State Litigation - Russell L. Forkey

Justifiable Reliance – Orange County Florida Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:21:40 GMT

In examining the concept of justifiable reliance, the Florida Supreme Court opined that the question is whether the recipient of a misrepresentation or omission is justified in relying upon its truth. For if the recipient “knows that it [the statement] or [omission] is false or its falsity is obvious to him/her, his/her reliance is improper, and there can be no cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation. This is particularly important in circumstances where the misrepresentation or omission is subsequently referenced in a written contract. In such a circumstance, the Court has determined that notwithstanding oral misrepresentations prior to the making of a contract, a party cannot establish justifiable reliance and “may not recover in fraud for an alleged false statement when proper disclosure of the truth is subsequently revealed in a written agreement between the parties.

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.

Fraud in the Inducement – South Florida Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:06:22 GMT

In Florida, the essential elements to establish a claim for fraudulent inducement are: (1) a false statement of material fact; (2) the maker of the false statement knew or should have known of the falsity of the statement; (3) the maker intended that the false statement induce another’s reliance; and (4) the other party justifiably relied on the false statement to its detriment.

Please keep in mind that this information if being provided for educational purposes only and is not designed to be complete in all material respects. If you have any questions, you should contact a qualified attorney.

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.

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:

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:

Accounting Malpractice and Negligence – Boca Raton, West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale, Florida Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:19:10 GMT

Accounting Malpractice and Negligence – Boca Raton, West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale, Florida Commercial Litigation and Elder Financial Abuse Attorney:

SEC Charges Bank Holding Company in Delaware with Improper Accounting and Disclosure of Past Due Loans

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced accounting and disclosure fraud charges against a Delaware-based bank holding company for failing to report the true volume of its loans at least 90 days past due as they substantially increased in number during the financial crisis.

An SEC investigation found that as the real estate market declined in 2009 and 2010 and its construction loans began to mature without repayment or completion of the underlying project, Wilmington Trust Company did not renew, extend, or take other appropriate action for 90 days or more on a material amount of its matured loans. Instead of fully and accurately disclosing the amount of these accruing loans as required by accounting guidance, Wilmington Trust improperly excluded the matured loans from its public financial reporting.

Wilmington Trust, which was acquired by M&T Bank in May 2011, has agreed to pay $18.5 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest to settle the SEC’s charges.

According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, Wilmington Trust omitted from its disclosures in the third and fourth quarters of 2009 approximately $338.9 million and $330.2 million, respectively, in matured loans 90 days or more past due. Instead, it disclosed just $38.7 million in such loans for the third quarter and only $30.6 million in its annual report following the fourth quarter. Wilmington Trust also materially misreported this category of loans in the first and second quarters of 2010. Furthermore, Wilmington Trust failed to accurately disclose during the second half of 2009 the amount of non-accruing loans in its portfolio, and materially understated its loan loss provision and allowance for loan losses during this same period.

Wilmington Trust consented to the entry of the order finding that it violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 as well as the reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws. In addition to the monetary sanctions, Wilmington Trust agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of these provisions.

Contact Us:

With extensive courtroom, arbitration and mediation experience and an in-depth understanding of elder abuse, exploitation,, accounting negligence 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.

Accounting Fraud and Misrepresentation – South Florida Accounting Fraud, Misrepresentation and Negligence Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:57:43 GMT

South Florida, including Boca Raton, Delray Beach, Lantana, West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale, Florida Accounting Fraud, Misrepresentation and Negligence Litigation Attorney:

California-Based Telecommunications Equipment Firm and Two Former Executives Charged in Revenue Recognition Scheme

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced charges against a Newport Beach, Calif.-based telecommunications equipment company and two former executives accused of improperly recognizing as revenue more than a million dollars’ worth of inventory that was shipped to a Florida warehouse but not actually sold.

