Securities Litigation - Russell L. Forkey

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.

Pure Bills of Discovery – FAQ’s – South Florida Civil Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 10 Nov 2019 15:40:23 GMT

A Pure Bill of Discovery is an equity pleading which is granted pursuant to the Court’s auxiliary jurisdiction. A Court’s jurisdiction usually consists of the right to decide a case or controversy between parties; however, Florida Courts, also have the auxiliary power and jurisdiction to enter orders that a person or organization provide documents, submit to depositions or to otherwise comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure presuit. A Pure Bill of Discovery can be utilized for a number of reasons. For example, in a recently filed case a company had its computer system hacked. Someone, then currently unknow, was able to access the company’s bank account electronically and directed the company’s bank to send two wire transfers to two seperate bank account created, by unknown parties, at a nationwide banking institution. Both the company’s bank and the bank that received the funds into these third party accounts refused to provide, to the company, any of the written communications between the banks relative to this matter and the receiving bank has refused to provide any information to the company about who ownes the accounts that received the funds. Hence, the necessity of filing a Pure Bill of Discovery so that this information can be discovered and acted upon by the company. Obviously, time is of the essence in this type of circumstance.

A suit for discovery is initiated by a party filiing a “Complaint For Pure Bill Of Discovery” with either the county or circuit court as appropriate. The complaint should allege the following: (1) the matters concerning which the discovery asked for is sought; (2) the interests of the several parties in the subject of the inquiry; (3) the complainant’s right to have the relief prayed, its title and interest and what the relationship of the same is to the discovery claimed and that the discovery so attempted to be had is material to the complainant’s rightss that have been duly brought into litigation on the common-law side of the couurt under circumstnaces that entitle the complainant to a disclosure of what is necessary to maintain its own claim in that litigation, and not that of the defendant in the case. If the Complaint is granted, then the plaintiff, in this case the comapny, can ask the court for leave to conduct discovery using any of the methods allowed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

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. If you have any questions concerning the contents 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.

Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme – South Florida Securities Fraud and Misrepresentation State and Federal Court Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Tue, 01 Dec 2015 22:47:26 GMT

Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme – South Florida Securities Fraud and Misrepresentation State and Federal Court Litigation Attorney

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Homero Joshua Garza, Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-01760 (D. Conn., Complaint filed Dec. 1, 2015)

SEC Charges Bitcoin Mining Companies

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged two Bitcoin mining companies and their founder with conducting a Ponzi scheme that used the lure of quick riches from virtual currency to defraud investors.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Connecticut, “mining” for Bitcoin or other virtual currencies means applying computer power to try to solve complex equations that verify a group of transactions in that virtual currency. The first computer or collection of computers to solve an equation is awarded new units of that virtual currency.

The SEC alleges that Homero Joshua Garza perpetrated the fraud through his Connecticut-based companies GAW Miners and ZenMiner by purporting to offer shares of a digital Bitcoin mining operation. In reality, GAW Miners and ZenMiner did not own enough computing power for the mining it promised to conduct, so most investors paid for a share of computing power that never existed. Returns paid to some investors came from proceeds generated from sales to other investors.

According to the SEC’s complaint:

From August 2014 to December 2014, Garza and his companies sold $20 million worth of purported shares in a digital mining contract they called a Hashlet.
More than 10,000 investors purchased Hashlets, which were touted as always profitable and never obsolete.
Although Hashlets were depicted in GAW Miners’ marketing materials as a physical product or piece of mining hardware, the promised contract purportedly entitled the investor to control a share of computing power that GAW Miners claimed to own and operate.
Investors were misled to believe they would share in returns earned by the Bitcoin mining activities when in reality GAW Miners directed little or no computing power toward any mining activity.
Because Garza and his companies sold far more computing power than they owned, they owed investors a daily return that was larger than any actual return they were making on their limited mining operations.
Therefore, investors were simply paid back gradually over time under the mantra of “returns” out of funds that Garza and his companies collected from other investors.
Most Hashlet investors never recovered the full amount of their investments, and few made a profit.

The SEC’s complaint charges Garza, GAW Miners, and ZenMiner with violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act); GAW Miners and Garza with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and ZenMiner with violating Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder. The SEC’s complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief as well as the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest and penalties.

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.

Unlawful Reimbursement of Customer Losses – Boca Raton, Florida FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 20:11:24 GMT

Unlawful Reimbursement of Customer Losses – Boca Raton, Florida FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

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:

November 2015 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions:

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

Rushton Leigh Ardrey III (CRD #1598393, Newbury, Massachusetts) submitted an AWC in which he was suspended from association with any FINRA member in any capacity for 10 business days. In light of Ardrey’s financial status, no monetary sanction has been imposed. Without admitting or denying the findings, Ardrey consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that without his member firm’s prior written authorization, he caused a wire of $33,000 to be sent from his personal bank account to that of a customer in order to reimburse the customer for losses sustained in her account.

