On October 17, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) announced charges and asset freezes against the operators and promoters of a worldwide pyramid scheme that falsely promises exponential, risk-free returns to investors in a venture that purportedly sells Internet-based children’s educational courses.

The SEC obtained  a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and other emergency relief against 16 defendants as well as seven entities controlled by the U.S. promoters that are named as relief defendants in the SEC’s complaint for the purpose of recovering ill-gotten proceeds from the alleged fraud. Read More

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) prosecution of Sandy Winick and eight co-conspirators for financial crimes, announced in August 2013, has sparked considerable interest among penny stock observers. According to regulators, for more than a decade, Winick created, and sometimes hijacked, dozens of shell companies, eventually pumping and dumping most of them. In the process, he and his alleged partners in crime raked in at least $140 million.

The Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”) has been investigating Winick and his associates, some of them not yet targeted by the DOJ, for several years. Read More

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

In September 2013, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), with the help of the National Center for Victims of Crime, compiled and circulated “An Advocate’s Guide to Assisting Victims of Financial Fraud.”  The lengthy paper explains the types of fraud most prevalent today, and offers copious advice to people whose work it is to help victims cope with their losses. Read More

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

When the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) substantially completes an investigation into violations of the securities laws, it may issue what’s known as a “Wells notice” to targets, informing them that it intends to bring litigation, pending the Commission’s approval. The notice is named after John Wells, who once chaired a committee that recommended a procedure of this kind. When the Wells notice is received, the recipient can do nothing, or make a “Wells submission” offering explanations and defenses. The SEC will then proceed with a lawsuit, or not. Read More

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

On July 29, 2013, the Panamanian National Assembly enacted a law that “sets forth a custody regime applicable to bearer shares.”  It requires that any and all owners of bearer shares must appoint an authorized custodian—banks and trust companies authorized to do business in Panama, brokerage houses or certain lawyers and law firms—who will maintain custody of the bearer certificates.

The implementation of this new law is likely to make trouble for those who seek to conceal their ownership of nominee entities formed in Panama, among other things. Read More

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

Like many other countries, the United States offers potential immigrants preferential treatment—in the form of conditional visas and eventual green cards—if  they’re willing to invest in economic development projects that will preserve or create jobs in their new home.  What’s offered is called the EB-5 Visa Program.  While it should be a win-win proposition for well-off immigrants and the U.S. economy, the process Read More

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

On October 1, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) announced it had awarded more than $14 million to a whistleblower whose information led to an SEC enforcement action that recovered substantial investor funds.  Payments to whistleblowers are made from a separate fund previously established by the Dodd-Frank Act and do not reduce amounts paid to investors. The award is the largest made by the SEC’s whistleblower program since its inception in 2011.

The SEC’s whistleblower program rewards high-quality original information that results in an SEC enforcement action with sanctions exceeding $1 million.

The bounties under the SEC whistleblower program range from 10 percent to 30 percent of the amount collected in an SEC action. Read More

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) brought a securities fraud enforcement action against an Oklahoma wedding singer and former investment adviser, Larry J. Dearman, Sr., and his special friend, Marya Gray in connection with fraudulent securities offerings that raised at least $4.7 million from more than 30 of Dearman’s advisory clients.

The SEC action, filed in the U.S. District Court in Tulsa, Oklahoma, alleges that Dearman recommended that his clients invest in various businesses that Gray owned in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. Read More

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

On September 30, 2013, the SEC charged three penny stock auditors, Malcolm L. Pollard,  Wilfred W. Hanson and John Kinross-Kennedy, for violating federal securities laws or failing to comply with U.S. auditing standards during their audits and reviews of financial statements for publicly traded companies. The actions are part of the SEC’s agenda to hold gatekeepers accountable for the important roles they play in the securities industry.  “Operation Broken Gate,”  is the SEC Enforcement Division’s efforts to identify auditors who fail to carry out their duties and responsibilities consistent with professional standards.

Gatekeepers that fail to comply with the SEC’s required standards put investors at risk due to the possibility of undetected fraud or other financial misstatements.

Pollard and Hanson agreed to settle the respective actions against them and will be prohibited from practicing as an accountant on behalf of any publicly traded company or other entity regulated by the SEC.  Kinross-Kennedy is litigating his action in a proceeding before an administrative law judge at the agency.

