SEC CHARGES TWO INDIVUDUALS IN FRAUDULENT OFFERING OF INVESTMENTS IN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC RESORTS

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
May 31, 2012
The Securities and Exchange Commission charged James B. Catledge and Derek F.C. Elliott, and certain of their related entities, with making material misrepresentations to investors in connection with the unregistered sale of interests in two resorts in the Dominican Republic.

The SEC alleges that Catledge, a Nevada resident, and Elliott, a Canadian citizen and resident of the Toronto area, raised more than $163 million from approximately 1,200 investors between the fall of 2004 and 2009. The securities offered, called “Residence” and “Passport” investments, represented timeshare and ownership interests, respectively, in the Cofresi and Juan Dolio resorts in the Dominican Republic

The complaint alleges that Catledge and Elliott promised investors a secure return of 8% to 12% annually on the Residence investment and 5% on the Passport investment. Investors were assured that their principal was safe, and that they would share in the projected appreciation in the value of the resorts. According to the SEC’s complaint, investor funds were not used to construct the properties, as had been represented, but instead were largely used for other purposes, including the payment of exorbitant undisclosed commissions and promised returns to earlier investors. The SEC alleges that, of the nearly $164 million raised from investors, approximately $59 million (36%) was used to pay commissions to Catledge, Elliott and several of their related entities, among others.

The SEC’s complaint seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, financial penalties, and permanent injunctive relief against Catledge, Elliott, Sun Village Juan Dolio, Inc., EMI Sun Village, Inc. and EMI Resorts (S.V.G.), Inc. to enjoin them from future violations of the federal securities laws. As to Catledge and Elliott only, it also seeks an injunction against acting as an unregistered broker-dealer. The complaint also names D.R.C.I. Trust, which was beneficially owned by Catledge, as a relief defendant in this matter.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by staff attorney Alison J. Okinaka and senior staff accountant Norman J. Korb in the Commission’s Salt Lake Regional Office. Senior trial counsel Thomas M. Melton is leading the litigation.

The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Ontario Securities Commission, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

CFTC FILES CLAIM IN MF GLOBAL LIQUIDATION

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
CFTC Files a General Creditor Claim in the Liquidation of MF Global
Washington, DC – On June 1, 2012, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) filed a general creditor claim in the liquidation of MF Global, Inc., No. 11-02790 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). The Commission took this action in relation to the Division of Enforcement’s ongoing investigation related to the failure of MF Global, Inc. If that investigation results in an enforcement action against MF Global, Inc., the Commission could pursue a restitution award for the benefit of commodity customers, which in turn could be the basis for a Commission claim as a general creditor against the MF Global, Inc. estate.  The Commission’s claim as a general creditor would not have priority over customer claims.  It has been filed solely to preserve all possible options for recovering funds for the benefit of commodity customers.

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 ENTERS FINAL JUDGEMENT IN DAY TRADING BUSINESS AND PONZI SCHEME

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
May 29, 2012
Securities and Exchange Commission v. New Futures Trading International Corporation and Henry Roche (United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Civil Action No. 11-CV-532-JL, Complaint Filed November 16, 2011)
Court Enters Final Judgments Against New Hampshire Futures Day-Trading Business and Canadian Resident In Ponzi Scheme Case

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that, on May 24, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire entered final judgments by default against New Futures Trading International Corporation (“New Futures”), a New Hampshire business and Henry Roche, a Canadian resident who directed New Futures, in a Ponzi scheme action the Commission filed in November 2011.  Among other things, the court ordered the parties to pay a total of over $2.8 million.

In its complaint, filed on November 16, 2011, the Commission alleged that Roche, through New Futures, had been engaged in an ongoing unregistered offering of securities in the United States through operations in New Hampshire and Ontario, Canada. The Commission alleged that, since December 2010, Roche had raised over $1.3 million from at least 14 investors in nine states through the offer and sale of high yield promissory notes purportedly yielding either 5-10% per month, or a 200% return within 14 months.

According to the Commission’s complaint, Roche represented to some investors that funds supplied would be invested in bonds, Treasury notes and/or 10-year Treasury note futures contracts, and to others that the funds would be invested directly in New Futures, purportedly an on-line futures day-trading training business Roche was operating from Canada. The complaint alleged that, instead of using the funds for either purpose, Roche used approximately $937,000 provided by New Futures investors to make Ponzi “interest” payments to investors in prior Roche-controlled entities.  According to the Commission’s complaint, Roche also misappropriated at least another $359,000 to support his lifestyle, to operate a horse breeding venture, and to buy horses.  At the time the action was originally filed by the Commission, the court issued a temporary restraining order (later converted to a preliminary injunction) that, among other things, froze the assets of New Futures and Roche and prohibited them from continuing to solicit or accept investor funds.

The court, acting on the Commission’s motion for default judgments, entered final judgments: (1) imposing permanent injunctions against both New Futures and Roche enjoining them from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; (2) ordering them each to pay disgorgement of their ill-gotten gains in the amount of $1,242,972 plus prejudgment interest of $40,917.47; and (3) ordering Roche to pay a monetary penalty in the amount of $150,000 and New Futures to pay a monetary penalty in the amount of $150,000.

MIAMI-BASED HEDGE FUND MAMAGER ACCUSED OF DECEIVING INVESTORS REGARDING EXECUTIVES INVESTMENT'S

Photo:  Miami Beach.  Credit:  Wikimedia.
FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., May 29, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Miami-based hedge fund adviser for deceiving investors about whether its executives had personally invested in a Latin America-focused hedge fund.

The SEC’s investigation found that Quantek Asset Management LLC made various misrepresentations about fund managers having “skin in the game” along with investors in the $1 billion Quantek Opportunity Fund. In fact, Quantek’s executives never invested their own money in the fund. The SEC’s investigation also found that Quantek misled investors about the investment process of the funds it managed as well as certain related-party transactions involving its lead executive Javier Guerra and its former parent company Bulltick Capital Markets Holdings LP.

Bulltick, Guerra, and former Quantek operations director Ralph Patino are charged along with Quantek in the SEC’s enforcement action. They agreed to pay more than $3.1 million in total disgorgement and penalties to settle the charges, and Guerra and Patino agreed to securities industry bars.

“When making an investment decision, private fund investors are entitled to the unvarnished truth about material information such as management’s skin in the game or the adviser’s handling of related-party transactions,” said Bruce Karpati, Co-Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. “Quantek’s investors deserved better than the misleading information they received in marketing materials, side letters, and other fund documents.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting settled administrative proceedings, fund investors frequently inquire about the extent of the manager’s personal investment during their due diligence process, and many require it in fund selection. Quantek, particularly Patino, misrepresented to investors from 2006 to 2008 that management had skin in the game. These misstatements were made when responding to specific questions posed in due diligence questionnaires that were used to market the funds to new investors. Quantek made similar misrepresentations in side letter agreements executed by Guerra with two sought-after institutional investors.

The SEC’s order also found that Quantek misled investors about certain related-party loans made by the fund to affiliates of Guerra and Bulltick. Because the fund permitted related-party transactions with Bulltick and other Quantek affiliates, investors were wary of deals that were not properly disclosed. In 2006 and 2007, Quantek caused the fund to make related-party loans to affiliates of Guerra and Bulltick that were not properly documented or secured at the outset. Quantek and Bulltick employees later re-created the missing related-party loan documents, but misstated key terms of the loans and backdated the materials to give the appearance that the loans had been sufficiently documented and secured at all times. Quantek and Guerra provided this misleading loan information to the fund’s investors.

“The related-party transactions were problematic to begin with, and the false deal documents left investors in the dark about the adviser’s conflicts of interest,” said Scott Weisman, Assistant Director in the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit.

According to the SEC’s order, Quantek also repeatedly failed to follow the robust investment approval process it had described to investors in the fund. Quantek concealed this deficiency by providing investors with backdated and misleading investment approval memoranda signed by Guerra and other Quantek principals.

Quantek, Guerra, Bulltick, and Patino settled the charges without admitting or denying the findings. Quantek and Guerra agreed jointly to pay more than $2.2 million in disgorgement and pre-judgment interest, and to pay financial penalties of $375,000 and $150,000 respectively. Bulltick agreed to pay a penalty of $300,000, and Patino agreed to a penalty of $50,000. Guerra consented to a five-year securities industry bar, and Patino consented to a securities industry bar of one year. Quantek and Bulltick agreed to censures. They all consented to orders that they cease and desist from committing or causing violations of certain antifraud, compliance, and recordkeeping provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Securities Act of 1933.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Matthew Rossi in the Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit under the supervision of Mr. Weisman.

SEC CHARGES NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FUND MANAGER IN $60 MILLION SCHEME

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
May 24, 2012
On May 24, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged an investment adviser in Scotts Valley, Calif., with running a $60 million investment fund like a Ponzi scheme and defrauding investors by touting imaginary trading profits instead of reporting the actual trading losses he had incurred.

The SEC alleges that John A. Geringer, who managed the GLR Growth Fund (Fund), used false and misleading marketing materials to lure investors into believing that the Fund was earning double-digit annual returns by investing 75% of its assets in investments tied to well-known stock indices like the S&P 500, NASDAQ, and Dow Jones. In reality, Geringer’s trading generated consistent losses and he eventually stopped trading entirely. To mask his fraud, Geringer paid millions of dollars in “returns” to investors largely by using money received from newer investors. He also sent investors periodic account statements showing fictitious growth in their investments.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in San Jose, Geringer raised more than $60 million since 2005, mostly from investors in the Santa Cruz area. Geringer used fraudulent marketing materials claiming that the Fund had between 17 and 25 percent annual returns in every year of the Fund’s operation through investments tied to major stock indices. Although the Fund was started in 2003, marketing materials claimed 25 percent returns in 2001 and 2002 – before the Fund even existed. The marketing materials also falsely indicated a nearly 24 percent return in 2008 from investing mainly in publicly traded securities, options, and commodities, while the S&P 500 Index lost 38.5 percent.
The SEC alleges that Geringer’s actual securities trading was unsuccessful, and by mid-2009 the Fund did not invest in publicly traded securities at all. Instead, the Fund invested heavily in illiquid investments in two private startup technology companies. The rest of the money was paid to investors in Ponzi-like fashion and to three entities Geringer controlled that also are charged in the SEC’s complaint.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Geringer further lied to investors on account statements that falsely claimed “MEMBER NASD AND SEC APPROVED.” The SEC does not “approve” funds or investments in funds, nor was the Fund (or any related entity) a member of the NASD (now called the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority – FINRA). Geringer also falsely claimed that the Fund’s financial statements were audited annually by an independent accountant. No such audits were performed.

The SEC’s complaint alleges Geringer and three related entities violated or aided and abetted violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 206(1), (2), and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The complaint also alleges the defendants violated or aided and abetted violations of Section 26 of the Exchange Act, which bars persons from claiming the SEC has passed on the merits of a particular investment. The SEC’s complaint names the Fund as a relief defendant. The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, civil monetary penalties, and other relief. Geringer, the Fund, and two of the GLR entities consented to the entry of a preliminary injunction and a freeze on the Fund’s bank account.

The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by Robert J. Durham and Robert S. Leach of the San Francisco Regional Office. The SEC’s litigation will be led by Sheila O’Callaghan of the San Francisco Regional Office.
The SEC thanks the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and FINRA for their assistance in this matter.