Private Placements / Direct Investments - Russell L. Forkey

Negligent Misrepresentations and Omissions of Material Facts – South Florida FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 26 Feb 2022 16:54:14 GMT

The below referenced FINRA Enforcement Action provides examples of what would constitute a negligent misrepresentations and omissions in any offering. In this particular circumstance, it related to the offering of notes of the parent company of WestPark Capital.

WestPark Capital, Inc. (CRD #39914, Los Angeles, California) and Richard Alyn Rappaport (CRD #1885122, Los Angeles, California) November 22, 2021 – An AWC was issued in which the firm was censured, fined $250,000, ordered to offer rescission to customers who invested in notes of the firm’s parent company and have not yet been repaid the full amount of their outstanding principal investment that totaled $1,777,316, required to review and revise, as necessary, its policies, procedures, processes, controls and systems concerning FINRA Rule 3170, and required to extend the time during which it will comply with the requirements of FINRA Rule 3170 for an additional six months. Rappaport was fined $30,000, suspended from associating with any FINRA member in all capacities for four months and suspended from associating with any FINRA in any principal capacity for 15 months. The suspensions are to run concurrently. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm and Rappaport consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that they made negligent misrepresentations and omissions of material facts in offering documents provided to customers in connection with the sale of promissory notes issued by the firm’s parent company. The findings stated that the offering documents failed to disclose that the parent company had defaulted on a $1 million line of credit and had defaulted on successive forbearance agreements with a bank, or that the bank had sued the parent company and Rappaport. Similarly, the offering documents failed to disclose that the parent company had net operating losses each year from 2012 through 2016. In addition, the firm sent prospective investors a misleading historical analysis document, created by Rappaport, that claimed to show investors what they would have received as a return on the notes if the notes had been purchased in 2006 and held through 2010. In fact, the return displayed did not explain that the calculation was based upon hypothetical returns from distinct investments and not any actual return from the notes. The firm, through Rappaport and other firm representatives, also represented to prospective investors that they would be entitled to share in pro-rata distributions of equity and profits from the firm. In fact, the noteholders were entitled to share in pro-rata distributions of equity and profits from the parent company, not the firm, which at times had higher profits and greater equity producing opportunities than the parent company. Moreover, the firm, through Rappaport and other firm representatives, failed to disclose material conflicts of interest. The firm and Rappaport failed to disclose to prospective investors that Rappaport had sole discretion as to whether the parent company’s subsidiaries would make distributions to the parent. By virtue of the foregoing, the firm acted in contravention of Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933. The findings also stated that the firm and Rappaport failed to supervise the parent company offerings. The firm, acting through Rappaport, failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that firm representatives who solicited investments in the notes understood the terms of the notes. The firm and Rappaport did not provide reasonable training to registered representatives about the notes and did not respond reasonably to questions from customers that raised red flags that customers lacked accurate information about the notes. The findings also included that the firm violated FINRA Rule 3170 (the “Taping Rule”). The firm’s recording system allowed representatives, at their discretion, to end recording at any time, including before a call was complete. The firm became aware that a representative who sold the parent company offerings terminated at least three recordings before the calls were completed, including a recording of a call with a noteholder, yet the firm did not take any action to ensure that the representative at issue, or other firm representatives, recorded future calls in their entirety. In addition, the firm’s special written procedures concerning the Taping Rule were not reasonably designed. The special written procedures for supervisory review of calls provided no meaningful guidance regarding the review process, frequency of review, or methods of escalating information identified during review. The firm also failed to enforce the provision in its special written procedures requiring the firm to test its taping system to ensure that recordings were properly made and retained. As a result, the firm failed to detect that recordings were deleted prematurely. The suspension in all capacities is in effect from December 20, 2021, through April19, 2022, and the suspension in any principal capacity is in effect from December 20, 2021, through March 19, 2023. (FINRA Case #2017054381603)

Broker/Dealer Requirements Relating to a Contingency or Best Efforts Offering – South Florida Securities Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 26 Feb 2022 16:32:48 GMT

CONTINGENCY OR BEST EFFORTS OFFERING:

Securities and Exchange Act Rules 10-b9 and 15c2-4 contain requirements that must be satisfied in “Contingency” or “Best Efforts” offerings. FINRA (the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) has provided guidance to broker/dealers regarding the requirements of these rules and to remind broker-dealers of their responsibility to have procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with these rules.

Broker-dealers that participate in best efforts public and private securities offerings that have a contingency (i.e., an underlying condition or qualification that must take place by a specified date prior to the issuer taking possession of the offering proceeds) must safeguard investors’ funds they receive until the contingency is satisfied. If the contingency is not met, broker-dealers must ensure that investors’ funds are promptly refunded. There are various contingencies that might need to be satisfied in addition to meeting a subscription amount.