The suspension was in effect from September 21, 2015, through October 2, 2015.(FINRA Case #2013039039501).

Contact Us:

T + 3 – Settlement of Security Transactions – Boca Raton, Florida Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:52:44 GMT

T + 3 – Settlement of Security Transactions – Boca Raton, Lake Worth and North Palm Beach, Florida Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

What is meant by T+3?

Generally, investors must complete or settle their security transactions within three business days. This settlement cycle is known as “T+3,” shorthand for “trade date plus three days.”

T+3 means that when you buy a security, your payment must be received by your brokerage firm no later than three business days after the trade is executed. When you sell a security, you must deliver your securities, in certificated or electronic form, to your brokerage firm no later than three business days after the sale.

The three-day settlement date applies to most security transactions, including stocks, bonds, municipal securities, mutual funds traded through a brokerage firm, and limited partnerships that trade on an exchange. Government securities and stock options settle on the next business day following the trade.

Delivery on sales should be made by the settlement date. Under Rule 204, firms that clear and settle trades must deliver securities to a registered clearing agency for clearance and settlement on a long or short sale in any equity security by the settlement date or must take immediate action to close out failures to deliver by no later than the beginning of regular trading hours on T+4 (for short sales) or T+6 (for long sales and fails attributable to bona fide market making).

Contact Us:

Sale of Unregistered Securities – Boca Raton, Florida Investment and Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:23:41 GMT

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Caledonian Bank Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 15-CV-00894

The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged five offshore entities with offering and selling unregistered penny stocks into the public markets.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed on February 6, 2015, Cayman Islands-based, Caledonian Bank Ltd. and Caledonian Securities Ltd., Belize-based, Clear Water Securities, Inc. and Legacy Global Markets S.A., and Panama-based, Verdmont Capital S.A. (collectively, the “Defendants”) conducted unregistered sales of securities, reaping over $75 million in illegal sales proceeds. Simultaneous with filing its complaint, the SEC obtained an emergency court order freezing assets of the Defendants located in the United States.

The SEC alleges that the Defendants sold penny stocks in unregistered distributions from their U.S. brokerage accounts of four shell company issuers, namely, Swingplane Ventures, Inc., Goff Corp., Norstra Energy Inc. and Xumanii, Inc. Each of the unregistered distributions took place through virtually the same scheme. The issuers first filed with the Commission bogus Forms S-1 that purported to register sales of securities to public investors when, in fact, no bona fide sales occurred because the securities purportedly sold remained in the control of the issuers and their affiliates. In the sham offerings, the issuers pretended to sell securities to investors residing in such places as Serbia, Mexico, Ireland, Norway, Panama, and Jamaica, while the issuers or their affiliates maintained control and possession of the stock certificates in a scheme where: (1) restricted stock was passed off as “free trading” unrestricted stock; (2) the share certificates issued were subsequently transferred, without restrictive legends, to the Defendants; and (3) the Defendants deposited the shares into their U.S. brokerage accounts and sold the shares to the public.

The complaint further alleges that the issuers or their affiliates directed the transfers of restricted securities to the Defendants, often through various offshore nominee entities intended to conceal beneficial ownership of the securities. Once the shares, which were controlled throughout by the issuers or its affiliates, were held in names of the Defendants, the shell company issuers announced a reverse-merger or business combination with a purportedly operating enterprise. The Defendants then offered and sold into the public markets hundreds of millions of shares of the four issuers in unregistered distributions simultaneously with aggressive and extensive promotion campaigns. Each of the four stocks lost virtually all of their market value within months of the unregistered sales. In doing so, the complaint alleges that the Defendants operated as affiliates, dealers, sales outlets and underwriters by offering and selling the penny stocks from brokerage accounts in the United States.

The SEC’s complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeks, among other things, to permanently enjoin the Defendants from violating Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, prohibiting the Defendants from participating in an offering of penny stock, the disgorgement of all proceeds obtained in the unregistered distributions, and civil penalties.

Following the SEC’s complaint, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority issued a public notice on February 10, 2015 advising that it appointed two Controllers to assume control of the affairs of Caledonian Securities Limited and Caledonian Bank Limited. That same day, Caledonian Bank’s shareholders voted to place the bank into voluntary liquidation.

Contact Us:

South Florida Investment Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 20:58:08 GMT

South Florida Investment Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

SEC Charges Oppenheimer With Securities Law Violations Related to Improper Penny Stock Sales

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged Oppenheimer & Co. with violating federal securities laws while improperly selling penny stocks in unregistered offerings on behalf of customers.

Oppenheimer agreed to admit wrongdoing and pay $10 million to settle the SEC’s charges. Oppenheimer will pay an additional $10 million to settle a parallel action by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, Oppenheimer engaged in two courses of misconduct. The first involved aiding and abetting illegal activity by a customer and ignoring red flags that business was being conducted without an applicable exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements of the federal securities laws. The customer was Gibraltar Global Securities, a brokerage firm in the Bahamas that is not registered to do business in the U.S. Oppenheimer executed sales of billions of shares of penny stocks for a supposed proprietary account in Gibraltar’s name while knowing or being reckless in not knowing that Gibraltar was actually executing transactions and providing brokerage services for its underlying customers, including many in the U.S. The SEC separately charged Gibraltar in 2013 for its alleged misconduct.

