SEC CHARGES NON-REGISTERED INVESTMENT ADVISER WITH STEALING CLIENT'S MONEY

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

07/16/2015 02:05 PM EDT

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged a purported investment adviser in San Diego with stealing money from clients for personal use and conducting a Ponzi scheme to pay customers making redemption requests.

In a complaint filed in federal court in San Diego, the SEC alleges that Paul Lee Moore and Coast Capital Management, his purported investment advisory firm, raised $2.6 million from clients.  Instead of investing their money as promised, Moore allegedly siphoned nearly $2 million of client funds to pay travel expenses, buy retail goods, and fund his use of pornographic websites.  The complaint alleges that Moore used the remaining $625,000 in client funds to repay earlier clients with money from new clients in classic Ponzi scheme fashion.  Moore allegedly sent fake account statements to clients showing securities that he never purchased and attracted new clients when existing customers showed the statements to family, friends, and business associates.  Moore also is alleged to have lied to clients about his education, past employment experience, and the amount assets managed by Coast Capital.

Coast Capital, which was not registered as an investment adviser with the SEC or any state regulator, is no longer in business.

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California today will announce criminal charges against Moore.

“As alleged in our complaint, Moore betrayed his clients, brazenly stole nearly $2 million for his own activities and conducted a Ponzi scheme with the remaining funds,” said Michele W. Layne, Director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in San Diego, charges Moore with violating federal antifraud laws and related SEC rules.  The SEC seeks a permanent injunction, return of allegedly ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest and a penalty.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by David M. Rosen and supervised by Marc J. Blau of the Los Angeles office.  The SEC’s litigation will be led by Gary Leung.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

SEC CHARGES MUTUAL FUND ADVISER'S BOARD MEMBERS WITH FAILING TO HAVE PROPER OVERSIGHT

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
06/17/2015 12:55 PM EDT

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged a mutual fund adviser, its principal, and three mutual fund board members with failing to satisfy their statutory obligations in connection with the evaluation and approval of mutual fund advisory contracts.

Richmond, Va.-based advisory firm Commonwealth Capital Management was charged with violating Section 15(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for providing incomplete or inaccurate information to two mutual fund boards, and the firm’s majority owner John Pasco III was charged with causing the violations.  They and former trustees J. Gordon McKinley III, Robert R. Burke, and Franklin A. Trice III have agreed to settle the SEC’s charges.

Commonwealth Capital Management acted as the investment adviser to various mutual funds within World Funds Trust (WFT) and World Funds Inc. (WFI).  Commonwealth Capital Management was part of a turnkey mutual fund platform that provided various services to small to mid-size mutual funds.  An SEC investigation found that as part of what’s known as the 15(c) process, the WFT board of trustees requested that Commonwealth Capital Management and Pasco provide certain information regarding advisory fees paid by comparable funds as well as the nature and quality of the firm’s services.  There was no documentary evidence that Commonwealth Capital Management provided or that the trustees evaluated fees paid by comparable funds.  Commonwealth Capital Management also provided incomplete responses about the nature and quality of services provided by Commonwealth Capital Management versus services provided by the funds’ sub-adviser and administrator, and the trustees did not request or receive additional materials.  Nevertheless, the trustees approved the advisory contracts without having all of the information they requested as reasonably necessary to evaluate the contracts.

“As the first line of defense in protecting mutual fund shareholders, board members must be vigilant,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC Enforcement Division.  “These trustees failed to fully discharge their fund governance responsibilities on behalf of fund shareholders.”

Julie M. Riewe, Co-Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit, added, “The advisory fee typically is the largest expense reducing investor returns.  The WFT trustees fell short as the shareholders’ watchdog by essentially rubber-stamping the adviser’s contract and related fee.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, Commonwealth Capital Management also omitted or provided inaccurate information requested by independent directors in the WFI series of mutual funds in connection with board meetings to approve the firm’s advisory contract.  Commonwealth Capital Management supplied a fee chart containing inapt comparisons and erroneous information while omitting other details.  The firm additionally failed to provide certain information about profitability and an expense limitation agreement that had been in place to limit the relevant fund’s expenses.  Commonwealth Capital Management also informed the WFI independent directors that the fund had appropriate breakpoints when, in fact, breakpoints were omitted from the advisory contract.

The SEC’s order finds that Commonwealth Capital Management, McKinley, Burke, and Trice violated Section 15(c) of the Investment Company Act, and Pasco caused the firm’s violations.  The order finds that Commonwealth Capital Management’s affiliated administrator Commonwealth Shareholder Services was contractually responsible for preparing the shareholder reports on behalf of the WFI funds, and failed to include required information concerning the 15(c) process in one fund’s 2010 shareholder report in violation of Section 30(e) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 30e-1.  Without admitting or denying the findings, they each consented to the order and agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any such violations.  Pasco and the firms agreed to jointly and severally pay a $50,000 penalty, and the trustees each agreed to pay $3,250 penalties.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Jacob Krawitz, Brian Privor, and John Farinacci, and the case was supervised by Anthony Kelly of the Asset Management Unit.  Christian Schultz assisted with the investigation.  The SEC examination that led to the investigation was conducted by Miguel A. Torres, Andrew B. Green, Cormac J. Logue, and Tamara D. Young, and managed by Margaret Jackson.

INVESTMENT ADVISER TO PAY OVER $1 MILLION TO ONCLUDE FRAUD CASES WITH SEC

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

Litigation Release No. 23273 / June 1, 2015

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sage Advisory Group, LLC and Benjamin Lee Grant, Civil Action No. 10-cv-11665 (D. Mass. September 29, 2010)

Securities and Exchange Commission v. John A. Grant, Sage Advisory Group, LLC and Benjamin Lee Grant, Civil Action No. 11-cv-11538 (D. Mass. September 1, 2011)

Court Orders Massachusetts Investment Adviser to Pay Over $1 Million to Conclude Two SEC Fraud Cases

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that, on May 29, 2015, the Honorable George A. O'Toole Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered final judgments against the one-time registered investment adviser Sage Advisory Group, LLC, and its principal, Benjamin Lee Grant ("Lee Grant"), both of Boston, MA, in two fraud cases filed by the SEC. A federal court jury previously found Sage and Lee Grant liable for fraud in the first case, and Sage and Lee Grant recently admitted liability for fraud in the second case. Among other relief, the final judgments impose permanent injunctions against future violations of certain antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and order Sage and Lee Grant to pay a total of $1,051,038.