Best Efforts Contingency Offerings

In a best efforts offering, a broker-dealer does not commit to purchase any securities from the issuer or guarantee that the issuer will receive any amount of money from the offering (This is in contrast to a firm commitment). Furthermore, a best efforts offering subject to satisfaction of an underlying condition is deemed to be a “contingency offering.” The most common contingency offerings reviewed by FINRA are either “all-or-none” or “part-or-none” offerings that require all or a certain amount of the securities to be sold for the offering to close. Under Securities Exchange Act Rule 10b-9, a best efforts offering subject to either an “all-or-none” or “part-or-none” contingency must provide for the prompt return of investor funds in the event the requisite contingency fails to be met by a specific date.

Broker-Dealer Responsibilities in a Best Efforts Contingency Offering.

As discussed in Regulatory Notice 10-22, a broker-dealer that participates in an offering and recommends a security must, among other requirements, conduct a reasonable investigation of the security and the issuer’s representations about it. If the security is offered as part of a contingency offering, the broker-dealer’s reasonable investigation must include a review of the terms of the contingency, including any agreement and disclosure by the issuer regarding the contingency.

III. Requirements Concerning Manner of Handling Investor Funds

Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c2-4 requires that upon receiving money or other consideration from an investor in a contingency offering, a broker-dealer must promptly:

deposit those funds into “a separate bank account” for which the broker-dealer is the account holder and is designated as agent or trustee “for the persons who have the beneficial interests therein”; or
transmit those funds to a bank that has agreed in writing to act as the escrow agent for the offering.

The manner in which a broker-dealer must handle investor funds generally will be determined by two factors. First, pursuant to SEA Rule 15c3-1, only a broker-dealer that maintains at least $250,000 in net capital is allowed to carry customer accounts and receive or hold funds or securities for those persons. Therefore, while not a requirement of SEA Rule 15c2-4, a broker-dealer that maintains less than 250,000 in net capital and deposits investors’ funds into a separate bank account rather than transmitting those funds to an independent bank escrow agent would violate SEA Rule 15c3-1. Second, when a participating broker-dealer is an affiliate of the issuer, investors’ funds must be transmitted to an independent bank escrow agent.

Escrow Agreements

In contingent offerings that require an escrow agent, the escrow agreement must be executed with a bank that is unaffiliated with the broker-dealer and the issuer. The escrow account should be established before the broker-dealer receives any investor funds. The escrow account may not be controlled by the issuer, the broker-dealer or an attorney. As a general matter, the escrow agent must be a financial institution that meets the definition of a “bank” under SEA Section 3(a)(6), although the SEC staff has provided no-action relief to permit certain other entities to act as escrow agents.

Prompt Transmittal of Funds

SEA Rule 15c2-4(b) requires that a broker-dealer promptly transmit funds to either an escrow agent or a separate bank account. SEC staff has interpreted “promptly” to mean by noon of the next business day. Failure to promptly transmit funds to either the escrow agent or a separate bank account has resulted in sanctions. However, in certain offerings, such as direct participation programs that require suitability determinations by the issuer, the SEC staff has provided procedural guidance under which a broker-dealer can still comply with the “promptly” component of SEA Rule 15c2-4 even if the funds are not transmitted by noon the next business day after they are received.

A broker-dealer’s responsibility does not end when it promptly transmits investor funds to an escrow agent or separate bank account. A broker-dealer must also promptly refund investors’ funds if the contingency is not met.

Disbursal to the Issuer

Broker-dealers must segregate investor funds they receive at least until the contingency is met.

It is important to keep in mind that the private security offerings that are not offered through a broker/dealer are subject to many of the core requirements discussed in this post.

Please keep in mind that the above summary is being provided for educational purposes only. It is not designed to be complete in all material respects. If you have any question relative to the contents of this post, you should contact a qualified professional.

Contingency or Best Efforts Offering – South Florida FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 26 Feb 2022 16:25:34 GMT

The below FINRA Enforcement Action provides a summary of certain issues that broker/dealers must take into consideration when involved in a contingency or best efforts offering.

Newbridge Securities Corporation (CRD #104065, Boca Raton, Florida) and Bruce Howard Jordan (CRD #1223556, Boca Raton, Florida):

Recently, FINRA announced that a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) was issued in which the Newbridge Securities Corporation was censured and fined $30,000 and Mr. Jordan was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any principal capacity for one month.

Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm and Jordan consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that the firm failed to comply with escrow requirements, the firm’s supervisory system was not reasonably designed and the firm and Jordan failed to enforce the firm’s written procedures governing contingency offerings. The findings stated that the firm acted as the placement agent for a contingency offering on behalf of an issuer. The firm’s written procedures specified that in contingency offerings, the firm would use a bank that had agreed in writing to hold all such funds in escrow and assigned specific responsibility to Jordan, the managing director of investment banking. However, for one offering, the firm and Jordan failed to deposit investor funds with a bank. Instead, the offering utilized a law firm as the escrow agent. Moreover, the firm and Jordan failed to use the standard escrow agreement required as specified in the firm’s procedures. The findings also stated that the firm improperly counted a non-bona fide investment toward the minimum contingency calculation, the firm’s supervisory system was not reasonably designed and the firm and Jordan failed to enforce relevant procedures. Without the non-bona fide investment, the minimum contingency would not have been met. The firm’s written procedures for contingency offerings specified that only bona fide investments should be counted toward an offering minimum but provided no guidance as to what constituted a bona fide investment. Jordan was assigned responsibility to determine whether an investment was bona fide. The firm, acting through Jordan, failed to review the investment to determine whether it should be considered a bona fide investment. Instead, after receiving the investment, the firm and Jordan declared the offering sold and released funds from escrow. As a result, the firm willfully violated Rule 10b-9 of the Securities Exchange Act and FINRA Rule 2010. The findings also included that the firm failed to return investor funds when minimum contingency was not met by the termination date in the offering documents, the firm’s supervisory system was not reasonably designed and the firm and Jordan failed to enforce the firm’s relevant procedures. In a second contingency offering, the issuer offering memorandum required a certain amount of the securities to be sold by a particular date for the offering to close. The offering memorandum also provided that if the minimum was not subscribed by the termination date, then all funds would be returned to investors and all subscription documents deemed rejected. The firm’s written procedures for contingency offerings specified that if the minimum contingency is not sold within the deadline specified by the offering documents, all funds should be promptly returned to investors. The firm’s written procedures failed to address circumstances where an issuer sought to extend the deadline for the minimum contingency through written confirmation by the investors, nor did it provide any guidance for the process of obtaining such written confirmation. The firm’s written procedures assigned specific responsibility for determining whether the minimum contingency had been met to Jordan. The minimum for the second offering was not met by the closing date, and the firm and the issuer agreed to extend the closing date. The firm and Jordan, however, did not send written reconfirmation offers to the investors disclosing the extension of the offering period prior to the original closing date. Instead, investors were provided with a supplement notifying them of the extension and instructing them to contact the firm if they did not wish to participate in the offering. No investor funds were returned, and no investors confirmed in writing their decision to continue their investments. The minimum was subsequently met by the extended closing date, and the firm, acting through Jordan, released the funds from escrow to the issuer of the second offering. Therefore, the firm willfully violated Rule 10b-9 of the Securities Exchange Act and FINRA Rule 2010. The suspension was in effect from December 6, 2021, through January 5, 2022. (FINRA Case #2019063371901).

Frequently Asked Questions About Exempt Securities Offerings

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 11 Aug 2018 14:44:09 GMT

Do anti-fraud provisions apply?

All securities transactions, even exempt transactions, are subject to the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. This means that you and your company will be responsible for false or misleading statements that you or others on your behalf make regarding your company, the securities offered, or the offering. You and your company are responsible for any such statements, whether made by your company or on behalf of the company, and regardless of whether they are made orally or in writing.

The government enforces the federal securities laws through criminal, civil and administrative proceedings. Private parties also can bring actions under certain securities laws. Also, if all conditions of the exemptions are not met, purchasers may be able to return their securities and obtain a refund of their purchase price.

What is an accredited investor?

Certain securities offerings that are exempt from registration may only be offered to, or purchased by, persons who are “accredited investors.” An “accredited investor” is currently considered:

a bank, insurance company, registered investment company, business development company, or small business investment company
an employee benefit plan (within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act) if a bank, insurance company, or registered investment adviser makes the investment decisions, or if the plan has total assets in excess of $5 million
a tax exempt charitable organization, corporation or partnership with assets in excess of $5 million
a director, executive officer, or general partner of the company selling the securities
an enterprise in which all the equity owners are accredited investors
an individual with a net worth of at least $1 million, not including the value of his or her primary residence
an individual with income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent calendar years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year or
a trust with assets of at least $5 million, not formed only to acquire the securities offered, and whose purchases are directed by a person who meets the legal standard of having sufficient knowledge and experience in financial and business matters to be capable of evaluating the merits and risks of the prospective investment

Do state law requirements apply?

While the SEC regulates and enforces the federal securities laws, each state has its own securities regulator who enforces what are known as “blue sky” laws. If a company is selling securities, it must comply with both federal regulations and state securities laws and regulations in the states where securities are offered and sold (typically, the states where offerees and investors are based).

Under the Securities Act, if a company’s offering qualifies for certain exemptions from registration, that offering is not required to be registered or qualified by state securities regulators. Even if the offering is made under one of those exemptions, the states still have authority to investigate and bring enforcement actions for fraud, impose state notice filing requirements, and collect state fees. The failure to file, or pay filing fees regarding, any such materials may cause state securities regulators to suspend the offer or sale of securities within their jurisdiction. Companies should contact state securities regulators in the states in which they intend to offer or sell securities for further guidance on compliance with state law requirements. The following table illustrates which offerings are potentially subject to state registration or qualification under the Securities Act.

Securities Act Exemption

Under the Securities Act, is the offering potentially subject to state registration or qualification?