They’re also accused of defrauding an investor from whom they secured a $2 million loan for the company based on misstatements and omissions associated with the inventory shipments.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that AirTouch Communications Inc., former president and CEO Hideyuki Kanakubo, and former CFO Jerome Kaiser orchestrated a fraudulent revenue recognition scheme that violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), which establish that revenue cannot be recognized unless it is “realized or realizable” and “earned.” When AirTouch reported net revenues of a little more than $1.03 million in its quarterly report for the third quarter of 2012, it included approximately $1.24 million in inventory that had been shipped to a company in Florida that agreed to warehouse AirTouch’s products in anticipation of future sales. AirTouch’s revenue recognition was improper because the Florida company had not purchased the inventory, and AirTouch had not sold the inventory to any of its customers. AirTouch would have had zero revenue to report for the quarter if it had not recorded the shipments as purported revenue from the Florida company.

According to the SEC’s order instituting an administrative proceeding, AirTouch develops and sells telecommunications equipment, including a product called the U250 SmartLinx that was designed in early 2012 for sale to Mexico’s largest provider of landline telephone services. Later that year, AirTouch contacted the Florida company about the possibility of it warehousing U250 SmartLinx units for potential future sale to the Mexican entity or other AirTouch customers. During contract negotiations for the warehousing arrangement, the CEO of the Florida company told Kanakubo that it would not buy the product from AirTouch, but rather warehouse the U250 SmartLinx inventory and provide logistics for eventual delivery to the Mexican entity or other AirTouch customers who purchased the product. AirTouch shipped approximately $1.24 million of inventory to the Florida company. Despite not receiving any payment from the Florida company or any commitment from the Mexican entity or any other customer that it would actually buy product, Kanakubo and Kaiser reported the shipped inventory as revenue on AirTouch’s Form 10-Q. They also signed certifications falsely attesting to the accuracy of the company’s financial results.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division further alleges that Kanakubo and Kaiser made false and misleading statements and omissions to an investor they solicited for a $2 million short-term bridge loan to the company in exchange for a promissory note and a warrant to purchase common stock. Among other things, Kanakubo falsely told the investor via e-mail that the inventory to be shipped by AirTouch to the Florida company pertained to an existing purchase order from the Mexican entity, and Kaiser did not disclose the existence of the agreement wherein the Florida company agreed merely to warehouse the inventory and provide associated fulfillment and logistics services. On Oct. 17, 2012, AirTouch received the loan of $2 million from the investor, and two days later Kanakubo approved a $15,000 bonus payment to Kaiser for his work on raising capital. The same day, Kanakubo authorized a $15,000 payment to himself in connection with unused vacation time.

According to the SEC’s order, Kanakubo, who lives in Irvine, Calif., and Kaiser, who lives in Chowchilla, Calif., withheld key information about the inventory shipments to the Florida entity from AirTouch’s board of directors and controller as well as its outside independent accountant.

The SEC’s order alleges that AirTouch, Kanakubo, and Kaiser violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and asserts that Kaiser’s violations constituted willful conduct.

Contact Us:

Chimera Energy – IPO, Penny Stock and Microcap Fraud and Misrepresentation South Florida FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:31:42 GMT

Microcap, Penny Stock and IPO Fraud and Misrepresentation Pump and Dump Scheme Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

SEC Announces Charges in Houston-Based Scheme Touting Technology to End Fracking

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced charges against a Houston-based penny stock company and four individuals behind a pump-and-dump scheme that misled investors to believe the company was on the brink of developing revolutionary technology to enable environmentally friendly oil-and-gas production.

The SEC alleges that Andrew I. Farmer orchestrated the scheme by creating a shell company called Chimera Energy, secretly obtaining control of all shares issued in an initial public offering (IPO) in late 2011, and launching an aggressive promotional campaign midway through 2012 to hype the stock to investors. Chimera Energy issued around three dozen press releases in a two-month period about its supposed licensing and development of technology to extract shale oil without the perceived environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing known as fracking. However, Chimera Energy did not actually license or even possess the technology it touted and had not achieved the claimed results in commercially developing it. While the stock was being pumped by the false claims, entities controlled by Farmer dumped more than 6 million shares on the public markets for illicit proceeds of more than $4.5 million.

The SEC suspended trading in Chimera Energy stock in 2012 and prevented Farmer and his associates from dumping additional shares or misleading new investors into their scheme.

