreed to amend the Note to extend it through
December 2018. Sivers Dep. 38:20-22; Warren Decl. Resp. Summ. J. Ex. 6; Am. Compl. Ex. 2.
He was motivated by the high interest rate. Sivers Dep. 38:23-39:3. He did not recall speaking
with Wilkins prior to extending the note. Id. at 39:23-40:10. He did communicate with him by
email. Id. at 52:2-5; Warren Decl. Resp. Summ. J. Ex. 6. Dennis Sivers was not included on the
emails between Derek Sivers and Defendant Wilkins in February 2018. Warren Decl. Resp.
Summ. J. Ex. 6.
Defendants failed to repay the loan by the amended deadline. Warren Decl. in Support of
Pl. Mot. Partial Summ. J. (“Warren Decl. Mot. Summ. J.”) Ex. 1 at 1, ECF 60. In January 2020,

Derek Sivers assigned his rights, titles, and interests in the Notes to Plaintiff. Sivers Decl. ¶ 5 Ex.
1.
Plaintiff filed suit on July 22, 2020. Compl. After jurisdictional discovery, the Court
denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and granted Defendants’
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on two of Plaintiff’s claims and denied that motion
with respect to all other claims. Op. & Ord., ECF 44. Both parties now move for partial summary
judgment. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion, while Plaintiff opposes Defendants’
motion.
STANDARDS
Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The
moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis of its motion, and
identifying those portions of “‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)
(quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).
Once the moving party meets its initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to present “specific facts”
showing a “genuine issue for trial.” Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924, 927-28 (9th
Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The nonmoving party must go beyond the
pleadings and designate facts showing an issue for trial. Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1218
(9th Cir. 2007) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324). “A non-movant’s bald assertions or a mere

scintilla of evidence in [its] favor are both insufficient to withstand summary judgment.”
Stefanchik, 559 F.3d at 929.
The substantive law governing a claim determines whether a fact is material. Suever v.
Connell, 579 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). The court draws inferences from the facts in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Earl v. Nielsen Media Rsch., Inc., 658 F.3d 1108,
1112 (9th Cir. 2011). If the factual context makes the nonmoving party’s claim as to the
existence of a material issue of fact implausible, that party must come forward with more
persuasive evidence to support its claim than would otherwise be necessary. Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
DISCUSSION
Both parties move for partial summary judgment. Plaintiff moves unopposed for
summary judgment on its breach of contract claim. Pl. Mot. Summ. J. Defendants move for
summary judgment on Plaintiff’s fraudulent transfer and securities claims. Def. Mot. Summ. J.
The Court grants both motions.

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against Defendant
Fund II. Pl. Mot. Summ. J. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion. Id.
An unopposed motion for summary judgment does not automatically entitle the movant
to judgment as a matter of law. The Ninth Circuit has affirmed that summary judgment should
not be granted “where the movant’s papers are insufficient to support that motion or on their face
reveal a genuine issue of material fact.” Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir.
1993) (holding that district court erred in entering partial summary judgment against a defendant
where failure to comply with a local rule resulted in the motion being unopposed, and then

upholding grant of summary judgment because evidence in the record showed the plaintiff was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law). Thus, even if the motion is unopposed, the district court
must evaluate the evidence presented to determine whether the movant is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. E.g., Clarendon Am. Ins. Co. v. Jai Thai Enterprises, LLC, 625 F. Supp. 2d
1099, 1103, 1108 (W.D. Wash. 2009) (denying the plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary
judgment due to insufficient evidence showing that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a
matter of law).
To be entitled to summary judgment on its breach of contract claim, Plaintiff must
establish “the existence of a contract, its relevant terms, plaintiff’s full performance and lack of
breach[,] and defendant’s breach resulting in damage to plaintiff.” Moyer v. Columbia State
Bank, 316 Or. App. 393, 402, 505 P.3d 26 (2021), review denied, 369 Or. 705, 509 P.3d 116
(2022).
Plaintiff has shown that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its breach of
contract claim. Plaintiff established the existence of a contract with Defendants (the Notes), the

terms of that contract (as stated in the Notes), and that Defendants breached the contract (by
failing to timely repay the loan). Answer ¶¶ 10, 15, ECF 46; Am. Compl. Exs. 1-2; Warren Decl.
Mot. Summ. J. Exs. 1, 2 at 6-10. Plaintiff likewise established that it fully performed under the
contract, as Derek Sivers, Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, was not required to do more than
provide the funds. Am. Compl. Exs. 1-2. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to payment of principal
and interest under the Amended Note.
Plaintiff also moves for payment of late fees pursuant to a clause in the Amended Note
setting the amount of such fees as liquidated damages. Pl. Mot. Summ. J. 7; Am. Compl. Ex. 2 at
1 ¶ 3(a). Oregon law provides that liquidated damages clauses are lawful if the amount of

damages set is reasonable. O.R.S. 72.7180(1). The party seeking to avoid the clause bears the
burden of proving that the amount is unreasonable. Illingworth v. Bushong, 61 Or. App. 152,
155, 656 P.2d 370 (1982), aff’d, 297 Or. 675, 688 P.2d 379 (1984). Defendant Fund II does not
challenge the reasonableness of the late fee clause in the Amended Note. Therefore, Plaintiff is
entitled to payment of late fees.
In sum, Plaintiff has shown that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its breach
of contract claim. The Court declines to address the amount of damages at this time. The Court
now turns to Defendants’ motion.
II. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s securities claims and fraudulent
transfer claim. Def. Mot. Summ. J. Plaintiff opposes the motion and further argues that it should
be granted partial summary judgment on its fraudulent transfer claim. Pl. Resp. 2, ECF 64. The
Court concludes that Defendants have shown an absence of a genuine issue of material fact on