Section 4(a)(2) – Yes
Rule 506(b) – No
Rule 506(c) – No
Rule 504 – Yes
Regulation Crowdfunding – No
Regulation A – Tier 1 – Yes
Regulation A – Tier 2 – No
Rules 147 and 147A – Yes
Rule 701 – Yes

For the offerings that are potentially subject to state registration or qualification, each state’s securities laws have their own separate registration requirements and exemptions to registration requirements. Even if the offering is not subject to state registration or qualification, there may still be state notice filing requirements and fees.

The above information is being provided for education purposes only. It is not designed to be complete in all material respects. If you have any questions concerning the subject matter of this post, you should contact a qualified professional.

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.

EB5 Asset Manager, LLC. – South Florida Private Placement Fraud Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 01:19:37 GMT

EB5 Asset Manager, LLC. – South Florida Private Placement Fraud Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. EB5 Asset Manager, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 0:15-CV-62323 (S.D. Fla., filed November 3, 2015)

Assets Frozen in Alleged Immigration Scam:

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced it has obtained a court order freezing the assets of a South Florida woman and her company accused of purchasing a boat and luxury cars with money she raised from investors seeking U.S. residency through the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Pilot Program.

Under the EB-5 program, foreign citizens may qualify for U.S. residency if they make a qualified investment of at least $500,000 in a specified project that creates or preserves at least 10 jobs for U.S. workers. The SEC alleges that Lin Zhong and her company EB5 Asset Manager LLC raised at least $8.5 million for use by U.S. EB-5 Investments LLC in job-creating real estate development projects, but they diverted nearly $1 million to purchase a boat, a BMW, and a Mercedes among other improper personal uses of investor funds.

The SEC also obtained a court order appointing a receiver to administer and manage the business affairs and assets of the company and its subsidiaries for the protection of investors.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed earlier this month in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Lin Zhong, who also goes by the name Lily Zhong:

Investors were told that money they invested in U.S. EB-5 Investments LLC would be used for real estate development including a mixed-use commercial project planned for the City Center in Port St. Lucie, Fla.
Zhong and EB5 Asset Manager diverted approximately $900,000 of those funds for unrelated personal uses that also included her own real estate taxes as well as education expenses for her family members.
Zhong and EB5 Asset Manager also made misrepresentations to investors about the use of U.S. EB-5 Investments’ funds and failed to disclose Zhong’s past failed real estate venture.
Investors were falsely told that U.S. EB-5 Investments would prepare and provide unaudited financial reports to investors.
Zhong and EB5 Asset Manager falsely claimed that certain investors’ funds would be held in escrow until the form filed by potential EB-5 investors to petition the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for immigration status received that agency’s approval.
Zhong and EB5 Asset Manager also made material omissions and false statements about conflicts of interest, and made false statements about the location of real estate development projects.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Zhong and EB5 Asset Manager violated the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Zhong has agreed to stipulate to the asset freeze and receiver following a lengthy hearing on the SEC’s motions when the court issued a separate order granting expedited discovery, prohibiting the destruction of documents, and requiring Zhong, EB5 Asset Manager, and relief defendants to provide the SEC and the court with a sworn accounting of their assets.

Contact Us:

Christopher Brogdon – Municipal Bond and Private Placement Offering Fraud

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 01:09:02 GMT

Christopher Brogdon – Municipal Bond and Private Placement Offering Fraud. South Florida, including Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach and Miami Litigaiton and Arbitration Attorney.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently announced fraud charges and an emergency asset freeze obtained against an Atlanta-based businessman accused of misusing investor funds raised to purchase and renovate senior living facilities.

The SEC alleges that Christopher F. Brogdon amassed nearly $190 million through dozens of municipal bond and private placement offerings in which investors supposedly earn interest from revenues generated by the nursing home, assisted living facility, or other retirement community project supported by their investment. But Brogdon secretly commingled investor funds instead of using the money to finance the project described to investors in the disclosure documents for each offering. From the commingled accounts, he has diverted investor money to other business ventures and personal expenses.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Newark, N.J., Brogdon has been making payments to investors by borrowing money from third parties, using proceeds from other offerings, and drawing down on personal lines of credit, all of which are improper sources under the offering disclosures made to investors.

The SEC complaint charges Brogdon with violations of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws and related SEC rules, and seeks the return of ill-gotten gains with interest and penalties. The complaint also seeks permanent injunctions against further violations of the securities laws, and a bar prohibiting Brogdon from serving as an officer or director of a public company. The complaint also names Brogdon’s wife and son and a number of his other business entities as relief defendants for the purpose of recovering ill-gotten gains plus interest for investors.