According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding against Pollard and his firm also located in Erie, they engaged in improper professional conduct while auditing three penny stock public shell companies.  According to the SEC,  Pollard and his firm’s audits of the issuers were seriously deficient.  They failed to include evidence of procedures performed or conclusions reached, and they failed to retain required documentation, perform the required engagement quality reviews, and consider fraud risks and obtain written management representations. Despite these audit failures, Pollard and his firm represented in each of their audit reports that they had conducted the audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).

Antonia Chion, an Associate Director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement stated, “Pollard and his firm repeatedly engaged in unreasonable conduct that resulted in violations of applicable professional standards.  Their misconduct demonstrates a lack of competence to audit the financial statements of companies registered with the Commission.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting a litigated administrative proceeding against Kinross-Kennedy, he has been the independent accountant for as many as 23 public companies since 2009.  The SEC’s Enforcement Division and Office of Chief Accountant allege that there were significant deficiencies in six of Kinross-Kennedy’s audit engagements, and that he failed to obtain engagement quality reviews (EQRs) for more than 30 other audit engagements.  Kinross-Kennedy falsely represented that he conducted his audits in accordance with PCAOB standards.

According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding against Hanson, he conducted EQRs for five of Kinross-Kennedy’s audits, but was not competent to serve as the engagement quality reviewer and failed to exercise due professional care.  Accordingly, he failed to conduct multiple EQRs in accordance with PCAOB standards.

“Engagement quality reviews are intended to be a meaningful check on the audit engagement team’s work, and when conducted properly they improve the reliability of a public company’s financial statements,” said David Peavler, Associate Regional Director for Enforcement in the SEC’s Fort Worth Regional Office.  “Kinross-Kennedy failed to exercise due professional care on fundamental aspects of the audits by, for example, using outdated audit templates and failing to adapt to changes in auditing standards.  He also retained Hanson to conduct engagement quality reviews when Hanson did not have the recent experience necessary to serve as a competent engagement partner.”

By issuing inaccurate audit reports, the SEC’s order finds that Pollard and his firm violated Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 2-02 of Regulation S-X.  The SEC’s order also finds that Pollard and his firm violated Exchange Act Section 10A(a)(1) and (b)(1) by failing to have procedures in place to detect, investigate, and report illegal acts.  In agreeing to settle the charges without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Pollard and his firm consented to the entry of an order to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of Exchange Act Section 10A(a)(1) and (b)(1) and Rule 2-02 of Regulation S-X.  Pollard and his firm also consent to an order suspending their right to appear and or practice before the Commission as an accountant.

The SEC’s order against Kinross-Kennedy alleges violations of Sections 10A(j) and 10A(k) of the Exchange Act and Rules 2-02 and 2-07 of Regulation S-X, and improper professional conduct under Rule 102(e)(1)(ii) and (iii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Section 4(C) of the Exchange Act.

The SEC order finds that Hanson engaged in improper professional conduct under Rule 102(e)(1)(ii) and Rule 102(e)(1)(iv)(B)(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Section 4(C) of the Exchange Act.  Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Hanson consented to an order suspending him from practicing before the Commission as an accountant.

For further information about this securities law blog post, please contact Brenda Hamilton, Securities Attorney at 101 Plaza Real S, Suite 202 N, Boca Raton, Florida, (561) 416-8956, by email at [email protected] or visit www.securitieslawyer101.com.   This securities law blog post is provided as a general informational service to clients and friends of Hamilton & Associates Law Group and should not be construed as, and does not constitute, legal and compliance advice on any specific matter, nor does this message create an attorney-client relationship. Please note that the prior results discussed herein do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Hamilton & Associates | Securities Lawyers
Brenda Hamilton, Securities Attorney
101 Plaza Real South, Suite 202 North
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Telephone: (561) 416-8956
Facsimile: (561) 416-2855
www.SecuritiesLawyer101.com

The Depository Trust Company is a subsidiary of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corpora­tion (“DTCC”), and is the central securities depository in the U.S. The SEC, the Federal Reserve System and the New York State Department of Financial Services regulate DTC.

In certain circumstances,  a DTC Chill or a Global Lock on a company’s securities. As a result, they will trade with difficulty, or not at all. The number of Chills and Locks has increased in recent years, and more and more issuers have been faced with the task of trying to get them lifted. That has often proved difficult, if not impossible.