these claims and are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
A. Fraudulent Transfer Claim
Plaintiff brings its fraudulent transfer claim under two provisions of UFTA, O.R.S.
95.230(1) and O.R.S. 95.240. Am. Compl. ¶ 43. O.R.S. 95.230(1) provides:
A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor,
whether the creditor’s claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the
obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation:
(a) With actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the
debtor; or
(b) Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the
transfer or obligation, and the debtor:
(A) Was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a
transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably
small in relation to the business or transaction; or
(B) Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have
believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the debtor’s ability to
pay as they become due.

O.R.S. 95.240 provides:
(1) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor
whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if
the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a
reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the
debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor becomes insolvent as a result of the
transfer or obligation.

(2) A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose
before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for other than a
present, reasonably equivalent value, the debtor was insolvent at that time and the
insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent.
Fraudulent intent is determined as of the date of the transfer. Mitchell v. Burt & Gordon,
P.C., Case No.: 93–438–FR, 1993 WL 469260, at *6 (D. Or. Nov. 10, 1993) (citing Nelson v.
Hansen, 278 Or. 571, 577-78, 565 P.2d 727 (1977)).
i. Claim under O.R.S. 95.230(1)(a)
This provision requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant acted with actual intent to

defraud. Analyzing fraudulent intent under O.R.S. 95.230(1)(a) requires “a case-by-case factual
determination” and is a subjective analysis. Morris v. Nance, 132 Or. App. 216, 221-22, 888
P.2d 571 (1994). Fraudulent intent may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. at
221.
The statute provides a list of factors the Court may consider when determining actual
intent:
(a) The transfer or obligation was to an insider;
(b) The debtor had retained possession or control of the property transferred after
the transfer;
(c) The transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed;
(d) Before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, the debtor was sued
or threatened with suit;
(e) The transfer was of substantially all the debtor’s assets;
(f) The debtor had absconded;
(g) The debtor had removed or concealed assets;
(h) The value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent
to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred;
(i) The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made
or the obligation was incurred;
(j) The transfer had occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was
incurred; and
(k) The debtor had transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who
had transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.

O.R.S. 95.230(2). These factors, commonly known as the badges of fraud, may favor either
party. Morris, 132 Or. App. at 221.
“The absence of actual fraudulent intent can only be shown by evidence that supports an
alternative motive on the part of a defendant.” Id. A defendant can establish a legitimate purpose
for the transfer and so overcome an inference of fraud. Id. at 223-25 (holding that there was no
actual intent to defraud where the defendant established that the transfer was made to fulfill a
prior agreement of the parties although the plaintiff showed that three badges of fraud were

present).
a. Direct Evidence
Defendants argue that Plaintiff provided no evidence that Defendants had an actual intent
to hinder, delay, or defraud Derek Sivers. Def. Mot. Summ. J. 7-8. Defendants first assert that
there is no direct evidence of fraud because the transfer of funds from Fund II to Fund III
accomplished the parties’ objectives, as Derek Sivers intended to provide a bridge loan to
cannabis businesses that was secured by interest in Maya Cinemas stock. Id. at 8-9. Defendants
assert that only Fund III had cannabis businesses in its portfolio. Id. (citing Wilkins Dep. II
15:15-22, 18:10-12, 18:17-19:11, 32:6-25). Defendants also state that only Fund II held Maya

Cinemas stock. Id. at 9 (citing Wilkins Dep. II 16:4-12). Without disputing this, Plaintiff
responds with evidence that the parties intended the funds go to a particular cannabis business,
Trellis, not merely any cannabis business, and that the funds were not sent to Trellis. Pl. Resp. 8
(citing Wilkins Dep. I 31:18-20, 39:3-40:14; Wilkins Dep. II 47:14-14, 59:11-62:24, 68:9-69:21,
74:11-16). Defendants counter that this argument is untimely and prejudicial because it exceeds
the scope of the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint. Def. Reply 3-4, ECF 66.
The Court first addresses Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff has exceeded the scope of
the complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges that “Wilkins knowingly and purposefully
failed to disclose to Sivers that the $700,000.00 he loaned to the Fund had been transferred to
SCI III and that the Fund had no assets or means to repay the Note.” Am. Compl. ¶ 14. It also
alleges that “Wilkins, through his entity SCI III, upon information and belief, used the entire
$700,000.00 loaned by Sivers to invest in high risk cannabis enterprises in the States of Oregon
and Maryland.” Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff’s fraudulent transfer claim alleges that “[a]t the direction of
Wilkins, the Fund transferred $700,000.00 to SCI III without receipt of reasonably considerable