Contact Us:

Veros Partners, Inc., Jeffrey B. Risinger and Tobin J. Senefeld – Boca Raton, Florida Investment Adviser and Private Offering Fraud and Misrepresentation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 18:08:13 GMT

Veros Partners, Inc., Jeffrey B. Risinger and Tobin J. Senefeld – Boca Raton, Florida Investment Adviser and Private Offering Fraud and Misrepresentation Attorney

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Veros Partners, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 15-cv-000659-JMS-MJD (S.D.Ind., filed April 22, 2015)

SEC Halts Fraudulent Farm Loan Scheme by Indianapolis Investment Adviser

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced charges against an Indianapolis investment adviser, its president, two associates and several affiliated companies for engaging in two fraudulent farm loan offerings, in which they made ponzi scheme payments to investors in other offerings and paid themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in undisclosed fees. The SEC obtained a temporary restraining order and emergency asset freeze to halt the scheme.

According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, in 2013 and 2014, Veros Partners, Inc., its president, Matthew D. Haab, and two associates, attorney Jeffrey B. Risinger and Tobin J. Senefeld, fraudulently raised at least $15 million from at least 80 investors, most of whom were Veros advisory clients. The investors were informed that their funds would be used to make short-term operating loans to farmers, but instead, significant portions of the loans were to cover the farmers’ unpaid debt on loans from prior offerings. According to the SEC’s complaint, Haab, Risinger and Senefeld used money from the two offerings to pay millions of dollars to investors in prior farm loan offerings and to pay themselves over $800,000 in undisclosed “success” and “interest rate spread” fees.

In addition to Veros, Haab, Risinger, and Senefeld, the SEC charged Veros Farm Loan Holding LLC and FarmGrowCap LLC, the issuers of the offerings, and PinCap LLC. The SEC also charged registered broker-dealer Pin Financial LLC as a relief defendant.

The Honorable Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued an asset freeze order against the defendants as well as a temporary restraining order prohibiting them from soliciting, accepting or depositing any monies from any actual or prospective investors, and in the case of Veros, any investors in private securities offerings. Judge Magnus-Stinson also ordered that a receiver be appointed. A preliminary injunction hearing has been scheduled for May 1, 2015.

The SEC’s complaint charges the defendants with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and also charges Veros and Haab with violating Sections 206(1), 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act, and Veros with violating Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-2. The SEC’s complaint seeks permanent injunctions and disgorgement against all defendants and a financial penalty. The SEC’s complaint names Pin Financial for the purposes of recovering proceeds it received from the fraud.

Contact Us:

Brookville Capital Partners, LLC. and Anthony Lodati – Boca Raton, Florida Private Placement and Regulation D Fraud and Misrepresentation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 23:47:47 GMT

Boca Raton, Florida Private Placement and Regulation D Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently announced that it has ordered Brookville Capital Partners LLC, based in Uniondale, NY, to pay full restitution of more than $1 million to the victims and fined the firm $500,000 for fraud in connection with sales of a private placement offering. FINRA also barred Brookville President Anthony Lodati from the securities industry.

FINRA found in its settlement and alleged in a May 2014 complaint that Brookville and Lodati defrauded Brookville customers in connection with the sale of a private placement offering called Wilshire Capital Partners Group LLC, through which investors would purportedly have an indirect interest in pre-initial public offering shares of Fisker Automotive. The conduct took place from January 2011 to October 2011.

During the time Brookville solicited customers to invest in the offering, Lodati learned that John Mattera, an individual with a significant criminal and regulatory background, had effected transactions on behalf of Wilshire as Wilshire’s CEO and Managing Director. Instead of disclosing that, among other things, Mattera had been sanctioned by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2010 for securities fraud and convicted of a felony in Florida in 2003, Lodati and Brookville purposely withheld this information and information about Mattera’s involvement with Wilshire, and continued to solicit its customers to invest. In total, Brookville sold over $1 million worth of interests in Wilshire to 29 customers. Brookville received more than $104,000 in commissions for the sales.

In November 2011, the SEC sued Mattera and others in connection with a scheme that included Wilshire, through which they defrauded investors of $13 million. These individuals were also criminally prosecuted and convicted, and Mattera has been sentenced to prison. The SEC obtained a court order freezing all of Wilshire’s assets, including the interests owned by Brookville’s customers. The Brookville customers who invested in Wilshire lost their entire investment.

In settling this matter, Brookville and Lodati neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.

Contact Us:

Valuations of Unlisted Real Estate Investment Trusts and Direct Participation Programs – Boca Raton, Florida REIT and DPP FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 21:29:42 GMT

SEC Order Approving FINRA Rule Change Relative to How Member Firms are Required to Calculate the Value of Unlisted Real Estate Investment Trusts and Direct-Participation Programs:

The Sec has approved FINRA’s plan to overhaul how member firms calculate the value of unlised real estate investment trusts (“REITs”) and direct-participation programs (“DPPs”). Under the new rules – specifically FINRA Rule 2310 – the firms will be required to include on customer account statements a per-share estimated value for any unlisted REIT and DPP securities that they have reason to believe is reliable.

Firms also will need to make new disclsoures about the nature of the investment, including that they are not traded on a public securities exchange and that the price that the investor receives may be less than the estimated per-shre value.

