U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cell>Point, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 21-cv-01574-PAB-KLM
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
CELL>POINT, LLC,
GREG COLIP, and
TERRY COLIP,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on that portion of Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion for
Expedited Discovery and Emergency Consideration thereof; Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, Asset Freeze, and Other Preliminary Relief; and Motion to Exceed Page
Limitations that seeks a preliminary injunction [Docket No. 45]. The Court held a
hearing on plaintiff’s motion on January 25, 2022. 1 	See Docket No. 89. The Court has
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a), 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), and 15
U.S.C. § 78u(d).
On June 10, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) filed
this lawsuit against defendants Cell>Point, L.L.C. (“Cell>Point”), Terry Colip, and Greg
1 The exhibits referenced in this order were admitted at the hearing. See Docket No.
89. Exhibits labeled with an A are defendants’ exhibits.
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 22

2
Colip, bringing claims for fraud against all defendants in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (the “Exchange Act”), for aiding and abetting violations of the
Exchange Act against the individual defendants, for fraud in the offer or sale of
securities in violation of Section 17(a) of 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a) (the “Securities Act”)
against all defendants, and for aiding and abetting violations of the Securities Act
against the individual defendants. Docket No. 1 at 38-42, ¶¶ 156-170. Plaintiff requests
a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from violating securities laws, an order
prohibiting the individual defendants from acting as director or officer of any public
company, an order that defendants disgorge any ill-gotten gains, and an order that
defendants pay civil penalties. Id. at 43.
Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65
requesting: (i) that defendants be enjoined from violating the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act, (ii) an asset freeze against each defendant, (iii) an order requiring
repatriation of assets moved outside the jurisdiction of the Court since the matter was
filed, and (iv) an order requiring the defendants to provide an accounting. Docket No.
45 at 9-10. Plaintiff’s motion also requested that the parties be allowed to conduct
limited discovery in advance of a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion. Id. at
6-7. The Court granted the portion of plaintiff’s motion requesting expedited discovery.
See Docket No. 54.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
Defendant Cell>Point is a biotech company that was formed in 2001. Exh. A-2 at
2. Defendant Terry Colip is a managing member and the chief financial officer of
Cell>Point. Greg Colip is a managing member and the chief executive officer of
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 22

3
Cell>Point. He is also an attorney licensed to practice in the state of Texas. The only
employees of Cell>Point are Terry Colip and Greg Colip as well as a part time
accountant. Docket No. 1 at 7, ¶ 24.2 Cell>Point has licensed from the Board of
Regents of The University of Texas System on behalf of M.D. Andersen Cancer Center
the rights to five platform technologies. Exh. A-4 at 1. Cell>Point entered phase two
clinical trials of a radiopharmaceutical compound for clinical oncology, but stopped
clinical trials in 2014 and has not resumed them.
Greg Colip formed Cell Theranostics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, in 2021. Exh.
A-25. Cell>Point owns Cell Theranostics, Inc. Cell>Point granted sublicenses of its
platform technologies to Cell Theranostics, Inc. and assigned all the obligations that
Cell>Point was under to Cell Theranostics, Inc. regarding the licenses on May 20, 2021.
Exh. A-28 at 1-3. The sublicense agreement states that, “[b]ecause it is difficult to take
a limited liability company public and since Cell>Point is a limited liability company, the
decision was made by the management to form a ‘C’ corporation” which was Cell
Theranostics, Inc. Id. at 2. On May 14, 2021, Terry Colip and Greg Colip formed Cell
Theranostics, Ltd., a Cayman Island entity. Exh. A-30. Terry Colip represented to
Cell>Point investors that Cell Theranostics, Inc. would be the entity that went public
several times. See Exh. 37 at 2; Exh. 15 at 3-4.
Cell>Point has no assets outside of its licenses, patents, and a 75% ownership in
a biopharmaceutical company. Exh. A-4 at 1-3. Cell>Point has no revenue and no
2 The facts in this section that are drawn from plaintiff’s complaint, Docket No. 1, and
are uncontested by defendants in their answer. See Docket No. 44.
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 22