[sic] value in exchange for the payment.” Am. Compl. ¶ 40. The amended complaint does not
allege fraud based on subsequent transfers from Fund III to other entities. Id. ¶¶ 39-44. Nor do
other allegations in the amended complaint put Defendants on notice of Plaintiff’s expanded
claim. Plaintiff’s argument is outside the scope of the complaint.
An argument made in opposition to a motion for summary judgment that is outside the
scope of the complaint is construed as a motion to amend the pleadings under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15. Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014).
Once the period for amending pleadings as a matter of course has elapsed, “a party may amend
its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or with the court’s leave.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. However, the
court need not grant leave to amend where the amendment “(1) prejudices the opposing party;
(2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.”
AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006).
Defendant opposes leave to amend based on prejudice and undue delay. Def. Reply 3-4.
Delay is not enough on its own to justify denial of leave to amend. DCD Programs, Ltd. v.
Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). “[T]he consideration of prejudice to the opposing
party carries the greatest weight.” Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty., 708
F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations omitted). Amendments that add causes of
action or legal theories requiring further discovery may prejudice the opposing party. Ascon
Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1161 (9th Cir. 1989); Zivkovic v. S. California
Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).
In Desertrain, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should have considered the
plaintiffs’ vagueness challenge to a provision of the Los Angeles Municipal Code that was not

alleged in the pleadings. 754 F.3d at 1154. There was no undue delay because the defendants
only provided key documents about their enforcement policies late in the discovery period, so
the plaintiffs did not fully understand the issues until then. Id. There was no prejudice to the
defendants because repeated questioning in depositions about limiting criteria for enforcement
put the defendants on notice of the claim, and plaintiffs’ counsel then emailed defense counsel
weeks before the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment to advise that plaintiffs
would raise a vagueness challenge, and again notified defense counsel the day before filing the
motion. Id. at 1154-55. The issue was fully argued in those motions. Id.
Here, Defendants have shown that Plaintiff’s expanded argument prejudiced them.

Defendants targeted their interrogatories to the transfer from Fund II to Fund III. Asai Decl. Mot.
Summ. J. Ex. 7 at 11-13. Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ interrogatories likewise focused on
the transfer from Fund II to Fund III. Id. at 15-16. At Wilkins’s first deposition, on July 21, 2021,
which occurred in the context of jurisdictional discovery, counsel for Plaintiff asked numerous
questions about the various cannabis businesses in which Defendants invested and where they
were located. See generally Wilkins Dep. I. At that deposition, Defendant Wilkins’s answers
suggested that the Sivers funds had been invested in Trellis in Oregon. Wilkins Dep. I 42:3-8.
Bank statements obtained during the regular discovery period indicate otherwise. Warren Decl.
Resp. Summ. J. Ex. 2 at 3 (showing the majority of the funds were sent to Doctor’s Orders
Maryland). However, after receiving these bank statements, Plaintiff did not seek leave to amend
its complaint or amend its discovery requests or responses. Def. Reply 4. At Wilkins’s second
deposition, on November 2, 2022, Plaintiff asked questions that pointed to concern with the
ultimate destination of the funds. Wilkins Dep. II 47:14-19, 59:11-62:24, 68:9-69:21, 74:11-16.
This deposition occurred nine days before dispositive motions were due in this case.

This case is similar to Desertrain in some respects. Plaintiff did not discover enough facts
to adequately allege its claims until it received bank statements showing where the funds had
been sent. Questions in the second deposition of Defendant Wilkins, which occurred shortly
before dispositive motions were due, put Defendants on notice to some degree that Plaintiff was
interested in the ultimate destination of the investment. However, Plaintiff did not advise
Defendants that it was going to argue that subsequent transfers were fraudulent. In contrast,
counsel in Desertrain provided notice weeks in advance of the summary judgment deadline and
again the day before the deadline. 754 F.3d at 1154. The issue required no further discovery and
was fully argued on summary judgment. Id. at 1155. That is not the case here. The Court

concludes that considering Plaintiff’s argument about fraudulent transfers from Fund III to other
entities would prejudice Defendants. The Court therefore declines to consider this argument.
Evaluating the transfer from Fund II to Fund III, the Court concludes that Defendants
have shown a legitimate purpose. Plaintiff does not dispute that the parties intended the loan to
go to cannabis businesses with which Wilkins had a relationship, or that the parties intended the
loan to be secured by interest in Maya Cinemas stock. Def. Mot. 8-9; Pl. Resp. 8. The evidence
establishes that these were the purposes of the agreement. Derek Sivers testified in his deposition
that he thought he would be loaning funds to Wilkins’s “marijuana growing businesses.” Sivers
Dep. 34:13-16. Dennis Sivers emailed Wilkins to request that the loan be secured by Maya
Cinemas stock, and Wilkins agreed. Asai Decl. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 3 at 1. Dennis Sivers’s office
drafted the Note. Sivers Dep. 29:11-13; Asai Decl. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 4. Wilkins then advised
Dennis and Derek Sivers by email: “The note is structured such that the debtor needs to control
the collateral. Therefore I am changing the Borrower to SCI Fund II, LLC as it is the entity that
owns the Series B & B-1 Maya stock.” Asai Decl. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 4 at 1. Plaintiff does not

dispute that only Fund III held cannabis interests. The only reasonable conclusion based on the
evidence is that if Dennis Sivers had not requested collateralization by Maya Cinemas stock, the
funds would have been sent directly to Fund III. There is no direct evidence of actual intent to
defraud with respect to the transfer from Fund II to Fund III. The facts show that the loan was
structured to achieve the goals of the lender and borrower and that the transfer from Fund II to
Fund III was necessary to achieve those goals.
b. Circumstantial Evidence
Defendants’ evidence of a legitimate purpose for the transfer is sufficient to overcome
Plaintiff’s showing on the statutory badges of fraud. See Pl. Resp. 8-10. Several factors are

present, while others on which Plaintiffs rely do not support an inference of fraud.
1) Factors (a) and (b)
These factors permit an inference of fraud where “[t]he transfer or obligation was to an
insider” and “[t]he debtor had retained possession or control of the property transferred after the
transfer.” O.R.S. 95.230(2)(a)-(b). Defendants do not dispute that Defendant Wilkins is an
insider under the statute. Def. Reply 8. Defendant Wilkins is a managing director of SCI
Management, which manages both Fund II and Fund III. Wilkins Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 62. At
minimum, Wilkins had some level of control over the debtor. See O.R.S. 95.200(7)(b)(C). For
the same reasons, Wilkins retained control of the property transferred after the transfer.
Defendants’ evidence explaining the purpose of the transfer outweighs the presence of these
factors: the transfer needed to occur in order to facilitate both collateralization by Maya Cinemas
stock and investment in cannabis enterprises as the parties intended.
2) Factor (j)
This factor permits an inference of fraud where “[t]he transfer had occurred shortly

before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred.” O.R.S. 95.230(2)(j). The transfer from
Fund II to Fund III occurred relatively soon after Derek Sivers sent the money to Fund II. Derek
Sivers wired the funds to Fund II on January 13, 2017. Warren Decl. Resp. Summ. J. Ex. 1 at 3.
The majority of the funds, $650,000, were transferred to Fund III on January 24, 2017. Id. Ex. 1
at 3, Ex. 2 at 3. The promissory note from Fund III to Fund II is dated the same day as the initial
Note. Am. Compl. Ex. 1 at 1 (promissory note from Fund II to Derek Sivers for $700,000 dated
January 10, 2017); Warren Decl. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 9 at 4 (promissory note from Fund III to
Fund II for $700,000 dated January 10, 2017). Again, as Defendants have shown a legitimate
purpose for the transfer from Fund II to Fund III, this overcomes the timing of the transfer as a

badge of fraud. A prompt transfer promoted the ultimate goal of the investment: to send the
funds to cannabis enterprises.
3) Factor (c)
This factor supports an inference of fraud if the transfer was concealed and favors the
debtor if the transfer was disclosed. O.R.S. 95.230(2)(c). Plaintiff asserts that the transfer from
Fund II to Fund III was not disclosed to Derek Sivers. Pl. Resp. 9. As discussed above,
Defendant Wilkins emailed Derek and Dennis Sivers to advise that he was changing the
borrower to Fund II solely in order to permit Maya Cinemas stock to be used as collateral. This
email served to disclose the need to transfer the funds in order to both allow collateralization by
Maya Cinemas Stock and facilitate investment in cannabis enterprises. This factor supports a
finding that there was no fraud.
4) Factor (i)
This factor permits an inference of fraud where “[t]he debtor was insolvent or became
insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.” O.R.S.

95.230(2)(i). “A debtor who is generally not paying debts of the debtor as they become due is
presumed to be insolvent.” O.R.S. 95.210(2). Plaintiff asserts that Fund II is presumed insolvent
because the Notes have not been timely paid. Pl. Resp. 9 (citing O.R.S. 95.210(1)-(2)). The
parties discuss the solvency of Fund II in greater detail when addressing Plaintiff’s constructive
fraud claims. Def. Mot. 11; Pl. Resp. 12; Def. Reply 7-8. Their arguments are equally applicable
in this context, so the Court considers them here.
Plaintiff has not provided enough evidence for the Court to presume that Fund II was
insolvent at the time of the transfer. Plaintiff cites its unopposed motion for summary judgment,
which establishes only that the parties agree that the Notes were not paid. See Pl. Resp. 12. The

failure to repay a single loan does not support a presumption that Fund II was insolvent at the
time of the transfer over a year earlier. Plaintiff has provided no evidence that Fund II was
generally failing to pay its debts at the time of the transfer or shortly thereafter, which is the
relevant period for this badge of fraud.
Defendants assert that at the time of the transfer, Fund II was not insolvent. Def. Mot. 11.
Defendants rely on statements from Wilkins that Fund II had an estimated cost value of $4
million at the time of the transfer. Def. Mot. 11 (citing Wilkins Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7, ECF 62).
Defendants also rely on the undisputed facts that Fund II holds interest in Maya Cinemas stock
and that Maya Cinemas is an operational business. Def. Reply 7-8 (citing Sivers Dep. 37:21-
38:8); Asai Decl. Reply Summ. J. Ex. 10 (showing locations of Maya Cinemas theaters). It is
undisputed that the Notes from Fund II to Derek Sivers are collateralized by shares of Maya
Cinemas stock. Am. Compl. Ex. 1 at 2, Ex. 2 at 2. Defendant is correct that Plaintiff has not
disputed that Maya Cinemas stock has value. Def. Reply 7-8. See also Sivers Dep. 37:21-38:8
(stating that he had not investigated the value of the Maya Cinemas stock held as collateral).

Plaintiff highlights the “one-sided” nature of Defendant Wilkins’s statements in his
declaration but provides no evidence to contradict them. Pl. Resp. 12. While Plaintiff cites to
bank statements for Fund II showing a low balance around the time the loan was made, Warren
Decl. Summ. J. Ex. 1 at 1-9, this information does not contradict Defendant Wilkins’s statement
that Fund II had a cost value of $4 million at the time of the transfer. Viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to Plaintiff, Fund II’s assets at the time of the transfer were primarily in the
form of stock in the companies in its portfolio and were thus less fungible. This points to a
possible delay in repaying a loan if shares of stock needed to be sold, but does not point to the
conclusion that Fund II was insolvent.