Please keep in mind that the above information is being provided for informational purposes only. Thus, it is not designed to be complete in all material respects. If you have any questions relative thereto, you should contact a qualified professional.

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:

Florida’s Requlation D and Rule 506 Offering Requirements – Boca Raton, West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale, Florida Securities Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:42:33 GMT

Florida’s Regulation D and Rule 506 Offering Requirements – Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida Securities Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration, Litigation and Elder Abuse Attorney:

What are Florida’s Regulation D and Rule 506 Offering requirements?

Regulation D and Rule 504 Public Offerings:

Sales must be made pursuant to the registration by Qualification (Intra-state or Merit Review) requirements of Chapter 517.081, Florida Statutes, and Rule 69W-700.001, Florida Administrative Code, and the dealer registration requirements of Chapter 517.12, Florida Statutes.

Rule 506 Filings (Offerings):

Florida does not require any Notice filing fee, or consent to service for Rule 506 Filings (Offerings), Chapter 517.071(1), Florida Statutes.

All sales of securities in Florida must be made by a properly registered Dealer (Chapter 517.12(1), Florida Statutes) or by someone utilizing an exemption provided by Chapter 517.12(3), Florida Statutes. This includes officers and employees of Rule 506 issuers.

There are two exemptions available under Chapter 517.12(3), Florida Statutes, for Issuers of Rule 506 Offerings:

1. Chapter 517.061(19) and 517.021(6)(b)6, Florida Statutes, and Rule 69W-500.016, Florida Administrative Code, requiring the offer and sale to be made by a bona fide employee of the issuer.

2. Chapter 517.061(11) and 517.021(6)(b)6, Florida Statutes, and Rule 69W-500.001-007, Florida Administrative Code, requiring the sale to be made in reliance upon a limited offering exemption.

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

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.

Carolina Financial Securities, LLC – South Florida Private Placement Fraud and Mismanagement FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:21:55 GMT

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) is a self-regulatory authority assigned the responsibility, by the Securities and Exchange Commission, to license, regulate and discipline securities broker/dealers and their employees, including account executives. In the event that FINRA elects to institute an enforcement action, firms and licensed individuals have the responsibility to reflect such action on their U-4 and/or U-5 filings, which can be viewed on the FINRA website under the broker-check section of the site or by viewing the monthly disciplinary information also provided on the FINRA site.

The monthly disciplinary information is referenced on the FINRA site generally in alphabetical order. This post relates to the following company or individuals. If the reader would like to review the entire FINRA release or the broker-check information concerning this matter, you can follow these highlighted links:

June 2014 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

Broker Check: http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/

Carolina Financial Securities, LLC (Brevard, North Carolina) submitted a Letter of Acceptance Waiver and Consent in which the firm was censured and fined $50,000. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that is sold a private placement offering that was unregistered pursuant to the exemption provided with Rule 506 of Regulation D to the investors for a total investment of approximately $1.1 million. The findings stated that the firm had procedures in place for the supervision of the sale of private placements, but failed to follow its own procedures for the review and verification of statements made in offering documents. (Case # 2011025755101). To review the full release, please follow the highlighted link.

Contact Us:

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:

Gaeton S. Della Penna – South Florida Private Placement and Private Investment Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 21 May 2014 15:10:47 GMT

Boca Raton, Boynton Beach, Delray Beach, West Palm Beach, Lantana, Florida Private Placment and Private Investment Fraud, Misrepresentation and Mismanagement FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gaeton S. Della Penna et al., Civil Action No. 8:14-CV-1203T30MAP

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently filed charges against Gaeton “Guy” S. Della Penna of Sarasota, Florida for engaging in a scheme to defraud investors who purchased securities in his private investment funds.

According to the complaint the SEC filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, from 2008 until 2013, Della Penna defrauded investors in three private investment funds he operated. Della Penna raised approximately $3.8 million from investors, who were told their funds would be used to trade securities or invest in small companies. The SEC’s complaint alleges Della Penna lost nearly all of the investors’ money through a combination of unsuccessful investments, operating a Ponzi scheme, and diverting a large sum to himself. Della Penna misappropriated investor funds totaling about $1.1 million to pay personal expenses, including mortgage payments on his 10,000 square foot home and payments to his girlfriend. To cover up his fraud, Della Penna operated a Ponzi-like scheme by using later investors’ money to pay fake “returns” to prior investors. He also provided false account statements and other documents to some investors. Gaeton Capital Advisors, LLC, an entity to which Della Penna transferred some of the investor funds, is named as a relief defendant.

The SEC’s complaint alleges Della Penna violated 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), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8(a) thereunder. The SEC is seeking financial penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and a permanent injunction against Della Penna. The SEC seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains from relief defendant Gaeton Capital Advisors, LLC.

Also, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida today announced related criminal charges against Della Penna.

