SEC ACCUSES FORMER PRESIDENT INVESTMENT ADVISORY FIRM WITH STEALING CLIENT FUNDS

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

06/15/2015 02:20 PM EDT

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced fraud charges against a Washington D.C.-based investment advisory firm’s former president accused of stealing client funds.  The firm and its chief compliance officer separately agreed to settle charges that they were responsible for compliance failures and other violations.

SFX Financial Advisory Management Enterprises is wholly-owned by Live Nation Entertainment and specializes in providing advisory and financial management services to current and former professional athletes.  The SEC Enforcement Division alleges that SFX’s former president Brian J. Ourand misused his discretionary authority and control over the accounts of several clients to steal approximately $670,000 over a five-year period by writing checks to himself and initiating wires from client accounts for his own benefit.

The matter will be scheduled for a public hearing before an administrative law judge for proceedings to adjudicate the Enforcement Division’s allegations and determine what, if any, remedial actions are appropriate.

The SEC separately charged SFX and its CCO Eugene S. Mason, finding that the firm failed to supervise Ourand, violated the custody rule, and made a false statement in a Form ADV filing.  The SEC finds that Mason caused some of SFX’s compliance failures by negligently failing to conduct reviews of cash flows in client accounts, which was required by the firm’s compliance policies, and not performing an annual compliance review.  Mason also was responsible for a misstatement in SFX’s Form ADV that client accounts were reviewed several times each week.  SFX and Mason agreed to pay penalties of $150,000 and $25,000 respectively.

“Investment advisers have a fiduciary obligation to safeguard client assets,” said Marshall S. Sprung, Co-Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit.  “SFX failed to detect an alleged misappropriation for years because it had insufficient internal controls to limit Ourand’s ability to withdraw client funds for personal use.”

The SEC’s continuing investigation is being conducted by Payam Danialypour and C. Dabney O’Riordan, members of the Asset Management Unit in the Los Angeles Regional Office. The Enforcement Division’s litigation against Ourand will be conducted by Mr. Danialypour, Donald Searles, and Lynn Dean.

SEC ANNOUNCES CHARGES, ASSET FREEZE AGAINST UTAH RESIDENT AND INVESTMENT ADVISORY FIRM

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 23188 / February 5, 2015

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Total Wealth Management, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 15-CV-0226-BAS-DHB

SEC Obtains Emergency Relief Against San Diego Investement Advisor Charged with Wrongfully Taking Client Funds

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges and an emergency temporary restraining order and asset freeze against a Utah resident and his San Diego, Calif. investment advisory firm.

The SEC alleges that Jacob Keith Cooper and Total Wealth Management Inc. wrongfully took at least $150,000 from clients in order to partially fund the potential settlement of an administrative proceeding previously instituted against them in 2014 by the SEC's Division of According to the SEC's complaint, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the Division of Enforcement had reached a tentative settlement with Cooper and Total Wealth in the previously-instituted administrative proceeding that required Cooper to escrow $150,000. However, after learning that Cooper intended to pay this amount using funds misappropriated from clients, the Division terminated this settlement and the agency brought this emergency action in federal district court. Cooper's use of investor funds for his settlement with the SEC was never disclosed to or authorized by clients, and was a breach of Total Wealth's and Cooper's fiduciary duty to their clients. According to the complaint, Cooper admitted to taking $150,000 in investor monies to fund his escrow settlement, although he claims that it was a "loan."

According to the complaint, Cooper has also admitted that he and Total Wealth have used investor monies to pay unspecified legal expenses related to the Division of Enforcement's previously-instituted administrative proceeding as well as a private class action lawsuit filed in California state court. The complaint alleges that Total Wealth has been charging investors unexplained, inflated "administrative fees" to pay those expenses and that Total Wealth and Cooper have failed to provide any accounting or meaningful explanation for the fees to investors, despite investors' repeated requests.

The Honorable Cynthia Bashant for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order temporarily enjoining Cooper and Total Wealth from future violations of Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, as well as orders (1) freezing Cooper's and Total Wealth's assets; (2) appointing a temporary receiver; (3) prohibiting the destruction of documents, (4) expediting discovery; and (5) requiring accountings. Cooper and Total Wealth stipulated to the entry of the court orders without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations. The SEC also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions, return of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties against Cooper and Total Wealth.

A hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued against the defendants and whether a permanent receiver should be appointed is scheduled for February 13, 2015.

