SEC CHARGES 2 COMPANIES WITH FRAUD

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SEC Charges Projaris Management LLC and Victory Partners Financial with Fraud

On September 9, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought securities fraud charges against Projaris Management, LLC (Projaris), Victory Partners Financial (Victory), Joe G. Lawler, Brandt A. Lawler, Michael S. Lawler, Ryan G. Lawler, Timothy J. Lawler, and Pamela Hass in a connection with an offering fraud that raised approximately $1.4 million from over 23 investors in multiple states from May 2008 through August 2012.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, alleges that Projaris and Victory, which operated in Farmington, New Mexico and Phoenix, Arizona, along with the Lawlers of Farmington, New Mexico participated in a scheme that defrauded investors out of more than $835,000. Additionally, the complaint alleges that the primary function of the defendants’ scheme was to convince investors to invest in a fraudulent pooled investment that purportedly invested in metals, commodities, real estate, and a fund that, among other things, invested overseas. The defendants then siphoned off the invested funds for their own purposes and to continue to perpetuate the fraud. According to the complaint, none of the securities offered was covered by a registration statement filed with the Commission, and Hass, Projaris’ National Sales Director of Tomahawk, Wisconsin, solicited investors to invest in Projaris, but was not a registered broker-dealer.

The complaint alleges that Projaris, Victory, and the Lawlers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act). The complaint also alleges that Projaris, Victory, Joe Lawler, and Hass violated Section 5 of the Securities Act for the offer and sale of securities in unregistered transactions. Finally, the complaint alleges that Joe Lawler and Hass violated Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act by acting as unregistered broker-dealers. The Commission seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and civil monetary penalties.

INVESTMENT ADVISOR BASED IN CA IS CHARGED BY SEC WITH FRAUD AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

The following excerpt is from the SEC website: “On October 18, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) filed a complaint in United States District Court in Riverside, California against Copeland Wealth Management, A Financial Advisory Corporation (“CWM”), Copeland Wealth Management, A Real Estate Corporation (“Copeland Realty”), and Charles P. Copeland (“Charles Copeland”) for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. As an investment adviser registered with the Commission, CWM manages approximately $125 million in assets under management. The assets under management are primarily mutual funds and real estate funds. Copeland Realty, an unregistered investment adviser, is the general partner for 21 limited partnerships primarily invested in real estate. Charles Copeland, a certified public accountant, is the founder, co-owner and officer of both CWM and Copeland Realty. The Commission alleges that from 2003 through May 31, 2011, Charles Copeland, CWM, and Copeland Realty raised over $62 million from over 100 investors, including many of Charles Copeland’s accounting clients, by selling interests in limited partnerships operated by CWM and Copeland Realty. According to the Commission’s complaint, throughout the offer and sale of the limited partnerships, Charles Copeland, CWM, and Copeland Realty made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding: (1) the use of investor funds, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) guaranteed returns, (4) the unauthorized trading of put options, and (5) the payment of undisclosed real estate commissions and other related compensation. Without admitting or denying the Commission’s allegations, Charles Copeland, CWM, and Copeland Realty agreed to the entry of an order permanently enjoining them from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The defendants also agreed to an order appointing a receiver over CWM and Copeland Realty and prohibiting the destruction of documents. Disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and civil penalties are to be determined at a later date.”