Contact Us:

Oil and Gas Limited Partnership and Oil and Gas Offering Fraud, Misrepresentation and Mismanagement Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:42:42 GMT

Oil and Gas Limited Partnerships and Oil and Gas Offering Fraud, Misrepresentation and Mismanagement – South Florida, including Fort Lauderdale, Pompano Beach, Deerfiled Beach, Boca Raton, Boynton Beach, Delray Beach, Lake Worth and West Palm Beach, Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

An oil and gas limited partnership is legally set up using the same format as any type of limited partnership. It is created by filing articles of limited partnership or its equivalent in the state of its domicile. For example, Florida Statute, Chapter 620 governs the legal requirements that must be followed in the formation, operation and dissolution of the limited partnership, whether it is engaged in the oil and gas business or not. This post is limited to a general discussion of an oil and gas limited partnership.

An oil and gas limited partnership is made up of one or more general partners and one or more limited partners. Generally, it is structured to find, extract, and market commercial quantities of oil and natural gas. These types of investments are usually offered by prospectus, in the case of a public offering, and by a private offering memorandum, in the case of a private offering of securities. In either offering document, it is important to consider, among other things, who is making the offering, which brings to the forefront such items as experience, prior success and financial stability. The next important section of the document relates to the “risk” factor section of the document. Usually, in bold type there is a phrase such as “this offering involves a high degree of risk and should be considered only by those investors who can stand to lose their entire investment.”

In reading and attempting to understand a prospectus or private offering memorandum relative to an oil and gas limited partnership, it is important to bear in mind that there are a number of key words and phrases that are used throughout the document, which are words of art and many times do not mean exactly how the reader would interrupt them. For example, what is an exploratory or wildcat well vs. a development well vs. a development drilling program? Does it make a difference on the risk vs. reward scale how deep the well is going to be drilled and the type of geological formations that the well will have to be drilled through? What is the importance of such phrases of “working interest” or “revenue interest?”

If you are reading this post, you should be getting the idea that these are very complicated investments and that you should seek qualified professional advice before making an investment. Some but not all of risks can be reduced if you know what can be verified and how to go about doing it.

Normally, we don’t include asides with educational posts; however, in the most recent case that we dealt with concerning an oil and gas venture, there were a number of fraudulent statements that were made and documents provided by the promoters to the investors. One of the most glaring was the fact that the investors wanted to see some of the other producing wells that had been drilled by the promoter. The promoter was quick to comply with the request and showed the investors a number of other wells that it had drilled, which were producing oil and gas. Unfortunately, the investors did not know how to verify this representation and later found out that the promoter had no interest in any of the wells.

Contact Us:

With extensive courtroom, arbitration and mediation experience and an in-depth understanding of oil, gas 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.

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:

Arcturus Corporation and Aschere Energy LLC. – South Florida Oil and Gas Securities Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 21:40:41 GMT

South Florida Unregistered Securities, Joint Venture and Securities Misrepresentation and Litigation Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Arcturus Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. Civ. Action No. 3:13-cv-04861-K (N.D. Tex., Dallas Division, filed December 12, 2013)

SEC Charges Texas Oil and Gas Promoters for Securities Fraud

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Leon Ali Parvizian and his two companies, Arcturus Corporation and Aschere Energy LLC, with the fraudulent offer and sale of securities in the form of interests in oil and gas joint ventures. The Commission also charged promoters Alfredo Gonzalez, AMG Energy, LLC , Robert Balunas, and R. Thomas & Co., LLC with violations of the securities offering and broker-dealer registration provisions of the federal securities laws.

Filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the Commission’s complaint alleges that the Parvizian, through Arcturus and Aschere, raised nearly $22 million from at least 380 investors between 2007 and December 2011.The complaint alleges that Parvizian prepared and disseminated to prospective investors offering materials that included material misrepresentations and omissions regarding, among other things, material litigation involving Arcturus and Aschere. According to the complaint, Parvizian, Arcturus and Aschere systematically, and without disclosure to investors, used the offering proceeds to pay the costs of defending and settling the litigation. The complaint further alleges that, among other things, Parvizian prematurely called for completion funds on at least two projects before he had finished drilling and testing the wells because he had already spent the offering proceeds for non-JV related expenses, including legal fees. According to the complaint, Parvizian, Arcturus, and Aschere spent only $7.9 million, or 36 percent, of the money raised to drill oil and gas wells.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants offered and sold the joint venture interests in unregistered securities offerings that were not exempt from the registration requirements of the federal securities laws. In addition, the complaint alleges that Parvizian, Gonzalez, AMG, Balunas, and R. Thomas & Co. acted as unregistered broker-dealers. According to the complaint, Parvizian, Gonzalez, Balunas, AMG Energy, and R. Thomas received transaction-based compensation in the form of sales commissions based upon a percentage of the amount of investor funds raised.

The complaint alleges that Parvizian, Arcturus, and Aschere violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”)and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and that Parvizian also violated Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. Gonzalez, AMG, Balunas, and R. Thomas are charged with violating Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and with Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. The Commission is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against each of the defendants.

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.