In addition to Chimera Energy and Farmer, the SEC’s complaint charges a pair of figurehead CEOs installed by Farmer. The SEC alleges that Charles E. Grob Jr. and Baldemar Rios approved the misleading press releases and operated Chimera Energy at the minimum level necessary to lend the company a veneer of legitimacy while concealing Farmer’s involvement altogether. The SEC’s complaint also charges Carolyn Austin with helping Farmer profit from his scheme by dumping shares of Chimera Energy stock in the midst of the promotional efforts.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Houston, Farmer obtained control of all 5 million shares of Chimera Energy stock issued in the IPO by disguising his ownership through the use of nominee shareholders. Farmer’s name and the nature of his control over the company were not disclosed to investors in any of Chimera Energy’s public filings. Following the IPO, Farmer directed the press release barrage along with an Internet advertising campaign designed to increase investor awareness of Chimera Energy’s claims. The initial press release issued by the company on July 30, 2012, sported the headline: CHMR Unveils Breakthrough Shale Oil Extraction Method to Safely and Effectively Replace Hydraulic Fracturing.

The SEC alleges that Chimera Energy disclosed in public filings that an entity named China Inland had granted the company an “exclusive license to develop and commercialize cutting edge technologies related to Non-Hydraulic Extraction.” The technology that China Inland purportedly licensed to Chimera Energy was described as an “environmentally friendly oil & gas extraction procedure for shale to replace hydraulic fracturing.” The SEC’s investigation found that the purported acquisition of a license to develop such technology and the license agreement itself are entirely fictitious. No legitimate entity known as China Inland even exists.

The SEC’s complaint charges Chimera Energy, Farmer, Grob, Rios, and Austin with securities fraud, registration violations, and reporting violations. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest and financial penalties, penny stock bars, and officer-and-director bars.

Contact Us:

Microcap and Penny Stock South Florida Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:12:32 GMT

Microcap and Penny Stock South Florida Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. BIH Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-577-FTM-29DNF (M.D. FL)

Jury Finds Orchestrator of Microcap Stock Pump-And-Dump Scheme Liable in SEC Enforcement Case

A federal court jury in Fort Myers, Fla., returned a unanimous verdict on August 8 finding Edward W. Hayter of Brooklyn, N.Y., liable for five counts of violating the federal securities laws in connection with a scheme to pump up the stock of a microcap corporation purportedly headquartered in Fort Myers in which Hayter profited by approximately $500,000. Hayter was the lone remaining defendant in the SEC’s enforcement case filed in 2010.

Evidence at the trial showed that among other things, press releases that Hayter and BIH issued in 2008 and 2009 falsely claimed BIH was purchasing a restaurant services corporation that purportedly had contracts with such major corporations as Citi Field and Applebee’s Restaurants. Other evidence showed that in order to hide his involvement in the scheme, Hayter and others created a fictitious businessman named Cris Galo who was allegedly an accomplished entrepreneur running BIH. Evidence showed all of BIH’s contact information traced back to Hayter and an associate in New York, with the Fort Myers office being only a mail drop. Trading records showed the false press releases contributed to BIH’s stock rising more than 2,700 percent in a matter of months, allowing colleagues of Hayter to sell stock and funnel approximately $500,000 in proceeds to his own corporations.

The SEC filed its complaint against Hayter, BIH, Wayne A. Burmaster Jr. on Sept. 20, 2010, alleging that they had engaged in fraud and illegal sales of securities. The SEC also alleged securities registration violations by Christopher L. Astrom and his company Bimini Reef Real Estate Inc., Damian B. Guthrie and his company Riverview Capital Inc., and Burmaster’s company North Bay South Corporation. The SEC named Baron International Inc., Beaver Creek Financial Corporation, and The Caddo Corporation as relief defendants.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Burmaster and Hayter released false information about BIH’s operations and business relationships, the company’s stock and dividend payments, and the identity of the individuals directing BIH’s affairs. The SEC alleged that as part of the scheme, Burmaster and Hayter illegally distributed BIH’s stock to North Bay, Bimini Reef, and Riverview, and those entities then dumped more than $1 million of BIH’s stock and divided illegally obtained sales proceeds among the defendants and relief defendants.