SEC ANNOUNCES FRAUD CHARGES AGAINST INVESTMENT ADVISORY FIRM AND CO-OWNERS

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

12/10/2014 01:30 PM EST

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced fraud charges against a Buffalo, N.Y.-based investment advisory firm and two co-owners accused of making false and misleading statements to clients when recommending investments in a risky hedge fund.  The hedge fund’s portfolio manager agreed to settle similar charges.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Timothy S. Dembski and Walter F. Grenda Jr. steered their clients at Reliance Financial Advisors to invest in a hedge fund managed by Scott M. Stephan, whose experience in the securities industry was greatly exaggerated in offering materials they disseminated.  Dembski and Grenda allegedly knew that Stephan had virtually no hedge fund investing experience at all, and spent the majority of his career collecting on past-due car loans.  Nevertheless, highly speculative investments in the Prestige Wealth Management Fund were recommended to clients who were retired or nearing retirement and living on fixed incomes.  The trading strategy that was allegedly described to investors was fully automated by an algorithm purportedly sought by big banks.  The trading algorithm, however, did not work as intended and Stephan began placing trades manually, which led to the hedge fund’s eventual collapse.

“Investment advisers owe their clients a duty of complete candor when it comes to discussing investment options,” said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.  “In this case, Dembski and Grenda allegedly violated this fundamental duty by peddling a hedge fund investment that was more risky than depicted and misleading their clients about the portfolio manager’s experience.”

According to the order instituting a proceeding before an administrative law judge, Dembski’s clients invested approximately $4 million in Prestige Wealth Management Fund and Grenda’s clients invested approximately $8 million.  The hedge fund, which began trading in April 2011, did not generate the positive returns advertised, so Grenda withdrew his clients in October 2012.  The fund lost about 80 percent of its value when it collapsed a couple months later, leaving Dembski’s clients to lose the vast majority of their investments.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division further alleges that Grenda borrowed $175,000 from two clients in late 2009 and falsely told them that he would use it as a loan to grow his investment advisory business.  Grenda instead spent the money on personal expenses and debts.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Dembski, Grenda, and Reliance Financial Advisors violated the antifraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Securities Act of 1933, and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that Dembski and Grenda aided and abetted and caused violations of those same provisions by Reliance Financial and the general partner to the Prestige Wealth Management Fund.

In a separate order, Stephan agreed to settle findings that he violated the antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act, Securities Act, and Exchange Act, and aided and abetted and caused violations of those same provisions by the general partner to the Prestige Wealth Management Fund.  Without admitting or denying the allegations, Stephan agreed to be permanently barred from the securities industry.  Disgorgement and penalties will be determined at a later date.

The investigation by the SEC’s Enforcement Division was conducted by Tony Frouge, Alexander Janghorbani, Douglas Smith, and Steven G. Rawlings in the New York Regional Office, and the case was supervised by Sanjay Wadhwa.  The litigation will be led by Michael Birnbaum and Mr. Frouge.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

SEC BRINGS CHARGES IN MISALLOCATION OF EXPENSES SCHEME

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against an Arizona-based private equity fund manager and his investment advisory firm for orchestrating a scheme to misallocate their expenses to the funds they manage.

The SEC Enforcement Division alleges that Scott A. Brittenham and Clean Energy Capital LLC (CEC) improperly paid more than $3 million of the firm’s expenses by using assets from 19 private equity funds that invest in private ethanol production plants.  CEC and Brittenham did not disclose any such payment arrangement in fund offering documents.  When the funds ran out of cash to pay the firm’s expenses, CEC and Brittenham loaned money to the funds at unfavorable interest rates and unilaterally changed how they calculated investor returns to benefit themselves.

“Brittenham betrayed investors in the funds he managed by burdening them with more than $3 million in expenses that his firm should have paid and the funds could not afford,” said Marshall S. Sprung, co-chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit.  “Private equity advisers can only charge expenses to their funds when they clearly spell that out for investors.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings, among the expenses that CEC and Brittenham have been misallocating to the funds are CEC’s rent, salaries, and other employee benefits such as tuition costs, retirement, and bonuses.  Brittenham even used fund assets to pay 70 percent of a $100,000 bonus that he awarded himself.  The money taken from the funds for firm expenses was in addition to millions of dollars in management fees already being paid to CEC out of the funds.

According to the SEC’s order, the expense misallocation scheme shrank the funds’ cash reserves.  So CEC and Brittenham made unauthorized “loans” to the funds at exorbitant rates as high as 17 percent in order to continue paying the improper expenses with fund assets.  The loans jeopardized the funds because Brittenham had pledged fund assets as collateral.  CEC and Brittenham further profited at the expense of fund investors by making several changes to how CEC calculated distributions to investors in order to pay out less money.  Brittenham also lied to a fund investor about his “skin in the game.”  Brittenham claimed that he and CEC’s co-founder had each invested $100,000 of their own money in one of the funds, but the actual amounts invested were only $25,000 each.

The SEC’s order alleges that CEC and Brittenham willfully violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and also asserts disclosure, compliance, custody, and reporting violations.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Payam Danialypour and C. Dabney O’Riordan of the Asset Management Unit in the Los Angeles Regional Office and accountant Deborah Russell in Washington D.C.  The SEC’s litigation will be led by Amy Longo, Lynn Dean, and Mr. Danialypour.  The SEC examination that led to the investigation was conducted by Ryan Hinson, Ernest Tang, Daniel Jung, and Thomas Mackin of the Los Angeles office’s investment adviser/investment company examination program.

JUDGEMENT OBTAINED IN CASE INVOLVING DUMPING OF LOSING TRADES UPON CLIENTS

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SEC Obtains Judgments By Consent Against Charles J. Dushek, Charles S. Dushek, and Capital Management Associates, Inc.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on October 9, 2013, the Honorable Gary Feinerman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered judgments against defendants Charles J. Dushek, Charles S. Dushek, and Capital Management Associates, Inc.  The judgments, to which the defendants consented without admitting or denying the allegations in the Complaint, permanently enjoin the defendants from future violations of certain antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and order each defendant to pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties in an amount to be determined by the court.

In its Complaint, the Commission alleges that the Dusheks used their Lisle, Illinois-based investment advisory firm, Capital Management Associates, Inc. (CMA), to defraud CMA clients by conducting a “cherry picking” scheme that garnered the Dusheks nearly $2 million in illicit profits.  The Complaint alleges that the Dusheks placed millions of dollars in securities trades without designating in advance whether they were trading personal funds or client funds.  They delayed allocating the trades so they could cherry pick winning trades for their personal accounts and dump losing trades on the accounts of unwitting clients at CMA.  Meanwhile, CMA misrepresented the firm’s proprietary trading activities to clients.

The judgments permanently enjoin each of the defendants from violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.  The judgments also order each of the defendants to pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest thereon, and civil penalties, but leave the determination of the amount of such monetary relief to the court upon the Commission’s motion.

MAN AND HIS INVESTMENT FIRM ACCUSED OF FRAUD BY SEC

The following excerpt is from the SEC website: "On October 18, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against David B. Welliver and his investment advisory firm, Dblaine Capital, LLC, for fraud and numerous other violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the offer, sale, and management of a mutual fund, the Dblaine Fund. The SEC’s complaint alleges that Welliver and Dblaine Capital obtained $4 million in loans pursuant to an improper, undisclosed quid pro quo agreement entered into in breach of their fiduciary duties to the Dblaine Fund. Specifically, in exchange for the loans, Welliver and Dblaine Capital committed to invest the fund’s assets in certain “alternative investment” securities recommended by the lender. Welliver and Dblaine Capital then caused the fund to violate various investment restrictions and policies by investing the fund’s assets in a private placement offering that was affiliated with the lender. The complaint also alleges that Welliver and Dblaine further defrauded the Fund by providing an inaccurate valuation for the private placement holding. As a result, Welliver and Dblaine Capital caused the fund to offer, sell, and redeem shares at an inflated net asset value. When Welliver and Dblaine Capital ultimately discovered that the private placement was worthless, they continued their fraud by failing to disclose this to the Fund’s shareholders. The complaint also alleges that, in connection with the fraudulent conduct described above, Welliver and Dblaine Capital made false and misleading statements in various reports and filings with the Commission; engaged in certain prohibited affiliated transactions; and aided and abetted the fund’s violations of various provisions of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The SEC complaint alleges that, as a result of their misconduct, Welliver and Dblaine Capital violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, Sections 17(a)(2), 17(e)(1), 22(e), and 34(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and Rules 22c-1 and 38a-1 thereunder. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, including prejudgment interest, and civil penalties."