Articles Posted in Texas Securities Fraud

Alleged Houston, Texas Affinity Fraud Scam Targeting Druze and Lebanese Communities Leads to SEC Charges Against Day Trader

Published on: January 28, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC has filed securities charges against day trader Firas Hamdan for allegedly running a Texas securities scheme in the Houston area that defrauded investors from the Druze and Lebanese communities. Hamdan, who used to be the treasurer of the Houston branch of the American Druze Society, is known among members of both groups. He is accused of raising over $6 million from over 30 investors over five years. He allegedly claimed to run a high-frequency trading program that applied a proprietary trading algorithm.

According to the Commission, Hamdan promised investors 30% in yearly returns, while misrepresenting his trading program as being safe, when, in fact, it had suffered $1.5 million in losses. He also allegedly falsified brokerage records to hide huge trading losses and overstate assets.

When profits that were promised to investors didn’t come in, Hamdan is said to have told clients that the money got entangled in the MF Global debacle and the debt crisis in Greece. He also is accused of lying about a nonexistent cash reserve account and a supposed $5 million “key-man” insurance policy that made clients’ investments secure.

US Supreme Court to Hear Appeals of Petitioners Over Stanford Ponzi Lawsuits

Published on: January 25, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Our Texas securities fraud law firm has been bringing you the latest legal news developments in the efforts of defrauded investors to recoup their losses stemming from the $7 billion Stanford Ponzi scam. While the fate of R. Allen Stanford has already been sealed-he is serving 110 years in prison, which is essentially the rest of his life-for many of his victims how and when all of them will recover their losses still remains a big question mark.

On Friday, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear three petitioners’ appeals over the sale of bogus certificates of deposits from Stanford’s Antigua bank. The requests come from insurance brokerage Willis Group Holdings Plc., which has been accused of being involved in the bogus CD sales that Stanford used to defraud his clients, and two law firms that used to represent Stanford himself. They want the court to determine whether or not under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act plaintiffs can assert state-law class action claims against the petitioners.

While a federal judge said in 2011 SLUSA does preempt such state law cases, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit later went on to revive the securities lawsuits. Now, it will be up to the nation’s highest court to make the final call.

Texas Securities: SEC Says District Court is Mistaken In Not Forcing SIPC to Act for Stanford Ponzi Scam Victims

Published on: January 19, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Addressing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission maintains that a lower court was wrong to deny the agency’s bid to compel the Securities Investor Protection Corporation to act on behalf of investors who were victimized by the Allen R. Stanford Ponzi scam. Thousands of investors sustained losses as a result of the scheme. Meantime, Stanford is serving 110 years behind bars for running the $7 billion scheme that involved certificate of deposit sales issued by his Stanford International Bank in Antigua.

“Stanford Securities was a Houston-based firm which sold uninsured CD’s issued by foreign firms to investors all over the world,” said Texas securities fraud attorney William Shepherd. “Its founder was tried for securities fraud in a Federal Court and was sentenced to what will be a lifetime without parole in a federal penitentiary. Little has been gotten back by investors who, unlike the victims of the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Barnard Madoff, have not been able to recover up to a maximum of $500,000 each from SIPC.”

It was last summer that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia noted the preponderance of the evidence standard and found that investors that had bought CD’s from Stanford’s Antigua bank were not, under the meaning of the Securities Investor Protection Act, “customers” of Stanford Group Co., which was Stanford’s brokerage firm in the US. Had that court ruled otherwise, SIPC would have to start liquidation proceedings for the broker-dealer and some 21,000 Stanford CD purchasers could have sought reimbursement through SIPC claims.

District Court in Texas Dismisses Securities Fraud Case Against Sports Franchisor

Published on: December 15, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Judge Sam A. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has thrown out a securities fraud lawsuit accusing sports franchisor Brent L. Coralli of inducing investor Lee Purser to put $400K into an “emerging lottery” game operation in Peru. Other defendants in the case: Jet Text, LLC, Sting Group Holdings, Coralli Inc. Texas Titans Futbol LLC, and Royal Nations, LLC.

Per the plaintiff’s Texas securities case, Coralli approached Purser about a Peruvian mobile lottery. The supposed opportunity would allow investors to buy into the “emerging” operation that would be licensed there and have no competition. This type of lottery lets participants use cell phones and texting instead of scratch-off cards and paper tickets to purchase chances. Coralli allegedly promised that there would millions of dollars in gaming profits from Corporacion Galena, which is the Peruvian affiliate of British interactive gaming and mobile company Managed Gaming Solutions, and he boasted of having close ties with then-Peruvian President Alan Garcia Perez.

Purser claims that he and Corralli made an agreement that for a $400,000 investment, Purser and his affiliates would own 10% of Silverstrings Investments, a strategic partner of Management gaming Solutions and an industry expert, and that the investment would be protected by Jet Text. However, he is now claiming that Jet Text never gave him proof of his investment, which he made in two installments.

The lottery license was, indeed, awarded to Galena, with 20 year rights. However, Purser says that afterwards he did not hear from those involved and that the money he paid never went to Silverstrings or Galena. He believes that the Peruvian venture was executed to launder money, commit crimes, corruption, and fraud, violate state and federal laws, and harm Purser and his interests. He wants damages for securities fraud and breach of contract.

The defendants, including Coralli, had moved to have the case dismissed, under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Purser, however, filed an “Opposition” to their motions while noting that the original complaint needed to be amended to provide more specificity about what statements were misleading and why.

Now, Judge Lindsay is dismissing the case. He found that the plaintiff’s allegations are not enough to back a federal securities law claim. In particular, he noted the “conclusory” allegations reached about the behavior and motives of defendants and determined that while Purser may have brought up the possibility that Coralli had taken part in wrongdoing this is not enough to demonstrate that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Lindsay also said that Purser did not identify the misleading statements or name those that made them. The Judge declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims involving breach of duty, contract breach, and fraud.

‘About That $200,000 …’, Courthouse News, December 1, 2011
Read the Opinion (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Houston-Based Receiver Files $1.8B Class Action Filed Against Law Firms Accused of Helping R. Allen Stanford Carry Out His $7B Ponzi Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 5, 2012

SEC Clawback Lawsuit Against Two Former Arthrocare Corp. Executives Over Fraud Scheme Can Proceed, Says District Court in Texas, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 24, 2012
SEC Gets Initial Victory in Lawsuit Against SIPC Over Payments Owed to Stanford Ponzi Scam Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud Blog, February 10, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Houston-Based Receiver Files $1.8B Class Action Filed Against Law Firms Accused of Helping R. Allen Stanford Carry Out His $7B Ponzi Scam

Published on: December 5, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ralph Janvey, the Stanford receiver based in Houston, has filed a putative class action lawsuit against Hunton & Williams LLP and Greenberg Traurig LLP, two law firms accused of playing roles that allowed R. Allen Stanford to execute his $7B Ponzi scam. The securities complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, is seeking $1.8 billion in damages and $10 million that it claims Stanford gave to the law firms during their years of working together. The plaintiffs are contending Texas Securities Act violations, aiding and abetting participation in a fraud scam, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy.

Also named as a defendant is Yolanda Suarez, who was not only a former Greenberg Traurig associate but also she served as Stanford Financial Group’s general counsel and later as chief of staff. Janvey says that Stanford could not have kept his scam going for over 20 years without these parties’ help.

Per the Texas securities case, Carlos Loumiet, an ex-Greenberg Traurig partner who later went to work for Hunton & Williams (he is now a DLA Piper partner and is not a defendant in this lawsuit), had a “very close personal relationship” with Stanford and played a part in helping the now convicted fraudster run his global scam. This included helping him establish sales and marketing offices in the US. Loumiet and Greenberg Traurig also allegedly helped Stanford set up the transactions that would allow the Ponzi mastermind to use the money he took from Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua and invest them in “speculative venture capital” deals and property in the Caribbean. The law firm is also accused of giving Stanford securities law counsel and advice on a regularly basis.

After SCOTUS Overturns Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision Over Enforceability of an Arbitration Agreement’s Non-Complete Cause, Case Now Goes to Houston, Texas

Published on: November 30, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

For the third time in two years, the US Supreme Court has stood up for arbitration agreements, overturning yet another decision by a state court. The case is Nitro-Lift Technologies v. Howard. The Oklahoma State Court had ruled that the non-compete provision in an employment arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it is unconscionable.

Per the specifics of the case, Nitro-Lift Technologies, an oil well servicing company based in Louisiana, had given two of its ex-Oklahoma employees a demand for arbitration after they resigned and went to work for a competitor. Nitro contended that the former employees had violated a non-compete clause and that because of this they must now arbitrate. Meantime, the two ex-employees filed a lawsuit in Oklahoma state court seeking a declaratory judgment that the non-compete provisions could not be enforced.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court would go on to rule in the ex-Nitro employees’ favor, finding that state precedent allows the court jurisdiction over arbitration agreement provisions and that the non-compete clause is a violation of public policy there. Therefore, the court found, the clauses could not be enforced and are void.

SEC Clawback Lawsuit Against Two Former Arthrocare Corp. Executives Over Fraud Scheme Can Proceed, Says District Court in Texas

Published on: November 24, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas says that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s clawback lawsuit against two Arthrocare Corp. (ARTC) executives who received bonuses and compensation following accounting irregularities made by two other company officials can move forward. The defendants, ex-CEO Michael A. Baker and ex-CFO Michael Gluck, have not been charged with misconduct, and the district court said they do not need to have done anything wrong to be sued under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s Section 304.

This Texas securities case is one of many resulting from an alleged revenue recognition scam at the medical device manufacturer that was executed by two of its senior executives. (Arthrocare has since restated its financials for 2006 through 2008’s first quarter.) The SEC had argued that even though Baker and Gluck weren’t the charged with wrongdoing, under SOX’s Section 304, they must pay ArthroCare back their stock profits and bonuses that they received during the period of the accounting fraud.

The two men had filed a dismissal motion contending that the statute cannot be interpreted to make CFOs and CEOs with no scienter elements liable. They also claimed that statute’s vagueness not only makes it void but also it has other constitutional deficiencies. Now, however, the district court has denied their motion, finding that no separate misconduct or scienter by the defendants was necessary.

The court said that without ambiguity, the statute’s words “are dispositive” and Section 304 is unambiguous in mandating that CFOs and CEOs pay back the issuer for compensation that qualifies within a year of a filing that the issuer must restate because of misconduct by it or its agents. The district court also rejected the constitutional challenges made by the defendants and disagreed that the statute is constitutionally vague because it doesn’t clarify whose misconduct compels reimbursement. Referring to the statutory language, the court said that the ‘misconduct’ at issue in this case is misconduct by the issuer, and, since issuers include business entities and corporations, their agents, acting within the scope and course of their jobs, are also included within the definition of issuer.

The district court also disagreed with the two men’s contention that Section 304 is unconstitutionally vague. It said that the requirements for CFOs and CEOs are “crystal clear” when read along with the rest of SOX. It also noted that Section 302 tells executives exactly what they have to do to avoid reimbursement liability under Section 304, which is to ensure that the issuer submits financial statements that are accurate.