In the first case, filed on September 29, 2010, the Commission alleged that Lee Grant had fraudulently led his brokerage customers to transfer their assets to Sage, his new advisory firm. Prior to October 2005, Lee Grant was a registered representative of broker-dealer Wedbush Morgan Securities and had customer accounts representing approximately $100 million in assets, virtually all of which were managed by California-based investment adviser First Wilshire Securities Management. According to the complaint, Lee Grant resigned from Wedbush in September 2005 so that he could operate Sage, his own newly-minted investment advisory firm. Lee Grant made false and misleading statements to his former brokerage customers. Among other things, Lee Grant misled customers by telling them that the changes in their accounts were being done at the suggestion of First Wilshire and that First Wilshire was not willing to continue managing the customers' assets if they stayed with Wedbush. Lee Grant also told customers that the "wrap fee" program being offered by Sage offered potential savings, based on historical commission costs - without disclosing that a new arrangement with a discount broker would produce substantial savings to the benefit of Sage, not the customers, under the "wrap fee." To rush his customers to sign up as advisory clients with Sage, Lee Grant falsely suggested that they might suffer disruption in First Wilshire's management of their assets unless they signed and returned the new advisory and custodial account documents as soon as possible.

Following trial, on August 13, 2014, a federal district court jury found both Sage and Lee Grant liable for fraud under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, among other charges.

In the second case, filed on September 1, 2011, the Commission alleged that Sage and Lee Grant separately violated the antifraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act, as did Lee Grant's father, Jack Grant. The Commission's complaint alleged that Jack Grant violated a Commission bar from association with investment advisers by associating with Sage and by acting as an investment adviser himself. The Commission bar had been based on a 1988 Commission enforcement action against Jack Grant alleging that he sold $5,500,000 of unregistered securities and misappropriated investors' funds. The Commission alleged in its September 2011 complaint that, notwithstanding his agreement to accept a Commission bar to settle the 1988 action, Jack Grant did not remove himself from the securities business and instead continued to provide investment advice to individuals and small businesses. The Commission's complaint alleged that he retooled his service as the Law Offices of Jack Grant and used his son, Lee Grant, to help implement his investment advice. The complaint further alleged that Jack Grant, Lee Grant, and Sage failed to inform their advisory clients that Jack Grant was barred from associating with investment advisers. In May 2013, the court entered a final judgment against Jack Grant on a settled basis, ordering Jack Grant to pay a total of $201,392.27, among other relief.

The final judgments entered against Sage and Lee Grant on May 29, 2015 conclude the cases and were entered with Sage's and Lee Grant's consent. The final judgment in the first case acknowledges the jury's liability finding, imposes permanent injunctions against future violations of Sections 206(1), 206(2), 206(4), and 204A of the Investment Advisers Act and Rules 204A-1 and 206(4)-7 thereunder, orders Sage and Lee Grant to pay on a joint and several basis $500,000 in disgorgement and $51,038 in prejudgment interest, and orders Lee Grant to pay an additional $350,000 civil penalty. The final judgment in the second case imposes additional permanent injunctions against future violations of Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act and orders Lee Grant to pay an additional $150,000 civil penalty. As part of their consent in the second case, Sage and Lee Grant acknowledged that their conduct violated the federal securities laws and admitted the underlying facts establishing the violations.

Lee Grant also consented to the Commission's entry in follow-on administrative proceedings of a permanent bar, pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act, prohibiting him from association with any broker, dealer, or investment adviser, among other entities. The Commission entered the administrative order on June 1, 2015.

For further information on the first case, see Litigation Release No. 21672 (September 29, 2010) (SEC Charges Massachusetts-Based Investment Adviser with Fraud); and Litigation Release 23066 (August 13, 2014) (Jury Returns Verdict Against Massachusetts Investment Adviser in SEC Fraud Case).

For further information on the second case, see Litigation Release No. 22081 (September 1, 2011) (SEC Charges Massachusetts-Based Attorney for Violating an Investment Adviser Bar and his Son for Failing to Disclose his Father's Bar to Advisory Clients); and Litigation Release No. 22708 (May 30, 2013) (SEC Obtains Final Judgment and Issues Administrative Orders against John A. ("Jack") Grant).

SEC ANNOUNCES COURT IMPOSED JUDGEMENT OF $55 MILLION AGAINST INVESTMENT ADVISER CEO

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

Litigation Release No. 23228 / April 2, 2015

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charles R. Kokesh, Civil Action No. 6:09-cv-1021

Federal Court Imposes $55 Million Final Judgment Against Investment Adviser CEO

On March 30, 2015, the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico entered a final judgment against Charles R. Kokesh, permanently enjoining him from violating federal securities laws and ordering him to pay a civil penalty of $2,354,593 as well as disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $53,004,432. The final judgment follows a five-day trial in November 2014, in which the jury found that Kokesh had committed securities fraud by misappropriating and misusing tens of millions of dollars at two registered investment advisers he controlled.

From at least 1995 through July 2007, Kokesh controlled two registered investment-adviser firms, though which he controlled and provided investment advice to four business-development companies ("BDCs"). Together, the BDCs had approximately 21,000 investors located throughout the United States. Through his control over the investment advisers, Kokesh was able to misappropriate investor funds by causing the BDCs to pay illegal distributions, performance fees, bonuses, and expense reimbursements to the investment advisers, which Kokesh then used for his own benefit. Kokesh tried to hide his scheme by directing the investment advisers to distribute misleading proxy statements to investors, and to have the BDCs file false reports with the Commission.

After short deliberations, the jury found that Kokesh had violated Section 37 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The jury also found that Kokesh had aided and abetted violations of Sections 205, 206(1), and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Sections 13(a) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, and 14a-9 thereunder.