On Oct. 25, 2010, the Honorable John E. Steele, United States District Court Judge for the Middle District of Florida, entered judgments of permanent injunction and other relief against Astrom and Bimini Reef Real Estate as well as Guthrie and Riverview Capital, enjoining them from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933. In addition to injunctive relief, the judgments order them to pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and penalties in amounts to be determined at a later date. Astrom and Guthrie are barred from participating in the offering of any penny stock. They consented to the entry of the judgments without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint.

On Sept. 26, 2012, the court entered a default judgment against BIH and North Bay South Corporation and relief defendants The Caddo Corporation and Beaver Creek Financial, ordering disgorgement with a penalty against BIH and North Bay South Corporation to be determined at a later date. On Dec. 17, 2012, the court entered a default judgment against Baron International.

On July 14, 2014, the court entered a default judgment of permanent injunction and other relief against Burmaster, enjoining him from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. In addition to injunctive relief, the judgment orders Burmaster to pay, jointly and severally, disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $1,349,158 and a penalty in an amount to be determined at a later date. Burmaster is barred from participating in the offering of any penny stock.

Contact Us:

CP Capital Securities, Inc. – Hollywood, Florida Improper Markup Corporate Bond FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 03 Aug 2014 01:43:44 GMT

Hollywood, Dania, Fort Lauderdale, Pompano Beach and Deerfield Beach, Florida Improper Markup Corporate Bond 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:

July 2014 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

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

CP Capital Securities, Inc. submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which the firm was censured, fined $5,000 and ordered to pay $1,676.92, plus interest, in restitution to customers. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that it bought corporate bonds from customers and failed to buy such bonds at a price that was fiar, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including market conditions with respect to each bond at the time of the transaction, the expense involved and that the firm was entitled to a profit. To see a full copy of the release relative to this matter, please follow the above highlighted link. FINRA Case No. 2013035996801.

Contact Us:

Robert G. Bard – South Florida Securities and Bank Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 02 Aug 2014 01:33:59 GMT

Boca Raton, Delray Beach, Boynton Beach, Lake Worth and West Palm Beach, Florida Investment Advisor Securities and Bank Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Robert Glenn Bard, et al., Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-1473 (M.D. Pa.)

Pennsylvania-Based Investment Adviser Charged in SEC and Criminal Actions Receives Prison Sentence

A Pennsylvania-based investment adviser who was charged with fraud in an SEC enforcement action and later by criminal authorities has received a prison sentence of more than 21 years.

Robert G. Bard of Warfordsburg, Pa., was sentenced on July 31 by Sylvia H. Rambo of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Bard had been found guilty by a jury and convicted of 21 counts of securities fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and making false statements for defrauding his investment advisory clients between December 2004 and August 2009. Judge Rambo sentenced Bard to 262 months imprisonment and ordered him to pay $4.2 million in restitution to 66 victims.

The criminal case, filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on July 18, 2012, arose out of the same facts that were the subject of a civil injunctive action filed by the SEC on July 30, 2009. The Commission’s complaint alleged that defendant Bard, an investment adviser, and his solely-owned company Vision Specialist Group LLC had violated the federal securities laws through fraudulent misrepresentations regarding client investments, account performance and advisory fees, and by Bard’s creation of false client account statements, and forgery of client documents. On May 23, 2012, after granting summary judgment for the Commission, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered a final judgment against Bard and Vision Specialist Group finding both violated § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, § 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and §§ 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. In that judgment, the court also entered permanent injunctions for violations of those provisions, and held Bard and Vision Specialist Group jointly and severally liable for disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties totaling $3,003,039.

Contact Us:

Kenneth Gross – Sale of Unregistered Stock – South Florida Investment and Securities Fraud Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 02 Aug 2014 01:22:30 GMT

South Florida Investment and Securities Fraud and Mismanagement Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Robert Hurd, Your Best Memories International Inc. and Kenneth Gross, Civil Action No. 13-CV-04464-RGK (JCGx) (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2013)

Court Enters Judgment Against Unregistered Broker for Role in Investment Scheme Involving Purported Alzheimer’s Treatment

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced that on July 31, 2014, a California federal court entered a final judgment against Kenneth Gross, of Porter Ranch, California, who was named as a defendant in an action filed by the Commission in June 2013. The Commission charged Gross with selling unregistered stock in Your Best Memories International Inc. without being registered as a broker-dealer as required by the federal securities laws. Your Best Memories was a California company purportedly raising money for a Massachusetts-based company in the business of developing products intended to improve memory function in individuals suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and other conditions. Gross consented to the entry of this judgment.

The final judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California holds Gross liable for disgorgement of $269,000, representing money he was paid for the sale of unregistered securities, plus prejudgment interest of $10,897.81, but waives payment of the disgorgement and interest and does not impose a civil penalty based on Gross’s financial condition. Previously, the court entered a partial judgment on March 14, 2014, based on Gross’s consent, which enjoined him from violating Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the securities registration provisions of the Securities Act) and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the broker-dealer registration provisions of the Exchange Act). The Commission also issued an Order against Gross on June 6, 2014, permanently barring him from the securities industry.

On June 10, 2014, the Court entered final judgments by default against the other Defendants in the action, Your Best Memories, its president, Robert Hurd, and Smokey Canyon Financial Inc., another company controlled by Hurd. The Commission charged Your Best Memories and Hurd with misleading investors about how their funds would be used and making misleading statements that one of the products touted to investors had received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. The final judgments imposed permanent injunctions prohibiting Your Best Memories and Hurd from future violations of the antifraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws, ordered Your Best Memories, Hurd, and Smokey Canyon to pay $963,000 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest of $34,170, and ordered Your Best Memories and Hurd to pay a civil penalty of $963,000.

Contact Us:

Registration of Dealers, Associated Persons and Investment Advisers in Florida – South Florida Securities Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 11:33:53 GMT

Registration of Dealers, Associated Persons, and Investment Advisers in the State of Florida – South Florida Securities Attorney:

Chaper 517.12 Fla.Stat. labeled Registration of dealers, associated persons, and investment advisers provides in relevant part that:

(1) No dealer, associated person, or issuer of securities shall sell or offer for sale any securities in or from offices in this state, or sell securities to persons in this state from offices outside this state, by mail or otherwise, unless the person has been registered with the Department of Financial Regulation (“office”) pursuant to the provisions of this section. The office shall not register any person as an associated person of a dealer unless the dealer with which the applicant seeks registration is lawfully registered with the office pursuant to this chapter.

(2) The registration requirements of this section do not apply to the issuers of securities exempted by s. 517.051(1)-(8) and (10).

(3) Except as otherwise provided in s. 517.061(11)(a)4., (13), (16), (17), or (19), the registration requirements of this section do not apply in a transaction exempted by s. 517.061(1)-(12), (14), and (15).

(4) No investment adviser or associated person of an investment adviser or federal covered adviser shall engage in business from offices in this state, or render investment advice to persons of this state, by mail or otherwise, unless the federal covered adviser has made a notice-filing with the office pursuant to s. 517.1201 or the investment adviser is registered pursuant to the provisions of this chapter and associated persons of the federal covered adviser or investment adviser have been registered with the office pursuant to this section. The office shall not register any person or an associated person of a federal covered adviser or an investment adviser unless the federal covered adviser or investment adviser with which the applicant seeks registration is in compliance with the notice-filing requirements of s. 517.1201 or is lawfully registered with the office pursuant to this chapter. A dealer or associated person who is registered pursuant to this section may render investment advice upon notification to and approval from the office.

(5) No dealer or investment adviser shall conduct business from a branch office within this state unless the branch office is notice-filed with the office pursuant to s. 517.1202.

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

Contact Us:

Do CFPs Have to Register as an Investment Adviser in Florida – Delary, Deerfield Beach, Boca Raton and Boynton Beach, Florida FINRA Arbitration, Litigation and Elder Abuse Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:54:46 GMT

Do CFPs have to register as an Investment Adviser in Florida – Delray, Boynton Beach, Lantana, Boca Raton and West Palm Beach FINRA Arbitration, Litigation and Elder Abuse Attorney:

Any person who for compensation refers, solicits, offers, or negotiates for the purchase or sale of investment advisory services is required to be registered in Florida, regardless of their professional designation as a Investment Adviser and/or Associated Person of a broker/dealer.

Please keep in mind that this 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 relating to this post, you should contact a qualified professional.

Contact Us:

Elder and Retirement Financial Abuse – How To Spot Investment Fraud – South Florida FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 22:23:15 GMT

Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida Elder and Retirement Financial Abuse FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Elder and retirees should think twice about investing if you spot any of these red flags of investment fraud:

Limited history of posts. Fraudsters can set up new accounts specifically designed to carry out their scam while concealing their true identities. Be skeptical of information from social media accounts that lack a history of prior postings or sending messages.
Pressure to buy or sell RIGHT NOW. Take the time to research the stock before you invest. Be skeptical of messages urging you to buy a hot stock before you “miss out” or to sell shares of a stock you own before the price goes down after negative news is announced. Be especially wary if the promoter claims the recommendation is based on “inside” or confidential information.
Unsolicited investment information or offers. Fraudsters may look for victims on social media sites, chat rooms, and bulletin boards. Exercise extreme caution regarding information provided in new posts on your wall, tweets, direct messages, e-mails, or other communications that solicit an investment or provide information about a particular stock if you do not personally know the sender (even if the sender appears connected to someone you know).
Unlicensed sellers. Federal and state securities laws require investment professionals and their firms who offer and sell investments to be licensed or registered. Many fraudulent investment schemes involve unlicensed individuals or unregistered firms. Check license and registration status by searching the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (IAPD) website or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)’s BrokerCheck website.

Contact Us:

Franklin Speight and International Stock Transfer Inc. – South Palm Beach County, Florida Securities Fraud Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:39:35 GMT

South Palm Beach County, Florida Securities and Transfer Agent Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. International Stock Transfer Inc and Cecil Frederick Speight, Civil Action No. 14-cv-4435 (ADS) (E.D.N.Y.)

SEC Charges Florida-Based Transfer Agent and Owner with Scheming Investors

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged a Florida-based transfer agent and its owner with defrauding investors by using aggressive boiler room tactics to peddle worthless securities with promises of high returns or discounted prices.

Transfer agents are typically used by publicly-traded companies to keep track of the individuals and entities that own their stocks and bonds. The SEC alleges that Cecil Franklin Speight, whose firm International Stock Transfer Inc. (IST) was a registered transfer agent, abused the transfer agent function by creating and issuing fake securities certificates to both U.S. and international investors. While investors collectively sent in millions of dollars thinking they were purchasing high-yield investments and discounted stock, they ended up receiving counterfeit certificates that Speight and IST fooled them into thinking were legitimate.

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York announced Speight has pleaded guilty to a criminal charge.

Speight and IST agreed to settle the SEC’s charges. Speight will be barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company and from participating in any penny stock offering. The court will determine monetary sanctions at a later date.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Speight’s scheme included multiple securities, including the issuance of fake foreign bond certificates and stock certificates for a publicly-traded microcap company with no connection to IST. To bolster the appearance of the safety of the investments and conceal from investors how their money was really being spent, Speight enlisted two attorneys to receive investment funds into their own bank accounts. From there, the money was transferred to IST. Instead of making its way to any issuers, however, IST and Speight spent investors’ money almost as quickly as it came in. They used it to pay Speight’s personal expenses, and in Ponzi scheme fashion new investor money was used to fund interest payments to prior foreign bond investors. In all, Speight and IST stole more than $3.3 million from at least 70 investors.

The SEC’s complaint charges Speight and IST with violating the antifraud provisions of the securities laws, including Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. The complaint charges IST with violating the transfer agent books and records requirements of Section 17(a)(3) of the Exchange Act, and Speight with aiding and abetting such violations. Speight and IST have consented to the entry of judgments permanently enjoining them from future securities law violations and requiring them to pay disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest and penalties as determined by the court, which must approve the settlement.

Contact Us: