Jump to Navigation

Fort Lauderdale Securities Law Blog

Nicholas Louis Geranio

Securities Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation and FINRA Arbitration Attorney, Russell L. Forkey, Esq.

May, 2012:

SEC Charges U.S. Perpetrators in $35 Million International Boiler Room Scheme

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged a Hawaii resident and two firms he used to orchestrate a scheme in which he covertly founded small companies, installed management, and recruited overseas boiler rooms that pressured investors into buying their stock while he pocketed more than $2 million in consulting fees from proceeds of the fraudulent stock sales.

The SEC alleges that Nicholas Louis Geranio worked behind the scenes to create eight U.S.-based companies used to raise money through the sale of Regulation S stock, which is exempt from SEC registration under the securities laws because it is offered solely to investors located outside the United States. Geranio handpicked the management for the companies, primarily Keith Michael Field of Sherman Oaks, Calif., who served as an officer, director, or investor relations representative for each company and also is charged in the SEC's complaint. Geranio then set up consulting arrangements through his firms - The Good One Inc. and Kaleidoscope Real Estate Inc. - so he could instruct management on how to run the companies and raise money offshore. Geranio extracted consulting fees from the companies, which generally had few or no employees, little or no office space, and no sales or customers.

The SEC alleges that Field drafted misleading business plans, marketing materials, and website information about the companies that were provided to investors as part of fraudulent solicitation efforts by teams of telemarketers operating in boiler rooms that Geranio recruited primarily in Spain. The boiler rooms used high-pressure sales tactics and false statements about the companies to raise more than $35 million from investors. Meanwhile, Geranio instructed Field and others to buy and sell shares in some of the companies to create an illusion of trading activity and manipulate upwards the price of the publicly-traded stock.

According to the SEC's complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Geranio was the subject of a previous SEC enforcement action in 2000. In his latest misconduct, he concealed his role from investors and the public at all times by acting through The Good One and Kaleidoscope. The scheme lasted from April 2007 to September 2009. Geranio began by locating and acquiring shell companies to create the issuers used in the scheme: Blu Vu Deep Oil & Gas Exploration Inc., Green Energy Live Inc., Microresearch Corp., Mundus Group Inc., Power Nanotech Inc., Spectrum Acquisition Holdings Inc., United States Oil & Gas Corp., and Wyncrest Group Inc. Geranio then appointed management for these companies, in some cases turning to business associates, friends, or others. For example, the former CEO of Blu Vu was someone Geranio met while kite surfing in Malibu.

According to the SEC's complaint, Geranio worked behind the scenes to keep the companies' publicly-traded shares trading at prices conducive to the boiler room sales. He did this by directing Field, personal friends, and others to open accounts and buy or sell shares in at least five of the companies as part of matched orders and manipulative trades that created the false impression of active trading and market value in these stocks. The manipulative trades allowed the boiler rooms to sell the Regulation S shares to overseas investors at higher prices.

The SEC alleges that boiler room representatives recruited by Geranio induced investors by using aggressive techniques consistent with boiler room activity. For instance, they promised immediate and substantial investment returns, convinced investors that they needed to purchase the shares immediately or miss the grand opportunity altogether, and threatened legal action if an investor did not agree to purchase shares that the representatives believed the investor had already agreed to purchase. The boiler rooms also used "advance fee" solicitations, telling investors that only if they purchased shares in one of these companies would the boiler room agree to sell their other shares. Many of the investors were elderly and living in the United Kingdom.

According to the SEC's complaint, investors were directed to pay for their Regulation S stock by sending money to U.S.-based escrow agents. As arranged by Geranio, the escrow agents paid 60 to 75 percent of the approximately $35 million raised from investors to the boiler rooms as their sales markups, kept 2.5 percent as their own fee, and paid the remaining proceeds back to the companies that Geranio created. The companies (or in some cases the escrow agents) then funneled approximately $2.135 million of the proceeds back to Geranio through The Good One and Kaleidoscope in the form of consulting fees, and paid Field approximately $279,000.

The SEC alleges that Geranio also assisted in diverting $240,000 in investor funds toward an undisclosed down payment on a property to start a Hawaiian wedding planning company.

The SEC's complaint alleges that Geranio, Field, The Good One and Kaleidoscope violated Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder. The complaint alleges that Field also violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act and aided and abetted the companies' violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder, and Geranio is liable as a control person of The Good One and Kaleidoscope under Exchange Act Section 20(a). The SEC is seeking financial penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, penny stock bars, and permanent injunctions against all of the defendants, as well as officer and director bars against Geranio and Field. The complaint seeks disgorgement and prejudgment interest against relief defendant BWRE Hawaii LLC based on its alleged receipt of investor funds.

David M. Connolly and Connolly Properties, Inc.

Securities Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation and FINRA Arbitration Attorney, Russell L. Forkey, Esq.

May, 2012:

SEC Charges New Jersey Man in Real Estate Investment Scam

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged a New Jersey man with operating a Ponzi-like scheme involving a series of investment vehicles formed for the purported purpose of purchasing and managing rental apartment buildings in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The SEC alleges that David M. Connolly induced investors to buy shares in real estate investment vehicles he created through his firm Connolly Properties Inc. He promised investors monthly dividends based on cash-flow profits from rental income at the apartment buildings as well as the growth of their principal from the appreciation of the property. However, the real estate investments did not produce the projected dividends, and Connolly instead made Ponzi-like dividend payments to earlier investors using money from new investors. Connolly, who lives in Watchung, N.J., also siphoned off at least $2 million in investor funds for his personal use.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey, which conducted a parallel investigation of the matter, today announced that Connolly was indicted on one count of securities fraud among other criminal charges.

According to the SEC's complaint filed in federal court in New Jersey, none of Connolly's securities offerings in the investment vehicles were registered with the SEC as required under the federal securities laws. Connolly began offering the investments in 1996 and ultimately raised in excess of $50 million from more than 200 investors in more than 25 investment vehicles. However, beginning in at least 2006, Connolly misrepresented to investors that their funds would be used exclusively for the property related to the particular vehicle in which they invested. Connolly instead commingled the funds in bank accounts that he alone controlled and used for a variety of purposes that weren't disclosed to investors, including $2 million in payments he made to himself that vastly exceeded any dividends to which he would be entitled through his ownership stake. Between 2007 and 2010, Connolly also wrote checks to "cash" in excess of $2.5 million. Even after Connolly stopped making dividend payments to investors in April 2009, he still continued to pay himself dividends as well as a $250,000 "salary" out of investor funds.

The SEC alleges that Connolly lacked sufficient revenues from rental income at the apartment buildings, so he continued to raise millions of dollars for new investment vehicles. He used the funds to pay purported monthly cash-flow dividends in excess of 10 percent to investors in older investment vehicles. Connolly refinanced properties and improperly used the cash proceeds to continue the scheme, which ultimately collapsed in 2009 when new investor funds dried up and rental income was insufficient to support payments on the mortgages. The properties owned by the investment vehicles were forced into foreclosure, wiping out the equity of the investors.

The SEC's complaint charges Connolly with violating 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. The SEC's complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.

FINRA Proposed Rule Change Re Front Running of Block Transactions

FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney, Russell L. Forkey, Esq.

May, 2012:

Proposed Rule Change to Adopt FINRA Rule 5270 (Front Running of Block Transactions) in Consolidated FINRA Rule Book.

There are many variations of front running.  Generally, front running is a practice whereby a securities trader takes a position to capitalize on advance knowledge of a large upcoming transactions expected to influence the market price.  Likewise, block transactions involve large quantities of stock or large dollar amount of bonds held or traded.  As a general guide, 10,000 shares or more of stock and $200,000 or more worth of bonds would be described as a block.  However, these descriptions are for educational purposes only and are not designed to be complete in all material respects.  If you have any questions relative thereto, you should contact a qualified professional.

http://www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2012/index.htm

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. ("FINRA") (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. ("NASD")) recently filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission") a proposed rule change to adopt NASD Interpretive Material ("IM") 2110-3 (Front Running Policy) as FINRA Rule 5270 and amend the rule in several ways to broaden its scope and provide further clarity in relation thereto.

Text of Proposed Rule Change

In order to view the status of this FINRA proposal, please follow the highlighted link:  http://apps.finra.org/Rules_and_Regulations/rulefilings/1/default.aspx

Mark F. Spangler and The Spangler Group, Inc.

Investment Advisor and Broker/Dealer Fraud and Mismanagement FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney, Russell L. Forkey, Esq.

May, 2012:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mark F. Spangler and The Spangler Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00856 (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, filed May 17 2012)

SEC CHARGES SEATTLE-BASED FUND MANAGER FOR SECRETLY DIVERTING CLIENT FUNDS TO HIS OWN START-UP COMPANIES

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged a Seattle-based financial adviser and his firm with defrauding clients by secretly investing their money in two risky start-up companies he co-founded.

The SEC alleges that Mark Spangler, a former chairman of the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors, funneled approximately $47.7 million of client money into these private ventures despite representing that he would invest primarily in publicly traded securities. Spangler served as chairman and CEO of one of the companies, which is now bankrupt. Such risky investments were inconsistent with the investment strategies that Spangler promised his clients and contrary to their investment objectives.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington also announced parallel criminal charges against Spangler.

According to the SEC's complaint filed in federal court in Seattle, Spangler raised more than $56 million from his clients since 1998 for several private investment funds he managed. Beginning around 2003, without notifying investors in the funds, Spangler and his advisory firm The Spangler Group (TSG) began diverting the majority of client money into two private technology companies he created. One of the companies received nearly $42 million from the funds before shutting down operations. It had long been a cash-poor company with a history of net losses, generating less than $100,000 in revenue during its 11-year history. Yet Spangler continued to treat the funds as the company's piggy bank.

The SEC alleges that Spangler also did not tell investors that TSG collected fees for "financial and operational support" from these companies, which were essentially paying these fees with the client money they had received from the funds. Therefore, Spangler and his firm secretly reaped $830,000 from the companies in addition to any management fees that TSG received from clients.

According to the SEC's complaint, Spangler concealed his diversion of client funds for years. He disclosed it only after he placed TSG and the funds he managed into state court receivership in 2011.

The SEC's complaint charges Spangler and TSG with violating, among other things, the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.

Proposed FINRA Rule Change Relating to Margin Requirements

The purpose of this post is to provide the reader with information relative to recently proposed or adopted rule changes issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in addition to Guidance Releases relating to the interruptation of these rules. This information is being provided for informational purposes only. Thus, it should not be relied upon as legal advice, Also, the information provided below is subject to withdrawal, revocation and modification by FINRA, which may or may not be reflected on this site. Consequently, the reader should contact a qualified professional concerning the current status of any of the information referenced below.

http://www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2012/index.htm

Recently Filed Proposed Rule Change Relating to FINRA Rule 4210 (Margin Requirements)

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. ("FINRA") has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission") a proposed rule change to amend FINRA Rule 4210 (Margin Requirements) to: (1) revise the definitions and margin treatment of option spread strategies; (2) clarify the maintenance margin requirement for non-margin eligible equity securities; (3) clarify the maintenance margin requirements for non-equity securities; (4) eliminate the current exemption from the free-riding prohibition for designated accounts; (5) conform the definition of "exempt account"; and (6) eliminate the requirement to stress test portfolio margin accounts in the aggregate. In addition, the proposed rule change would amend FINRA Rule 4210 to make non-substantive technical and stylistic changes.

For anyone that is contemplating trading or is trading on margin, it is important that you consider how, if at all, these proposed changes might effect you.

To review the complete proposal, please follow the highlighted link:  http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@rulfil/documents/rulefilings/p126249.pdf

 

David Blech and Margaret Chassman

Securities Fraud, Misrepresentation and Mismanagement Litigation and FINRA Arbitration Attorney, Russell L. Forkey, Esq.

May, 2012:

SEC v. David Blech and Margaret Chassman, Civil Action No. 12-Civ-3703 (AJN)

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged a Manhattan resident with carrying out a complex market manipulation scheme in biopharmaceutical stocks after he was kicked out of the brokerage industry for fraud.

The SEC alleges that David Blech established more than 50 brokerage accounts in the names of family members, friends, and even a private religious institution. He used those accounts to buy and sell significant amounts of stock in two biopharmaceutical companies in order to create the artificial appearance of activity in their securities so he could maintain their market price and use it to his own financial advantage. Blech, who was previously convicted of securities fraud, also solicited investments for biopharmaceutical companies - including the two companies whose stock he manipulated - despite being barred by the SEC from acting as a broker-dealer.

The SEC further alleges that Blech and his wife Margaret Chassman, who also is charged in the case, flouted federal securities laws when they repeatedly made unregistered sales of securities and failed to disclose their transactions in the various brokerage accounts.

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York today announced criminal charges against Blech.

According to the SEC's complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan, Blech engaged in his scheme at various points in 2007 and 2008, specifically manipulating the stocks of Pluristem Therapeutics Inc. and Intellect Neurosciences Inc. Blech first opened dozens of nominee accounts at several broker-dealers in the names of his wife, uncle, and sister-in law as well as a longtime friend and a company he controlled, and religious institution Central Yeshiva Beth Joseph that is managed by Blech's cousin. Blech then used the accounts to engage in deceptive activities and carry out matched trades in Pluristem's and Intellect's stocks. Blech's activity in these thinly-traded securities artificially inflated the stock price of both companies and created the false impression of a liquid market for each company. Blech then used the artificially inflated stock price to sell off his holdings of Pluristem and Intellect through the nominee accounts, and as collateral for a line of credit he established in his wife's name.

According to the SEC's complaint, Blech has committed prior violations of the securities laws. He pled guilty in 1998 to two counts of securities fraud and was sentenced to five years of probation. In 2000, he settled a related SEC enforcement action by accepting a permanent bar from associating with any broker-dealer.

The SEC's complaint charges Blech with violating Section 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c), and for acting as an unregistered broker-dealer in violation of Section 15(b)(6)(B) of the Exchange Act The complaint also charges Blech and Chassman with violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and for failing to make filings required by Sections 13(d) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act.

The SEC's complaint seeks a final judgment ordering Blech and Chassman to disgorge their ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, pay financial penalties, and be permanently enjoined from future violations of the provisions of the federal securities laws they violated. The complaint seeks orders requiring Blech to comply with a prior SEC order barring him from association with a broker or dealer, and prohibiting him from various other stock activities.

Bobby V. Khan

Securities Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation and FINRA Arbitration Attorney, Russell L. Forkey, Esq.

May, 2012:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dr. Bobby V. Khan, Civil Case No. 1:10-cv-2865-JOF (N.D. Ga.)

GEORGIA DOCTOR CONSENTS TO ORDER IN SETTLEMENT OF SEC INSIDER TRADING CHARGES

Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered a consent order requiring, among other things, that Defendant Dr. Bobby V. Khan, a Georgia-based doctor, pay more than double the amount of his trading profits obtained through alleged insider trading.

The Commission filed charges against Dr. Bobby V. Khan in September 2010, alleging that he traded illegally in the stock of Georgia-based pharmaceutical company Sciele Pharma, Inc. on the basis of nonpublic information he received just days before the public announcement of a tender offer by a Japanese company to purchase all of that company's shares. Khan obtained confidential details about the acquisition from a longtime business associate and friend who was a senior officer at Sciele. Khan subsequently opened an online brokerage account for the first time in several years, transferred approximately one-third of his liquid net worth into it, and purchased 4,000 shares of Sciele stock just days before the tender offer's public announcement. Khan sold all of his shares after the announcement for an illicit profit of $47,171.

Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, Dr. Khan agreed, as set forth in the Court's order, to pay a total of $100,857.79, consisting of disgorgement, prejudgment interest thereon, and a civil penalty. Dr. Khan also consented to permanent injunctions against violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3 thereunder.

Martin Currie

Broker/Dealer Fraud and Mismanagement FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney, Russell L. Forkey, Esq.

May, 2012:

SEC Charges Scotland-Based Firm For Improperly Boosting Hedge Fund Client at Expense of U.S. Fund Investors

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Scotland-based fund management group for fraudulently using one of its U.S. fund clients to rescue another client, a China-focused hedge fund struggling in the midst of the global financial crisis.

Martin Currie agreed to pay a total of nearly $14 million to the SEC and the United Kingdom's Financial Services Authority (FSA) to settle the charges that it steered a U.S. publicly-traded fund called The China Fund Inc. into an investment to bolster the hedge fund. The hedge fund had acquired a significant and largely illiquid exposure to a single Chinese company. Martin Currie directly alleviated the hedge fund's liquidity problems by deciding to use the China Fund - to the detriment of the fund and its shareholders - in a bond transaction that reduced the hedge fund's exposure.

According to the SEC's order instituting settled administrative proceedings against Martin Currie, the firm managed the China Fund side-by-side with the hedge fund through its SEC-registered investment adviser subsidiaries. These funds and other Martin Currie accounts made similar investments in Chinese companies under the direction of two senior portfolio managers based in Shanghai. One company was Jackin International, a printer-cartridge recycling company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

According to the SEC's order, in June 2007, Martin Currie's lead portfolio manager in Shanghai caused the hedge fund to purchase $10 million of unlisted illiquid Jackin bonds that deviated from the fund's normal equities-trading strategy. Martin Currie improperly classified those bonds as cash in its risk-management system, and as a result the liquidity and credit risks associated with the hedge fund's exposure to Jackin weren't revealed until November 2008 after the hedge fund had purchased additional Jackin bonds. By that time, the hedge fund's total investment in Jackin had come close to breaching the fund's limit on portfolio exposure to a single issuer.

The SEC's order says that as the global financial crisis deepened, the hedge fund faced a significant increase in redemption requests by its investors, exacerbating the fund's liquidity problems. At the same time, Jackin was starved for capital to continue funding its operations and make debt payments to bondholders such as the hedge fund. In response to the hedge fund's overlapping problems, Martin Currie decided to use the China Fund to purchase $22.8 million in convertible bonds from a Jackin subsidiary. The subsidiary instantly lent $10 million of the proceeds to Jackin, which in turn redeemed $10 million in otherwise-illiquid bonds held by the troubled hedge fund. The bond transaction closed in April 2009.

According to the SEC's order, Martin Currie officials were aware that the China Fund's involvement presented a direct conflict of interest and may have been unlawful. In an attempt to cure that conflict, they sought and obtained approval from the China Fund's board of directors. However, they failed to disclose that proceeds of the fund's investment would be used to redeem bonds held by another client - the hedge fund. Martin Currie also failed to sufficiently consider whether the investment's rationale and pricing were in the China Fund's best interests.

The SEC's order noted that the China Fund's bond investment in the Jackin subsidiary turned out poorly. In April 2011, the China Fund sold the bonds for about 50 percent of their face value for a loss of $11.5 million.

The SEC's order found that Martin Currie engaged in separate improper conduct by failing to follow the China Fund's policies and procedures for fair valuing the convertible bonds at issue. Between April 2009 and October 2010, Martin Currie advised the China Fund's board to value the convertible bonds at cost ($22.8 million) while failing to disclose information that was relevant for the board to fair value the bonds.

The SEC charged Martin Currie with certain violations of the antifraud, affiliated transaction, reporting, and compliance provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. Without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, Martin Currie agreed to settle the SEC's charges by paying a penalty of $8.3 million and accepting censures and cease-and-desist orders against future violations. Martin Currie also agreed to pay a penalty of £3.5 million ($5.6 million in U.S. dollars) to settle the FSA's action. In reaching the settlement, the SEC took into account that Martin Currie had compensated the China Fund for losses and expenses arising from the misconduct. Martin Currie cooperated with the SEC's investigation and implemented several remedial measures, including severing association with its lead Shanghai-based portfolio manager and making enhancements to its compliance program.

Philip Pritchard, Pietro Cimino and Global Development & Environmental Resources, Inc.

Securities Fraud and Misrepresentation, "pump and dump" Litigation and FINRA Arbitration Attorney, Russell L. Forkey, Esq.

May, 2012:

Court Enters Final Judgment Against Defendants Philip Pritchard, Pietro Cimino and Global Development & Environmental Resources, Inc.

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered a Final Judgment against Defendants Philip Pritchard, Pietro Cimino, and Global Development & Environmental Resources, Inc. The Final Judgment orders Pritchard, Cimino, and Global to pay, jointly and severally, disgorgement in the amount of $2,122,625, plus $523,173.27 in prejudgment interest. The Final Judgment also orders Pritchard and Cimino to each pay a civil penalty of $130,000.

The Commission commenced this action by filing its complaint on May 22, 2008. The complaint alleged defendants participated in a fraudulent "pump and dump" scheme to evade the registration provisions of the federal securities laws and then sell purportedly unrestricted Global shares during a fraudulent promotional campaign.

The Commission previously announced on March 8, 2010 that following a five day trial, a seven member jury in the U.S. District Court in Tampa, Florida found Darko S. Mrakuzic liable for violating the anti-fraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws in connection with the above scheme that netted Mrakuzic more than $6 million in profits in violation of Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 7, 2011, the Court ordered Mrakuzic to pay a total of $9,135,089 which included disgorgement of $6,568,568, pre-judgment interest of $2,306,521 and a civil penalty of $260,000.

Global, Pritchard, Cimino, and Defendants Carmine J. Bua, Anthony M. Cimini, Sr., and Dante M. Panella, all previously settled the Commission's anti-fraud and securities registration charges against them by consenting, without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, to permanent injunctions. All the individuals consented to penny stock bars, and Cimini, Pritchard, and Cimino consented to officer-and-director bars. The Court also previously ordered disgorgement and civil penalties against Cimini, Bua, and Panella. The Commission's claim for a civil penalty against Global Development has been voluntarily dismissed. [SEC v. Global Development & Environmental Resources, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 8:08-CV-993-T27MAP (M.D. Fla.)] (LR-22366)

Garth R. Peterson

Investment Advisor Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney.

May, 2012:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Garth R. Peterson, Case No. CV 12-2033 (E.D.N.Y)(JBW) (filed April 25, 2012)

SEC CHARGES FORMER MORGAN STANLEY EXECUTIVE WITH FCPA VIOLATIONS AND INVESTMENT ADVISER FRAUD

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged a former executive at Morgan Stanley with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) as well as securities laws for investment advisers by secretly acquiring millions of dollars worth of real estate investments for himself and an influential Chinese official who in turn steered business to Morgan Stanley's funds.

The SEC alleges that Garth R. Peterson, who was a managing director in Morgan Stanley's real estate investment and fund advisory business, had a personal friendship and secret business relationship with the former Chairman of Yongye Enterprise (Group) Co. - a Chinese state-owned entity with influence over the success of Morgan Stanley's real estate business in Shanghai. Peterson secretly arranged to have at least $1.8 million paid to himself and the Chinese official that he disguised as finder's fees that Morgan Stanley's funds owed to third parties. Peterson also secretly arranged for him, the Chinese official, and an attorney to acquire a valuable Shanghai real estate interest from a Morgan Stanley fund. Peterson was acquiring an interest from the fund but negotiated both sides of the transaction. In exchange for offers and payments from Peterson, the Chinese official helped Peterson and Morgan Stanley obtain business while personally benefitting from some of these same investments. Peterson's deception, self-dealing, and misappropriation breached the fiduciary duties he owed to Morgan Stanley's funds as their representative.

Peterson agreed to a settlement of the SEC's charges in which he will be permanently barred from the securities industry, pay more than $250,000 in disgorgement, and relinquish his interest in the valuable Shanghai real estate (currently valued at approximately $3.4 million) that he secretly acquired through his misconduct. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a related criminal case against Peterson.

According to the SEC's complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Peterson's violations occurred from at least 2004 to 2007. His principal responsibility at Morgan Stanley was to evaluate, negotiate, acquire, manage and sell real estate investments on behalf of Morgan Stanley's advisers and funds. He was terminated in 2008 due to his FCPA misconduct.

The SEC alleges that Peterson led Morgan Stanley's effort to build a Chinese real estate investment portfolio for its real estate funds by cultivating a relationship with the Chinese official and taking advantage of his ability to steer opportunities to Morgan Stanley and his influence in helping with needed governmental approvals. Morgan Stanley thus partnered with Yongye on a number of significant Chinese real estate investments. At the same time, Peterson and the Chinese official expanded their personal business dealings both in a real estate interest secretly acquired from Morgan Stanley as well as by investing together in Chinese franchises of well-known U.S. fast food restaurants. Peterson failed to disclose these investments in annual disclosures that Morgan Stanley required him to make as part of his employment.

According to the SEC's complaint, Peterson openly credited the Chinese official with helping obtain approvals required from other Chinese government entities for a deal to close. He wrote to several Morgan Stanley employees in response to an e-mail discussing the terms of one of Yongye's purported investments, "Everyone pls keep in mind the big picture here. YY gave us this deal. ... So we owe them a favor relating to this deal. ... This should be very easy and friendly." In another e-mail a week later, Peterson described "YYI" as "our friends who are coming in because WE OWE THEM A FAVOR."

The SEC alleges that a Morgan Stanley compliance officer specifically informed Peterson in 2004 that employees of Yongye, a Chinese state-owned entity, were government officials for purposes of the FCPA. Peterson also received at least 35 FCPA compliance reminders from Morgan Stanley, but nonetheless committed the FCPA violations.

The SEC's complaint charges Peterson with violations of the anti-bribery, books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA, and with aiding and abetting violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

Peterson has consented to a court order (i) permanently enjoining him from violating Sections 30A and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisers Act, (ii) requiring him to disgorge $254,589, and (iii) requiring him to relinquish to a court-appointed receiver the interest he secretly acquired from Morgan Stanley's fund in the Jin Lin Tiandi Serviced Apartments, which has a current estimated value of approximately $3.4 million. The proposed settlement is subject to court approval. Peterson has also consented to permanent industry bars based on the anticipated entry of the injunction against him and his criminal conviction.

Contact Us Today

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Russell L. Forkey, P.A.

2888 East Oakland Park Boulevard

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306

Map and Directions

Phone: 954-514-9605

Toll Free: 888-671-0962

Fax: 954-568-4180

Contact Us

Privacy Policy | Legal Marketing by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business.