4
money coming in other than the loans it solicits and merchant advances it receives.
Neither Cell Theranostics, Inc., Cell Theranostics, Ltd., nor Cell>Point has earned
positive net revenue in any year. Cell>Point sells equity to investors in the form of
“units” in the company, receives loans from investors, and takes out merchant advances
to operate. Merchant advances provide cash in exchange for a promise of future
receivables at a high interest rate. For example, Cell Theranostics, Inc., doing business
as Cell>Point, entered into a merchant advance on December 10, 2021 borrowing
$25,000 for forty days resulting in a total of $36,250 to be paid back, for an effective
interest rate of 45%. Exh. 56. On January 13, 2022, Terry Colip entered into an
agreement on behalf of Cell Theranostics, Inc. to try to resolve outstanding debt on four
merchant agreements that totaled $88,385. Exh. 55 at 1-7.
Terry Colip has solicited several loans from investors, acting in his capacity as a
representative of Cell>Point, sometimes stating that Cell>Point needed the funding to
prepare for an imminent initial public offering. These loans are often sold as
investments in Cell>Point through units, which are membership interests, or through
notes. Docket No. 1 at 9, ¶ 35.
A. Young Loan in June 2021
On June 23, 2021, Terry Colip sent an email to a Cell>Point investor, David
Young, asking Mr. Young if he was interested in making “a short term loan of $70,000 to
$100,000.” Exh. 23 at 3. He further stated the loan would reach maturity on July 7,
2021 and that it “would pay 10% plus units.” Id. Mr. Young responded that he was
“curious about what . . . requires such a loan. As I recall the previous loan was to
satisfy attorney fees for the IPO. Are they asking for more . . . ?” Id. Terry Colip
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 22

5
responded that “Cell Theranostics[] is working on a $20 Million pre-IPO investment with
the CITIC Group. 3 The $20 Million got allocated by CITIC, and now we are working on
the paperwork. This is the linchpin for the IPO.” Id. at 2. Terry Colip also stated that
“[t]he attorneys are billing me every two weeks and I don’t want to slow them down.” Id.
Mr. Young then agreed to have Terry Colip send him the loan paperwork. Id. at 1-2. In
a subsequent email, Terry Colip stated, “[b]y [] the time the IPO is completed I am
guessing we will spend over $4 Million in legal fees.” Id. at 1. Mr. Young loaned Cell
Theranostics, Inc. $100,000 on June 23, 2021. Exh. 22 at 1. This loan was to be paid
by July 9, 2021 with $110,000 and 400 units in Cell>Point.4 Id.
When Terry Colip emailed Mr. Young, Cell>Point had not retained outside
counsel for an initial public offering and Cell>Point had not been billed for any IPO
work.5 At that time, Cell>Point was only paying legal fees to the law firm Mayer Brown
for its representation in this case and legal fees to another firm for matters unrelated to
3 Plaintiff alleges that “[the] CITIC [Group] is a state-owned investment company of the
People’s Republic of China.” Docket No. 45 at 15 n.5.
4 This loan was in default from July 9, 2021 through January 7, 2022. Exh. 91. At that
time, Mr. Young extended his loan to February 10, 2022 on the condition that an
additional $30,000 be paid at maturity of the loan for a total of $140,000. Id.
5 In response to an interrogatory, Cell>Point stated that one bill from Mayer Brown for
$100,000 was for this action and for work on a “potential IPO.” Exh. 80 at 4. In
response to a subpoena, Mayer Brown stated it did not have any records of billing
Cell>Point, Cell Theranostics, Inc., or Cell Theranostics, Ltd. for any work on a
“contemplated, potential, completed, or actual Initial Public Offering.” Exh. 11 at 1-2.
The Court does not find Cell>Point’s assertion that the Mayer Brown’s bill for work on
this case also included work on an imminent IPO to be credible.
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 22

6
an IPO. See Exh. 80 at 4. Cell>Point could not use a loan from Mr. Young for IPO filing
fees as it did not have attorneys working on an IPO. In response to a SEC request for
admission, Cell>Point admitted “that a portion of certain funds loaned by David Young
were used for purposes other than to pay attorneys working on the forthcoming IPO.”
Exh. 80 at 6. Additionally, Greg Colip testified at the hearing that in June of 2021 he
had not had any written communications with the CITIC Group. In response to an
interrogatory asking for contact information for any “individuals who have communicated
to [y]ou that they, or entities they represent, are interested in being part of, or investing
in, [y]our purported forthcoming Initial Public Offering,” including persons from the
“CITIC Group,” id. at 3, Cell>Point did not disclose any contacts from persons from the
CITIC Group. Id.; Exh. 81 at 1. Greg Colip had not directly communicated with the
CITIC Group at the time Terry Colip emailed Mr. Young.
B. Lockton Loan in June 2021
On June 16, 2021, Terry Colip emailed a potential Cell>Point investor, Steve
Lockton, stating that Cell Theranostics, Ltd. “came to terms with the CITIC Group for a
$20 Million pre-IPO investment in Cell Theranostics, Ltd.” and that “[a]s part of the deal
CITIC is going to co-manage the IPO.” Exh. 13 at 2. Additionally, Terry Colip stated
that “legal counsel [was] drafting the IPO doc[uments].” Id. Terry Colip solicited an
investment from Mr. Lockton the next day asking if he was “interested in the Cell
Theranostic[s], Ltd. shares.” Id. Mr. Lockton stated that he would like to purchase
shares of Cell Theranostics, Ltd. Id. at 1. On June 18, 2021, Mr. Lockton loaned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 22

7
defendants $200,000. Exh. 12. This loan was converted into an investment.6
Cell>Point did not have counsel preparing any IPO documents as of the time
Terry Colip told Mr. Lockton that “legal counsel [was] drafting the doc[uments].” Exh. 13
at 2. Greg Colip, acting as in house legal counsel, had compiled internal documents in
preparation for an IPO, but had not drafted any legal documents. In response to an
SEC interrogatory, Cell>Point admitted it had “not finalized any agreement to engage in
an Initial Public Offering with any Chinese . . . entity or company.” Exh. 80 at 5. Terry
Colip made these representations to Mr. Lockton regarding Cell>Point’s progress
towards an IPO immediately before he asked if Mr. Lockton would like to purchase
shares in Cell Theranostics, Inc.
C. Doran Solicitations in 2021
Barbara Doran is an investor in Cell>Point. She is the chief investment officer
and CEO of a wealth advisory and asset management firm. She invested $50,000 in
Cell>Point in February 2018. On October 8, 2019, Terry Colip told Ms. Doran in an
email that an “Asian fund, Zhong Cai Jing Fund, received approval from their investment
committee, to fund their first investment in Cell>Point. The first investment will be $15
Million.” Exh. 14 at 1.
Terry Colip solicited a loan from Ms. Doran by email on September 27, 2021,
stating that Cell>Point was “looking for a short term loan” of $250,000. Exh. 15 at 3-4.
6 Steve Lockton stated that he wanted to purchase shares. Exh. 13 at 1. Terry Colip
testified that Mr. Lockton’s initial loan was converted to units and shares based on Mr.
Lockton’s intentions.
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 22

8
He stated that defendants “have six funds that are working on terms for a $25 Million
crossover round investment []one . . . providing us terms later this week.” Id. at 3. He
then stated that he “ha[d] a call . . . to work out a [sic] engagement agreement with
CITIC Securities.” Id. Ms. Doran responded, “[w]hat is the $250k for?” Id. at 2. Terry
Colip stated, for “[l]egal fees to complete the IPO filings.” Id. Ms. Doran then asked
what law firm needed the fees, since that was “[n]ot usual behavior.” Id. at 1. Terry
Colip responded with an email that said, “Mayor [sic] Brown. Ten years ago it would not
have been usual behavior. I am finding it typical behavior today.” Id. Ms. Doran
decided not to provide a loan.
In September 2021, defendants still had not received bills for IPO work from any
lawyers. See Exh. 80 at 4. Terry Colip did not tell Ms. Doran that Cell>Point owed no
legal fees to Mayer Brown for IPO work. Terry Colip did not disclose to Ms. Doran that
there was no drafted proposal from the Zhong Cai Jing Fund in October 2019 for
$15,000,000, nor did he disclose that Cell>Point had not had any direct contact with the
CITIC Group. Terry Colip did not disclose that the loan to Mr. Young was in default at
this time.
D. Dewhirst Solicitation in October 2021
Miles Dewhirst is an investor in Cell>Point. He invested $150,000 in 2019. His
investment included 5,358 units. Exh. 39 at 5. On June 30, 2021, Terry Colip told Mr.
Dewhirst that defendants were “working on the paperwork for the $20 Million pre-IPO
investment by the CITIC Group. With that we will move forward and complete the filings
for the IPO.” Exh. 36 at 2. On September 3, 2021, Terry Colip emailed Mr. Dewhirst
stating, “[w]e are in the process of an IPO led [b]y UBS and CITIC Securities” and “Cell
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 8 of 22

9
Theranostics, Inc. will be the entity going public and our bankers are looking to price the
offering at $550 million market cap or higher.” Exh. 37 at 2. On October 20, 2021,
Terry Colip sent Mr. Dewhirst an email soliciting a $250,000 loan for a three-month term
that would pay $275,000 at maturity. Exh. 39 at 5. The loan was secured by 50,000
warrants in Cell>Point priced at $5, that would be paid out when Cell Theranostics, Inc.
went public. Id. at 3-4. Mr. Dewhirst asked if Mr. Colip had any concerns that the loan
would not be paid at maturity. Id. at 2. Mr. Colip responded that the loan would “have a
senior position” and that “[t]he only other loans to the company are from the founders.”
Id. Mr. Dewhirst did not loan money to Cell>Point based on that solicitation. On
December 3, 2021, Mr. Dewhirst asked if there was any hope of getting his investment
back. Exh. 46 at 9. The next day he asked if the SEC’s allegations in this case were
true. Id. at 8. On December 5, 2021, Terry Colip told Mr. Dewhirst that “[o]ur counsel
and D&O carrier” were working on a motion to dismiss in this case. Id. at 2.
At the time of Terry Colip’s representations to Mr. Dewhirst, Cell>Point did not
have counsel retained for an IPO or any confirmation of an imminent investment.
Additionally, when Terry Colip stated that Cell>Point only had outstanding loans to
himself and Greg Colip, Cell>Point’s loan from Mr. Young was in default. Terry Colip
did not disclose the existence of this loan to Mr. Dewhirst. Terry Colip also testified he
did not disclose to Mr. Dewhirst that Cell>Point had begun to take out merchant
advances for cash when he solicited this loan. Cell>Point did not have a directors and
officers (“D&O”) insurance carrier in October 2021. Cell>Point had D&O insurance in
2016 and 2017, but as of the hearing no expenses for this action had been covered by
D&O insurance. Terry Colip admitted Cell>Point has not created any legal documents
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 9 of 22

10
for an IPO. Terry Colip did not disclose to Mr. Dewhirst that Cell>Point had not drafted
any legal documents for an IPO.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A preliminary injunction is not meant to “remedy past harm but to protect plaintiffs
from irreparable injury that will surely result without [its] issuance” and “preserve the
relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.” Schrier v. Univ. of
Colo., 427 F.3d 1253, 1258, 1267 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Hale v. Ashcroft, 683 F.
Supp. 2d 1189, 1197 (D. Colo. 2009) (“injunctive relief can only be obtained for current
or prospective injury and cannot be conditioned on a past injury that has already been
remedied”). “[C]ourts generally will refuse to grant injunctive relief unless plaintiff
demonstrates that there is no adequate legal remedy.” Charles Alan Wright, et al., 11A
Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2944 (3rd ed. 2021).
In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must show four elements:
“(1) he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim; (2) he will suffer irreparable harm if
the injunction is denied; (3) his threatened injury outweighs the harm the grant of the
injunction will cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction will not
adversely affect the public interest. Because the grant of a preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary remedy, the movant must make a clear showing that he is entitled to the
injunction.” S.E.C. v. Scoville, 913 F.3d 1204, 1213 (10th Cir. 2019) (citations and
internal quotations omitted).
In cases involving SEC enforcement action, courts have reformulated the
traditional requirements (the “SEC test”). See S.E.C. v. Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d 1028,
1035-40 (2d Cir. 1990). Courts have not required the SEC to show irreparable injury, id.
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 10 of 22

11
at 1036, but rather require the SEC to show that defendant’s actions violate the
defendant’s statutory obligations. See S.E.C. v. Compania Internacional Financiera
S.A., 2011 WL 3251813, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2011) (citing Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d at
1035). This showing is “analogous to the traditional likelihood of success standard
regularly applied to private litigants.” Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted). The
burden of proof changes as the requested relief changes; the more the injunction would
change the status quo, the stronger the showing must be. Id. For example, when the
SEC seeks to prohibit future violations of securities laws, there must be a showing of
two elements: (i) that a violation has occurred and (ii) a substantial showing that the
violation is likely to occur again. Id. at *10. In contrast, when the relief sought is an
asset freeze, the SEC does not need to show a likelihood that the violation will occur
again because this injunctive relief maintains the status quo. Id. at *11.
Courts in this circuit have applied the SEC test when the SEC seeks injunctive
relief. See S.E.C. v. Traffic Monsoon, LLC, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1275, 1296 (D. Utah
2017), aff'd sub nom. S.E.C. v. Scoville, 913 F.3d at 1204 (“When the SEC seeks a
preliminary injunction pending trial, it must show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits
and a reasonable likelihood that the wrong will be repeated.”); S.E.C. v. Curshen, 372 F.
App'x 872, 882 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (upholding the grant of a permanent
injunction where the court found a violation of securities law and demonstrated a
substantial likelihood of another violation); S.E.C. v. Pros Int'l, Inc., 994 F.2d 767, 769
(10th Cir. 1993) S.E.C. v. Smart (“Smart I”), 2011 WL 2297659, at *20 (D. Utah June 8,
2011), aff'd S.E.C. v. Smart (“Smart II”), 678 F.3d 850 (10th Cir. 2012) (using the
violation and future violation test to grant a permanent injunction at the summary
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 11 of 22

12
judgment stage); S.E.C. v. Shields, No. 11-cv-02121-REB, 2011 WL 3799061, at *1 (D.
Colo. Aug. 26, 2011) (requiring a showing of a violation and a likelihood of a future
violation for a temporary restraining order); S.E.C. v. Art Intellect, Inc., 2013 WL
840048, at *21 (D. Utah Mar. 6, 2013) (using the SEC test for a permanent injunction).
Accordingly, this Court will apply the SEC test.7
Under the SEC test, enjoining future violations of securities laws requires a
substantial showing of a likelihood of future violations. S.E.C. v. Aragon Capital
Advisors, LLC, 2011 WL 3278642, *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2011). Accordingly, plaintiff
must make a showing that violations have occurred and a substantial showing that
violations will occur in the future in order to obtain injunctive relief.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Past Violations
1. Elements
In order to show a violation of section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and section
17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, “the SEC must prove that [defendants] made: (1) a
misrepresentation or omission (2) of material fact, (3) with scienter, (4) in connection
7 Even if the Court were to use the traditional test the outcome would be the same. The
Court would find that continued violations of securities laws constitute irreparable harm
to investors, that the balance of the equities tips in plaintiff’s favor given the need to
protect future investors, and that a prohibition on future violations will not adversely
affect the public interest. In addition, to the extent a prohibition on future violations
constitutes a change to the status quo that results in a disfavored injunction requiring “a
strong showing” on the merits and balance of the harms, O Centro Espirita Beneficiente
Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973, 976 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc), aff’d on
other grounds, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Unaio Do Vegetal, 546 U.S.
418 (2006), the Court would find plaintiff has made a strong showing on the merits of its
claim sufficient to grant the injunction.
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 12 of 22

13
with the purchase or sale of securities, and (5) by means of interstate commerce.”
Smart II, 678 F. 3d at 856 (citation, quotation, and brackets omitted). The requirements
under §§ 17(a)(2) and (3) are almost the same; the primary “difference between § 17(a)
and § 10(b) lies in the element of scienter.” Id. at 857. “Section 10(b) and § 17(a)(1)
require the SEC to establish at least recklessness, whereas negligence is sufficient for
§ 17(a)(2) and § 17(a)(3).” Id. (citing SEC v. Wolfson, 539 F.3d 1249, 1256-57 (10th
Cir. 2008); C.E. Carlson, Inc. v. S.E.C., 859 F.2d 1429, 1435 (10th Cir. 1988)).
Defendants do not contest whether the SEC has satisfied the fourth and fifth elements,
and for the reasons below, the Court finds they are not at issue.
The fourth element, requiring that a misstatement be made in connection with the
purchase or sale of a security, “should be construed flexibly, not technically and
restrictively.” S.E.C. v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813, 819 (2002). “[A]n instrument
denominated a ‘note’ . . . is presumed to be a ‘security,’ and that presumption may be
rebutted” by a showing that the note resembles a different category of instrument.
Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 67 (1990). Additionally, securities include
investment contracts. Foxfield Villa Assocs., LLC v. Robben, 967 F.3d 1082, 1090
(10th Cir. 2020). An investment contract has “three parts: ‘(1) an investment, (2) in a
common enterprise, (3) with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the
entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others.’” Id. (quoting Scoville, 913 F.3d at
1220). Defendants offered membership interests and shares with the expectation that
profits would be disbursed after an initial public offering. The Court is satisfied that
defendants’ offerings of shares and membership interests are investment contracts.
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 13 of 22

14
Additionally, where defendants offered loans in the form of notes, the Court is satisfied
the presumption that notes are securities has not been rebutted.
The fourth element also requires that the misstatement be made in connection
with the sale of a security. This “require[s] a causal connection between the allegedly
deceptive act or omission and the alleged injury.” Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 86 F.3d
973, 977 (10th Cir. 1996) (ruling that misstatements made after a sale could not meet
this requirement). The misstatements plaintiff proved at the hearing that did not result in
the sale of a security cannot satisfy this element, but are considered here as evidence
of scienter and future violations. For instance, Ms. Doran and Mr. Dewhirst declined to
loan defendants money or to purchase securities after defendants made misstatements
and so these instances do not satisfy this element. Plaintiff, however, demonstrated
that Mr. Lockton and Mr. Young purchased securities immediately after Terry Colip
made misrepresentations to them. Mr. Young entered into an investment contract for
units, expecting his loan to return a profit when an IPO happened. Mr. Lockton invested
directly in units by converting his loan into shares. The Court is satisfied that where
plaintiff has proved misstatements were made that resulted in a sale of membership
interests or a note, this element is satisfied.
For the fifth element, use of the telephone and internet to sell securities can
establish that interstate commerce was used. See Smart I, 2011 WL 2297659 at *18
(ruling use of mails, the internet, and telephones sufficient to establish the element of
interstate commerce). Plaintiff introduced evidence defendants used email and phone
calls to solicit investments. The Court finds that the SEC has proved this element.
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 14 of 22

15
To demonstrate the first three elements, the SEC must show that defendants
made material misstatements with scienter. To demonstrate a misstatement or
omission, “the plaintiff must set forth an explanation as to why the statement or
omission complained of was false or misleading.” Grossman v. Novell, Inc., 120 F.3d
1112, 1124 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting In re GlenFed Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541, 1548 (9th
Cir.1994)). A statement or omission is material if a reasonable investor would consider
it important in determining whether to buy or sell stock or a security. Id. at 1119.
Misrepresentations regarding the use of investor funds are material. Smart I, 2011 WL
2297659, at *16. Scienter has been defined as “a mental state embracing intent to
deceive, manipulate, or defraud.” Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 193 n.12
(1976). The Tenth Circuit has ruled that “willful or reckless behavior satisfies the
scienter requirement.” Edward J. Mawod & Co. v. S.E.C., 591 F.2d 588, 596 (10th Cir.
1979). Recklessness occurs “where the defendant had acted with reckless indifference
[]to a . . . set of facts.” Id.
2. Incidents
a. Email to David Young on June 23, 2021
As noted in Section I.A. above, Terry Colip stated to Mr. Young that “Cell
Theranostics[] is working on a $20 Million pre-IPO investment with the CITIC Group.
The $20 Million got allocated by CITIC, and now we are working on the paperwork.
This is the linchpin for the IPO.” Exh. 23 at 2. Terry Colip also stated that “[t]he
attorneys are billing me every two weeks and I don’t want to slow them down.” Id.
These were misstatements. Terry Colip did not disclose that Cell>Point had no counsel
working on an IPO. First, Terry Colip misrepresented how Mr. Young’s investment
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 15 of 22

16
would be used. Terry Colip intentionally mislead Mr. Young by stating that Cell>Point
needed money for IPO lawyers when the only lawyers Cell>Point was paying were
lawyers working on this case. This misstatement was material as it addressed how the
funds provided by Mr. Young would be used. Second, Terry Colip misrepresented
Cell>Point’s progress on an IPO. Cell>Point had never directly communicated with the
CITIC Group and to represent that Cell>Point and the CITIC Group were at a stage of
negotiation involving paperwork was a misstatement. Greg Colip and Terry Colip knew
that they did not have any reliable commitments for an investment at this time, but Terry
Colip still communicated that an investment was imminent to Mr. Young to secure a
loan. This information would be material to a reasonable investor as it suggested the
future viability of Cell>Point.
b. Emails to Steve Lockton June 2021
As noted in Section I.B. above, Terry Colip stated that Cell Theranostics, Ltd. had
come to terms “with the CITIC Group for a $20 Million pre-IPO investment in Cell
Theranostics, Ltd.” and that Cell>Point’s “legal counsel [was] drafting the IPO
doc[uments].” Exh. 13 at 2. These were misstatements because Cell>Point did not
have counsel and did not have any drafted IPO documents. Terry Colip omitted the fact
that Cell>Point had never had direct contact with the CITIC Group. This omission
related to the use of Mr. Lockton’s funds as an investor and so it is material. Moreover,
the omission was willful; the Court finds that Terry Colip knew Cell>Point had not
retained external legal counsel to work on the IPO at the time he made the statement to
Mr. Lockton about legal counsel drafting legal documents. Terry Colip also intentionally
omitted the fact that no agreement with the CITIC Group existed.
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 16 of 22

17
Plaintiff has proved that, as to the two incidents discussed above, defendants
made material misrepresentations and omissions with scienter. Mr. Lockton and Mr.
Young both purchased securities after the misrepresentations were made to them and
therefore plaintiff has shown that these incidents were connected to the sale of a
security. The misrepresentations were made via email, a means of interstate
commerce. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has proved that defendants have
violated the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.
B. Future Violations
Plaintiff argues that an injunction is necessary to prevent future violations of
security law. Docket No. 45 at 28. Determining the likelihood of future violations
requires analysis of factors such as “the seriousness of the violation, the degree of
scienter, whether defendant's occupation will present opportunities for future violations
and whether defendant has recognized his wrongful conduct and gives sincere
assurances against future violations.” S.E.C. v. Pros Int'l, Inc., 994 F.2d 767, 769 (10th
Cir. 1993). Plaintiff argues that violations that occurred after the SEC’s filing of this
lawsuit on June 10, 2021 support a finding the violations are likely to continue. As
noted in Section III.A.2. above, defendants made misstatements after June 10, 2021 to
Cell>Point investors. These misstatements included (i) Terry Colip telling Ms. Doran
Cell>Point needed money to pay lawyers at Mayer Brown when Cell>Point had not
retained counsel to prepare an initial public offering; (ii) telling Mr. Dewhirst that
Cell>Point was working on an initial public offering led by the CITIC Group when
Cell>Point had not had direct contact with the CITIC Group; (iii) telling Mr. Dewhirst in
October 2021 that Cell>Point did not have any outstanding loans to anyone but the
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 17 of 22

18
Colips when Mr. Young’s loan to Cell>Point had not been repaid; and (iv) telling Mr.
Dewhirst that Cell>Point had D&O insurance when it did not. These misstatements,
made after the filing of the lawsuit, demonstrate that, without further intervention,
defendants are likely to continue to violate the law. The Court also finds that Terry Colip
acted intentionally. Terry Colip testified that he did not make any misstatements, stating
only that he could have been clearer in communications with investors. The Court does
not find this testimony credible. Cell>Point has accumulated debt from merchant
advances and loans from investors. Terry Colip made misstatements as he solicited
loans and investments knowing Cell>Point’s financial status. Given that Terry Colip did
not admit at the hearing he has made misstatements, the Court finds that Terry Colip,
acting on behalf of Cell>Point, refuses to “recognize[] his wrongful conduct.” Pros Int'l,
Inc., 994 F.2d at 769. Given that the Court finds that Greg Colip has acted in concert
with Terry Colip and that the Colips are managing members of Cell>Point who are
positioned to continue to commit violations, the Court finds that plaintiff has successfully
made a substantial showing of a likelihood of future violations.
As plaintiff has carried its burden of proving that defendants violated the
Securities Act and the Exchange Act and has made a substantial showing of a
likelihood of future violations, the Court concludes plaintiff has met its burden to
demonstrate that enjoining future violations is warranted.
C. Additional Relief Requested
In addition to an order enjoining defendants from future violations of the
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 18 of 22

19
securities law, plaintiff requests an asset freeze.8 However, the Court finds that the
SEC has failed demonstrate the justification for an asset freeze. Plaintiff argued that
defendants’ ability to pay back investors who may have been defrauded should not
depend on defendants’ ability to defraud more investors. However, defendants do not
currently have any significant assets that could be frozen. Cell>Point’s only apparent
assets are licenses for patents that do not generate revenue. Instead, plaintiff has
shown that defendants have significant debts on outstanding loans and merchant
advances. While the standard required for an asset freeze is less than that of other
injunctive relief, “[t]he essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the
Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular
case.” Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329 (1944). Finding no necessity for an
asset freeze in this case, the Court will decline to grant one.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the portion of Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion for Expedited Discovery
8 Plaintiff’s sample order contains several additional requests including leave to file a
notice of lis pendens on property Cell>Point owns, an accounting, and a repatriation of
any assets defendants have removed from the Court’s jurisdiction. See Docket No. 91
at 3-6. Plaintiff did not request this relief at the hearing. The Court will decline to
consider the request for leave to file a notice of lis pendens because defendants had no
opportunity to respond to this request as it did not appear in plaintiff’s briefing. The
Court will deny plaintiff’s request for an accounting as plaintiff has not demonstrated
why this is necessary at this stage of the case, especially given the discovery that has
already taken place. The Court will decline to order a repatriation of assets because
plaintiff has not shown any tangible assets, outside of Cell>Point’s sublicenses to Cell
Theranostics, Ltd., that have been moved abroad.
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 19 of 22

20
and Emergency Consideration thereof; Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Asset Freeze,
and Other Preliminary Relief; and Motion to Exceed Page Limitations [Docket No. 45]
seeking preliminary injunction is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is further
ORDERED that, pending further action by this Court, defendant Cell>Point,
L.L.C. and its subsidiaries, including, but not limited to, Cell Theranostics, Inc. and Cell
Theranostics, Ltd.; defendant Terry A. Colip; and defendant Greg R. Colip (collectively,
“Defendants”) and their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those persons in
active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of this Order,
by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, are enjoined from, directly or
indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security, by the use of any
means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of any facility of any
national securities exchange:
A. Employing any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud;
B. Making any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material
fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading; or
C. Engaging in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would
operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
It is further
ORDERED that, pending further action by this Court, defendant Cell>Point,
L.L.C. and its subsidiaries, including, but not limited to, Cell Theranostics, Inc. and Cell
Theranostics, Ltd.; defendant Terry A. Colip; and defendant Greg R. Colip; and their
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 20 of 22

21
agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those persons in active concert or
participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of this Order, by personal
service or otherwise, and each of them, are enjoined from, directly or indirectly, in the
offer or sale of any securities, by the use of any means or instruments of transportation
or communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the mails:
A. Employing any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud;
B. Obtaining money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material
fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or
C. Engaging in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates
or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser in violation of Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a). It is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed Page
Limitations in Their Response to Plaintiff’s “Omnibus Motion” [Docket No. 57] is
GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Substitute for Exhibit 2 (Docket
No. 56-2) to their Response to Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion [Docket No. 58] is GRANTED.
It is further
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 21 of 22

22
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Exceed Page Limitations in it
Reply in Support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 67] is GRANTED.
DATED February 14, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
Philip A. Brimmer
Chief United States District Judge
Case No. 1:21-cv-01574-PAB-SBP Document 93 filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado
pg 22 of 22