The SEC’s order finds that Oppenheimer failed to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) as required under the Bank Secrecy Act to report potential misconduct by Gibraltar and its customers, and the firm failed to properly report, withhold, and remit more than $3 million in backup withholding taxes from sales proceeds in Gibraltar’s account. Oppenheimer also failed to recognize the resulting liabilities and expenses in violation of the books-and-records requirements, and improperly recorded transactions for Gibraltar’s customers in Oppenheimer’s books and records.

According to the SEC’s order, the second course of misconduct involved Oppenheimer again engaging on behalf of another customer in unregistered sales of billions of shares of penny stocks. The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, found that the sales generated approximately $12 million in profits of which Oppenheimer was paid $588,400 in commissions. The firm’s liability stems from its failure to respond to red flags and conduct a searching inquiry into whether the sales were exempt from registration requirements of the federal securities laws, and its failure reasonably to supervise with a view toward detecting and preventing violations of the registration provisions.

The SEC’s order requires Oppenheimer to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 15(a) and 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 17a-3 and 17a-8, and of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. In addition to the monetary remedies, Oppenheimer agreed to be censured and undertake such remedial measures as retaining an independent consultant to review its policies and procedures over a five-year period.

Contact Us:

Frederic Elm and Elm Tree Investment Advisors – Boca Raton, Florida Securities and Investment Fund Fraud and Misrepresentation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:53:12 GMT

Boca Raton, Florida Securities and Investment Fund Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Frederic Elm f/k/a Frederic Elmaleh, et al., Case No. 15-cv-60082-DIMITROULEAS/SNOW

SEC Charges Investment Adviser and Manager in South Florida-Based Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced fraud charges and an asset freeze against a Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based investment adviser, its manager, and three related funds with defrauding investors in a scheme that raised more than $17 million since November 2013.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida on January 15, 2015, charged Elm Tree Investment Advisors LLC, its founder and manager, Frederic Elm, and three funds, Elm Tree Investment Fund LP, Elm Tree “e”Conomy Fund LP, and Elm Tree Motion Opportunity LP. According to the complaint, Elm, formerly known as Frederic Elmaleh, his unregistered investment advisory firm, and three funds misled investors and used most of the money raised to make Ponzi-like payments to the investors. The complaint also alleges that Elm treated the funds as his personal piggy bank, tapping them to buy a $1.75 million home, luxury automobiles, jewelry, and cover daily living expenses. Elm’s wife, Amanda Elm, formerly Elmaleh, is named as a relief defendant based on her receipt of investor monies.

The SEC’s complaint charges Elm, his advisory firm and the Elm Tree funds with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 as well as Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint also charges Elm and ETIA with violations of Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8. The SEC is seeking relief for investors, including return of allegedly ill-gotten gains, with interest, and financial penalties.

The Honorable William Dimitrouleas on January 16 granted the SEC’s request for a temporary restraining order and temporary asset freeze against Elm, his firm, and the three Elm Tree funds. The judge ordered a temporary asset freeze against Amanda Elm and required her and the other defendants to provide accountings. Judge Dimitrouleas also entered an order appointing Grisel Alonso as receiver for Elm Tree Investment Advisors and the Elm Tree funds. A court hearing has been scheduled for January 29.

Contact Us:

Efstratios D. Argyropoulos and Prima Capital Group, Inc. – Boca Raton, Florida Stock Promoter Fraud and Misrepresentation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 28 Dec 2014 02:59:21 GMT

Efstratios D. Argyropoulos and Prima Capital Group, Inc. – Boca Raton, Florida Stock Promoter Fraud and Misrepresentation Attorney

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Efstratios “Elias” D. Argyropoulos and Prima Capital Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-09800 (C.D. Cal.)

SEC Charges Stock Promoter with Fraudulent Scheme Related to Pre-IPO Facebook and Twitter Shares

On December 23, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged a stock promoter based in Santa Barbara, Calif., with fraudulently raising nearly $3.5 million from investors purportedly to purchase Facebook and Twitter shares prior to their initial public offerings (IPOs).

The SEC alleges that instead of purchasing the shares in the secondary market as promised, Efstratios “Elias” Argyropoulos and his firm Prima Capital Group misappropriated investor funds. They used the money primarily for day trading of stocks and options as well as to pay off certain investors who complained when they didn’t receive the promised Facebook or Twitter shares.

