Articles Posted in Texas Securities Fraud

According to the SEC, Houston-based advisory firms Tri-Star Advisors and Parallax Investments LLC made thousands of principal transactions through the broker-dealer they are affiliated with but did not disclose that they were doing this to clients even though they are obligated to notify customers/get their permission beforehand. Also facing Texas securities charges over the transactions are three executives: John P. Bott II, who owns Parallex, and Jon C. Vaughan and William T. Payne, who are Tri-Star officials.

The regulator’s orders of administrative proceedings say that Bott made a minimum of 2,000 undisclosed principal transactions without the permission of Parallex clients. Meantime, for each one (executed between 2009 to 2011) its affiliate broker-dealer Tri-Star Financial employed its inventory account to buy bonds backed by mortgages for these clients and moved the bonds into the accounts of clients. Bott received close to half of the $1.9 million in sales credits that Tri-Star Financial received on the transactions.

Vaughan and Payne are also accused of making over 2,000 undisclosed principal transactions during the same timeframe without the permission of their Tri-Star Advisor clients. The same broker dealer provided similar third-party services as it did for Parallex, and Vauhan and Payne got close to half of the $1.9 million in gross sales credits. SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit co-chief Marshall S. Sprung says that Tri-Star and Parallex prevented clients from knowing that their advisers could benefit from “running the trades through an affiliated account.”

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear Halliburton v. Erica John Fund. In it, the Texas-based multinational corporation is appealing a class action securities lawsuit that tests the fraud-on-the market theory. That doctrine became part of securities law in 1988 after the highest court’s ruling in Basic v. Levinson.

The fraud-on-the-market theory is premised upon the efficient markets hypothesis, which is that the price of a stock is a reflection of all public data. This makes it possible for plaintiff attorneys to set up a class action for all the buyers of a stock without having to first prove in court that these purchasers depended upon untrue information from the company and that this caused their losses.

Instead, the doctrine assumes that a company’s stock price can reflect corporate assertions even if they are misleading. As a result lawyers are able to submit securities fraud classes while blaming corporate executives for certain changes in the market value of a company’s stock.

A jury in Texas cleared Mark Cuban of insider trading charges. The Securities and Exchange Commission accused him of using a private tip to avoid losing money when selling his shares of Internet company Mamma.com. Following the court victory, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, an NBA basketball team, spoke out against US government over the case.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said Cuba traded on non-public information when selling 600,000 shares-a $7.9 million value-so he wouldn’t lose $750,000. A judge dismissed the insider trading case in 2009 but the Texas securities lawsuit was revived by an appeals court in 2012. The billionaire chose not to settle and the case went to trial.

Prosecutors claimed that Cuban sold his stake after discovering that Guy Faure, the head of Mamma.com, intended for a private placement that would dilute his company holdings. When Mama.com’s shares fell 9.3% the morning after the announcement of the offering, Cuban’s shares were already sold.

The SEC has filed fraud charges against a couple over a Texas securities scam that allegedly targeted foreign investors wanting to become American residents. Bebe and Marco Ramirez and three of their companies-USA Now LLC, Now Co. Loan Services, and USA Now Energy Capital Group LP-are accused of fraudulently raising at least $5 million from customers who were falsely promised that their cash would be invested in EB-5 Immigrant Investor Pilot Program.

Investors in Mexico, Egypt, and Nigeria were reportedly targeted. None of the investors ever received green cards let alone conditional visas from investing with the Ramirez’s and their companies.

The actual program allows foreign investors to receive conditional visas and later green cards if they invest in US economic development projects that help preserve or create a certain number of jobs for our nation’s workers. However, contends the regulator, rather than investing the money into the program, the Ramirezes moved investor funds to other businesses or used the money for their personal spending. Also, at least once, the couple allegedly used new investors’ money to pay existing investors in Ponzi scheme-fashion.

An Allen, Texas man is sentenced to 40-years behind bars for bilking elderly women out of close to $500,000 in a phone annuity scam. Robert Mangiafico Jr. pleaded guilty to money laundering and theft related in the Texas securities fraud case.

According to prosecutors, Mangiafico persuaded a number of widows to liquidate holdings and securities in brokerage accounts and other assets and he was supposed to use the money to buy annuities for them. Instead, after he had them move the funds to him or to Security Financial Services LLS, which was set up by Thomas Grimshaw of Dallas, the cash went to bank accounts for him and Grimshaw. The two men used the money for personal spending and to scam their investment victims.

Prosecutors say that $655,000 was stolen from four victims, who sustained $458,361 in losses. According to a 2011 indictment, the appropriations were made without the women’s consent because they were of advanced age and their capacity to make rational and informed choices was diminished.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have filed separate yet parallel securities fraud lawsuits against a Texas money manager accused of bilking investors in a foreign-exchange trading scheme. Kevin G. White allegedly took approximately $1.7 million of the $7 million of investor funds he raised by making false claims that his currency trading strategy had brought about returns of over 393% since it was first implemented in January 2009.

The Commission filed its Texas Securities case in federal court early last month. The regulator believes that White and his companies used bogus credentials and its “can’t miss trading strategy” to reel investors into its scam when, in reality, the money manager was experiencing forex trading losses and misappropriating customer funds.

The CFTC’s action seeks to freeze White’s assets, as well of those of RFF GP LLC, Revelation Forex Fund LP, and KGW Capital Management LLC. Like the SEC, this regulator wants trading bans, financial penalties, and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is suing Trendon Shavers and his company Bitcoin Savings & Trust, accusing the two of them of running a Ponzi scam involving Bitcoin. In its Texas securities fraud case, the regulator contends that Shavers offered and sold the denominated investments online with the use of the names “pirateat40” and “Pirate,” purportedly raising at least 700,000 Bitcoin in BTCST investments.

Bitcoin is a virtual currency that is traded on online exchanges. Based on its average price in 2011 and 2012 when Bitcoin was on the market, the virtual currency at issue was worth over $4.5 million. Today, their value is greater than $60 million.

The SEC believes that Shavers told customers they could make up to 7% weekly interest due to BTCST’s “Bitcoin market arbitrage activity,” when actually BTCST was a Ponzi scheme that involved Shavers using Bitcoin from new investors to cover purported investor withdrawals on outstanding investments and interest payments. He also allegedly used investors’ Bitcoin to engage in day trading in his account while trading in some of their Bitcoin for US dollars to cover his own expenses.

In Dallas, Chief Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has thrown out the class action lawsuit filed by Verizon Communications (VZ) management retirees looking to stop their ex-employer from selling $8.4 billion of their pensions to Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU) . However, Fitzwater said that the plaintiffs can re-plead their case and they have 30 days to do so from June 24. He dismissed their Texas lawsuit per the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s Section 404 (a) and noted that Verizon choosing to amend its management pension plan was not a fiduciary function.

Per the ruling, Verizon Communications and Prudential went into an agreement together last year involving the former’s pension plan agreeing to buy the latter’s premium group annuity. This would settle about $7.4 billion in liabilities. Also, Verizon would be handing over to Prudential the responsibility of giving pension benefits to approximately 41,000 retired employees. These transferred retirees are no longer part of the plan, while the about 50,000 beneficiaries and participants not included in the transaction are still part of the plan. The federal court in Texas had certified each group as a transferee class and the other as a non-transferee one, respectively.

According to the transferee class, Verizon didn’t reveal in the summary plan description that the annuity transaction might happen, which violates ERISA, breaches the company’s fiduciary duty, and discriminates against class members. Despite observing that choosing an annuity provider is a function that is a fiduciary one, Judge Fitzwater said that amending a plan is not a fiduciary function. He did say, however, that elements of the way Verizon executed the direct of the amendment might be considered fiduciary functions. (It was Fitzwater who earlier this year gave the 41,000 Verizon management retirees class status after he found that there were too many plaintiffs for them to each have their own lawsuit.)

The passing of S. Mark Powell, who runs Invesco Ltd.’s (IVZ) Atlantic Trust Private Wealth Management, has exposed the vulnerabilities of some of the wealthiest members of Texas’s investment community. Powell was found dead in May, and, since then, investors have been stepping forward to say they lent him millions of dollars, some of which seem to have disappeared.

A spokesperson for Invesco issued a statement after Powell’s passing saying that the company now knows about “unusual transactions” that the fund manager seems to have been involved in outside his work with the fund management company, and it has notified the authorities of the possible Texas securities fraud. However, Invesco says that it has no reason to think that its clients’ accounts were impacted.

The Wall Street Journal says that a number of wealthy Texas investors have said that they know of dozens of others like them that had entrusted Powell to invest their money. Powell reportedly offered different kinds of private ventures while offering large guaranteed returns. One downside of investing in such ventures is that they can come with some significant risks. Investors in Dallas, Austin, Houston, and other Texas cities may be affected. Please contact our Texas securities lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP to request your free case evaluation.

Federal agents in Texas are playing part in a number of the biggest forfeiture cases in the history of US law enforcement. However, the details of cases, which have involved the seizure Caribbean bank accounts, luxury condominiums, and stud racehorses purportedly linked to drug dealers and organized crime, money launderers, and Ponzi scammers, are generally kept secret. Many of the cases are a result of probes that haven’t been revealed in public records or looked at in court.

Two reasons for the secrecy are strategy and legal purposes. Sources and witnesses are generally kept confidential and protected, property connected to alleged crimes are preserved before public criminal actions are filed, and investigators are provided with the court authority that they need to freeze and trace criminals’ assets. However, civil rights advocates and defense lawyers are asking, does the secrecy surrounding forfeiture cases protect the government from having to reveal mistakes they’ve made in the investigations?

One of the largest successful forfeiture cases thus far involved Osiel Cardenas Guillen, a Mexican cartel leader. In exchange for a plea agreement with prosecutors in Houston, as part of his sentence the 42-year-old head of the Gulf Cartel agreed to fork over $50 million in assets.

Contact Information