The case was tried by David Reece, Jennifer Brandt, and Timothy McCole of the Commission's Fort Worth Regional Office. An examination by Kyle Holmberg of the Fort Worth Regional Office and Curtis Kolinek of the San Francisco Regional Office uncovered the misconduct.

SEC CHARGED BROKERAGE FIRM AND CEO OF FRAUD INVOLVING CDO AUCTIONS

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

02/19/2015 11:00 AM EST

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged a New York City-based brokerage firm and its CEO with fraudulently deceiving other market participants while conducting auctions to liquidate collateralized debt obligations (CDOs).

An SEC investigation found that VCAP Securities and Brett Thomas Graham improperly arranged for a third-party broker-dealer to secretly bid at these same auctions on behalf of their affiliated investment adviser in order to acquire certain bonds to benefit the funds it managed.  Under engagement agreements with the CDO trustees, VCAP and its affiliates were prohibited from bidding while serving as liquidation agent for these auctions.  VCAP had access to all of the confidential bidding information as the liquidation agent, and Graham exploited it to ensure their third-party bidder won the coveted bonds at prices only slightly higher than other bidders.  VCAP’s investment adviser affiliate then immediately bought the bonds from its secret bidder.

VCAP and Graham agreed to pay nearly $1.5 million combined to settle the SEC’s charges, and Graham is barred from the securities industry for at least three years.

“Graham abused a position of trust by playing the roles of both conductor and bidder during CDO liquidation auctions to the detriment of other participants,” said Michael J. Osnato, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Complex Financial Instruments Unit.  “The settlement requires Graham and VCAP to give up fees they obtained while conducting these unfair liquidations that landed certain bonds in their fund manager’s portfolio.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, Graham and VCAP made material misrepresentations to the trustees of the various CDOs for which VCAP served as liquidation agent.  After Graham had discussed bidding arrangements with the third-party broker-dealer, VCAP and Graham falsely represented in engagement agreements that they and their affiliates would not bid in the auctions or misuse confidential bidding information.  VCAP provided the various trustees with documents that did not disclose that its investment adviser affiliate was actually the winning bidder.  VCAP’s scheme enabled the investment adviser affiliate to obtain a total of 23 bonds during five auctions.

The SEC’s order finds that VCAP and Graham violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  VCAP agreed to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $1,149,599 while Graham agreed to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $127,733 plus a penalty of $200,000.  The SEC’s order censures VCAP and requires the firm and Graham to cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  VCAP and Graham consented to the SEC’s order without admitting or denying the findings.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by the Complex Financial Instruments Unit and led by Sarra Cho and Christopher Nee with assistance from Kapil Agrawal and Alfred Day.  The case was supervised by Andrew Sporkin and Mr. Osnato.

SEC ALLEGES INVESTMENT ADVISER KEPT CUSTODIAL FUNDS WITH BROKER-DEALER COUNTERPARTIES

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission  charged an investment adviser to several alternative mutual funds for maintaining millions of dollars of the funds’ cash collateral at broker-dealer counterparties instead of the funds’ custodial bank.  The violations were uncovered during an SEC examination of the firm and the funds it manages.

Water Island Capital LLC agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty to settle the SEC’s charges.

According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, an investment company that maintains its securities and similar investments in the custody of a qualified bank must likewise keep in the bank’s custody other cash assets of the investment company.  The SEC’s order finds that Water Island Capital did not ensure that roughly $247 million in cash collateral held by broker-dealer counterparties was maintained with the funds’ custodial bank.  The cash collateral related to the funds’ investments in certain total return and portfolio return swaps.  

“Mutual funds must ensure that all fund assets are properly protected,” said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.  “Water Island Capital failed to implement the required policies and procedures to ensure all cash collateral was held in the custody of the funds’ bank.”

The SEC’s order finds that in addition to causing violations of the custody requirements of Section 17(f)(5) of the Investment Company Act, Water Island Capital caused violations of Section 12 and Rule 12b-1(h) due to its failure to implement the funds’ directed brokerage policies and procedures, which required the firm to create and maintain an approved list of executing brokers for the funds as well as to monitor with documentation the funds’ compliance with the directed brokerage requirements.  Water Island Capital failed to create the list and failed to maintain documentation reflecting monitoring of the funds’ compliance pursuant to the funds’ policies and procedures.  The SEC’s order further finds that Water Island Capital caused the funds’ violations of Rule 38a-1 under the Investment Company Act.        

Water Island Capital consented to the SEC’s cease-and-desist order without admitting or denying the findings.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Celeste Chase and Osman Nawaz of the New York office, and the case was supervised by Amelia A. Cottrell.  The examination that led to the investigation was conducted by Joy Best, Melissa Dahle, William Maldonado, Edward Moy, and Dawn Blankenship of the New York office’s investment adviser/investment company examination program.

HEDGE FUND MANAGER RECEIVES 13 YEAR PRISON TERM FOR FRAUD

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 23185 / January 30, 2015

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Francisco Illarramendi, et al., Civil Action No. 3:11cv-78

United States v. Illarramendi, 3:11-cr-0041-SRU

Court Sentences Connecticut-Based Hedge Fund Manager to Thirteen Years in Prison

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on January 29, 2015, a federal court in Connecticut sentenced former Connecticut-based hedge fund manager Francisco Illarramendi to thirteen years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. Illarramendi was also ordered to pay restitution to the victims of his fraud, in an amount to be determined at a future restitution hearing. This sentence was imposed on Illarramendi's guilty plea to two counts of wire fraud, one count of securities fraud, one count of investment advisor fraud, and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice, to obstruct an official proceeding and to defraud the SEC.

The SEC's action against Illarramendi and others remains pending. In January 2011, the SEC charged Illarramendi and various entities owned or controlled by him, including investment advisers Highview Point Partners, LLC, and Michael Kenwood Capital Management, LLC, with engaging in a multi-year Ponzi scheme involving hundreds of millions of dollars. On February 3, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut appointed a receiver in the case to marshal the assets of a number of entities formerly owned or controlled by defendants Illarramendi, Highview Point Partners, and Michael Kenwood Capital Management. The receiver has collected and distributed over $264 million to parties harmed by the defendants' alleged wrongdoing. The receiver plans to make additional distributions to harmed parties at a later time as additional funds become available.

