the assistance and advice of securities brokers. He never attempted to contact Donnerstag or
DBSI before his parents invested in DBSI North Stafford, and he acknowledged that after
reviewing the DBSI North Stafford materials, he opined to his parents that the investment
sounded pretty good."CP at 239.
The Roberts' response argued that their claims should proceed to trial under the Act
because Donnerstag and CB Richard Ellis, Inc. acted as a seller and control person. They
included Donnerstag's and Robert Roberts's depositions. Donnerstag stated that he had (1)
never been licensed to sell securities, (2)worked with Robert Roberts for years, and had
communicated with Roberts about 50 times while assisting him in finding a 1031 exchange
property, and (3)developed a good sense of what Roberts sought in an investment. Donnerstag
also recounted the seminar where he learned of DBSI's tenancy in-
- common program and
recalled that DBSI invited real estate brokers to refer potential investors in exchange for a
referral fee.
After referring the Roberts to DBSI, Donnerstag spoke with Rottman and DBSPs
Michelle Brock about a referral fee. Then following the DBSI North Stafford sale, the Roberts
paid $25
72,856. to CB Richard Ellis, Inc. for the referral. Donnerstag received about half of the
referral fee.
Robert Roberts stated that he sued Donnerstag and CB Richard Ellis, Inc. because
Donnerstag represented to the Roberts that DBSI was a "company that had been in business for
27 years with a good track record, and it was a safe, conservative investment, and it had a
guaranteed return, I believe 7 percent." CP at 498. He also said that Donnerstag encouraged
6
No. 43018 5
- II
-