Plaintiff also cites in passing to a portion of Defendant Wilkins’s deposition in which he
admitted that he sought to extend the Note in January 2018 due to unexpected difficulties in the
cannabis market. Pl. Resp. 9 (citing Wilkins Dep. II 60:15-62:20). As it is undisputed that only
Fund III held cannabis interests, Wilkins’s admission does not provide a basis to infer that Fund
II was insolvent. Furthermore, subsequent unanticipated difficulties in an investment do not
provide a basis to infer insolvency at the time of the transfer.
Finally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have not produced any financial statements in
discovery. Pl. Resp. 9, 12. See also Warren Decl. Resp. Summ. J. ¶ 8, Ex. 7 at 9. “If a
nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts
essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2)
allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other
appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Plaintiff’s counsel submits in her declaration that she
requested financial statements for Fund II and that Defendants have not produced them. Warren
Decl. Resp. Summ. J. ¶ 8. However, Plaintiff does not request relief under Rule 56(d). Plaintiff

relies on the record as it currently stands. See Pl. Resp. 12. In the absence of a motion from
Plaintiff requesting relief and explaining why it is warranted, the Court will decide this issue on
the record before it.1
The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence to show a
genuine dispute of material fact on the solvency of Fund II. Plaintiff submits no evidence to
rebut Defendant Wilkins’s assertion of the Fund’s cost value at the time of the transfer. Plaintiff
submits no evidence that Fund II was not paying its debts at the time of the transfer. The fact that
Fund II ultimately failed to repay the loan to Derek Sivers is insufficient on its own for a jury to
reasonably infer that Fund II was insolvent at the time of the transfer. See Kuderer v. United

States, 739 F. Supp. 1422, 1427 (D. Or. 1990) (analyzing lease alleged to be analogous to
fraudulent transfer and finding no evidence that promise to make mortgage and tax payments
was inadequate consideration despite lack of evidence that these payments were ultimately
made). See also Stefanchik, 559 F.3d at 929 (holding that a “mere scintilla” of evidence is
insufficient to overcome summary judgment); Brit. Airways Bd. v. Boeing Co., 585 F.2d 946,
952 (9th Cir. 1978) (“A mere scintilla of evidence will not do, for a jury is permitted to draw

1 The Court notes that the parties have had ample opportunity to engage in discovery. The Court
previously extended the discovery deadlines at Plaintiff’s request. Order, ECF 51. The
information Plaintiff seeks has been relevant to its claims since the beginning of this case, yet
Plaintiff did not previously notify the Court that Defendants were failing to respond to discovery
requests or seek the Court’s assistance in resolving any discovery dispute.
only those inferences of which the evidence is reasonably susceptible; it may not resort to
speculation.”). Factor (i) does not support an inference of fraud.
5) Factors (e) and (h)
Finally, Plaintiff argues in passing that factors (e) and (h) might support an inference of
fraud. Pl. Resp. 10. Factor (e) permits an inference of fraud where “[t]he transfer was of

substantially all the debtor’s assets.” O.R.S. 95.230(2)(e). Plaintiff makes no argument on this
factor and does not point the Court to any portions of the record to support a finding that this
factor applies. The Court therefore declines to consider this factor. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(1)(A), (3).
Factor (h) considers whether “[t]he value of the consideration received by the debtor was
reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation
incurred.” O.R.S. 95.230(2)(h). Plaintiff does address this legal issue in briefing its constructive
fraud claims, which also use the “reasonably equivalent value” standard. Pl. Resp. 12-14. The
Court will consider this factor.

In exchange for the Sivers funds, Fund III gave Fund II an interest-bearing promissory
note for $700,000, the same amount Sivers wired to Fund II. Warren Decl. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 9
at 4 (promissory note from Fund III to Fund II for $700,000 dated January 10, 2017). Defendants
argue that this was adequate consideration because the note is valid and at the time of the
transfer, Fund III held interests in multiple businesses. Def. Mot. 11 (citing Wilkins Dep. II at
18:17-19:1). Without disputing the validity of this promissory note or the interests Defendants
allege Fund III held, Plaintiff responds that the note is not reasonably equivalent value. Pl. Resp.
12-14.
The Court must resolve two issues: first, whether the promissory note qualifies as “value”
and second, if it does, whether it qualifies as “reasonably equivalent value.” The statute provides:
“Value is given for a transfer or an obligation if in exchange for the transfer or obligation
property is transferred or an antecedent debt is secured or satisfied, but value does not include an
unperformed promise made otherwise than in the ordinary course of the promisor’s business to

furnish support to the debtor or another person.” O.R.S. 95.220(1). The statute does not define
“reasonably equivalent.”
With respect to value, the Court previously observed that “the language of the statute
may permit a finding that an ‘unperformed promise’ constitutes value so long as it was made in
the ordinary course of the promisor’s business.” Op. & Ord. 22. The Court also recognized that
courts are split on this issue. Id. After reviewing the available persuasive authority, the Court
concludes that the promissory note from Fund III to Fund II qualifies as value. The language of
O.R.S. 95.220(1) mirrors the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”) definition of “value.”
UFTA § 3(a) (Unif. L. Comm’n 1984). The comments to the UFTA provision state that UFTA’s