Also, on August 3, 2011, the Commission issued an Order by consent barring Illarramendi from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization.

The SEC acknowledges and appreciates the work of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Connecticut and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

SEC FILES FRAUD CHARGES AGAINST INVESTMENT ADVISER TO PRO ATHLETES

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 23155 / December 11, 2014

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bill C. (Billy) Crafton, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-02916-DMS-JLB

Yesterday the Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges against a former investment advisor who provided services primarily to professional athletes, alleging that he failed to disclose compensation and kickbacks he received for steering clients to certain investments and financial products. The SEC further alleges that he misappropriated substantial sums from two clients for the benefit of a third.

According to the SEC's complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego resident Bill C. (Billy) Crafton was the sole owner of Martin Kelly Capital Management, through which he provided investment advice and wealth administration services to current and former professional athletes in Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Hockey League, and the National Basketball Association. From at least 2006 to 2010, Crafton received more than $1.5 million in undisclosed compensation and brokerage commissions from the principals of certain funds and businesses in exchange for recommending that his clients invest in those enterprises or do business with them. In some instances, Crafton falsely disavowed to his clients that he was receiving such compensation in connection with client transactions.

The SEC further alleges that Crafton knowingly orchestrated a fraudulent scheme in June 2010 when he arranged through forged wire transfer authorizations and other means for two of his clients to purchase a third client's $700,000 position in a fund. Crafton was well aware that the fund had been the subject of an asset freeze obtained by the SEC four days earlier for allegedly operating as a Ponzi-like scheme.

The SEC's complaint alleges that Crafton violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5; and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

Crafton has agreed to a settlement that is subject to court approval. In settlement papers that Crafton signed in April 2014 which were filed with the court simultaneously with the complaint, Crafton consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him against future violations of the Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5; and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The final judgment to which Crafton consented would order that he is liable for $1,505,952 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest of $192,959, for a total of $1,698,911 that he is anticipated to pay as part of his obligations in a parallel criminal case by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California in which he pled guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud on October 17, 2014.

Additionally, Crafton consented to the future entry of a Commission order that would bar him from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, and also bar him from participating in any penny stock offering.

The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, is being led by Alfred C. Tierney and John P. Lucas and supervised by J. Lee Buck, II. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

VERDICT RETURNED AGAINST INVESTMENT ADVISER IN FRAUD CASE

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

Jury Returns Verdict Against Massachusetts Investment Adviser in SEC Fraud Case

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that, on August 13, 2014, a federal court jury in Boston, Massachusetts, returned a verdict against registered investment adviser Sage Advisory Group, LLC, and its principal, Benjamin Lee Grant, both of Boston, MA, in a fraud case filed by the SEC.

In its complaint, filed on September 29, 2010, the Commission alleged that starting on or about October 4, 2005, Grant engaged in a scheme to induce his former brokerage customers to transfer their assets to Sage, his new advisory firm.

The Commission's complaint further alleged that prior to October 2005, Grant was a registered representative of broker-dealer Wedbush Morgan Securities and had customer accounts representing approximately $100 million in assets, virtually all of which were managed by California-based investment adviser First Wilshire Securities Management. According to the complaint, Grant resigned from Wedbush on September 30, 2005 so that he could operate Sage, his own investment advisory firm. In a letter dated October 4, 2005, Grant told his former Wedbush customers that, at the suggestion of First Wilshire, their accounts were being moved from Wedbush to a discount broker and that Sage had been formed to handle their investments. The complaint alleged that the letter told Grant's customers that the charge for their accounts was changing from a 1% management fee paid to First Wilshire plus Wedbush's brokerage commissions to a 2% "wrap fee" paid to Sage, and that First Wilshire had indicated that the wrap fee had been historically less expensive than the previous arrangement. According to the complaint, the letter also told Grant's customers that if they wanted to avoid any disruption in First Wilshire's management of their assets, they had to sign and return the new advisory and custodial account documents as soon as possible. According to the complaint, in subsequent communication with customers, Grant told them that First Wilshire was no longer willing to manage their assets at Wedbush and that they had to transfer to the discount broker and sign up with Sage.

The Commission contended that these statements were materially false and misleading because First Wilshire had not required a transfer from Wedbush, had not refused to continue managing the customers' assets at Wedbush, and had not authorized Grant's statements. Moreover, Grant's wrap fee statements were without factual basis. The complaint further alleged that Grant failed to disclose that the switch from Wedbush to the discount broker would result in significant savings that would flow to Grant and Sage rather than to the advisory clients and that, as a result, Grant and Sage's compensation would be substantially increased. Indeed, once Grant's customers transferred their accounts from Wedbush to Sage, Grant more than doubled his own compensation.

After a trial that began on August 4, 2014, the jury deliberated for approximately two hours before rendering its verdict of liability against both defendants under Sections 204A and 206(1), (2), and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rules 204A-1 and 206(4)-7 thereunder. The Court will later determine whether and what relief to impose against the defendants. The case was tried by Marc Jones and J.R. Drabick, with assistance from Stephanie DeSisto and Frank Huntington, of the Commission's Boston Regional Office.

For further information, see Litigation Release No. 21672 (September 29, 2010).

On September 1, 2011, the Commission filed a separate civil injunctive action against Sage, Benjamin Lee Grant, and his father Jack Grant alleging that Jack Grant, a lawyer and former stockbroker, had violated a Commission bar from association with investment advisers by associating with his son Benjamin Lee Grant's investment advisory firm, Sage, and by acting as an investment adviser himself. The Complaint further alleged that Jack Grant, Benjamin Lee Grant and Sage fraudulently failed to disclose Jack Grant's barred status and disciplinary history to Sage's advisory clients. On May 30, 2013, Jack Grant consented to settle the charges, but the action against Sage and Lee Grant is still pending and a trial date is to be determined. For further information, see Litigation Release No. 22081 (September 1, 2011) (SEC Charges Massachusetts-Based Attorney for Violating an Investment Adviser Bar and his Son for Failing to Disclose his Father's Bar to Advisory Clients); and Litigation Release No. 22708 (May 30, 2013) (SEC Obtains Final Judgment and Issues Administrative Orders against John A. ("Jack") Grant).

INVESTMENT ADVISOR CONCEALS LOSSES AND GETS SANCTIONED

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced sanctions against a California-based investment adviser for concealing investor losses that resulted from a coding error and engaging in cross trading that favored some clients over others.

Western Asset Management Company, which is a subsidiary of Legg Mason, agreed to pay more than $21 million to settle the SEC’s charges as well as a related matter announced today by the U.S. Department of Labor.

According to an SEC order instituting settled administrative proceedings, Western Asset serves as an investment manager primarily to institutional clients, many of which are ERISA plans.  Western Asset breached its fiduciary duty by failing to disclose and promptly correct a coding error that caused the improper allocation of a restricted private investment to the accounts of nearly 100 ERISA clients.  The private investment that was off-limits to ERISA plans had plummeted in value by the time the coding error was discovered, and Western Asset had an obligation to reimburse clients for such losses under the terms of its error correction policy.  Instead, Western Asset failed to notify its ERISA clients until nearly two years later, long after the firm had liquidated the prohibited securities out of those client accounts.  

“When the coding error was discovered, Western Asset put its own interests above its clients and avoided telling investors what had caused losses in their accounts,” said Michele W. Layne, director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office.  “By concealing the error, Western Asset avoided reimbursing clients for their losses.”

In a separate order involving a different set of client accounts, the SEC finds that Western Asset engaged in a type of cross trading that was illegal.  Cross trading is the practice of moving a security from one client account to another without exposing the transaction to the market, and when done appropriately it can benefit both clients by avoiding market and execution costs.  However, cross trading also can pose substantial risks to clients due to the adviser’s inherent conflict of interest in obtaining best execution for both the buying and the selling client.

The SEC’s order finds that during the financial crisis, Western Asset was required to sell mortgage-backed securities and similar assets into a sharply declining market as registered investment companies and other clients sought account liquidations or were no longer eligible to hold these securities after rating agency downgrades.  Instead of selling the securities at prices that Western Asset believed did not represent their long-term value, it arranged for certain broker-dealers to purchase the securities from the Western Asset selling clients and sell the same security back to different Western Asset clients with greater risk tolerance in prearranged sale-and-repurchase cross trades.  Because Western Asset arranged to cross these securities at the bid price rather than a price representing an average between the bid and the ask price, the firm improperly allocated the full benefit of the market savings on the trades to buying clients and denied the selling clients approximately $6.2 million in savings.

“Cross trades serve a legitimate purpose and benefit both parties when done appropriately,” said Julie M. Riewe, co-chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit.  “But by moving securities across client accounts in prearranged, dealer-interposed transactions, Western Asset unlawfully deprived its selling clients of their share of the savings.”

The SEC’s orders find that Western Asset violated Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7, and aided and abetted and caused violations of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.  Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm agreed to be censured and must cease and desist from committing or causing any further such violations.  For the disclosure violations related to the coding error, Western Asset must distribute more than $10 million to harmed clients and pay a $1 million penalty in the SEC settlement and a $1 million penalty in the Labor Department settlement.  For the cross trading violations, Western Asset must distribute more than $7.4 million to harmed clients and pay a $1 million penalty in the SEC settlement and a $607,717 penalty in the Labor Department settlement.  An independent compliance consultant must be retained to internally address both sets of violations.

The SEC’s investigation of the disclosure violations was conducted by Diana K. Tani and DoHoang T. Duong of the Los Angeles office.  An examination that led to the investigation was conducted by Charles Liao, Yanna Stoyanoff, and John Lamonica.  The SEC’s investigation of the cross trading violations was conducted by Asset Management Unit staff Valerie A. Szczepanik and Luke Fitzgerald of the New York office.  An examination identifying the cross trading issues was conducted by Margaret Jackson and Eric A. Whitman.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Labor Department and the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), which assisted with the SEC and Labor Department investigations.

INVESTMENT ADVISER AND OWNER RECEIVE PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS FOR ROLES IN ALLEGED FRAUD

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SEC Obtains Order of Permanent Injunctions Against Chicago-Area Investment Adviser and Its Owners for Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) announced that on December 19, 2013, Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered an order of permanent injunctions against Oakbrook, Illinois resident Patrick G. Rooney (Rooney) and his company Solaris Management, LLC (Solaris).

According to the SEC's complaint filed on November 16, 2011, Rooney and Solaris radically changed the investment strategy of the Solaris Opportunity Fund LP (the Fund), contrary to the Fund's offering documents and marketing materials, by becoming wholly invested in Positron Corp. (Positron), a financially troubled microcap company. The SEC alleges that Rooney, who has been Chairman of Positron since 2004 and received salary and stock options from Positron since September 2005, misused the Fund's money by investing more than $3.6 million in Positron through both private transactions and market purchases. Many of the private transactions were undocumented while other investments were interest-free loans to Positron. Rooney and Solaris hid the Positron investments and Rooney's relationship with the company from the Fund's investors for over four years. Although Rooney finally told investors about the Positron investments in a March 2009 newsletter, the SEC's complaint alleges he falsely told them he became Chairman to safeguard the Fund's investments. These investments benefited Positron and Rooney while providing the Fund with a concentrated, undiversified, and illiquid position in a cash-poor company with a lengthy track record of losses.

Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, Rooney and Solaris consented to the entry of permanent injunctions which enjoin them from violating Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rules 206(4)-8(a)(1) and (a)(2) thereunder; Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933; and Sections 10(b) and 13(d)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 13d-1 thereunder. Rooney and Solaris Management further agreed that the court would determine whether to impose penalties and disgorgement against them and whether Rooney should be prohibited from acting as an officer or director of a public company.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT ISSUES FINAL JUDGEMENT AGAINST INVESTMENT ADVISER

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SEC Obtains Final Judgment Against Massachusetts-Based Broker and Investment Adviser

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on December 4, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered final judgments against Arnett L. Waters of Milton, Massachusetts, and two entities that he controlled, broker-dealer A.L. Waters Capital, LLC and investment adviser Moneta Management, LLC, who are defendants in an enforcement action filed by the Commission in May 2012. The Commission filed its action on an emergency basis in order to halt the defendants' fraudulent sales of fictitious investment-related partnerships. The final judgment, to which the defendants consented, enjoins them from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The Court also found the defendants jointly and severally liable for $839,000 in disgorgement, which has been deemed satisfied by a restitution order of over $9 million in a parallel criminal proceeding.

The Commission's enforcement action filed May 1, 2012 alleged that from at least 2009-2012, Waters, A.L. Waters Capital and Moneta Management engaged in a fraudulent scheme through which they raised at least $780,000 from at least 8 investors, including $500,000 from Waters' church, by promising to use investor funds to purchase a portfolio of securities, when they instead misappropriated the money and spent it on personal and business expenses. On May 3, 2012, the Court entered a preliminary injunction order that, among other things, froze the defendants' assets, as well as those of two relief defendants, one of whom was Waters' wife, and required them to provide an accounting of all their assets to the Commission.

On August 7, 2012, the Commission filed a civil contempt motion against Waters, alleging that he had violated the court's preliminary injunction and asset freeze order by establishing an undisclosed bank account, transferring funds to that account, dissipating assets, and failing to disclose the bank account to the Commission, as required by the Court's order. On August 9, 2012, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts filed a separate criminal contempt action against Waters based on the same allegations. On October 2, 2012, Waters pleaded guilty to the criminal contempt charges, and the Commission on December 3, 2012 barred Waters from the securities industry based on his guilty plea in the criminal contempt action.

The U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts charged Waters with an array of securities fraud and other violations on October 17, 2012. On November 29, 2012, Waters pleaded guilty to sixteen counts of securities fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice arising out of both the conduct that is the subject of the Commission's civil action and a criminal scheme through which Waters defrauded clients of his rare coin business out of as much as $7.8 million. The criminal information to which Waters pleaded guilty further alleged that he engaged in money laundering through two transactions totaling $77,000. Finally, Waters pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in connection with multiple misrepresentations to Commission staff, including that there were no investors in his investment-related partnerships, in order to conceal the fact that investor money was misappropriated in a fraudulent scheme. As a result of his guilty plea to this criminal conduct, Waters was sentenced on April 26, 2013 to 17 years in federal prison and three years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $9,025,691 in restitution and forfeiture.

The final judgment in the Commission's enforcement action enjoins the defendants from violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and also enjoins Waters and Moneta Management from violations of Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. On November 18, 2013, the Court entered the parties' stipulation of dismissal against relief defendant Port Huron Partners, LLP, an unregistered entity owned by Waters. The Commission's case remains pending against relief defendant Janet Waters, Arnett Waters' wife.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and FINRA in this matter.

CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED AGAINST MASSACHUSETTS INVESTMENT ADVISER

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Criminal Charges Filed Against Massachusetts Investment Adviser For Defrauding Investors


The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that, on July 1, 2013, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts filed a criminal Information against Jeffrey A. Liskov (Liskov) of Plymouth, Massachusetts. The one-count criminal Information charged Liskov with willfully violating Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act). The Commission previously filed a civil action against Liskov and his advisory firm, EagleEye Asset Management, LLC (EagleEye), for defrauding advisory clients in connection with foreign currency exchange (forex) investments. The factual allegations in the criminal Information are substantially similar to those in the Commission’s complaint in the civil case.


The Commission’s complaint in the civil case, filed on September 8, 2011, alleged that, between at least November 2008 and August 2010, Liskov made material misrepresentations to several advisory clients to induce them to liquidate investments in securities and instead invest in forex. The forex investments resulted in client losses totaling nearly $4 million, while EagleEye and Liskov came away with over $300,000 in performance fees, in addition to other management fees they collected from clients. The Commission alleged that Liskov’s strategy was to generate temporary profits on client forex investments to enable him to collect performance fees, after which client forex investments invariably quickly declined in value.

According to the Commission’s complaint, Liskov made material misrepresentations or failed to disclose material information to clients concerning the nature of forex investments, the risks involved in forex, and Liskov’s poor track record in forex trading for himself and other clients. The Commission’s complaint further alleged that, as to two clients, without their knowledge or consent, Liskov liquidated securities in their brokerage accounts and transferred the proceeds to their forex trading accounts where he lost nearly all their funds, but not before first collecting performance fees on temporary profits in these clients’ forex accounts. The complaint alleged that Liskov accomplished the unauthorized transfers by using "white out" correction fluid to change dates, amounts, and other data on asset transfer documentation. Liskov also opened multiple forex trading accounts in the name of one client, without obtaining the client’s consent, thereby maximizing his ability to earn performance fees on the client’s forex investments.

As result of the foregoing conduct, the Commission alleged that EagleEye and Liskov violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act. The Commission also alleged that EagleEye failed to maintain certain books and records required of investment advisers in violation of Section 204 of the Advisers Act and Rule 204-2 thereunder, and that Liskov aided and abetted EagleEye’s violations of these recordkeeping provisions.

On November 26, 2012, after an eight-day trial in the Commission’s civil action, a jury found that EagleEye and Liskov violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 206(1) of the Advisers Act. After a further hearing, U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young found violations by EagleEye and Liskov of Section 204 of the Advisers Act and Rule 204-2 thereunder, concerning their recordkeeping obligations relating to EagleEye’s advisory business. On December 12, 2012, the court entered a final judgment against EagleEye and Liskov in the Commission’s civil action, ordering that they be permanently enjoined from future violations of the foregoing provisions of the securities laws. The court further ordered EagleEye and Liskov, jointly and severally, to pay disgorgement of their ill-gotten gains in the amount of $301,502.26, plus pre-judgment interest on that amount of $29,603.59, and the court also ordered EagleEye and Liskov each to pay a civil penalty of $725,000.

On December 27, 2012, the Commission instituted public administrative proceedings against each of EagleEye and Liskov to determine what sanctions against them, if any, may be appropriate and in the public interest.







 

INVESTMENT ADVISER CHARGED BY SEC WITH MISAPPROPRIATING INVESTOR FUNDS

FROM: U.S. SECURITY AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Charges Atlanta-Area Registered Representative and Registered Investment Adviser Representative with Securities Fraud

On May 23, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed an emergency action seeking a temporary restraining order and other emergency relief in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia, charging Blake Richards (Richards), a Buford, Georgia resident with violations of the federal securities laws for misappropriating investor funds.

The Honorable Julie E. Carnes, the Chief Judge of the Northern District of Georgia, granted the Commission’s request for emergency relief, issuing an order that temporarily restrained Richards from further securities laws violations, froze Richards’s assets, prevented the destruction of documents and expedited discovery. The Court also set a hearing date of June 6 for the Commission’s request for a preliminary injunction. The Commission’s complaint also seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. Those claims will be adjudicated at a later date.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that, since at least 2008, Richards, a registered representative of a broker dealer, misappropriated at least $2 million from at least seven investors. The majority of the misappropriated funds constituted retirement savings and/or life insurance proceeds from deceased spouses.

In its complaint, the Commission alleges that Richards instructed investors to write out checks to entities under his control with the understanding that Richards would invest their funds in fixed income assets, variable annuities and/or common stock. The complaint alleges that none of these investments were ever made. None of the investments appeared on the client’s brokerage account statements, and Richards received no commission income from these investments. The complaint further alleges that Richards siphoned off the funds entrusted to him for personal use.

SEC CHARGES INVESTMENT ADVISER OF RUNNING $37 MILLION PONZI SCHEME

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed fraud charges against a Portland, Oregon-based investment adviser who perpetrated a long-running Ponzi scheme that raised over $37 million from more than 100 investors in the Pacific Northwest and across the country.

The SEC alleges that Yusaf Jawed used false marketing materials that boasted double-digit returns to lure people to invest their money into several hedge funds he managed. He then improperly redirected their money into accounts he personally controlled. As part of the scheme, Jawed created phony assets, sent bogus account statements to investors, and manufactured a sham buyout of the funds to make investors think their hedge fund interests would soon be redeemed. Jawed misused investor money to pay off earlier investors, pay his own expenses and travel, and create the overall illusion of success and achievement to impress investors.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Portland, Jawed managed a number of hedge funds through at least two companies he controlled: Grifphon Asset Management LLC and Grifphon Holdings LLC. Jawed’s marketing materials claimed that the Grifphon funds earned double-digit returns year after year even as the S&P 500 Index declined. For certain funds, Jawed also falsely claimed they would invest in publicly-traded securities and that their assets were maintained at reputable financial institutions.

The SEC alleges that Jawed instead invested very little of the more than $37 million that he raised from investors. For one fund, 70 percent of the money raised was either paid in redemptions to investors in other funds, paid to finders, or merely transferred to accounts belonging to Grifphon Asset Management or other entities that Jawed controlled. Jawed concealed the fraud by telling Grifphon’s bookkeepers that the money transfers represented purchases of offshore bonds – though in reality the purported investment was a sham entity supposedly managed by Jawed’s unemployed aunt who lives in Bangladesh.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Jawed further deceived investors as the funds were collapsing by telling them that independent third parties were buying the Grifphon funds’ alleged assets at a premium. In truth, the so-called third-parties were sham entities originally formed by Grifphon and Jawed containing no assets, no income, and no ability to pay for the funds’ alleged assets.

The SEC’s complaint against Jawed additionally charges Robert P. Custis, an attorney who Jawed hired to assist him in the fraud. Custis sent false and misleading statements to investors about the status of the purported purchase of the Grifphon funds’ assets. Custis consistently misrepresented that this purchase was imminent and would result in investors’ investments being repaid at a profit.

By engaging in the above conduct, Jawed, GAM, and Grifphon Holdings violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. By engaging in the above conduct, Custis violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and aided and abetted violations of Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The Commission seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement and prejudgment interest, civil penalty, and other relief as appropriate against them.

The SEC filed separate complaints against two others connected to Jawed’s scheme. Those complaints allege that Jacques Nichols – a Portland-based attorney – falsely claimed to investors that an independent third party would pay tens of millions of dollars to buy the hedge funds’ alleged assets at a premium, and that Jawed’s associate, Lyman Bruhn, of Vancouver, Wash., ran a separate Ponzi scheme and induced investments through false claims he was investing in "blue chip" stocks.

Without admitting or denying the allegations, Nichols, Bruhn, and two entities Bruhn controlled (Pearl Asset Management, LLC and Sasquatch Capital Management, LLC) agreed to settle the SEC’s charges. Along with other relief, Bruhn consented to the entry of permanent injunctions against violations of the Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. Along with other relief, Nichols consented to the entry of a permanent injunction against violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and aiding and abetting violations of Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The SEC’s litigation continues against Jawed, the two Grifphon entities, and Custis.

INVESTMENT ADVISER BUSINESS AND OWNER ACCUSED OF TAKING CLIENTS FUNDS

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
June 11, 2012
SEC Charges Atlanta Investment Advisor and its Owner for Misappropriating Client Funds
On Saturday, June 9, 2012, The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Benjamin Daniel DeHaan and Lighthouse Financial Partners, LLC. Lighthouse, an investment advisor located in Atlanta and registered with the State of Georgia, has been owned and operated by DeHaan since 2007.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that from approximately January 2011 through early May 2012, DeHaan moved approximately $1.2 million in funds belonging to his clients from their accounts at a custodial broker-dealer into a bank account in Lighthouse’s name that he controlled, thus gaining custody and control of these client assets. DeHaan and Lighthouse told the clients that these funds would be used to open new accounts at another broker-dealer. Once in this account, at least some of these funds were moved to a personal account belong to DeHaan and to accounts used by Lighthouse for business expenses. At least $600,000 in client funds remains unaccounted for. DeHaan is also alleged to have provided false documents to the Commission’s staff and to an examiner for the State of Georgia.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, DeHaan and Lighthouse have offered to consent to interim relief in the form of an order providing for a preliminary injunction against violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, allowing for expedited discovery, freezing their assets, preventing the destruction or concealment of documents and requiring an accounting. The Commission may seek additional relief, such as a permanent injunction, disgorgement of any ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest and civil penalties, at a later time.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the Securities Division of the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office in investigating this matter.

ALLEGED INVESTMENT ADVISER CONFLICT OF INTEREST

FROM: U.S.  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., May 30, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Phoenix-based investment adviser and his firm for recommending investments without telling clients about his personal stake and exploiting a client who was buying an ownership share in the firm.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Walter J. Clarke advised clients at Oxford Investment Partners LLC to invest in two businesses without disclosing the conflicts of interest that he co-owned one of them and had financial ties to the owners of the other. Both investments later failed. And when Clarke’s own financial problems prompted him to sell a stake in Oxford to a client, he fraudulently inflated the value of his firm by at least $1.5 million to make the client overpay by at least $112,000.

“Investment advisers have a fiduciary duty to be forthcoming with their clients and act in their best interests,” said Marshall S. Sprung, Deputy Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. “Clarke breached that duty by deliberately overvaluing the firm and staying mum on his personal ties to the recommended investments.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings against Clarke and Oxford, Clarke convinced three clients in late 2007 and early 2008 to fund more than $300,000 in loans originated by Cornerstone Funding Group, a company co-owned by Clarke. However, the clients were never told that Clarke was a co-owner and would personally profit from successfully originated loans. Within months of the loans being funded, the underlying borrowers defaulted, causing the clients to lose their investments. In November 2008, Clarke convinced four clients to invest approximately $40,000 in HotStix, a privately-held company. The clients were not informed that the owners of HotStix were also co-owners and paid consultants of Oxford. Shortly after the clients made these investments, HotStix sought bankruptcy protection and the clients lost their money.

The SEC’s investigation further found that amid financial woes, Clarke sold a client 7.5 percent of his ownership interest in Oxford in March 2008. The client paid $750,000 based on Clarke’s valuation of Oxford at $10 million. However, Clarke used several ploys to fraudulently inflate Oxford’s value. First, Clarke applied an excessive and baseless multiple to Oxford’s 2007 annual revenue. Second, Clarke calculated Oxford’s 2007 revenue by quadrupling Oxford’s revenue in the fourth quarter of 2007 – its most profitable quarter that year – and ignoring Oxford’s lower revenue in the previous three quarters. Third, Clarke added a baseless $1 million “premium” to Oxford’s valuation.

According to the SEC’s order, Oxford and Clarke willfully violated Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Paris A. Wynn and Mr. Sprung, who work in the Los Angeles Regional Office and are members of the Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. Securities compliance examiner Ryan Hinson conducted the related examination under the supervision of Daniel C. Jung. The SEC’s litigation will be led by Mr. Wynn and David Van Havermaat.

COURT FINES INVESTMENT ADVISER $2.5 MILLION FOR MISREPRESENTATIONS

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

February 23, 2012

FEDERAL COURT ENTERS ORDER IMPOSING $2.5 MILLION CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST INVESTMENT ADVISER ROBERT GLENN BARD AND VISION SPECIALIST GROUP, LLC

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on February 2, 2012, United States District Judge William C. Caldwell of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered an order imposing a $2,500,000 civil penalty jointly and severally against defendants Robert Glenn Bard and Vision Specialist Group, LLC. In an earlier order on November 10, 2011, the Court found that defendants made false statements to thirty-three of their investment advisory clients on 146 separate occasions about what type of securities and holdings they had, where the assets were, and the value of the assets, and that they charged at least one client excessive fees. In assessing the penalty, the Court found that the egregiousness of defendants’ behavior, the recurrent nature of the conduct, the lack of cooperation with authorities, defendants’ degree of scienter, and the risk of loss created by defendants’ actions all weighed in favor of imposing a substantial penalty.

This case arises out of allegations by the Commission in a complaint filed on July 30, 2009, 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, the creation of false client account statements, and forgery of client documents. On November 10, 2011, the Court granted the Commission’s motion for summary judgment. The Court found Bard and Vision Specialist liable for violations of § 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 order, the Court also entered permanent injunctions against the defendants for violations of those provisions, and held the defendants jointly and severally liable for disgorgement of $450,000, plus prejudgment interest in an amount to be determined."

SEC ALLEGES INVESTMENT ADVISER AND OTHERS WITH FRAUD

The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: August 2, 2011 “The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that on August 1, 2011, it obtained a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, appointment of a receiver and other emergency relief against Houston investment adviser Select Asset Management LLC (“Select Asset”), its principal Brian A. Bjork, Select Asset Fund I, LLC, Select Asset Prime Index Fund, LLC, the estate of recently deceased J. David Salinas, and two Salinas business firms, with two frauds. The complaint alleges that from 2004 through the present, Bjork offered securities in two fraudulent securities schemes, raising a total of $52 million. The complaint alleges that in the first scheme, Bjork, alongside business associate Salinas, offered investors corporate and other bonds through J. David Group of Companies, Inc., and J. David Financial Group, and raised approximately $39 million from more than 100 investors. According to the complaint, Bjork and Salinas promised investors safe, fixed income from highly-rated corporate and other bonds, but in reality they never acquired the bonds as promised. The complaint alleges that in the second scheme, Bjork—through Select Asset and its subsidiary defendant Select Capital Management LLC (“Select Capital”)—offered securities issued by two private funds and raised approximately $13 million from at least 52 investors since August 2007. According to the complaint, the two funds, which were controlled by Bjork, Select Asset and Select Capital, commingled investor money, failed to provide promised financial statements, and transferred money to fund-affiliated entities in related-party transactions undisclosed to investors. The complaint further alleges that in making the affiliated loans, the defendants failed to conduct required due diligence and loan-approval procedures that had been promised to investors in the private placement offering memoranda. The Commission’s complaint alleges all of the defendants violated and/or aided and abetted violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. The Complaint also alleges that Bjork, Select Asset and Select Capital violated Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. In addition to emergency relief, the Complaint seeks disgorgement with prejudgment interest, penalties and imposition of permanent injunctions. The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Secret Service, Galveston County District Attorney Jack Roady, and the Texas State Securities Board in this matter."