DTC has proposed new procedures to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for issuers whose securi­ties may be subject to DTC Chills and Global locks.

They are designed to prevent the imposition of these sanctions, and to set conditions for their removal should they be imposed.

Their purpose is to ensure compliance with the SEC’s registration provisions and impose specific procedures when the securities of shell companies used in  reverse merger transactions are deposited with DTC.  The new initiative demonstrates that DTC is the new watchdog for issuers who do not comply with the SEC’s registration provisions.  A common characteristic of reverse merger issuers involves the issuance and transfer of free trading securities in violation of the registration provisions.

How DTC Monitors Securities

DTC is responsible for clearance and settlement of securi­ties transactions that are eligible for its depository and book-entry transfer services.  When securities are “free trading shares” they are deposited at DTC in the name of CEDE and Co.

As part of DTC’s routine monitoring of securities transactions, it identifies large deposits of thinly traded, low- priced free trading securities. Such deposits are often indicators of potential illegal distributions.  If DTC determines that securities deposited at DTC are not lawfully free trading, it may impose a DTC Deposit Chill which prevents further deposits of free trading shares of that particular issuer.

Getting a DTC or Global Lock Removed

In order to have the DTC Deposit Chill removed, the issuer must demonstrate that DTC that the securities are free trading. If DTC deter­mines there is “definitive evidence” that improperly free trading shares have been deposited, it may impose a Global Lock. In this context, “definitive evidence” typically means that the SEC or another regulatory or law enforcement agency has brought an enforcement action alleging that the securities are restricted and not lawfully free trading.  These types of actions are common after reverse merger transactions with public shell companies.

DTC Book Entry Requirements

DTC accepts deposits of securities that meet its eligibility requirements for book-entry services from its DTC Participants. DTC’s eligibility standards include that the securities in the public float have been distributed in compliance with Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, in a manner that does not impose ownership or transfer restrictions, so that the securities are freely transferable. This means that the securities were offered pursuant to an effective registration statement filed with the SEC or pursuant to an exemption from registration that does not impose ownership or transfer restrictions.  Securities must meet these standards to be eligible for DTC’s book-entry services.

DTC’s Restrictions for Improperly Issued Free Trading Shares

If DTC has reason to believe that securities deposited with DTC are not properly free trading, it may restrict services to the securities pending the issuer establishing that the securities are freely transferrable. These restrictions typically are: (i) not accepting additional deposits of these securities (a “Deposit Chill”), or (ii) it may cease to provide any book-entry services with respect to these securities (a “Global Lock”).

DTC’s Proposals

DTC’s proposed rules will formalize the process for issuers to receive notices of restrictions and to have their objections heard. The process will work as follows:

♦ Issuers will be notified in writing of any service restriction;

♦ Issuers will have reasonable time frames in which to respond;

♦ Issuers will have clear guidelines to support a release or prevent restrictions;

♦ DTC will respond to issuers within stated time frames;

♦Throughout the notice and review process, DTC and its counsel will be available to consult with issuers and their counsel regarding compliance with these requirements.

DTC Chills

DTC may impose a Deposit Chill if it detects large-share deposit activity in a thinly traded, low-priced security, because this activity is a recognized red flag for distributions of securities in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Issuer Notification of Deposit Chill

DTC will provide the issuer with written notice of the Deposit Chill by overnight courier. DTC will send the notice no later than twenty business days prior to the imposition of the Deposit Chill or, if the Deposit Chill is imposed prior to giving notice, no later than three business days after the Deposit Chill is imposed. DTC will impose a Deposit Chill prior to notice where there is a threat of imminent harm or injury to DTC or the industry, including if circumstances suggest that advance notice might acceler­ate improper deposits. If DTC acts prior to notice, the issuer will have the opportunity to show that there is no meaningful risk of imminent harm or injury.

The Deposit Chill notice will require, among other things, that the issuer submit a legal opinion from its independent outside counsel. The opinion must confirm that the affected securities are freely transfer­able and address such other matters of concern as DTC may identify. To guide the issuer, DTC typically provides a template legal opinion. DTC and its counsel are available to an issuer and its counsel to discuss the opinion and related issues.