Argyropoulos and Prima Capital agreed to settle the SEC’s charges and to be barred from working for an investment adviser or broker-dealer, and financial penalties will be determined at a later date.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Argyropoulos and Prima violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and, against Argyropoulos only, civil money penalties.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint, Argyropoulos and Prima consented to a judgment permanently enjoining them from violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, ordering them to pay, jointly and severally, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and ordering Argyropoulos to pay civil money penalties. There will be further proceedings before the District Court to determine the amounts of disgorgement with prejudgment interest and civil money penalties. The bifurcated settlement remains subject to court approval. Argyropoulos also consented, without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, to an administrative proceeding order barring him from, among other things, association with any broker, dealer or investment adviser. The administrative proceeding will be instituted following court approval of the bifurcated settlement.

Also on December 23, 2014, SEC separately announced an administrative proceeding against Khaled A. Eldaher, a registered representative living in Austin, Texas. The SEC Enforcement Division alleges that while working for a registered broker-dealer, Eldaher reached a side agreement with Argyropoulos to solicit investors and receive 50 percent of the mark-up on Facebook shares he sold. Eldaher sold $362,887.50 worth of Facebook shares and was paid $15,478 by Prima Capital. He was later terminated by the broker-dealer for selling securities other than through the firm. The Enforcement Division alleges that Eldaher’s sales of unregistered securities violated Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act. The matter will be scheduled for a public hearing before an administrative law judge for proceedings to adjudicate the Enforcement Division’s allegations and determine what, if any, remedial actions are appropriate.

Contact Us:

False and Misleading Press Releases and Marketing Material – Boca Raton, Florida FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:32:25 GMT

False and Misleading Press Releases and Marketing Material (Pump and Dump) – Boca Raton, Florida FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

SEC Charges Penny Stock Company Executives in New Jersey With Issuing False Press Releases to Inflate Stock Price

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged father-and-son executives at a New Jersey-based penny stock company for issuing false and misleading press releases while secretly selling thousands of their own stock shares into the market. They agreed to pay nearly $325,000 and accept officer-and-director bars to settle the SEC’s charges.

Conolog Corporation’s public filings state that it manufactures communications equipment primarily for use by electric utilities, fiber optic service providers, and the military. The SEC alleges that Conolog issued three consecutive press releases in early 2010 with distorted information at the behest of chairman and then-CEO Robert Benou with assistance from his son and company president Marc Benou. Among the company’s mischaracterizations were that Conolog had secured $1.9 million in new equipment orders when, in fact, only $50,000 worth of new orders had been received at the time. Conolog also created the misimpression that it had developed new fiber optic technology that was fully vetted and ready for commercial use and sale. Marc Benou was quoted saying it “surpassed our expectations in field tests” when in reality there had been no independent third-party testing as implied in the press release. The “testing” was merely an in-house demonstration of the product.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Newark, N.J., Robert Benou hired a public relations firm to promote Conolog’s stock using the false and misleading statements from the press releases. The promotional efforts significantly increased the company’s stock price and trading volume, and Robert and Marc Benou made combined profits of more than $81,000 through undisclosed sales of some of their stock holdings at the artificially inflated prices. They also each violated the federal securities laws requiring company insiders to disclose information about their holdings and transactions in company stock so other investors are aware of their moves.

The SEC’s complaint charges Conolog Corporation and the Benous with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint charges Robert and Marc Benou with violating securities law provisions requiring officers and directors of public companies to report their transactions in the company’s stock within two business days, and requiring all owners of more than 5 percent of a company’s stock to timely report the size of their holdings and any material changes to them.

Robert Benou agreed to settle the charges without admitting or denying the allegations by paying $77,490 in disgorgement of illegal profits made from selling Conolog stock as the misleading press releases were issued. He also must pay prejudgment interest of $12,400 and a penalty of $177,490, and will be permanently barred from acting as an officer or director of a public company or participating in penny stock offerings. Marc Benou agreed to settle the charges by paying disgorgement of $4,191 plus prejudgment interest of $671 and a penalty of $51,250. He will be barred for at least two years from acting as an officer or director of a public company or participating in penny stock offerings. The settlement is subject to court approval.

Contact Us:

SEC Charges Business Owner and Stockbroker in Real Estate Offering Fraud

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 21:22:04 GMT

Boca Raton, Florida Real Estate Investment and Offering Fraud FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

SEC Charges Business Owner and Stockbroker in Maryland-Based Real Estate Offering Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the owner of a Maryland-based real estate company with conducting an offering fraud and spending investor money on such personal expenses as his mortgage, country club dues, and season tickets to the Baltimore Ravens. The agency also charged a former stockbroker for participating in the scheme.

Contact Us:

SEC Charges Business Owner and Stockbroker in Maryland-Based Real Estate Offering Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged the owner of a Maryland-based real estate company with conducting an offering fraud and spending investor money on such personal expenses as his mortgage, country club dues, and season tickets to the Baltimore Ravens. The agency also charged a former stockbroker for participating in the scheme.