definition of “value” was intended to include some unperformed promises. UFTA § 3 cmt. 4.
The unperformed promises generally held not to constitute value are promises by an individual to
support a parent or other transferor. Id. See also Bowman v. El Paso CGP Co., 431 S.W.3d 781,
786 (Tex. App. 2014) (interpreting analogous provision in Texas law). Thus, the general
interpretation of the carveout provision is that unperformed promises are not value as a matter of
law where they are both (1) made outside the ordinary course of business and (2) intended to
furnish support to another person. The promissory note from Fund III to Fund II does not fall
within this carveout. It was not made to furnish support to another person: it was a promise from
one venture capital fund to another.
With respect to reasonable equivalency, Plaintiff provides no legally sufficient basis to
question the relative value of the note at the time it was executed. The note is for the same
amount as the initial Note between Derek Sivers and Fund II. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not
dispute the validity of the note or the interests that Fund III held when the note was issued.
Instead, Plaintiff argues that reasonably equivalent value is determined from the creditor’s

perspective. Pl. Resp. 13. Even if this is true, Plaintiff points to no facts in the record showing
that the promissory note from Fund III to Fund II was not reasonably equivalent value from the
perspective of Fund II—or indeed Derek Sivers as the ultimately interested party—at the time it
was executed. Although Fund III later failed to pay the loan, it would be speculation to conclude
that the note was therefore worthless when it was executed, as Plaintiff points to no evidence
supporting such a conclusion. Plaintiff’s bare assertion that the note is not reasonably equivalent
value does not create a genuine dispute of material fact. This factor is at best neutral and likely
supports a finding that the transfer was not fraudulent.
Ultimately, Defendants have shown a legitimate purpose for the transfer from Fund II to

Fund III: to direct the funds to cannabis businesses as the parties intended and to permit the loan
to be collateralized by Maya Cinemas stock as Dennis Sivers requested on behalf of Derek
Sivers. Defendants have shown an absence of actual intent to defraud and are entitled to
summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim under O.R.S. 95.230(1)(a).
ii. Claims under O.R.S. 95.230(1)(b) and O.R.S. 95.240
Plaintiff’s fraudulent transfer claim is also based on constructive fraud. Under O.R.S.
95.230(1)(b) and O.R.S. 95.240, a plaintiff can demonstrate “constructive fraud due to [1]
inadequate consideration for the property conveyed and [2] the insolvency or near insolvency of
the debtor.” Doughty v. Birkholtz, 156 Or. App. 89, 96, 964 P.2d 1108 (1998). While largely
similar, the provisions also have differences. O.R.S. 95.230(1)(b) does not require complete
insolvency, while O.R.S. 95.240 does. In addition, O.R.S. 95.240(2), which covers transfers to
insiders,2 further requires that the transfer between the debtor and transferee be for present,
reasonably equivalent value. “A transfer is made for present value if the exchange between the
debtor and the transferee is intended by them to be contemporaneous and is in fact substantially

contemporaneous.” O.R.S. 95.220(3). As previously stated, fraudulent intent is measured at the
date of the transfer. Mitchell, 1993 WL 469260, at *6.
Defendants argue that there is no evidence of constructive intent to defraud because “it is
undisputed that Fund II was not insolvent as a result of the transfer and received reasonably
equivalent value from Fund III through the promissory note” from Fund III to Fund II. Def. Mot.
Summ. J. 10.3 The Court’s analysis of the statutory badges of fraud resolves these claims. As
discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact on whether Fund
II was insolvent. Supra at 21. The insolvency of the debtor is required for claims under O.R.S.
95.240(1) and (2), so Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on those claims. Plaintiff has

also failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact on whether the promissory note from Fund
III to Fund II constitutes reasonably equivalent value. Supra at 24. Defendants are therefore
entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim under O.R.S. 95.230(1)(b).
In sum, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s fraudulent transfer
claims. The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s securities claims.

2 It is undisputed that Defendant Wilkins is an insider for the purposes of the statute. Pl. Resp. 8;
Def. Reply 8.
3 Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to address its claim under O.R.S. 95.240 in their motion,
and further that the Court should grant summary judgment to Plaintiff. Pl. Resp. 10-15. The
Court agrees with Defendants that they did address this claim. Def. Reply 6 n.2. Defendants are
also correct that under the Local Rules, Plaintiffs may not move for summary judgment in a
response brief. Def. Reply 3 n.1 (citing LR 7-1(b)).
B. Securities Claims
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Wilkins made material omissions of fact in violation of
Oregon securities law when selling the Note and the Amended Note to Derek Sivers. Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 53-67.
Oregon securities law imposes liability on a person who

sells or successfully solicits the sale of a security in violation of ORS 59.135 (Fraud
and deceit with respect to securities or securities business) (1) or (3) or by means
of an untrue statement of a material fact or an omission to state a material fact
necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which they are made, not misleading (the buyer not knowing of the untruth or
omission), and who does not sustain the burden of proof that the person did not
know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of the untruth
or omission.

O.R.S. 59.115(1)(b). “Every person who directly or indirectly controls a seller liable
under subsection (1) of this section, every partner, limited liability company manager, including
a member who is a manager, officer or director of such seller, every person occupying a similar
status or performing similar functions, and every person who participates or materially aids in
the sale” is jointly and severally liable to the same extent as the seller. O.R.S. 59.115(3).
Finally, O.R.S. 59.135(2) and (3)4 provide that it is unlawful “[t]o make any untrue
statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the
statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading”
and “[t]o engage in any act, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a
fraud or deceit upon any person.”
Defendants base their motion for summary judgment on three arguments: (1) Oregon
securities law does not apply because the Notes were not bought or sold in Oregon, (2) the Notes

4 Plaintiff’s amended complaint cites O.R.S. 59.135(1) and (3), but the language used in the
complaint corresponds to subsections (2) and (3) of the statute. See Am. Compl. ¶ 65.
are not securities as a matter of law, and (3) Defendant Wilkins made no material misstatements
or omissions of fact as a matter of law. Def. Mot. 12-16. The Court concludes that the first of
these arguments is dispositive, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s
securities claims.
i. Whether Oregon Law Applies

Defendants argue that they should be granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s securities
claims because the Oregon securities statute does not apply. Def. Mot. 12; Def. Reply 9-11. At
the motion to dismiss stage, the Court declined to address this issue because Defendants did not
specify which state’s law should apply. Op. & Ord. 24-25. The Court now concludes that the
applicability of O.R.S. 59.115 is governed by O.R.S. 59.335 and 59.345. See O.R.S. 15.405
(“ORS 15.400 (Definitions for ORS 15.400 to 15.460 to 15.460 (Commentary) govern the choice
of law applicable to noncontractual claims when a choice between or among the laws of more
than one state is at issue. ORS 15.400 (Definitions for ORS 15.400 to 15.460) to 15.460
(Commentary) do not supersede the provisions of other Oregon statutes that expressly designate

the law governing a particular noncontractual claim.”). The parties have briefed the applicability
of O.R.S. 59.335 and 59.345. See Def. Mot. 12; Pl. Resp. 21-22; Def. Reply 9-11.
Under these provisions, O.R.S. 59.115 “appl[ies] to persons who sell or offer to sell” a
security either when “[a]n offer to sell is made in this state” or “[a]n offer to buy is made and
accepted in this state.” O.R.S. 59.335(1). An offer to buy or sell is made in Oregon “whether or
not either party is then present in this state, when the offer: (a) [o]riginates from this state; or (b)
[i]s directed by the offeror to this state and received at the place to which it is directed (or at any
post office in this state in the case of a mailed offer).” O.R.S. 59.345(1). An offer to buy or sell is
accepted in Oregon “when acceptance: (A) [i]s communicated to the offeror in this state; and (B)
[h]as not previously been communicated to the offeror, orally or in writing, outside this state.”
O.R.S. 59.345(2)(a). “Acceptance is communicated to the offeror in this state, whether or not
either party is then present in this state, when the offeree directs it to the offeror in this state
reasonably believing the offeror to be in this state and it is received at the place to which it is
directed (or at any post office in this state in the case of a mailed acceptance).” O.R.S.

59.345(2)(b).
The parties focus on whether an offer to sell or buy the Notes “originated” in Oregon. Pl.
Resp. 21; Def. Reply 10. As Defendants note, the statute does not define “originate.” Def. Reply
10. When an Oregon statute does not define terms, Oregon courts “typically resort to dictionary
definitions to discern their meaning.” State v. Corcilius, 294 Or. App. 20, 23, 430 P.3d 169
(2018). A dictionary definition should be considered in the context of the statute to determine
whether it makes sense. Id. Defendants rely on a dictionary definition of “originate” that reads
“to cause the beginning of: give rise to: initiate.” Def. Reply 10 (citing Webster’s Third New Int’l
Dictionary 1953 (unabridged ed. 1993)). The Court concludes that this definition makes sense in

the context of the statute: the Oregon securities laws govern if an offer to buy or sell a security
arises or is initiated in Oregon, even if neither party is in Oregon when the offer is ultimately
made. See O.R.S. 59.345(1). This is consistent with the overall focus of the statute on the
existence of an offer or acceptance with a sufficient tie to Oregon.
In this case, Derek Sivers was living outside the United States when he offered to buy the
Note. Sivers Dep. at 8:5-18. Wilkins resides in Maryland and did not travel to Oregon to execute
the Notes. Wilkins Dep. II 8:18-24; Wilkins Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, ECF 24. Plaintiff points to no evidence
that either party was in Oregon during negotiations. Plaintiff instead relies on three different
connections to Oregon. First, Derek Sivers’s father, Dennis Sivers, was located in Oregon and
facilitated the investment as the agent of Derek Sivers. Pl. Resp. 21. The parties agree that
Dennis Sivers was Derek Sivers’s agent in negotiating the initial Note. Pl. Resp. 23; Def. Reply
13. Dennis Sivers contacted Derek Sivers to propose that he make the investment. Sivers Dep.
28:24-29:3. Dennis Sivers’s office in Oregon drafted the initial Note with input from Defendant
Wilkins. Sivers Dep. 29:11-13; Asai Decl. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 4. Second, Plaintiff alleges that

Derek Sivers intended to invest in Oregon companies. Pl. Resp. 21. Third, “the Notes themselves
contemplate existence in Oregon.” Id.
Plaintiff relies on State v. Jacobs, in which the Oregon Court of Appeals stated that “the
Oregon Securities Law applies if there is sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could
conclude that the offers to sell . . . originated in Oregon.” 55 Or. App. 406, 410, 637 P.2d 1377
(1981). In Jacobs, the defendant, a California resident, met with potential investors in California,
while another participant in the scheme, Marshall, showed the investors the land in which they
proposed to invest, which was located in Oregon. Id. at 408. The Oregon Court of Appeals
concluded that the jury could have reasonably found that the offers to sell the interest in land

originated in Oregon because there were sufficient facts showing that the defendant was an agent
of Marshall, and Marshall resided in Oregon and transacted business from Oregon. Id. at 411.
The Court agrees with Defendants that Jacobs does not apply here. Def. Reply 9-10. In
Jacobs, the defendant was an out-of-state agent acting on behalf of Oregon residents who were
the sellers of the investment. The agency relationship and the actions of the sellers in Oregon
were key to the Oregon Court of Appeals’ decision; the location of the land in Oregon was only
incidentally relevant.5 Here, Dennis Sivers, the Oregon connection, was an agent and not a

5 At least one other district court has interpreted Jacobs similarly. Barnebey v. E.F. Hutton &
Co., 715 F. Supp. 1512, 1540 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (interpreting identical provision in Oklahoma
securities law).
principal. Furthermore, he was an agent of the lender (buyer), not the borrower (seller). Jacobs
does not provide a basis to impute Dennis Sivers’s Oregon connections to Defendant Wilkins.
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that none of the three Oregon connections
on which Plaintiff relies, whether considered individually or cumulatively, is sufficient to show
that the Oregon securities laws cover the transactions at issue here. Dennis Sivers’s role in the

process, however substantial, is insufficient to meet the statutory requirements. O.R.S. 59.115
applies to sellers of securities when either (1) the offer to sell is made in Oregon, or (2) the offer
to buy is made and accepted in Oregon. O.R.S. 59.335. The statute is precise on this point, and
the facts here meet neither set of requirements.
With respect to (1), it is undisputed that Defendant Wilkins was not in Oregon for the
negotiation or execution of the Notes. No facts indicate—and Plaintiff does not assert—that
Dennis Sivers was an agent of Defendant Wilkins. His Oregon connections cannot be imputed to
Wilkins to satisfy the origination requirement. Similarly, with respect to (2), no evidence
indicates that any offer by Derek Sivers to buy the Notes was accepted in Oregon, as Defendant

Wilkins was in Maryland when he negotiated and executed the Notes. Thus, even if the Court
were to conclude that the offer to buy the initial Note was made in Oregon by Dennis Sivers on
behalf of Derek Sivers,6 this would still be insufficient under the statute, as the offer to buy must
be both made and accepted in Oregon for Oregon securities law to apply.
Defendant is also correct that the Oregon connection is even weaker with respect to the
Amended Note. Def. Reply 10. Plaintiff does not point to any facts showing that either Derek
Sivers or Defendant Wilkins was in Oregon during the negotiations for the Amended Note.

6 The Court further doubts that this proposition is consistent with Oregon law. Jacobs relied on
the location of the sellers, not their agent.
Furthermore, Plaintiff points to no evidence that Dennis Sivers was involved in negotiating or
executing the Amended Note. The record includes an email from Defendant Wilkins to Derek
Sivers regarding the amended note; the email does not mention Dennis Sivers’s involvement in
negotiations, and he is not a party to the email. Warren Decl. Resp. Summ. J. Ex. 6.
The other two Oregon connections on which Plaintiff relies do not bolster its case.

Nothing in the statutory language or the caselaw supports Plaintiff’s contention that the location
of the companies for which the investment was destined is in itself relevant in assessing the
applicability of the Oregon securities statute. Jacobs is instructive on this point, as the Oregon
Court of Appeals based its decision on the sellers’ residence and activities in Oregon and did not
rely on the fact that the object of the investment was also in Oregon. 55 Or. App. at 411.
Finally, the Court has already concluded that the securities claims are noncontractual and
thus not governed by the choice of law provisions in the Notes. Op. & Ord. 24. Plaintiff has
pointed to no caselaw holding that a choice of law clause in a Note should be considered in
determining whether the offer to buy or sell originated in a particular state. Such evidence may

be relevant when evaluating personal jurisdiction, but it does not point to the location of an offer
or acceptance. Ultimately, because the Court has already concluded that the other Oregon
connections on which Plaintiff relies are insufficient, the choice of law clause is insufficient on
its own to show that the Note originated in Oregon. To hold otherwise would allow the clause to
trump the statute and defeat the intent of the Oregon Legislature. And to the extent that Plaintiff
relies on the “Portland, OR” legend at the top of the Notes, Am. Compl. Ex. 1 at 1, Ex. 2 at 1,
this language is likewise insufficient to show that the Notes originated in Oregon where neither
party to the Notes was in Oregon for the negotiation or execution of the Notes or resided in
Oregon during the relevant period.7
Because the Oregon securities laws do not apply to the Notes, Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment on Plaintiff’s securities claims.
CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [58].
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [61]. The parties are to
contact the Court within seven days of the date of entry of this Opinion and Order to schedule a
status conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:___F__e_b_ru__a_ry_ _1_7_,_ 2_0_2__3____.

______________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

7 Other district courts applying the same uniform provisions have also required more than simply
a nexus to the state whose laws the plaintiff seeks to apply. E.g., McCullough v. Leede Oil &
Gas, Inc., 617 F. Supp. 384, 389 (W.D. Okla. 1985) (holding that the Oklahoma Securities Act
did not apply to the transaction although the defendant mailed the plaintiff certain
correspondence during negotiations from its branch office in Oklahoma).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10395702. Public record. Not legal advice.