DTC Review of Issuer Response to the Deposit Chill Notice

DTC will respond in writing to the issuer’s response to the Deposit Chill notice within twenty business days or, if the Deposit Chill has been imposed prior to notice, within ten business days.

An officer of DTC who played no role in the Deposit Chill decision will decide whether the issuer’s response satisfactorily addresses transferability and any other matters requested. The officer may consult with coun­sel regarding the review. DTC will contact the issuer within the response time frame if further information or clarification seems warranted, and provide the issuer ten additional business days to respond.

Determination

If the DTC officer determines that the issuer’s response reasonably establishes that the securities are freely transferable and not otherwise impaired, DTC will promptly lift the Deposit Chill or, in notice-first cases, DTC will not impose the Deposit Chill.

If the issuer fails to respond within twenty business days (or any extended period) or if the DTC officer finds that the response does not satisfy the requirements, the Deposit Chill will continue and DTC may impose a Global Lock. Before doing so, DTC will give the issuer an additional ten business days for a supplemental response; issuers should bear in mind that the supplemental response will be limited to proving the original response was properly submitted within the required time frame or that DTC made a clerical mistake in review of the original response. The supplement will not be an opportunity to begin the review process again.

The proposed rules impose strict deadlines on both issuers and DTC. The proposal also gives DTC the discretion to lift or modify a Deposit Chill if it reasonably believes that it is in the best interest of DTC and its participants.

Global Locks

DTC may impose a Global Lock, which suspends both deposits and book-entry transfers of a security, as well as withdrawals and physical deliveries of the security, based on legal actions commenced by government or law enforcement authorities, most typically the SEC. Additionally, DTC will impose a Global Lock if an issuer fails to satisfy the requirements for lifting a Deposit Chill.

Issuer Notification of Global Lock

DTC will provide the issuer with written notice of the Global Lock via overnight courier. DTC will send the notice no later than twenty business days prior to the imposition of the Global Lock or, if the Global Lock is imposed prior to giving notice, no later than three business days after the Global Lock is imposed. DTC will impose a Global Lock prior to notice where there is a threat of imminent harm or injury to DTC or the industry. This would include situations where the SEC has alleged that the defen­dants in a civil or criminal action are in possession of additional unregistered shares that they could deposit into the DTC system. If DTC acts prior to notice, the issuer will have the opportunity to show that there is no meaningful risk of imminent harm or injury.

The Global Lock notice will, among other things, include the reason for the Global Lock and identify the regulatory or law enforcement proceeding upon which the restriction is based. It will note the date the restriction was or will be imposed, and that the issuer has twenty business days to respond, although DTC may provide a twenty-business-day extension for good cause.

The Global Lock notice will afford the issuer the opportunity to demonstrate that the securities depos­ited at DTC were not the subject of the legal proceeding on which DTC based its restriction. The issuer will also have the opportunity to demonstrate that the proceeding has been withdrawn, dismissed, or otherwise resolved in favor of the defendant that deposited the securities at DTC. Otherwise, DTC will restrict the securities, based on the allegations in the pleadings.

DTC Review of Issuer Response to the Global Lock Notice

DTC will respond in writing to the issuer’s response to the Global Lock notice within twenty business days or, if the Global Lock has been imposed prior to notice, within ten business days.

Where DTC bases a Global Lock on allegations in an SEC enforcement action or other regulatory or law enforcement proceeding, DTC’s review is necessarily limited. It will not provide the issuer with an alter­native forum in which to litigate the issues pending before a court or administrative agency.

Where a Global Lock results from the issuer’s failure to satisfy DTC’s eligibility concerns that led to Deposit Chill, the procedure for releasing the Lock is described below.

Determination

If DTC determines that the issuer’s Global Lock response satisfies the conditions set forth in the Global Lock notice, DTC will release or not impose the Global Lock. Otherwise, DTC will impose the Global Lock or maintain one previously imposed.

Procedures For Removing Restrictions

DTC’s proposed rule will also seek SEC approval to reinstate full services under the following circumstances.