South Florida Investment Adviser Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:51:52 GMT

Tampa, Fort Meyers and Naples, Florida Investment Adviser Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and State and Federal Court Litigation Attorney:

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced charges against two Tampa-area investment advisers accused of committing fraud by failing to truthfully inform clients about compensation received from offshore funds they were recommending as safe investments despite substantial risks and red flags.

The advisers also are charged with contributing to violations of the “custody rule” that requires investment advisory firms to establish specific procedures to safeguard and account for client assets.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Gregory J. Adams and Larry C. Grossman solicited and directed clients of their investment firm Sovereign International Asset Management to invest almost exclusively in funds controlled by an asset manager named Nikolai Battoo, who the SEC charged in a separate enforcement action last year. Grossman and Adams failed to inform clients about the conflict of interest in recommending these investments as Battoo was paying them millions of dollars in compensation for steering investors to his funds.

“Investment advisers have a fiduciary duty to act in utmost good faith when recommending investments, and they must fully disclose all of the relevant facts to their clients,” said Eric I. Bustillo, director of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office. “Adams and Grossman breached this duty when they misstated their compensation and failed to disclose serious conflicts of interest.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings, Grossman was paid approximately $3.3 million and Adams received $1 million in the undisclosed compensation arrangements. Grossman and Adams promoted the investments as safe, diversified, independently administered and audited, and suitable for the investment objectives and risk profiles of their clients who were often retirees. However, Battoo’s funds were in fact risky, lacked diversification, and lacked independent administrators and auditors. Grossman and Adams also failed to investigate – and in some cases wholly disregarded – numerous red flags surrounding Battoo and his funds.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Grossman and Adams aided and abetted Sovereign’s violations of the custody rule when they instructed clients to transfer their investment funds to a bank account controlled by a related entity. Grossman and Adams pooled clients’ money in this bank account before investing it in Battoo’s offshore funds. Sovereign failed to comply with the custody rule, which requires an investment adviser to comply with surprise examinations or certain other procedures to verify and safeguard client assets.

According to the SEC’s order, Grossman and Adams willfully violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), 206(3) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. They willfully aided and abetted violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rules 204-3 and 206(4)-2.

Contact Us:

EB-5 Visa Program Fraud – Florida EB-5 Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 02 Oct 2013 10:18:02 GMT

The Securities and Exchange Commission Halts a Texas-Based Scheme Targeting Foreign Investors Seeking U.S. Residency Through EB-5 Visa Program:

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced fraud charges against a husband and wife in Texas for stealing funds from foreign investors under the guise of an investment opportunity to create U.S. jobs and a path to U.S. residency.

The SEC alleges that Marco and Bebe Ramirez and three companies they own have fraudulently raised at least $5 million from investors by falsely promising that their money would be invested as part of the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Pilot Program. Through the program, foreign investors can earn conditional visas and eventually green cards by making investments in U.S. economic development projects that will create or preserve a minimum number of jobs for U.S. workers. Instead of investing the money as promised, the Ramirezes routinely diverted investor funds to other undisclosed businesses and for their personal use. In at least one instance, they used new investor funds to make Ponzi-like payments to an existing investor.

According to the SEC’s complaint unsealed recently in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the Ramirezes initially targeted investors in Mexico, but more recently have solicited investors in Egypt and Nigeria. The court has granted the SEC’s request to freeze the assets and accounts of the Ramirezes and their three companies: USA Now LLC, USA Now Energy Capital Group LP, and Now Co. Loan Services. This effectively halts their ability to raise further money from investors or spend any remaining funds in the scheme.

The SEC and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently issued a joint investor alert that provides additional information about the EB-5 program and cautions investors about fraudulent EB-5 schemes. USCIS offered substantial assistance in the SEC’s investigation of the Ramirezes. The EB-5 program is administered by USCIS and enables foreign investors to make their investments either directly in a business or through EB-5 “regional centers” that are private entities organized to promote economic development in specific geographic areas and industries.

According to the SEC’ s complaint, beginning in 2010, the Ramirezes sought approval from USCIS to register USA Now as an EB-5 regional center that would accept and direct investments from foreign investors into investment opportunities that would purportedly satisfy the EB-5 visa requirements. But even before USCIS decided, the Ramirezes and other USA Now employees already had started soliciting investors with false promises about how their money would be invested.

The SEC alleges that the Ramirezes told investors that USA Now would hold their investments in escrow until they received USCIS approval. And once the funds were released from escrow, they would be used for specific business purposes. However, the Ramriezes failed to hold the funds in escrow as required, and instead routinely diverted the funds for other uses not described in offering materials, often on the same day the funds were received. Among their misappropriations, the Ramirezes appear to have opened a Cajun-themed restaurant with investor funds and settled an unrelated lawsuit. Meanwhile, none of the at least 10 investors identified by the SEC as victims of the scheme have received visas from USCIS, and none of their funds seem to remain in escrow.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that the Ramirezes and their companies violated and aided and abetted violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks various relief including preliminary and permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.

Contact Us: