What Is a Microcap Stock?

The term “microcap stock” (sometimes referred to as “penny stock”) applies to companies with low or micro market capitalizations. Companies with a market capitalization of less than $250 or $300 million are often called “microcap stocks” – although many have market capitalizations of far less than those amounts. The smallest public companies, with market capitalizations of less than $50 million, are sometimes referred to as “nanocap stocks.”

Please be advised that this information is being provided for educational purposes only.  It is not designed to be complete in all material respects.  If you have any questions about this post or have been adversely affected by investing in a microcap or nanocap stock, you should contact a qualified professional.

What is a Boiler Room Scheme?

Boiler room schemes are large-scale operations designed to lure in as many investors to an investment scam as possible, often using high-pressure sales tactics.  Boiler room scheme operators may cold call investors or solicit investors through emails, text messages, social media, and other means. Beware of boiler room scheme tactics, including:

Aggressive Sales Tactics or Threats. Fraudsters may use aggressive sales tactics or even threats (for example, threatening to file a lien against your property) to swindle you.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Keith Houlihan, No. 9:18-cv-80585 (S.D. Fla. filed May 4, 2018)

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently filed an enforcement action against a former microcap company president with defrauding over 700 investors nationwide who were pressured to invest has agreed to lifetime officer-and-director and penny stock bars.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that from 2009 until 2015, Keith Houlihan of Boca Raton, Florida, while president of publicly-traded Sanomedics, Inc., hired and worked with an unregistered broker and his boiler room operation to illegally sell shares of Sanomedics by cold-calling the investing public using high-pressure sales tactics. In 2009 and 2010, Houlihan falsely told investors that for a limited time he was able to offer them Sanomedics shares at a steep discount to the stock’s market price. The complaint alleges further that Houlihan used investor monies to pay undisclosed sales commissions to boiler room sales agents and more than $110,000 to himself for personal expenses. In 2013 and 2014, Houlihan signed Sanomedics’ annual and quarterly filings with the SEC that contained false statements about Sanomedics’ financing and did not disclose the illegal boiler room activity.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Diane J. Harrison, et al., Civil Action No. 18-cv-01003 (M.D. Fla., filed April 25, 2018)

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced that it filed a civil injunctive action on April 25, 2018, against a lawyer and two other individuals relating to two microcap schemes involving undisclosed “blank check” companies. In separate, settled administrative proceedings, the SEC charged another individual and two public companies related to one of the schemes.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that attorney Diane J. Harrison, Esq. and her husband, Michael J. Daniels, both of Palmetto, Florida, manufactured at least five microcap issuers with the undisclosed intent to sell them based on their status as public companies with purportedly unrestricted shares available for resale in the public markets. According to the complaint, Daniels and Harrison created the false appearance that the companies were pursuing specific business plans with independent management and shareholders by installing friends and family (including defendant Catherine A. Bradaick-Zolla of Sarasota, Florida, who also provided other assistance to the fraud) as purported officers and shareholders. The SEC alleges that, in reality, Daniels and Harrison controlled the shares. According to the complaint, Daniels and Harrison sold four of the five companies to Andy Z. Fan of Las Vegas, Nevada and, along with Bradaick-Zolla, continued to provide support to Fan. For example, the SEC alleges that Daniels, Harrison, and Bradaick-Zolla prepared false SEC filings, Harrison submitted false legal opinion letters, and Daniels and Bradaick-Zolla entered manipulative trades to artificially set the price of the stocks in the public market. The SEC previously issued a stop order on the public offering of the fifth company in Daniels and Harrison’s pipeline.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rudden, et al., No. 18-cv-01842 (D. Colo. filed July 19, 2018)

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced the unsealing of fraud charges against a group of companies and their principal who allegedly bilked at least 150 investors in a $55 million Ponzi scheme. The SEC obtained an emergency asset freeze and other relief.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Daniel B. Rudden and a group of companies operating under the name Financial Visions, which issued promissory notes to fund its operations in short-term financing for funeral services and related expenses, defrauded as many as 150 investors after promising them annual returns of 12% or more. The complaint alleges that since 2010 or 2011, Rudden used new investor funds to pay interest and redemptions to existing investors and concealed the Financial Visions companies’ true financial performance and condition. The complaint also alleges that Rudden continued to represent the business as successful to existing and prospective investors when he knew that he was running a Ponzi scheme.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. John C. Maccoll, No. 2:18-cv-12473-SFC-DRG (E.D. Michigan filed August 9, 2018)

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged a former registered representative with defrauding his brokerage customers out of nearly $4 million in a long-running investment scam.

According to the SEC’s complaint, John C. Maccoll, who was affiliated with the Birmingham, Michigan branch of a nationwide registered broker dealer and investment adviser, used high pressure sales tactics to solicit at least 15 of his retail brokerage customers to invest in what he described as a highly-sought-after private fund investment. Most of the injured customers were elderly and retired and invested through their retirement accounts. Maccoll told his customers that the purported fund investment would allow them to diversify their portfolios, receive annual investment returns as high as 20%, and give them investment growth potential that was better than the growth they received in their brokerage accounts. As alleged in the complaint, Maccoll’s statements to his customers were false – he did not invest the customers’ money but stole it for his own personal use. In total, the customers invested nearly $4 million in the fraudulent scheme. To conceal the scheme, Maccoll allegedly instructed his customers not to tell others about the purported fund investment, provided some of his customers with fake account statements reflecting fictitious returns, and paid over $400,000 in Ponzi-like payments to certain of the customers to keep the scheme alive.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chad Anthony Lewis, No. 18-cv-61869 (S.D. Fla. filed August 13, 2018)

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action against Chad Anthony Lewis, a Kentucky resident for unlawfully acting as an unregistered broker and selling unregistered investments in two oil and gas companies based in Texas.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleges that Lewis illegally solicited and raised money from investors for Aegis Oil, LLC and 7S Oil & Gas, LLC. Both of these companies offered and sold unregistered securities in the form of “joint venture units” in oil and gas development projects located in Texas.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Alexander Charles White and Paul Douglas Vandivier, No. 18-cv-61870 (S.D. Fla. filed August 13, 2018)

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action against two sales agents for unlawfully acting as unregistered brokers and selling unregistered investments in two oil and gas companies based in Texas.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleges that Alexander Charles White and Paul Douglas Vandivier illegally solicited and raised money from investors for Aegis Oil, LLC and 7S Oil & Gas, LLC. Both of these companies offered and sold unregistered securities in the form of “joint venture units” in oil and gas development projects located in Texas.

Kelly Marvin Barnett (CRD #4127608, Sarasota, Florida):

Recently, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority announced that Kelly Marvin Barnett executed and Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which Barnett was assessed a deferred fine of $15,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for six months. Without admitting or denying the findings, Barnett consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he used discretion in five customers’ accounts without written authorization or acceptance of the accounts as discretionary. The findings stated that a customer of Barnett’s died of a heart attack. Barnett was unaware of his customer’s death and two days after his customer’s death, Barnett placed three trades in the customer’s account for the sale of two ETFs and for the purchase of an ETF. Four days after his customer’s death, Barnett placed two additional trades in his customer’s account for the purchase of a UIT and for the sale of an ETF. Barnett’s customer had orally granted him discretion to place trades in the account but had never given him a written grant of authorization to use discretion. Further, Barnett’s member firm had never accepted the account as a discretionary account. The findings also stated that Barnett exercised discretion in four additional customer accounts without a written grant of authorization and without having the accounts accepted as discretionary. The customers had orally agreed to a trading strategy. When Barnett could not reach the customers, he executed the planned strategy without speaking to the customers first. In total, Barnett executed 25 discretionary trades in the four customers’ accounts. The findings also included that Barnett maintained handwritten notes of customer contact in the firm’s customer files in order to document conversations with clients regarding orders and recommendations.

With regards to the trades in Barnett’s deceased customer’s account, after his customer’s death, Barnett created two handwritten documents falsely stating that he had spoken to the customer on the dates of the trades and that the customer had approved the transactions. Barnett maintained the falsified handwritten notes in the firm’s customer file to substantiate his contact with his customer on the dates of the trades. FINRA found that Barnett maintained blank, signed switch disclosure forms in the firm’s customer files. The forms contained important disclosures regarding UIT exchanges. On 19 occasions, Barnett used the blank signed forms to effect UIT exchanges without having each client sign a completed switch disclosure form. Each form detailed the UIT that was being sold, the UIT that was being purchased, provided the reasons for the switch, and detailed the charges associated with the switch. As a result, the switch forms were an instruction given or received in connection with the purchase or sale of a security and was a record that the firm was required to maintain. By completing the blank, signed forms to falsely evidence acknowledgement of disclosures, Barnett falsified the exchange forms and caused the firm’s books and records to be inaccurate. The suspension is in effect from June 4, 2018, through December 3, 2018. (FINRA Case #2015048320901).

Peter David Holler (CRD #838897, Bristol, Tennessee):

Recently, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority announced that Peter David Holler executed an Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which Holler was assessed a deferred fine of $10,000, suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two years and ordered to pay $49,790, plus interest, in deferred disgorgement of commissions received.

Without admitting or denying the findings, Holler consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he engaged in a series of private securities transactions without providing notice to, or obtaining approval from, his member firm prior to participating in these private securities transactions. The findings stated that Holler solicited investors to purchase promissory notes in a purported real-estate investment fund. Ultimately, Holler sold approximately $1.39 million in the promissory notes to individuals, nine of whom were the firm customers. Holler received $49,790 in commission in connection with these transactions. Holler also purchased approximately $75,100 of the promissory notes for himself.

Contact Information