Under the Safe Harbor provision of Securities Act Rule 144, restricted securities may become freely transfer­able after a specified holding period has elapsed. Because securities that have been Globally Locked have been credited to participant accounts without transfer during the period of the Global Lock, DTC is proposing, by analogy to Rule 144, to release Global Locks after the following periods have elapsed:

 If the Global Lock is the result of a judicial action or administrative proceeding alleging that the issuer’s shares had been distributed in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act: 

DTC may lift the Global Lock one-year after the latest date on which the outstanding litigation or administrative proceeding has been resolved with respect to any defendant that deposited the securities at DTC. This one-year approach applies to issuers that are not SEC reporting companies, DTC may lift the Global Lock six-months after the latest date on which the outstanding litigation or administrative proceeding has been resolved with respect to any such defendant. This six-month approach applies to issuers that are SEC reporting companies. In the case of SEC-filers, DTC may lift the Global Lock six-months after the latest date on which the outstanding litigation or administrative proceeding has been resolved with respect to any such defendant.

If the Global Lock is the result of an issuer’s failure to respond or to respond adequately to a Deposit Chill notice:

DTC may lift the Global Lock one year after the date it was imposed for issuers that are not SEC reporting companies, and after six months for issuers that are SEC reporting companies.

The release of a Global Lock under these circumstances would only be available to an issuer that is not, and never has been, a “shell company” as defined in Securities Act Rule 144(i), unless the issuer had ceased to be a shell company and filed the specified disclosures required by this rule to no longer be deemed a shell company. If new facts come to light during the six-month or one-year period that call into question whether the securities satisfy DTC’s eligibility requirements, DTC may not release the Global Lock (subject to the fair procedures discussed above.)

When approved by the SEC, the new DTC proposals will eliminate most of the confusion surrounding the imposition of Chills and Global Locks, and will make it easier for issuers to avoid them, or to see to their removal once imposed.

For further information about this securities law blog post, please contact Brenda Hamilton, Securities Attorney at 101 Plaza Real S, Suite 202 N, Boca Raton, Florida, (561) 416-8956, by email at [email protected] or visit www.securitieslawyer101.com.   This securities law blog post is provided as a general informational service to clients and friends of Hamilton & Associates Law Group and should not be construed as, and does not constitute, legal and compliance advice on any specific matter, nor does this message create an attorney-client relationship. Please note that the prior results discussed herein do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Hamilton & Associates | Securities Lawyers
Brenda Hamilton, Securities Attorney
101 Plaza Real South, Suite 202 North
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Telephone: (561) 416-8956
Facsimile: (561) 416-2855
www.SecuritiesLawyer101.com

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

Continuing its crackdown on violators of insider trading laws, on September 20, 2013 the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) charged Tibor Klein, president of Klein Financial Services, with illegal insider trading in his own and client accounts based on non-public information in advance of a major merger announcement.  Also charged was Klein’s friend Michael Shechtman, a South Florida stockbroker who was tipped to the deal by Klein.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Klein learned of the impending merger between Pfizer, Inc. and King Pharmaceuticals in August 2010 from one of his clients, Robert Schulman, an attorney who works for King.  Merely possessing that information was not a violation of any laws or regulations.

It only became one when Klein traded on it for his own and his clients’ benefit.  That happened on the day after Klein was told the news.  On August 16 he began buying large amounts of stock in King.  He also called his high school buddy Shechtman, who began buying for himself and his wife.

The story of how Klein came by his insider information offers a lesson in the dangers of drink. Klein and Schulman, who has not been charged in the case, had been friends for about a decade.  Several times a year, Klein visited the Shulmans, went over their investments with them, had dinner, and stayed overnight.  As friends do, they shared personal matters, and talked about their work.  Both men were familiar with insider trading laws.

Over the weekend of August 13-15, Klein was in the Washington, D.C. area on business.  His last stop was an overnight visit with the Schulmans.  At dinner, Schulman indulged in several glasses of wine and became literally “tipsy,” telling Klein, “It would be nice to be King for a day.”

Klein took note, and began buying King Pharmaceuticals as soon as he returned to New York.

The public announcement of Pfizer’s tender offer to King was made on October 10.  King’s stock rose 39% on heavy volume.  Klein and his clients made profits of $328,375.02; Shechtman and his wife’s positions generated $109,040.53.  Ironically, Klein hadn’t ventured much in his own account.  He made only $8,824.

The SEC’s complaint charges Klein and Shechtman with violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3.  The agency seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, financial penalties and permanent injunctions against the pair.

For further information about this securities law blog post, please contact Brenda Hamilton, Securities Attorney at 101 Plaza Real S, Suite 202 N, Boca Raton, Florida, (561) 416-8956, by email at [email protected] or visit www.securitieslawyer101.com.   This securities law blog post is provided as a general informational service to clients and friends of Hamilton & Associates Law Group and should not be construed as, and does not constitute, legal and compliance advice on any specific matter, nor does this message create an attorney-client relationship. Please note that the prior results discussed herein do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Hamilton & Associates | Securities Lawyers
Brenda Hamilton, Securities Attorney
101 Plaza Real South, Suite 202 North
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Telephone: (561) 416-8956
Facsimile: (561) 416-2855
www.SecuritiesLawyer101.com

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

On September 25, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) charged ImageXpres Corporation (ImageXpres), its CEO and president John Zankowski, and its CFO Kevin Zankowski with securities fraud.

ImageXpres is a microcap technology company located in Rochester, New York.  It says it develops imaging systems solutions for commercial printing, consumer photo, health and business communications Read More

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

On September 26, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) charged two Floridians, Peter Kirschner and Stuart Rubens, with defrauding investors—many of them seniors—in a boiler room scheme they operated between July 2011 and at least November 2012.

Kirschner and Stuart entered into an agreement with Thought Development Inc. (TDI), a private company, to solicit potential investors to buy Read More

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

On September 25, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) brought three enforcement actions against penny stock company Left Behind Games (LFBG), its founder, Troy Lyndon, and a consultant, Ronald Zaucha. The three enforcement actions were a trading suspension of LFBG, notice of an administrative proceeding to revoke registration of the company’s stock, and a civil lawsuit charging Lyndon and Zaucha with securities fraud. LFBG went public in 2003, and by 2006 enjoyed considerable success, but although it generated $500,000 in revenues that year, it subsequently lost favor with gamers.

Read More

Securities Lawyers Gone Wild Blog

On 23 September 2013, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California announced that attorney David Tamman, formerly of the Nixon Peabody law firm, had been sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for obstructing two investigations into a $22 million investment fraud.

Judge Phillip S. Gutierrez noted that in addition to the crimes Tamman had helped cover up, he also lied to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) during their investigation and doubled down on those lies during his 2012 trial.

Evidence produced at the trial showed that Tamman conspired with John Farahi to conceal Farahi’s illegal activities.  Farahi, a fund manager and radio personality, told his investors that he was buying corporate bonds backed by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) for his NewPoint Financial Services, Inc., when in fact he was running a Ponzi scheme.  Farahi targeted the Iranian-American community in the Los Angeles area, making use of a daily financial radio show broadcast in Farsi. Read More

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

On September 18, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) voted to propose a new rule that would require public companies to state pay ratio disclosure of the compensation of its chief executive officer (“CEO”) to the median compensation of its employees.

In recent years, there’s been a great deal of discussion among Wall Street observers about the extremely high salaries and benefits paid to some CEOs Read More

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

On September 20, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) charged Jennifer Hoffman and John Boschert, former principals of a dissolved Florida company called Assured Capital Consultants, LLC, and Bryan Zuzga, Assured’s purported escrow agent, in connection with a prime bank offering and a Ponzi scheme.

Prime bank offerings, also called high yield investment programs (“HYIPs”), are a form of fraud with a long history.  Scammers seek to impress Read More

Securities Lawyers Gone Wild Blog

On September 19, 2013, the Dallas Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) announced the unsealing of an indictment charging Jason Wynn, a former penny stock promoter, and securities attorney Martin Cantu with crimes committed in connection with a company called ConnectAJet.com (CAJT). The two men were arrested last Friday and Wednesday, respectively.  Each stands accused of one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and one count of securities fraud. Read More

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

In the penny stock markets it has become almost common practice for restricted stockholders to attorney shop for legal opinion writers so that they can receive unrestricted or free trading securities. Sometimes these shareholders lawyer shop until they can get even a second legal opinion as backup in the event that the tradability of their shares is ever questioned. Many shareholders foolishly believe that a legal opinion from a securities lawyer (even if baseless) will protect them.  In the case of the SEC v. CMKM over 450 legal opinion letters written by one lawyer covering at least 233.7 billion shares of stock, and the opinions were still not the basis for an effective defense to the SEC’s charges. Read More