SEC v. Baker (PDF)

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

More Blog Posts:
Texas Securities RoundUp: Provident Royalties CEO Pleads Guilty in $485M Ponzi Scam and District Court Upholds $100K Arbitration Award in Adviser Fee Dispute, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 10, 2012

Texas Securities Fraud: Investors Bilked in $68M Dallas Ponzi Scam Hope To Recover Some Funds Via Rare Guitar Auction, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 25, 2012

Govt. Not Prepared for Next Inevitable Financial Crisis, Says Ex-SEC Chair, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 30, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Texas Securities RoundUp: Provident Royalties CEO Pleads Guilty in $485M Ponzi Scam and District Court Upholds $100K Arbitration Award in Adviser Fee Dispute

Published on: November 10, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Paul R. Melbye, Provident Royalties’s CEO, has pleaded guilty to running a $485M Ponzi Scam that defrauded over 7,700 investors in the US. He faces up to 47 years behind bars.

According to prosecutors, Melbye did not disclose material facts to investors and he issued materially false representations to get them to make payments to Provident. The Securities and Exchange Commission had sued Melbye and Provident principals Henry Harrison and Brendan Coughlin over the alleged securities fraud in July 2009. The men were accused of taking the money of investors, who were promised yearly returns greater than 18%, and spending less than half of it on oil and gas leases when they had promised that most of the funds would go toward investments, leases, mineral rights, development, and exploration. The “returns” that older investors received came from the investment money put in by newer investors.

Coughlin and Harrison, who were indicted on criminal charges in July, are waiting to go to trial. The two Dallas men were each charged with 10 counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. Per the criminal allegations, starting around September 2006, Harrison, Coughlin, and others made false representations and did not reveal material facts in order to get investors to make payments to Provident. (These allegedly false representations included statements that investors’ money would only go toward a specific oil and gas project.) They also allegedly failed to disclose that Blimline, a Provident founder, had obtained millions of dollars in unsecured loans and he had previously been charged with securities fraud.

In other Texas securities news, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has decided not to overturn the $100,000 arbitration award that investment adviser representative Robert Thompson has been ordered to pay in a fee division dispute. The case involves Thompson and Chris Jones, who is a California resident. Both are former Walnut Street Securities representatives.

Jones and Thompson had gone into an agreement together in 2005 to divide fees from Thompson’s clients in the Houston area. Two years later, they became involved in a dispute over this arrangement and they sought resolution via a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel, which refused to have the venue in Texas. Instead, the hearing took place in California where the arbitration panel found that Thompson was liable to Jones for $100,000. All other counterclaims and claims were denied.

Thompson then went to court with a motion to vacate claiming that the decision to have the hearing take place in California prejudiced his rights to cross-examine witnesses and provide evidence. The district court denied Thompson’s motion to vacate.

The court said that since the statutory standards for vacatur under the Texas General Arbitration Act and the Federal Arbitration Act are substantially the same, it would use TAA in its analysis while looking at the common law that oversees the two statutes. The court also said that Thompson did not provide a transcript or order from the arbitration panel, which was needed for his argument. The court determined that regardless of whether or not the arbitration panel made a mistake in placing the venue in California, the award cannot be vacated because Thompson did not show how this venue decision prejudiced his rights.

Texan Pleads Guilty in $485 Million Ponzi, Courthouse News, November 9, 2012

Dallas Men Indicted in $485 Million Investment Fraud Scheme in East Texas, FBI, July 12, 2012

Joint Venture Collapses Into FINRA Arbitration Slugfest Over Fee Division, Forbes, October 8, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Texas Securities Fraud: Investors Bilked in $68M Dallas Ponzi Scam Hope To Recover Some Funds Via Rare Guitar Auction, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 25, 2012

Texas Securities Fraud: District Court Says Houston-Based Private Equity Firm Can Proceed with Claim Over $10M Film Financing Investment, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 19, 2012
Provident Royalties Faces $485 Million Texas Securities Fraud, Says SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 26, 2009 Continue Reading ›

Texas Securities Fraud: Investors Bilked $68M Dallas Ponzi Scam Hoping To Recover Funds Via Rare Guitar Auction

Published on: October 25, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

One year after The Rand Family pled guilty to bilking over 200 investors in $68M Dallas Ponzi scam, a number of their expensive instruments are going up for auction. The money from the sales will go towards paying back their victims.

The Rand Family, who owned oil and gas owned Aspen Exploration, scammed investors into financing the operation and drilling of a number of Texas oil wells. At least a 40% return was promised. However, not all of the investors’ monies went to drilling oil. Instead, US Postal investigators discovered that the family was using some of the funds to pay for their expensive lifestyle, which included private jets, yachts, country club membership, and the purchase of real estate, jewelry, musical instruments, and an original Picasso.

Their company, Aspen, sold net revenue interests and working interests in a number of wells in the Rancho Blanco Corporation State Gas Unit in Texas. Prosecutors accused the Rands of making false representations, such as telling them that their money, which would only be commingled when necessary, would go toward testing, drilling, and completion of a well and that they would managerial rights. Instead, the money was moved out of Aspen’s bank accounts as the defendants spent it on personal expenses and to drill and pay for the operation of other wells.

Texas Securities Fraud: District Court Says Houston-Based Private Equity Firm Can Proceed with Claim Over $10M Film Financing Investment

Published on: October 19, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas is allowing Small Ventures USA LP, a private equity firm based in Houston, to move forward with its Delaware fraud claim against the promoters that solicited its $10 million investment in RT Newbridge III LLC, a film financing venture. Judge Ewing Werlein Jr. also decided that the plaintiff could proceed with its Texas securities fraud claim against MLRT Film Holdings LLC, Rizvi Traverse Management LLC, and a number of individual defendants.

Small Ventures contends that the defendants made false representations that most of Newbridge’s investments, including independent movie Tekken (comprising about 30% of its portfolio), were financially healthy, when in fact they were not. Meantime, they also allegedly hid or did not reveal material facts, such as the fact that this particular film’s producer had defaulted on an $11 million loan from Newbridge and the movie wasn’t commercially viable and had received poor reviews at the Cannes Film Festival.

The plaintiff claims that to persuade the private equity firm to invest, in 2008 defendant Suhail Rizvi told Small Ventures founder William O. Perkins III that the loan Newbridge had made to produce the film was low risk because of having been over-collateralized with tax credits or foreign pre-sales. Spreadsheets were also passed on to the Small Ventures to make it appear as if the Newbridge portfolio was doing well. Several months after investment discussions began, Small Ventures decided to invest $10 million in return for a membership interest in Newbridge.

When Newbridge failed and the defendants did not collect on the Tekken loan, Small Ventures lost its investment. The plaintiff contends that if it had known the truth about the state of Tekken, it would have taken action to sell its interest so that damages could be mitigated. Small Ventures also believes that the defendants were negligent in the way that they managed the Tekken loan due to their failure to comply with the terms mandated for collection of the completion guaranty bond.

The plaintiff wants damages for what it claims was tortious conduct related to the sale, solicitation, and management of its $10 million investment. It is also contending fraud, grossly negligent and negligent misrepresentation, fraud by nondisclosure, gross negligence and negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and claims under the Texas Securities Act.

Per the court, Small Ventures stated a fraud claim under Delaware law, which is applicable to the fraud claim, per a choice of law clause that can be found in the agreement between the parties. The court turned down the defendants’ contention that the fraud claims should be thrown out due to “no other representations” and “no reliance” clauses that could be found in the subscription agreements. It did, however, dismiss Small Ventures’ fiduciary duty claims.

Small Ventures USA, L.P. v. Rizvi Traverse Management, LLC et al, Justia Dockets and Filings

More Blog Posts:
US Supreme Court Considers Hearing Stanford Ponzi Lawsuits, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 3, 2012

Texas Securities Fraud: Investor Sues Behringer Harvard REIT I Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 26, 2012

Texas Securities Fraud: Ex-Stanford Chief Investment Officer Gets 3-Year Prison Term for Her Part in $7 Billion Ponzi Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 18, 2012 Continue Reading ›