The SEC alleges that Wilfred T. Azar III sold investors purported bonds in his company Empire Corporation, which he touted as a successful and profitable business with the resources to pay promised annual returns of 10 percent. Along with Joseph A. Giordano, Azar and his company raised more than $7 million by making these and other false and misleading statements exaggerating the safety and low risk of the bonds. However, Empire Corporation was functionally insolvent in reality, and despite saying investor funds would be used for various corporate purposes, Azar used the money to pay personal expenses as well as thousands of dollars in compensation to Giordano for participating in the fraud. Giordano also steered a mutual fund that he managed into purchasing the bonds despite knowing the company was nearly broke. The scheme collapsed when they were unable to recruit new investors to fund Empire Corporation’s operations and repay existing investors, who did not receive their promised returns and lost substantially all of their investments.

In a parallel case, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland today announced criminal charges against Azar.

The SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Baltimore charges Empire Corporation, Azar, and Giordano with violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 as well as Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint also charges Giordano with violations of Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 as well as Section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The SEC seeks disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and penalties as well as permanent injunctions. The agency is seeking an officer-and-director bar against Azar.

Boca Raton, Florida Misappropriation and Theft Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 19 Oct 2014 02:00:09 GMT

Boca Raton, Florida Misappropriation and Theft Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dennis F. Wright, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01896-SHR (M.D. Pa)

Final Judgment and Administrative Order Entered Against Pennsylvania-Based Registered Representative Who Stole Funds from Customers

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) recently announced that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered a final judgment by consent in a previously filed enforcement action against defendant Dennis F. Wright, a former registered representative based in Lewistown, Pennsylvania. The final judgment permanently enjoins Wright from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Wright is also ordered to disgorge his ill-gotten gains of $1,533,416.33 and prejudgment interest thereon of $490,618.77, which will be deemed satisfied by the entry of an order of restitution in a parallel criminal case.

According to the Commission’s complaint filed on September 30, 2014, Wright misappropriated more than $1.5 million from at least 28 customers. Wright fraudulently induced his customers to redeem securities held in their securities accounts, including variable annuities and mutual funds, by falsely representing that he would invest the proceeds from the redemptions in a managed account that held other securities that yielded higher returns than their existing securities accounts. Instead, Wright deposited his customers’ funds in a bank account he controlled and from which he misappropriated the funds in order to pay his personal expenses as well as to fund customer withdrawals. Wright concealed his fraud by providing his customers with falsified account statements purportedly showing that they had purchased and owned interests in the non-existent managed accounts with appreciating balances.

On October 16, 2014, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (“”Order”) against Wright. The Order permanently bars Wright from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization; and also bars him from participating in any offering of a penny stock. Wright consented to the issuance of the Order.

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:

Wealth Strategy Partners, LC, Harvey Altholtz, Stevens Resource Group, LLC and George Stevens – Boca Raton, Florida Investment Fund and Investment Advisor Fraud and Mismanagement Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 05 Oct 2014 13:18:59 GMT

Wealth Strategy Partners, LC, Harvey Altholtz, Stevens Resource Group, LLC and George Stevens – Boca Raton, Florida Investment Fund and Investment Advisor Fraud and Mismanagement Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wealth Strategy Partners, LC, et al., Civil Action No. 14-CV-02427-JDW-TGW

SEC Charges General Partner and Investment Advisers to the Stealth and Adamas Funds with Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action on September 25, 2014 charging Wealth Strategy Partners, LC (“Wealth Strategy”), a Sarasota, Florida company, and its principal, Harvey Altholtz of Sarasota, Florida, and Stevens Resource Group, LLC (“Stevens Resource”), a Washington company, and its principal, George Stevens of Lacey, Washington, with securities fraud involving the fraudulent offers and sales of securities in two investment funds – The Stealth Fund, LLLP and The Adamas Fund, LLLP. Wealth Strategy and Altholtz controlled and managed the two funds and later served as investment advisers to the funds. Stevens Resource and Stevens also served as investment advisers to both funds.

According to the Commission’s complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Stealth and Adamas Funds, combined, raised approximately $30.8 million from over 143 investors nationwide between 2007 and November, 2009. The complaint alleges that, from October 2008 through April 2010, the defendants failed to disclose in offering materials distributed to investors that Stealth’s assets could be used to guarantee certain loans that Altholtz’s family made to two portfolio companies that Stealth invested in and that his family also made loans to Adamas and Stealth in violation of the funds’ operating agreements. The complaint also alleges that Wealth Strategy and Altholtz committed fraud by giving an Altholtz family trust, who was an investor in Adamas, preferential treatment with regard to redemptions over other investors. The complaint further alleges that the defendants made misstatements and omissions in newsletters to investors regarding the financial condition of some of the funds’ portfolio companies.

The SEC’s complaint charges the defendants with 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 Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against all of the defendants, and officer and director bars against Altholtz and Stevens. Stevens and Stevens Resource have agreed to settle the case against them by consenting to, among other things, the entry of a judgment permanently enjoining them from future violations of the securities laws, imposing a permanent officer and director bar against Stevens, and ordering them to pay disgorgement and civil penalties, in amounts to be determined by the Court later.

Contact Us:

Oscar F. Villarreal – Boca Raton, Florida Investment and Investment Advisor Fraud Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 05 Oct 2014 12:34:45 GMT

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Oscar F. Villarreal, Civil Action No. 14-cv-01891

Former Cleveland-Area Investment Promoter Oscar F. Villarreal Indicted

On September 16, 2014, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio obtained a Grand Jury indictment charging Oscar F. Villarreal with ten counts of wire fraud, seven counts of money laundering, one count of securities fraud, and one count of investment adviser fraud.

The Indictment’s allegations are based on the same conduct underlying the Commission’s August 26, 2014 Complaint against Villarreal filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The SEC’s Complaint alleges that from March 2009 through December 2010, Villarreal conducted a fraudulent offering, known as Fund III, which raised $9.2 million from 46 investors. According to the complaint, Villarreal told investors that their money was to be used to make private equity investments in companies in the petroleum, steel, and other industries in Mexico. Villarreal lied to these investors about the success of a previous fund he operated, lied in saying that he used their money to purchase and profitably operate a Mexican pipeline manufacturer, and lied by telling investors that Fund III had ownership interests in several U.S. and Mexican drilling companies. Villarreal instead used $7.4 million of Fund III assets to trade in publicly traded securities in a brokerage account-contrary to his representations to investors-and sustained heavy losses, and also stole $5.8 million for himself. By November 2011, Fund III was essentially insolvent.

The Commission’s complaint also alleges that, between August 2010 and March 2011, Villarreal conducted a second fraudulent offering, known as the Standard Asset Management Fund I, (“SAM Fund”), which raised $9 million from 11 investors, six of whom had previously invested in Fund III. According to the complaint, Villarreal told these investors that the SAM Fund would invest in companies listed on the Mexican stock exchange. Villarreal made numerous misrepresentations to these investors. Among other things, Villarreal repeated his earlier lies about Fund II and Fund III’s purported acquisition and profitable operation of a Mexican pipeline manufacturer, he stole at least $327,000 of SAM Fund assets, and Villarreal’s trading was a massive failure, resulting in an 83% loss for the SAM Fund.

The complaint also alleges that Villarreal defrauded the SAM Fund investors between March 2012 and May 2012 by offering to “exchange” limited partnership units he claimed he owned in Fund III for the SAM Fund investors’ limited partnership units in the SAM Fund. Eight SAM Fund investors accepted Villarreal’s offer and exchanged their SAM Fund units, which they had purchased for a total of $3.1 million. Villarreal, however, lied about the number of Fund III limited partnership units he owned and the value of the Fund III units. Villarreal did not disclose to these investors that the Fund III limited partnership units were worthless.

The SEC’s Complaint alleges that Villarreal 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, Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The Commission’s complaint seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.

Contact Us:

Patrick G. Rooney, John R. Rooney and Positron Corporation – Boca Raton, Florida Market Manipulation and Investment Fraud Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 05 Oct 2014 12:14:29 GMT

Patrick G. Rooney, John R. Rooney and Positron Corporation – Boca Raton, Florida Market Manipulation and Investment Fraud Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

SEC v. Patrick G. Rooney, John R. Rooney, and Positron Corporation, Civil Action No. 9:14-cv-81224-KAM (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida)

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on September 30, 2014 it filed a civil injunctive action charging Positron Corporation, a microcap company based in Westmont, Ill., Patrick G. Rooney of Oak Brook, Ill., the company’s then-CEO, and John R. Rooney of Jupiter, Fla., a penny stock promoter, for orchestrating a market manipulation scheme involving the company’s stock.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Positron Corporation, Patrick Rooney, and John Rooney, engaged in market manipulation fraud in which they made an inducement payment to a stock promoter who would purchase shares of Positron in the open market ahead of planned press releases to help them manipulate the stock. The SEC alleges that the scheme was designed to generate the appearance of market activity in the company’s stock to induce investors to purchase the stock and artificially increase the trading price and volume.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c). The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions and civil money penalties against all three defendants, as well as penny stock bars against both Patrick and John Rooney and an officer-and-director bar against Patrick Rooney.

Contact Us:

Scam Websites (Affinity Fraud) – Buyer Beware – South Florida Investment and Securities Fraud Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 11:50:58 GMT

Affinity and Elder Financial Abuse and Exploitation Fraud, Misrepresentation and Theft – Boca Raton, Delray Beach, Lake Worth, Boynton Beach and Deerfield Beach, Florida Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

SEC Announces Cases Targeting International Pyramid Scheme Operators

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced charges against the operators of an international pyramid scheme that raised more than $129 million from investors worldwide, primarily in the U.S., China, and Taiwan. The case follows another against a separate pyramid scheme that lured investors in the U.S., China, and Korea with seminars, webinars, and YouTube videos.

The newest case, filed in federal court in San Francisco, charges Hong Kong-based eAdGear Holdings Limited and California-based eAdGear, Inc., along with operators Charles S. Wang and Qian Cathy Zhang, of Warren, N.J., and Francis Y. Yuen, of Dublin, Calif. According to the SEC complaint, even though eAdGear claimed to be a successful Internet marketing company, nearly all of its revenue was generated by investors, not its products or services.

The complaint alleges that eAdGear’s operators used money from new investors to pay earlier investors as well as to repay a personal loan and purchase million-dollar homes for themselves. It alleges the operators concealed and perpetuated the scheme by displaying sham websites on eAdGear’s own site to make it appear as if it had real, paying customers and manipulated revenue distributions to investors to appear profitable.

“eAdGear and its operators falsely claimed that they were running a profitable Internet marketing company when in reality, they were operating a Ponzi and pyramid scheme that preyed on Chinese communities and caused investors to lose millions of dollars,” said Jina L. Choi, director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office.

The eAdGear case follows one filed Monday in federal court in Georgia against Zhunrize Inc. and CEO Jeff Pan for allegedly defrauding investors of more than $105 million since 2012. Despite its claims to be a legitimate multi-level marketing company, Zhunrize derived most of its funds from selling memberships, not products, according to the SEC complaint.

“Zhunrize claimed to offer investors the opportunity to be an ‘e-commerce Business Owner’ selling products to customers through a website. In fact, it was a pyramid and ‘profits’ came from fees paid by later investors,” said William Hicks, associate regional director of the SEC’s Atlanta Regional Office.

In both cases, the courts granted the SEC’s request for an asset freeze and issued a temporary restraining order. In the case of eAdGear, that order bars the defendants from soliciting investors, including through websites they have used until now – www.eadgear.com, www.eadgear.net, www.winteam777.com, and www.winteam168.com. A court hearing has been scheduled for October 10, 2014.

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.

Annuity and Insurance Fraud and Misrepresentation – Boca Raton, West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale, Florida Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 11:39:03 GMT

Annuity and Insurance Fraud and Misrepresentation – Elder Financial Abuse and Exploitation Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

SEC Charges Four Insurance Agents in Securities Fraud Targeting Elderly Investors

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced charges against four insurance agents for unlawfully selling securities in what turned out to be a multi-million dollar offering fraud targeting elderly investors.

The SEC previously charged a Colorado man who allegedly orchestrated the scheme and recruited active insurance agents to help him solicit investors in Colorado and several other states. The scheme raised approximately $4.3 million during a nearly 18-month period. The SEC’s investigation further found that the four insurance agents charged today solicited funds without registering with the SEC as a broker-dealer as required under the federal securities laws.

“When individuals act as a broker and sell securities to the public, they must comply with registration, supervision, and compliance requirements that exist to protect investors,” said Julie K. Lutz, Director of the SEC’s Denver Regional Office. “These insurance agents improperly operated outside of that regulatory framework and thereby placed their clients at risk.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings, the scheme primarily targeted retired annuity holders by using insurance agents to sell interests in a company called Arete LLC, which was controlled by the Colorado man orchestrating the scheme: Gary Snisky. The insurance agents told investors that their funds would be used by Snisky to purchase government-backed agency bonds at a discount. However, Snisky did not purchase bonds or conduct any such trading, and he misappropriated approximately $2.8 million of investor funds to pay commissions and make personal mortgage payments.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that the following three brokers raised approximately $1.5 million for Snisky and received almost $90,000 in commissions:

Kenneth C. Meissner of Fair Oaks Branch, Texas
James Doug Scott of Perkasie, Penn.
Mark S. “Mike” Tomich of Belmont, Mich.

The other insurance agent – David C. Sorrells of Linden, Texas – entered into a cooperation agreement with the SEC. Without admitting or denying the findings, Sorrells consented to an order finding that he violated Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. He agreed to be barred from the securities industry, cease and desist from future violations of Section 15(a), and pay disgorgement of $207,213.34. He also is subject to an additional financial penalty. The settlement reflects substantial assistance that Sorrells provided in the SEC’s investigation.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Meissner, Scott, and Tomich violated Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, and is seeking disgorgement, penalties, and securities industry bars in the matter, which will be litigated before an administrative law judge. The SEC’s case against Snisky, filed in November 2013, is still pending in federal court in Colorado.

Contact Us:

Microcap and Penny Stock Market Manipulation and Fraud – Boca Raton, Florida Federal and State Court Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:51:37 GMT

Microcap and Penny Stock Market Manipulation and Fraud – Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida State and Federal Court Litigation Attorney:

SEC Charges Eight for Roles in Widespread Pump-and-Dump Scheme Involving California-Based Microcap Company

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged a ring of eight individuals for their roles in an alleged pump-and-dump scheme involving a penny stock company based in California that has repeatedly changed its name and purported line of business over the past several years.

The SEC alleges that the scheme was orchestrated by Izak Zirk de Maison, who was named Izak Zirk Engelbrecht before taking the surname of his wife Angelique de Maison. Both de Maisons are charged by the SEC in the case along with others enlisted to buy, sell, or promote stock in the company now called Gepco Ltd. Zirk de Maison installed some of these associates as officers and directors of Gepco while he secretly ran the company behind the scenes. Collectively, they amassed large blocks of shares of Gepco common stock while the de Maisons manipulated the market to create the appearance of genuine investor demand, allowing an associate to sell his stock at inflated prices to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in illicit profits.

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio and the Cleveland Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation today announced criminal charges against Zirk de Maison.

The SEC has obtained an emergency court order to freeze the assets of the de Maisons and others who profited illegally through the alleged scheme.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Zirk de Maison has secretly controlled the shell company now known as Gepco since its incorporation in 2008 under a different name. During the next five years, he caused the company to enter into a number of reverse mergers and its reported business evolved from equipment leasing to prepaid stored value cards related to electronic devices until the company eventually became known as WikiFamilies and claimed to own and operate a social media website. The company name changed to Gepco in 2013, and after a failed attempt to merge it into a private mixed martial arts company, de Maison created his own private company purportedly in the high-end diamond business and merged Gepco into it.

The SEC alleges that the de Maisons, who reside in Redlands, Calif., brought at least six others into the fold to coordinate various components of the scheme. They each are charged in the SEC’s complaint:

Jason Cope of Gates Mills, Ohio, is a longtime associate of Zirk de Maison and has a past record of securities fraud with a court judgment against him in a previous SEC enforcement action. On Cope’s behalf, Louis Mastromatteo of Bay Village, Ohio, allegedly dumped more than 2.5 million shares of Gepco stock through a nominee into the public market for hundreds of thousands of dollars in illicit profits that were kicked back to Cope.
Trish Malone, who lives in Santee, Calif., serves as Gepco’s president, CFO, and secretary. She allegedly used Gepco to issue stock to Zirk de Maison and others so that they could conduct two unregistered and illegal distributions of the securities.
Peter Voutsas, who lives in Santa Monica, Calif., and owns a jewelry store in Beverly Hills, serves as Gepco’s CEO and chief investment officer even though Zirk de Maison runs the company behind the scenes. Along with Angelique de Maison, Voutsas allegedly made a materially misleading statement about Gepco to the public while the de Maisons manipulated the market for Gepco’s stock.
Ronald Loshin of San Anselmo, Calif., served as Gepco’s chief creative officer and allegedly failed to make required regulatory filings to report his transactions in Gepco stock as an insider. Furthermore, Loshin enabled de Maison to deceptively hide his own trading by allowing him to use a brokerage account held in Loshin’s name.
Kieran Kuhn of Port Washington, N.Y., allegedly promoted Gepco stock through his firm Small Cap Resource Corp. and inflated the stock value to help the scheme succeed. He then conducted one of the unregistered and illegal distributions of Gepco-related securities for Zirk de Maison’s benefit.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Zirk de Maison exchanged e-mails and text messages with many of his co-conspirators as they openly discussed coordinating their promotional activities and manipulative trading in Gepco’s stock in order to create a false impression of market activity. They stood to earn exponentially more illicit profits given that they continue to beneficially own tens of millions of shares of Gepco stock, so the SEC suspended trading in Gepco securities in order to prevent any further manipulation or dumping of the stock.

The SEC’s complaint, which additionally charges several companies connected to the scheme, alleges violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 9 and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains along with prejudgment interest, financial penalties, and penny stock bars. The SEC also seeks officer-and-director bars against the de Maisons and Malone.

Contact Us:

South Florida Elder and Retirement Financial Abuse and Exploitation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:54:01 GMT

Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, Delray Beach, Lantana, Lake Worth and West Palm Beach, Florida Elder Financial Abuse and Exploitation Litigation and FINRA Arbitration Attorney:

SEC Charges Virginia-Based Broker With Stealing Funds From Elderly Customers

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged a broker based in Roanoke, Va., with defrauding elderly customers, including some who are legally blind, by stealing their funds for her personal use and falsifying their account statements to cover up her fraud.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Donna Jessee Tucker siphoned $730,289 from elderly customers and used the money to pay for such personal expenses as vacations, vehicles, clothes, and a country club membership. Tucker ensured that the customers received their monthly account statements electronically, knowing that they were unable or unwilling to access their statements in that format. The SEC further alleges that Tucker engaged in unauthorized trading and other financial transactions while making misrepresentations to customers about their investment accounts and forging brokerage, banking, and other documents.

The SEC’s investigation resulted from a broker-dealer examination of the firm where Tucker worked that was conducted by the SEC’s Philadelphia Regional Office.

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia announced criminal charges against Tucker.

Tucker has agreed to settle the SEC’s charges and disgorge the $730,289 in ill-gotten gains either in the criminal case or the civil case. She consented to the entry of an order permanently enjoining her from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 as well as Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The settlement is subject to court approval.

Contact Us: