Hedge Fund Fraud News - Russell L. Forkey

ASTA/MAT Fund and the Falcon Fund – South Florida Securities and Investment Fraud and Mismanagement Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:35:59 GMT

Citigroup Affiliates to Pay $180 Million to Settle Hedge Fund Fraud Charges Relating to the ASTA/MAT Fund and the Falcon Fund:

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced that two Citigroup affiliates have agreed to pay nearly $180 million to settle charges that they defrauded investors in two hedge funds by claiming they were safe, low-risk, and suitable for traditional bond investors. The funds later crumbled and eventually collapsed during the financial crisis.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CGMI) and Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC (CAI) agreed to bear all costs of distributing the $180 million in settlement funds to harmed investors.

An SEC investigation found that the Citigroup affiliates made false and misleading representations to investors in the ASTA/MAT fund and the Falcon fund, which collectively raised nearly $3 billion in capital from approximately 4,000 investors before collapsing. In talking with investors, they did not disclose the very real risks of the funds. Even as the funds began to collapse and CAI accepted nearly $110 million in additional investments, the Citigroup affiliates did not disclose the dire condition of the funds and continued to assure investors that they were low-risk, well-capitalized investments with adequate liquidity. Many of the misleading representations made by Citigroup employees were at odds with disclosures made in marketing documents and written materials provided to investors.

“Firms cannot insulate themselves from liability for their employees’ misrepresentations by invoking the fine print contained in written disclosures,” said Andrew Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division. “Advisers at these Citigroup affiliates were supposed to be looking out for investors’ best interests, but falsely assured them they were making safe investments even when the funds were on the brink of disaster.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding:

•· The ASTA/MAT fund was a municipal arbitrage fund that purchased municipal bonds and used a Treasury or LIBOR swap to hedge interest rate risks.

•· The Falcon fund was a multi-strategy fund that invested in ASTA/MAT and other fixed income strategies, such as CDOs, CLOs, and asset-backed securities.

•· The funds, both highly leveraged, were sold exclusively to advisory clients of Citigroup Private Bank or Smith Barney by financial advisers associated with CGMI. Both funds were managed by CAI.

•· Investors in these funds effectively paid advisory fees for two tiers of investment advice: first from the financial advisers of CGMI and secondly from the fund manager, CAI.

•· Neither Falcon nor ASTA/MAT was a low-risk investment akin to a bond alternative as investors were repeatedly told.

CGMI and CAI failed to control the misrepresentations made to investors as their employees misleadingly minimized the significant risk of loss resulting from the funds’ investment strategy and use of leverage among other things.

CAI failed to adopt and implement policies and procedures that prevented the financial advisers and fund manager from making contradictory and false representations.

CGMI and CAI consented to the SEC order without admitting or denying the findings that both firms willfully violated Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933, GCMI willfully violated Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and CAI willfully violated Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rules 206(4)-7 and 206(4)-8. Both firms agreed to be censured and must cease and desist from committing future violations of these provisions.

Contact Us:

With extensive courtroom, arbitration and mediation experience and an in-depth understanding of elder abuse, exploitation and securities law, our firm provides all of our clients with the personal service they deserve. Handling cases worth $25,000 or more, we represent clients throughout Florida and across the United States, as well as for foreign individuals that invested in U.S. banks or brokerage firms. Contact us to arrange your free initial consultation.

At the Boca Raton Law Office of Russell L. Forkey, we represent clients throughout South and Central Florida, including Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Sunrise, Plantation, Coral Springs, Deerfield Beach, Pompano Beach, Delray, Boynton Beach, Hollywood, Lake Worth, Royal Palm Beach, Manalapan, Jupiter, Gulf Stream, Wellington, Fort Pierce, Stuart, Palm City, Jupiter, Miami, Orlando, Maitland, Winter Park, Altamonte Springs, Lake Mary, Heathrow, Melbourne, Palm Bay, Cocoa Beach, Vero Beach, Daytona Beach, Deland, New Smyrna Beach, Ormand Beach, Broward County, Palm Beach County, Dade County, Orange County, Seminole County, Martin County, Brevard County, Indian River County, Volusia County and Monroe County, Florida. The law office of Russell L. Forkey also represents South American, Canadian and other foreign residents that do business with U.S. financial institutions, investment advisors, brokerage and precious metal firms.

Boca Raton, Florida Investment and Securities Fraud Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:08:32 GMT

Boca Raton, Florida Hedge Fund, Securities and Investment Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

SEC Announces Fraud Charges Against Buffalo-Based Firm and Co-Owners Accused of Misleading Investors in Hedge Fund

Hedge Fund’s Portfolio Manager Agrees to Settle Charges

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced fraud charges against a Buffalo, N.Y. based investment advisory firm and two co-owners accused of making false and misleading statements to clients when recommending investments in a risky hedge fund. The hedge fund’s portfolio manager agreed to settle similar charges.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Timothy S. Dembski and Walter F. Grenda Jr. steered their clients at Reliance Financial Advisors to invest in a hedge fund managed by Scott M. Stephan, whose experience in the securities industry was greatly exaggerated in offering materials they disseminated. Dembski and Grenda allegedly knew that Stephan had virtually no hedge fund investing experience at all, and spent the majority of his career collecting on past-due car loans. Nevertheless, highly speculative investments in the Prestige Wealth Management Fund were recommended to clients who were retired or nearing retirement and living on fixed incomes. The trading strategy that was allegedly described to investors was fully automated by an algorithm purportedly sought by big banks. The trading algorithm, however, did not work as intended and Stephan began placing trades manually, which led to the hedge fund’s eventual collapse.

According to the order instituting a proceeding before an administrative law judge, Dembski’s clients invested approximately $4 million in Prestige Wealth Management Fund and Grenda’s clients invested approximately $8 million. The hedge fund, which began trading in April 2011, did not generate the positive returns advertised, so Grenda withdrew his clients in October 2012. The fund lost about 80 percent of its value when it collapsed a couple months later, leaving Dembski’s clients to lose the vast majority of their investments.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division further alleges that Grenda borrowed $175,000 from two clients in late 2009 and falsely told them that he would use it as a loan to grow his investment advisory business. Grenda instead spent the money on personal expenses and debts.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Dembski, Grenda, and Reliance Financial Advisors violated the antifraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Securities Act of 1933, and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that Dembski and Grenda aided and abetted and caused violations of those same provisions by Reliance Financial and the general partner to the Prestige Wealth Management Fund.

In a separate order, Stephan agreed to settle findings that he violated the antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act, Securities Act, and Exchange Act, and aided and abetted and caused violations of those same provisions by the general partner to the Prestige Wealth Management Fund. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Stephan agreed to be permanently barred from the securities industry. Disgorgement and penalties will be determined at a later date.

Contact Us:

Anthony Coronati and Bidtoask LLC. – Boca Raton, Florida Investment and Advertising

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:38:43 GMT

Boca Raton, Florida Investment and Advertising Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

SEC Charges Staten Island Man With Conducting Fraudulent Offerings and Stealing Investor Funds

The Securities and Exchange Commission trecently charged the operator of an online stock recommendation business with conducting several fraudulent securities offerings and siphoning some of the money raised from investors for a Caribbean vacation and plastic surgery.

An SEC investigation found that Anthony Coronati, who lives on Staten Island, initially held himself out as an investment adviser to a hedge fund that he claimed would invest in equity securities. But the hedge fund was fictitious and Coronati used investor money for other purposes. When the money began drying up, he went on to defraud investors in additional schemes involving his New Jersey-based company Bidtoask LLC. Coronati and Bidtoask sold membership interests in the company for the purpose of investing in promising technology companies that had yet to hold initial public offerings (IPOs). Investors were told that Bidtoask would invest directly in pre-IPO Facebook shares without charging any fees, commissions, or markups to investors. However, Bidtoask’s Facebook-related investments actually did require the payment of significant fees that Coronati and Bidtoask concealed from investors. Bidtoask did not even own the shares of other technology companies in which it was supposedly investing, and these companies were not actually in the process of an IPO.

Coronati and Bidtoask have agreed to settle the SEC’s charges. Coronati must pay back $400,000 in funds stolen from investors, and the money will be deposited into a Fair Fund for distribution to victims of the fraud schemes. Coronati also agreed to be permanently barred from the securities industry.

Coronati, who operates the website BidToAsk.com that offers stock recommendations to subscribers, was the subject of a subpoena enforcement action filed by the SEC late last yearwhen he failed to produce documents or appear for scheduled testimony during the SEC’s investigation. As a result of his continued failure to comply with SEC subpoenas in spite of a court order, Coronati was held in contempt of court and arrested earlier this year.

According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, Coronati conducted his schemes from at least 2009 to 2013. As the various schemes unraveled, he faced increasing concerns from investors. Coronati placated certain investors by making Ponzi-like payments to them using other investors’ money, and he sent a phony account statement to at least one investor purporting a position in the fake hedge fund that was worth more than $120,000. The account statement also purported that the fictitious hedge fund was more than 80 percent invested in well-known public companies such as Apple. Meanwhile, Coronati used investor funds to pay business expenses and such personal expenses as the Caribbean vacation and plastic surgery, and he also used investor money to purchase securities in a personal brokerage account he held in his own name.

The SEC’s order finds that Coronati and Bidtoask violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Coronati additionally violated Sections 206(1), 206(2), 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8. Without admitting or denying the findings, Coronati and Bidtoask consented to the SEC’s order requiring them to cease and desist from further violations of those provisions of the securities laws and SEC rules. Information about the Fair Fund will be available at: www.sec.gov/litigation/fairfundlist.htm.

Contact Us:

Weston Capital Asset Management and Albert Hallac – South Florida Hedge Fraud and Mismanagement FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 19:27:06 GMT

West Palm Beach, Lake Worth, Delray Beach, Boca Raton and Pompano Beach, Florida – Hedge Fund Fraud and Mismanagement FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Weston Capital Asset Management LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 14-cv-80823 (S.D. FL)

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Weston Capital Asset Management LLC and its founder and president Albert Hallac of Palm Beach, Florida, for violations of antifraud provisions, and against the firm’s former general counsel, chief compliance officer, and chief operating officer Keith Wellner of New York, New York for aiding and abetting violations. The complaint also names Hallac’s son, Jeffrey Hallac, a managing member at Weston Capital, as a relief defendant.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Weston Capital and Hallac illegally drained more than $17 million from a hedge fund they managed and transferred the money to a consulting and investment firm known as Swartz IP Services Group Inc. The transaction went against the hedge fund’s stated investment strategy and wasn’t disclosed to investors, who received account statements falsely portraying that their investment was performing as well or even better than before. Weston Capital’s former general counsel Keith Wellner assisted the activities.

The SEC further alleges that out of the transferred investor proceeds, Hallac, Wellner, and Hallac’s son collectively received $750,000 in payments from Swartz IP. Weston Capital and Hallac also wrongfully used $3.5 million to pay down a portion of a loan from another fund managed by the firm.

The SEC alleges that Weston Capital and Hallac violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The complaint further alleges that Wellner aided and abetted Weston Capital and Hallac’s violations of Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8(a)(2) thereunder. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Weston Capital, Hallac, and Wellner consented to the entry of a judgment enjoining them from future violations of these provisions, and Wellner agreed to pay $120,000 in disgorgement. The court will determine monetary sanctions for Weston Capital and Hallac at a later date. Jeffrey Hallac, without admitting or denying the allegations, agreed to pay $120,000 in disgorgement.

Contact Us:

At the Fort Lauderdale Law Office of Russell L. Forkey, we represent clients throughout South and Central Florida, including Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Sunrise, Plantation, Coral Springs, Deerfield Beach, Pompano Beach, Delray, Boynton Beach, Hollywood, Lake Worth, Royal Palm Beach, Manalapan, Jupiter, Gulf Stream, Wellington, Fort Pierce, Stuart, Palm City, Jupiter, Miami, Orlando, Maitland, Winter Park, Altamonte Springs, Lake Mary, Heathrow, Melbourne, Palm Bay, Cocoa Beach, Vero Beach, Daytona Beach, Deland, New Smyrna Beach, Ormand Beach, Broward County, Palm Beach County, Dade County, Orange County, Seminole County, Martin County, Brevard County, Indian River County, Volusia County and Monroe County, Florida. The law office of Russell L. Forkey also represents South American, Canadian and other foreign residents that do business with U.S. financial institutions, investment advisors, brokerage and precious metal firms.

Neal V. Goyal – Boca Raton, Florida Investment Fund Manager Fraud and Mismanagement FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Thu, 29 May 2014 22:35:24 GMT

South Florida, including Boca Raton, Deerfield Beach, Coral Springs, Delray Beach and Boynton Beach Investment Fund Manager Fraud and Ponzi Scheme FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Neal V. Goyal, et al., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-03900 (N.D. Illinois)

SEC Charges Chicago-Based Investment Fund Manager with Stealing Investor Money and Conducting Ponzi Scheme

On May 28, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a court order freezing assets and halting a fraudulent scheme by Chicago, Illinois-based investment adviser Neal V. Goyal. In its complaint, the SEC alleges that Goyal told investors that the private funds he managed would invest in securities following a “long-short” trading strategy. However, Goyal actually did little trading and simply operated a Ponzi scheme that used new investor funds to pay redemptions to existing investors and fund his own lavish lifestyle. Goyal concealed the poor results of the few investments he did make by sending investors phony account statements that grossly overstated the performance of the funds.

In a parallel action, on May 28, 2014, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois filed a criminal information against Goyal.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Chicago, Goyal raised more than $11.4 million since 2006 for investments in four private funds that he managed and controlled. The complaint further alleges that Goyal’s investment strategy lost money from the outset, but he hid those losses from investors through the Ponzi payments and phony account statements. Meanwhile, Goyal misused investor funds to make down-payments and pay the mortgages on two homes he purchased. According to the SEC’s complaint, Goyal also siphoned away investor money to invest in a Chicago tavern, fund two children’s clothing boutiques that his wife operates in Chicago, and purchase artwork and lavish furniture.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Goyal along with Caldera Advisors and Blue Horizon Asset Management violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8(a). In its complaint, the SEC seeks financial penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and a permanent injunction against Goyal, Blue Horizon Asset Management, and Caldera Advisors. The SEC named another Goyal-controlled entity Caldera Investment Group as a relief defendant in its complaint for the purpose of recovering any investor funds it received.

At the SEC’s request, the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer issued a permanent injunction and asset freeze against Goyal and his firms, who consented to the order without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint. Under the court’s order, monetary remedies will be decided at a later date.

Contact Us:

Keiko Kawamura – South Florida Social Media Fraud and Misrepresentation of Credentials and Trading Experience FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 11:11:12 GMT

South Florida, including Dade, Monroe, Broward and Palm Beach County, Florida Social Media and Hedge Fund Misrepresentation of Credentials and Trading Experience FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced fraud charges against a Honolulu woman posing as an investment banker and soliciting investors through Twitter, Facebook, and other social media.

An SEC investigation found that Keiko Kawamura engaged in two separate fraudulent schemes to raise money from investors while casting herself as an investment and hedge fund expert when in fact she had virtually no prior trading experience. In one scheme, she sought investors for her self-described hedge fund and posted on Twitter some screenshots of brokerage account statements suggesting she was personally obtaining incredible investment returns. However, the account statements were not hers. And instead of investing the money she raised from investors, she spent it on her own living expenses and luxury trips to Miami and London. In a later scheme, Kawamura continued to boast phony experience to attract investors to her subscription service for investment advice. She falsely told subscribers that she had been in the investment banking industry for nearly a decade and had achieved 800 percent returns in her personal brokerage account.

As alleged in the SEC matter “Kawamura used social media to ensnare investors and raise money to support her lifestyle,” said Michele Wein Layne, director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office. “Investors should beware of fraudsters who use social media to hide behind anonymity and reach many investors with little to no cost or effort.”

The SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings alleges that Kawamura willfully violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 20(4)-8. The administrative proceedings will determine any remedial action or financial penalties that are appropriate in the public interest against Kawamura.

Contact Us:

Berton M. Hochfeld and Hochfeld Capital Management, LLC. – South Florida Hedge Fund Mismanagement, Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:53:17 GMT

South Florida Hedge Fund Mismanagement, Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Federal and State Court Litigation Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Berton M. Hochfeld, et al., Civil Action No. 12-CV-8202 (S.D.N.Y.)

Final Judgments Entered Against Former Hedge Fund Manager and His Company

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced that on January 22, 2014, the Honorable Paul G. Gardephe of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered final judgments against Berton M. Hochfeld (“Hochfeld”) and his wholly-owned entity Hochfeld Capital Management, L.L.C. (“HCM”), in SEC v. Hochfeld et al., 12-CV-8202. The SEC filed an emergency action in November 2012, charging Hochfeld and HCM with securities fraud for misappropriating assets and making material misstatements to investors in the Heppelwhite Fund L.P., a now defunct hedge fund. The Court previously entered judgments against Hochfeld and HCM that ordered, among other relief, injunctions and an asset freeze, and granted the Commission’s motion to create a Fair Fund to compensate defrauded investors. In October 2013, the Fair Fund made initial distributions, totaling more than $6 million, to 35 former Heppelwhite investors, which represented approximately 70% of each investor’s prior capital balance in the hedge fund. Pursuant to a Distribution Plan, the Fair Fund will make a second round of distributions to investors from additional funds collected, including proceeds from the sale of Hochfeld’s personal assets.

Hochfeld and HCM consented to entry of the final judgments, which enjoin them from violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 203 and 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and order disgorgement of $1,785,332, which will be deemed satisfied by the criminal forfeiture order entered against Hochfeld in a parallel criminal case filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. In the criminal case, United States v. Hochfeld, 13-CR-021, Hochfeld pled guilty to securities fraud and wire fraud. The Court sentenced Hochfeld to a two-year prison term, which he is now serving, and ordered him to pay forfeiture and restitution totaling approximately $2.9 million.

Contact Us:

Equity Fund and Equity Manager Fruad and Mismanagement – South Florida Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:40:44 GMT

Private Equity Fund and Private Equity Fund Management Mismanagement and Fruad – South Florida Federal and State Court Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

SEC Charges Manhattan-Based Private Equity Manager With Stealing $9 Million in Investor Funds:

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged a Manhattan-based private equity manager and his firm with stealing $9 million from investors in their private equity fund.

The SEC has obtained an emergency court order to freeze the assets of Lawrence E. Penn III and his firm Camelot Acquisitions Secondary Opportunities Management as well as another individual and three entities involved in the theft of investor funds.

The SEC alleges that Penn and his longtime acquaintance Altura S. Ewers concocted a sham due diligence arrangement where Penn used fund assets to pay fake fees to a front company controlled by Ewers. Instead of conducting any due diligence in connection with potential investments by Penn’s fund, Ewers’ company Ssecurion promptly kicked the money back to companies and accounts controlled by Penn so he could secretly spend investor funds for other purposes. For example, Penn paid hefty commissions to third parties to secure investments from pension funds. Penn also rented luxury office space and used the funds to project the false image that Camelot was a thriving international private equity operation.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan, Penn tapped into a network of public pension funds, high net worth individuals, and overseas investors to raise assets for his private equity fund Camelot Acquisitions Secondary Opportunities LP, which he started in early 2010. Penn eventually secured capital commitments of approximately $120 million. The fund is currently invested in growth-stage private companies that are seeking to go public.

The SEC alleges that Penn has diverted approximately $9.3 million in investor assets to Ssecurion. With the assistance of Ewers, who lives in San Francisco, Penn repeatedly misled the fund’s auditors about the nature and purpose of the due diligence fees. However, the scam began to unravel in 2013 when Camelot’s auditors became increasingly skeptical about the fees. In their haste to cover their tracks, Penn and Ewers brazenly lied to the auditors and forged documents as recently as July 2013, pretending the files were generated by Ssecurion.

The SEC’s complaint charges Penn, two Camelot entities, Ewers, and Ssecurion with violating the antifraud, books and records, and registration application provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks final judgments that would require them to disgorge ill-gotten gains with interest, pay financial penalties, and be barred from future violations of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws. The SEC’s complaint also charges another company owned by Ewers – A Bighouse Photography and Film Studio LLC – as a relief defendant for the purposes of recovering investor funds it allegedly obtained in the scheme.

Contact Us:

Hedge Fund Fraud and Misrepresentation – South Florida Hedge Fund Fraud, Misrepresentation and Mismanagement Litigation and FINRA Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:40:44 GMT

Hedge Fund Fraud, Mismanagement and Misrepresentation – South Florida Litigation and AAA Arbitration Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Berton M. Hochfeld, et al, Civil Action No. 12-CV-8202 (S.D.N.Y.)

Final Judgments Entered Against Former Hedge Fund Manager and His Company

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on January 22, 2014, the Honorable Paul G. Gardephe of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered final judgments against Berton M. Hochfeld (“Hochfeld”) and his wholly-owned entity Hochfeld Capital Management, L.L.C. (“HCM”), in SEC v. Hochfeld et al., 12-CV-8202. The SEC filed an emergency action in November 2012, charging Hochfeld and HCM with securities fraud for misappropriating assets and making material misstatements to investors in the Heppelwhite Fund L.P., a now defunct hedge fund. The Court previously entered judgments against Hochfeld and HCM that ordered, among other relief, injunctions and an asset freeze, and granted the Commission’s motion to create a Fair Fund to compensate defrauded investors. In October 2013, the Fair Fund made initial distributions, totaling more than $6 million, to 35 former Heppelwhite investors, which represented approximately 70% of each investor’s prior capital balance in the hedge fund. Pursuant to a Distribution Plan, the Fair Fund will make a second round of distributions to investors from additional funds collected, including proceeds from the sale of Hochfeld’s personal assets.

The final judgments against Hochfeld and HCM enjoin them from violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 203 and 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and order disgorgement of $1,785,332, which will be deemed satisfied by the criminal forfeiture order entered against Hochfeld in a parallel criminal case filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. In the criminal case, United States v. Hochfeld, 13-CR-021, Hochfeld pled guilty to securities fraud and wire fraud. The Court sentenced Hochfeld to a two-year prison term, which he is now serving, and ordered him to pay forfeiture and restitution totaling approximately $2.9 million.

Contact Us:

With extensive courtroom, arbitration and mediation experience and an in-depth understanding of securities law, our firm provides all of our clients with the personal service they deserve. Handling cases worth $25,000 or more, we represent clients throughout Florida and across the United States, as well as for foreign individuals that invested in U.S. banks or brokerage firms. Contact us to arrange your free initial consultation.

Gignesh Movalia, Edwin V. Gaw and OM Investment Management, LLC. – Florida Investment Advisor and Hedge Fund Fraud, Misrepresentation and Mismanagement Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 28 Sep 2013 11:50:43 GMT

Securities and Exchange Commission v. OM Investment Management LLC, Gignesh Movalia, and Edwin V. Gaw, Civil Action No. 1:13-cv -23486-Martinez (S.D. Fla., filed September, 2013)

SEC Charges Tampa-Based Adviser with Fabricating Statements and Making Unauthorized and Undisclosed Investments

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged a formerly SEC-registered Tampa-based investment adviser, OM Investment Management LLC, its principal, Gignesh Movalia, and its director of investments, Edwin V. Gaw, with fraudulently raising money and making material misrepresentations and omissions relating to OM Global Investment Fund, LLC, an unregistered hedge fund.

According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, OM Investment Management, Movalia, and Gaw made material misrepresentations and omissions concerning the fund’s holdings and investments, the identity and duties of the fund’s auditor, sub-adviser, and administrator, and failed to register the offering and sale of securities. The complaint further alleges that Movalia and OM Investment Management made material omissions concerning the fund’s entry into related party transactions, distributed fabricated account statements, misappropriated investor funds, made false statements in regulatory filings with the Commission, and failed to comply with federal securities laws and rules concerning the operation of an advisory business and an investment company.

The defendants have consented to the entry of judgments enjoining them from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, with OM Investment Management and Movalia further consenting to be enjoined from violating Sections 203A and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-2 thereunder and Section 7(a) of the Investment Company Act. OM Investment Management and Movalia also consented to judgments freezing their assets, preventing the destruction of documents, and requiring them to provide an accounting to the Court. The SEC’s complaint seeks disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties from OM Investment Management and Movalia in an amount to be determined by the Court, while Gaw has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $100,000. Separately, Movalia and Gaw consented to the entry of orders barring them from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization.

Contact Us:

Hedge Funds – Florida Hedge Fund Investment Loss and Mismanagement Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 30 Aug 2013 23:03:49 GMT

Hedge Funds – Investment Loss and Mismanagement Federal and State Litigation Attorney:

“Hedge fund” is a general, non-legal term used to describe private, unregistered investment pools that traditionally have been limited to sophisticated, wealthy investors. Hedge funds are not mutual funds and, as such, are not subject to the numerous regulations that apply to mutual funds for the protection of investors – including regulations requiring a certain degree of liquidity, regulations requiring that mutual fund shares be redeemable at any time, regulations protecting against conflicts of interest, regulations to assure fairness in the pricing of fund shares, disclosure regulations, regulations limiting the use of leverage, and more.

“Funds of hedge funds” are nvestment companies that invest in hedge funds. Some, but not all, register with the SEC and file semi-annual reports. They often have lower minimum investment thresholds than traditional, unregistered hedge funds and can sell their shares to a larger number of investors. Like hedge funds, funds of hedge funds are not mutual funds. Unlike open-end mutual funds, funds of hedge funds offer very limited rights of redemption. And, unlike ETFs, their shares are not typically listed on an exchange.

If you have invested in a hedge fund, it is important to review the periodic information that is supplied. If you are supposed to receive certified financial statements from the hedge fund and they are not provided timely, you should consider this a huge “red” flag and take immediate steps to investigate this situation further.

Please keep in mind that the above information is being provided for educational purposes only. It is not designed to be complete in all material respects. Thus, it should not be relied upon as legal or investment advice. If you have any questions concerning the contents of this post, you should contact a qualified professional.

Contact Us:

James Fry – Florida Hedge Fund Securities and Investment Fraud Litigation and Arbitration Attorney, Russell Forkey, Esq.

Russell L. Forkey — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:40:19 GMT

Hedge Fund Manager James Fry, Previously Sued by the SEC for Fraud, Found Guilty of Securities Fraud, Wire Fraud, and Making False Statements to the SEC

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced that on June 12, 2013 a jury found Minneapolis-area hedge fund manager James Fry guilty of five counts of securities fraud, four counts of wire fraud, and three counts of making false statements to the SEC during investigative testimony. Sentencing on these charges will be held on a later date. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota had filed criminal charges against Fry on July 19, 2011.

Fry is a defendant in a pending civil injunctive action filed by the SEC on November 9, 2011 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The charges leveled by the SEC stem from the same set of facts alleged by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The SEC’s complaint alleged that Fry fraudulently funneled more than $600 million of investor money into a Ponzi scheme operated by Minnesota businessman Thomas Petters. During the period in which he invested with Petters, Fry and his hedge fund management company collected more than $42 million in fees. The SEC’s complaint further alleged that Fry falsely assured investors and potential investors that the flow of their money would be safeguarded by collateral accounts and described a phony process for protecting their assets. When Petters was unable to make payments on investments held by the funds he managed, Fry concealed it from investors by secretly executing note extensions with Petters. On February 14, 2012, the Hon. Richard H. Kyle, U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota, stayed the SEC’s action against Fry pending the resolution of his criminal case.

Contact Us:

With extensive courtroom, arbitration and mediation experience and an in-depth understanding of business and securities laws, our firm provides all of our clients with the personal service they deserve. Handling cases worth $25,000 or more, we represent clients throughout Florida and across the United States, as well as for foreign individuals that invested in U.S. banks or brokerage firms. Contact us to arrange your free initial consultation.

Southeast Florida Hedge Fund Fraud, Misrepresentation and Mismanagement Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:28:29 GMT

SEC Charges Hedge Fund Manager and Brokerage CEO with Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced charges against a Houston-based hedge fund manager and his firm accused of defrauding investors in two hedge funds and steering bloated fees to a brokerage firm CEO who also is charged in the SEC’s case.

An investigation by the SEC’s Enforcement Division found that George R. Jarkesy Jr., worked closely with Thomas Belesis to launch two hedge funds that raised $30 million from investors. Jarkesy and his firm John Thomas Capital Management (since renamed Patriot28 LLC) inflated valuations of the funds’ assets, causing the value of investors’ shares to be overstated and his management and incentive fees to be increased. Jarkesy, a frequent media commentator and radio talk show host, also lied to investors about the identity of the funds’ auditor and prime broker. Meanwhile, although they shared the same “John Thomas” brand name, Jarkesy’s firm and Belesis’ firm John Thomas Financial were portrayed as wholly independent. Jarkesy led investors to believe that as manager of the funds, he was solely responsible for all investment decisions. However, Belesis sometimes supplanted Jarkesy as the decision maker and directed some investments from the hedge funds into a company in which his firm was heavily invested. Belesis also bullied Jarkesy into showering excessive fees on John Thomas Financial even in instances where the firm had done virtually nothing to earn them.

According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings against Jarkesy, Belesis, and their firms, Jarkesy launched the two hedge funds in 2007 and 2009, and they were called John Thomas Bridge and Opportunity Fund LP I and John Thomas Bridge and Opportunity Fund LP II. The funds invested in three asset classes: bridge loans to start-up companies, equity investments principally in microcap companies, and life settlement policies. Jarkesy mispriced certain holdings to increase the net asset values of the funds, which were the basis for calculating the management and incentive fees that Jarkesy deducted from the funds for himself. Jarkesy also falsely claimed that prominent service providers such as KPMG and Deutsche Bank worked with the funds.

According to the SEC’s order, Jarkesy used fund assets to hire multiple stock promoters in 2010 and 2011 to create an artificial and unsustainable spike in the price of two microcap stocks in which the funds were heavily invested. As a result of these efforts, the funds recorded temporary gains in the value of the microcap stocks that Jarkesy used to mask the write-down of other more illiquid holdings of the funds.

According to the SEC’s order, Jarkesy violated his fiduciary duties to the funds in multiple instances by providing excessive compensation to Belesis and John Thomas Financial. This only incited further demands by Belesis. For example, in February 2009, Belesis angrily complained via e-mail that Jarkesy was not steering enough money to John Thomas Financial, and Jarkesy responded that “we will always try to get you as much as possible, Everytime [sic] without exception!” On another occasion, Jarkesy reassured Belesis that “[n]obody gets access to Tommy until they make us money!!!!!”

The SEC’s order charges that Jarkesy and John Thomas Capital Management violated and aided and abetted violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and violated Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8. The SEC’s order further charges that Belesis and John Thomas Financial aided and abetted and caused Jarkesy’s and John Thomas Capital Management’s violations of Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8. The administrative proceedings will determine what, if any, remedial action is appropriate in the public interest against Jarkesy, John Thomas Capital Management, Belesis, and John Thomas Financial including disgorgement and financial penalties.

Contact Us:

South Florida Hedge Fund Fraud and Mismanagement Litigation Attorney, Russell L. Forkey, Esq.

Russell L. Forkey — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 01:57:22 GMT

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Randal Kent Hansen, et al., Civil Action No. 13-cv-01403 (S.D.N.Y., filed March 1, 2013)

SEC Charges Advisers to the RAHFCO Hedge Funds with Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) recently filed a civil injunctive action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to the fraudulent offer and sale of limited partnership interests in two hedge funds — RAHFCO Funds LP and RAHFCO Growth Fund LP (collectively “RAHFCO Hedge Funds”). The Commission charged RAHFCO Management Group, LLC (“RAHFCO Management”), a Delaware corporation and general partner of RAHFCO Hedge Funds; its principal, Randal Kent Hansen of Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Hudson Capital Partners Corporation (HCP), a New York corporation, the sub-adviser/portfolio manager of RAHFCO Hedge Funds; and Vincent Puma of Morganville, New Jersey, the principal of HCP, with securities fraud, among other violations of the securities laws, for engaging in a fraudulent scheme that defrauded investors out of more than $10 million.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that the RAHFCO Hedge Funds raised approximately $23.5 million from over 100 investors nationwide between 2007 and the funds’ collapse in about May 2011. Additionally, the complaint alleges that the primary function of the Defendants’ scheme was to convince investors to invest in fraudulent pooled investments that purportedly traded in options and futures on the S&P 500 Index and in equities, then the Defendants siphoned off the invested funds for the Defendants’ own purposes. The complaint also alleges that, in furtherance of their fraud, Defendants engaged in schemes to defraud investors and made material misrepresentations to investors and others.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that all of the defendants violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws in Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint also alleges that Hansen and RAHFCO Management violated Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 and that Puma and HCP aided and abetted these violations. Finally, the complaint alleges that Hansen and RAHFCO Management violated Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act by acting as unregistered broker-dealers. The Commission’s complaint seeks permanent injunctions, third-tier civil penalties, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and other relief against all of the defendants.

Contact Us:

New Stream Capital, LLC, New Stream Capital (Cayman), Ltd., David A. Bryson, Bart C. Gutekunst, Richard Pereira and Tara Bryson – Florida Hedge Fund Fraud and Mismanagement Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:22:20 GMT

Securities and Exchange Commission v. New Stream Capital, LLC, New Stream Capital (Cayman), Ltd., David A. Bryson, Bart C. Gutekunst, Richard Pereira, and Tara Bryson, et al., Civil Action No. 3:13cv264 (D. Conn.)

SEC Charges Connecticut Hedge Fund Managers With Securities Fraud

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Connecticut-based hedge fund managers David Bryson and Bart Gutekunst (“Gutekunst”) and their advisory firm, New Stream Capital, LLC, (“New Stream”) for lying to investors about the capital structure and financial condition of their hedge fund. New Stream was an unregistered investment adviser based in Ridgefield, Connecticut that managed a $750-plus million hedge fund focused on illiquid investments in asset-based lending. The SEC also charged New Stream Capital (Cayman), Ltd. (“Cayman Adviser”), a Caymanian adviser entity affiliated with New Stream, Richard Pereira (“Pereira”), New Stream’s former CFO, and Tara Bryson, New Stream’s former head of investor relations, for their role in the scheme. Tara Bryson has agreed to a proposed settlement relating to her conduct in this matter.

According to the SEC’s complaint, in March 2008, David Bryson and Gutekunst, New Stream’s lead principals and co-owners, decided to revise the fund’s capital structure to placate their largest investor, Gottex Fund Management Ltd. (“Gottex”), by giving Gottex and certain other preferred offshore investors priority over other investors in the event of a liquidation. Gottex had threatened to redeem its investment in the New Stream hedge fund because a wholesale restructuring of the fund just a few months earlier had created two new feeder funds and — without Gottex’s knowledge — granted equal liquidation rights to all investors, thereby eliminating the preferential status previously enjoyed by Gottex. Gottex’s investment totaled nearly $300 million at the time.

The SEC alleges that, even after revising the capital structure to put Gottex ahead of other fund investors, David Bryson and Gutekunst directed New Stream’s marketing department, led by Tara Bryson, to continue to market the fund as if all investors were on the same footing, fraudulently raising nearly $50 million in new investor funds on the basis of these misrepresentations. The marketing documents failed to disclose the March 2008 revisions to the capital structure to the new investors. In addition, Pereira, New Stream’s CFO, falsified the hedge fund’s operative financial statements to conceal the March 2008 revisions to the capital structure.

As further alleged in the complaint, disclosure of the March 2008 changes to the capital structure would have made it far more difficult to continue to raise money through the new feeder funds and would have spurred further redemptions from existing investors in the new feeder funds. As such, disclosure of the March 2008 changes would have adversely affected the defendants’ own pecuniary interests by, among other things, jeopardizing the increased cash flow from a new, lucrative fee structure that they had implemented in the fall of 2007. The defendants also misled investors about the increased level of redemptions after Gottex submitted its massive redemption request in March 2008. When asked by prospective investors about redemption levels, New Stream did not include the Gottex redemption and others that followed. For example, Gutekunst falsely told one investor in June 2008 that there was nothing remarkable about the level of redemptions that New Stream had received and that there were no liquidity concerns.

The SEC further alleges that by the end of September 2008, as the U.S. financial crisis worsened, the New Stream hedge fund was facing $545 million in redemption requests, causing it to suspend further redemptions and cease raising new funds. After several attempts at restructuring failed, New Stream and affiliated entities filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions in March 2011. Based on current estimates, the defrauded investors are expected to receive approximately 5 cents on the dollar — substantially less than half the amount that Gottex and other investors in its preferred class are expected to receive.

The SEC’s complaint charges New Stream, David Bryson and Gutekunst with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The Cayman Adviser is charged with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The SEC’s complaint charges Pereira and Tara Bryson with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC also contends that David Bryson, Gutekunst and Pereira are each also liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as a controlling person for New Stream’s violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and David Bryson and Gutekunst are each further liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as a controlling person for the Cayman Adviser’s violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Finally, the SEC charges that David Bryson, Gutekunst, Pereira, and Tara Bryson are each also liable pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act for aiding and abetting each other’s violations, and New Stream and the Cayman Adviser’s violations, of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; David Bryson and Gutekunst are each further liable pursuant to Sections 209(d) and 209(f) of the Advisers Act for aiding and abetting each other’s violations, and New Stream’s violations, of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act; and, in addition, David Bryson, Gutekunst, Pereira and Tara Bryson are each also liable pursuant to Sections 209(d) and 209(f) of the Advisers Act for aiding and abetting violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder by New Stream, the Cayman Adviser, David Bryson and Gutekunst.

The complaint seeks a final judgment permanently enjoining the defendants from committing future violations of these provisions, ordering them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and imposing financial penalties.

In offering to settle the SEC’s charges, without admitting or denying the allegations, Tara Bryson consented to the entry of a final judgment that permanently enjoins her from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The settlement is subject to court approval. Tara Bryson also consented to the entry of a Commission order barring her from associating with any investment adviser, broker-dealer, municipal securities dealer, or transfer agent.

Contact Us:

Chetan Kapur and ThinkStrategy Capital Management – South Florida Hedge Fund Fraud and Mismanagement Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 20:48:03 GMT

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chetan Kapur; Lilaboc, LLC d/b/a ThinkStrategy Capital Management, LLC, Civil Action No. 11-CIV-8094 (S.D.N.Y.) (PAE)

Court Orders New York-Based Hedge Fund Manager and Firm to Pay Nearly $5 Million in Disgorgement and Penalties

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced that, on January 3, 2013, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered final judgments against hedge fund manager Chetan Kapur and his firm, ThinkStrategy Capital Management (ThinkStrategy), ordering them to jointly and severally pay disgorgement of $3,988,196.59 and civil penalties in the amount of $1,000,000.

The final judgments stem from a partially-settled civil injunctive action filed by the Commission on November 10, 2011. The SEC’s complaint alleged that over nearly seven years, Kapur and ThinkStrategy engaged in a pattern of deceptive conduct designed to bolster their track record, size, and credentials. In particular, Kapur and ThinkStrategy materially overstated the performance of their ThinkStrategy Capital Fund, giving investors the false impression that the fund’s returns were consistently positive and minimally volatile. The complaint also alleged that Kapur and ThinkStrategy repeatedly inflated the firm’s assets, exaggerated the firm’s longevity and performance history, and misrepresented the size and credentials of ThinkStrategy’s management team.

With respect to a second hedge fund they managed, the TS Multi-Strategy Fund, the complaint alleged that Kapur and ThinkStrategy misstated the scope and quality of due diligence checks on certain managers and funds selected for inclusion in the fund-of-funds’ portfolio. As a result, the TS Multi-Strategy Fund made investments in certain hedge funds that were later revealed to be Ponzi schemes or other serious frauds, including Bayou Superfund, Valhalla/Victory Funds, and Finvest Primer Fund.

The Commission charged Kapur and ThinkStrategy with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, Kapur and ThinkStrategy consented to the entry of November 18, 2011 judgments permanently enjoining them from violating the above provisions. Kapur also consented to a November 30, 2011 SEC order permanently barring him from association with any investment adviser, broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization.

Contact Us:

Steven B. Hart – South Florida Securities and Investment Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and State (Broward and Palm Beach County) and Federal Court Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:13:36 GMT

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Steven B. Hart, Civil Action No. 12-CV-8986 (S.D.N.Y.)

SEC CHARGES NEW YORK-BASED FUND MANAGER WITH TWO WIDESPREAD FRAUDULENT TRADING SCHEMES SPANNING NEARLY FOUR YEARS

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged New York-based fund manager Steven B. Hart (Hart) with repeated violations of the federal securities laws related to two distinct multi-year trading schemes, involving illegal matched trading and insider trading. In addition, the Commission charged Hart with making fraudulent representations in two securities purchase agreements.

The SEC alleges that from January 17, 2008 through June 4, 2009, Hart used his control of Octagon Capital Partners, LP, a small investment fund he controls, and his position of authority at an investment fund for which he was employed as a portfolio manager to direct thirty-one matched trades between the two investment funds, benefitting Octagon at the expense his employer’s fund. Generally, Hart caused Octagon to purchase stock in small, thinly traded issuers at the going market price and, on the following day, sold the same stock to his employer’s fund at a price substantially above the prevailing market price. Each of the sales from Octagon to the employer’s fund occurred in premarket trading; thus, Hart ensured that the trades matched. Later that same day or within a few days of the matched trades, the employer’s fund, at Hart’s direction, sold the recently-acquired stock on the open market at a loss. As a result of this scheme, Hart generated ill-gotten gains of $586,338 for Octagon.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Hart, after being confidentially solicited to invest in numerous securities offerings – and despite expressly agreeing to keep the information he received confidential and to not trade on it by agreeing to go “over-the-wall” – nevertheless traded on behalf of Octagon while in possession of material nonpublic information concerning the offerings. From June 19, 2007 through March 15, 2011, in breach of a duty of trust or confidence, Hart directed trades in the securities of nineteen issuers conducting twenty separate offerings, including PIPEs, registered direct offerings, and confidentially marketed public offerings. As a result of Hart’s conduct, Octagon derived ill-gotten gains of $244,733.

In addition, on two occasions, in order to induce issuers to sell securities to his fund, Hart signed securities purchase agreements falsely representing that, after he was solicited, Octagon had not traded the issuers’ securities in the days leading up to the public announcement of the transactions. Despite going “over-the-wall” during the solicitation process for the offerings, Hart nevertheless directed short sales of the issuer’s securities, realizing insider trading gains, and subsequently signed the securities purchase agreements.

The SEC filed action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Hart, alleging violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, Hart consented to the entry of a judgment enjoining him from future violations of the respective provisions of the Securities Act, Exchange Act, and Advisers Act. Hart also agreed to pay $831,071 in disgorgement and $103,424 in prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty of $394,733. The settlement is subject to court approval.

Contact Us:

Yusaf Jawed, Grifphon Asset Management, LLC., Grifphon Holdings, LLC and Robert P. Custis – Florida Hedge Fund Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 22:01:00 GMT

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Yusaf Jawed, Grifphon Asset Management, LLC, Grifphon Holdings, LLC, and Robert P. Custis, Civil Action No. 12-1696 (U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, filed September 20, 2012)

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jacques Nichols, Civil Action No. 12-1698 (U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, filed September 20, 2012)

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lyman Bruhn, Pearl Asset Management, LLC, and Sasquatch Capital Management, LLC, Civil Action No. 12-1697 (U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, filed September 20, 2012)

September, 2012:

SEC CHARGES OREGON-BASED HEDGE FUND MANAGER WITH RUNNING $37 MILLION PONZI SCHEME

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced that it filed fraud charges against a Portland, Oregon-based investment adviser who perpetrated a long-running Ponzi scheme that raised over $37 million from more than 100 investors in the Pacific Northwest and across the country.

The SEC alleges that Yusaf Jawed used false marketing materials that boasted double-digit returns to lure people to invest their money into several hedge funds he managed. He then improperly redirected their money into accounts he personally controlled. As part of the scheme, Jawed created phony assets, sent bogus account statements to investors, and manufactured a sham buyout of the funds to make investors think their hedge fund interests would soon be redeemed. Jawed misused investor money to pay off earlier investors, pay his own expenses and travel, and create the overall illusion of success and achievement to impress investors.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Portland, Jawed managed a number of hedge funds through at least two companies he controlled: Grifphon Asset Management LLC and Grifphon Holdings LLC. Jawed’s marketing materials claimed that the Grifphon funds earned double-digit returns year after year even as the S&P 500 Index declined. For certain funds, Jawed also falsely claimed they would invest in publicly-traded securities and that their assets were maintained at reputable financial institutions.

The SEC alleges that Jawed instead invested very little of the more than $37 million that he raised from investors. For one fund, 70 percent of the money raised was either paid in redemptions to investors in other funds, paid to finders, or merely transferred to accounts belonging to Grifphon Asset Management or other entities that Jawed controlled. Jawed concealed the fraud by telling Grifphon’s bookkeepers that the money transfers represented purchases of offshore bonds – though in reality the purported investment was a sham entity supposedly managed by Jawed’s unemployed aunt who lives in Bangladesh.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Jawed further deceived investors as the funds were collapsing by telling them that independent third parties were buying the Grifphon funds’ alleged assets at a premium. In truth, the so-called third-parties were sham entities originally formed by Grifphon and Jawed containing no assets, no income, and no ability to pay for the funds’ alleged assets.

The SEC’s complaint against Jawed additionally charges Robert P. Custis, an attorney who Jawed hired to assist him in the fraud. Custis sent false and misleading statements to investors about the status of the purported purchase of the Grifphon funds’ assets. Custis consistently misrepresented that this purchase was imminent and would result in investors’ investments being repaid at a profit.

By engaging in the above conduct, Jawed, GAM, and Grifphon Holdings violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. By engaging in the above conduct, Custis violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and aided and abetted violations of Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The Commission seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement and prejudgment interest, civil penalty, and other relief as appropriate against them.

The SEC filed separate complaints against two others connected to Jawed’s scheme. Those complaints allege that Jacques Nichols – a Portland-based attorney – falsely claimed to investors that an independent third party would pay tens of millions of dollars to buy the hedge funds’ alleged assets at a premium, and that Jawed’s associate, Lyman Bruhn, of Vancouver, Wash., ran a separate Ponzi scheme and induced investments through false claims he was investing in “blue chip” stocks.

Without admitting or denying the allegations, Nichols, Bruhn, and two entities Bruhn controlled (Pearl Asset Management, LLC and Sasquatch Capital Management, LLC) agreed to settle the SEC’s charges. Along with other relief, Bruhn consented to the entry of permanent injunctions against violations of the Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. Along with other relief, Nichols consented to the entry of a permanent injunction against violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and aiding and abetting violations of Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The SEC’s litigation continues against Jawed, the two Grifphon entities, and Custis.

Gary P. Marks – Florida Hedge Fund Fruad and Misrepresentation Attorney, Russell Forkey

Russell L. Forkey — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:32:01 GMT

Litigation Release No. 22460 / August 27, 2012

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gary R. Marks, CV-12-4486-JSC (N.D. Cal., filed August 27, 2012).

August, 2012:

SEC Charges Former Sky Bell Hedge Fund Manager With Making Misrepresentations In Selling And Recommending His Hedge Funds

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Gary R. Marks. The Commission’s complaint alleged that Marks managed and recommended various fund of funds hedge funds through Sky Bell Asset Management, Inc. (an investment adviser formerly registered with the Commission), including the Agile Sky Alliance Fund that was co-managed with the Agile Group, PipeLine Investors, Night Watch Partners, and Sky Bell Offshore Partners (collectively “Sky Bell Hedge Funds”). The Commission’s complaint alleged that between at least 2005 and September 2007, Marks negligently misrepresented the level of correlation and diversification among certain Sky Bell Hedge Funds. Furthermore, the Complaint alleged that between at least 2005 and 2008, Marks also: a) made unsuitable investment recommendations to certain advisory clients to invest most of their investment portfolio in Sky Bell Hedge Funds, b) negligently failed to disclose that PipeLine Investors invested significantly in a purported subadviser’s fund, and c) negligently provided misleading information to certain investors about the liquidity problems at the Agile Sky Alliance Fund.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, Marks consented to the entry of a proposed Final Judgment enjoining him from future violations of Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933. The proposed Final Judgment also orders Marks to pay disgorgement of $321,702, a penalty of $100,000, and prejudgment interest. The proposed settlement is subject to the approval of the district court.

Contact Us:

Hedge Fund and Hedge Fund Advisor – Southeast Florida Fraud and Mismanagement FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Lawyer

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:33:23 GMT

Philip A. Falcone and Harbinger Charged with Securities Fraud

June, 2012:

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently filed fraud charges against New York-based hedge fund adviser Philip A. Falcone and his advisory firm, Harbinger Capital Partners LLC for illicit conduct that included misappropriation of client assets, market manipulation, and betraying clients. The SEC also charged Peter A. Jenson, Harbinger’s former Chief Operating Officer, for aiding and abetting the misappropriation scheme. Additionally, the SEC reached a settlement with Harbinger for unlawful trading.

In a separate, settled action, the SEC charged Harbert Management Corporation, whose affiliates served as the managing members of two Harbinger-related entities, as a controlling person in the market manipulation.

The SEC alleges that Falcone used fund assets to pay his taxes, conducted an illegal “short squeeze” to manipulate bond prices, secretly favored certain customers at the expense of others, and that Harbinger unlawfully bought equity securities in a public offering, after having sold short the same security during a restricted period.

“Today’s charges read like the final exam in a graduate school course in how to operate a hedge fund unlawfully,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Clients and market participants alike were victimized as Falcone unscrupulously used fund assets to pay his personal taxes, manipulated the market for certain bonds, favored some clients at the expense of others, and violated trading rules intended to prohibit manipulative short sales.”

The SEC filed actions in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Falcone, Jenson, and Harbinger, and, in connection with the illegal trading scheme, separately instituted and settled administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Harbinger.

In particular, the SEC alleges that:

Falcone fraudulently obtained $113.2 million from a hedge fund that he advised and misappropriated the proceeds to pay his personal taxes;
Falcone and two Harbinger investment managers through which Falcone operated manipulated the price and availability of a series of distressed high-yield bonds by engaging in an illegal “short squeeze;”
Falcone and Harbinger secretly offered and granted favorable redemption and liquidity rights to certain strategically-important investors in exchange for those investors’ consent to restrict redemption rights of other fund investors, and concealed the arrangement from the fund’s directors and investors; and
Harbinger engaged in illegal trades in connection with the purchase of common stock in three public offerings after having sold the same securities short during a restricted period.

“Not only are hedge fund managers expected to be savvy investors, they are supposed to serve the interests of their clients. Here, in addition to raiding a fund for personal benefit and cutting secret deals with favored investors, Falcone then lied to investors about what he had done,” said Bruce Karpati, Chief of the Asset Management Unit in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

Describing the illegal short squeeze, Gerald W. Hodgkins, Associate Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement said, “After he took control of an entire issue of high-yield bonds, Falcone kept buying with an eye toward rigging the market and punishing short sellers to settle a score. In the process, Falcone hijacked the market for the bonds and illegally manipulated their price and availability. The Division will continue to police the bond market to make sure it operates as an efficient market, free of the corrosive effects of manipulators such as Falcone.”

Misappropriation Scheme:

In the misappropriation scheme, the SEC alleges that Falcone unlawfully used fund assets to pay his personal taxes. In 2009 Falcone owed federal and state authorities $113.2 million in taxes. Declining to pursue other financing options, such as pledging his personal assets as collateral for a bank loan, Falcone elected instead to take a $113.2 million loan from the Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P. – the same fund from which Harbinger had earlier suspended investors from redeeming.

Falcone authorized the transfer of fund assets to himself in a transaction that Jenson helped structure. Falcone and Harbinger never sought or obtained consent from investors prior to using the fund’s assets to benefit Falcone.

As part of the misappropriation scheme, the SEC alleges that Falcone and Harbinger, aided by Jenson, made several material misrepresentations and omissions in seeking legal advice regarding the loan and in subsequent communications with investors, including, among other things:

the financing alternatives available to Falcone;
the circumstances that led to Falcone’s need for the loan;
the ability of the Special Situations Fund to furnish the loan, without disadvantaging investors;
the terms and conditions of the loan, including the interest rate charged and the amount of collateral posted by Falcone; and
the role of Harbinger’s outside legal counsel in vetting the transaction.

The SEC also alleges that Falcone and Harbinger delayed disclosing the loan for approximately five months because of their concern that disclosure of Falcone’s financial condition might have a negative impact on investor withdrawals and on Falcone’s ability to attract more investments for other Harbinger funds. Falcone repaid the loan in 2011, after the Commission commenced its investigation.

Market Manipulation / Illegal Short Squeeze:

In a separate civil action, the SEC alleges that from 2006 through early 2008 Falcone and two Harbinger investment management entities manipulated the market in a series of distressed high-yield bonds issued by MAAX Holdings Inc. In this fraudulent scheme, Falcone and the Harbinger entities allegedly orchestrated an illegal “short squeeze” – a market manipulation scheme in which an investor constricts the supply of a security, through large purchases or other means, with the intent of forcing settlement from short sellers at arbitrary and inflated prices.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that at Falcone’s direction, Harbinger purchased a large position in the MAAX bonds during April and June of 2006. After hearing rumors that a Wall Street financial services firm was shorting the MAAX bonds and also encouraging its customers to do the same, Falcone decided to seek revenge. In September 2006, Falcone directed the Harbinger-managed funds to buy every available bond in the market, often purchasing the bonds from short sellers. Ultimately, Falcone raised the funds’ stake to approximately 13 percent more than the available supply of the MAAX bonds.

At one point, Harbinger had purchased 22 million more bonds than MAAX had ever issued. Contemporaneously with these purchases, Falcone locked up the MAAX bonds the Harbinger funds had purchased in a custodial account at a bank in Georgia to prevent his brokers from lending out the bonds to sellers seeking to deliver the bonds to purchasers after short sales.

Having seized control of the supply of the MAAX bonds, Falcone then demanded that the Wall Street firm and its customers settle their outstanding MAAX short sales, not disclosing that it would be virtually impossible to find bonds available for delivery. The Wall Street firm bid daily for the bonds, which quickly doubled in price. Then, Falcone engaged in a series of transactions with certain short sellers at arbitrary, inflated prices, while at the same time valuing the funds’ holdings on his books at a small fraction of the prices he charged the covering short sellers.

Preferential Redemption Scheme:

In its action alleging misappropriation, the SEC also alleges that in a further breach of Falcone and Harbinger’s fiduciary duties to their clients, Falcone and Harbinger engaged in unlawful preferential redemptions for the benefit of certain favored investors.

In 2009, while soliciting required investor approval to restrict withdrawals from another Harbinger fund, Falcone and Harbinger secretly exempted certain large investors that Falcone deemed to be strategically important from soon-to-be imposed liquidity restrictions – provided those investors voted to approve restrictions that would temporarily stabilize the decline in Harbinger’s assets under management.

Ultimately, pursuant to these ‘vote buying’ agreements, Falcone and Harbinger allegedly permitted these investors who were connected to certain favored institutional investors to withdraw a total of approximately $169 million. Harbinger concealed these quid pro quo arrangements from the independent directors and from fund investors.

Other Illegal Trading by Harbinger:

In a separate administrative and cease-and-desist proceeding, the SEC found that between April and June 2009, Harbinger violated Rule 105 of Regulation M of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). Rule 105 is an anti-manipulation rule that prohibits short selling securities during a restricted period and then purchasing the same securities in a public offering.

The Commission’s Order censures Harbinger and requires the firm to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of Rule 105 now or in the future. Harbinger will pay disgorgement in the amount of $857,950, prejudgment interest in the amount of $91,838, and a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $428,975. Harbinger consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the Commission’s findings.

Settlement with Harbert Management Company:

In a separate complaint also filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the SEC filed a settled civil action against Harbert and two related investment entities – HMC-New York Inc. and HMC Investors, LLC – for their role in the illegal short squeeze described above.

The SEC alleges in its complaint against Harbert that during the entire period of the short squeeze, Defendants Harbert, HMC-NY and HMC Investors, directly or indirectly, possessed the power to control Falcone and the investment managers through which he operated. HMC-NY and HMC Investors, two entities controlled by Harbert, served as the managing members of two limited liability companies that acted as the general partners of the funds advised by Falcone.

Harbert and its affiliates also provided hedge fund administrative, legal, compliance, risk assessment and other services to the funds. In these capacities, Harbert, HMC-NY and HMC Investors knew of Falcone’s trades in the MAAX bonds, but failed to take appropriate steps to address Falcone’s manipulative conduct. The SEC charged the Harbert defendants as controlling persons pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging that they are jointly and severally liable for Falcone’s and the Harbinger investment managers’ violations of the antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act.

Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, Defendants Harbert, HMC-NY and HMC Investors have agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1 million. The Harbert defendants also have consented to the entry of a judgment enjoining them from violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The proposed settlement with Harbert is subject to approval by the court.

In the pending federal court actions concerning the first three fraudulent schemes described above, the Commission seeks a variety of sanctions and relief including injunctions against Falcone and Harbinger from violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Exchange Act, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

In addition, the Commission seeks to enjoin Harbinger and Falcone from controlling any person who violates the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act. As for monetary relief, the Commission seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, prejudgment interest, and civil money penalties from Falcone and Harbinger. The Commission further seeks to prohibit Falcone from serving as an officer and director of any public company. Against Jenson, the Commission seeks to enjoin Jenson from aiding and abetting future violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act and Advisers Act and seeks to obtain monetary penalties.