Articles Posted in Securities Fraud

While a district court allowed the securities fraud claims brought under securities law against LightSpeed Environmental, Inc. & other defendants to go forward, the claims brought against the company under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act were thrown out. The securities case is Wang v. LightSpeed Environmental, Inc.

The court said that while the plaintiff, Tonglin Wang, sufficiently alleged justifiable reliance, specific misrepresentations, and scienter, so that certain claims could proceed, he did not succeed in his claims that there was a prospectus or a public offering or that there was any verbal exchange made about the prospectus.

Wang is a Chinese businessman who wanted to invest in a US entity to obtain immigration status here via a federal program. In 2011, two individuals, who were LightSpeed agents (Wang did not know this), purportedly told him they would act as his translators and advisors. He then was introduced to David Tarrant, CEO of ASG. He had the majority of voting shares in LightSpeed.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is charging Gary C. Snisky with defrauding over 40 senior investors in a $3.8 million Colorado securities scheme. The regulator contends that Snisky, who describes himself as an institutional trader, used insurance agents to sell interests in Arete LLC, which was supposedly more profitable and safer than annuities. He is accused of targeting mainly retired annuity holders, many of whom live in in the state.

According to the SEC, investors were told that their money would go toward buying government-backed agency bonds at discount rates and that the bonds would be used in overnight banking sweeps. Instead, Snisky misappropriated about $2.8 million of investor money to pay for his mortgage and pay sales folk their commissions.

Snisky is accused of bringing in experienced insurance salespersons who could source their existing client base of annuity holders and get them to invest in Arete. He described Arete as an “annuity plus” investment that investors could take principal from and earn interest without penalty (even after a decade) while still benefitting from guaranteed annual returns of up to 7%. The SEC says that the purported institutional trader stressed that the investments were safe and claimed he could get agency bonds backed by the government at a reduced rate and without paying fees for middlemen. He also allegedly drafted documents that salespeople used as offering materials to attract investors, showed the staff fake investor account statements to make it appear as if there were actual earnings, and organized seminars where he met with salespeople and investors.

The Securities and Exchange Commission will review corporate disclosure rules to possibly get rid of disclosure rules that are creating “information overload” for investors. Speaking to the National Association of Corporate Directors, SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White said that as the quantity and types of issues that companies have to disclose become greater and “more detailed,” she wonders whether investors need or benefit from all that information-or if ‘information overload’ makes it hard for customers to glean what they should know to make the best investment choices for them.

Commission rules, company efforts, and congressional mandates seeking to prevent lawsuits are what have led to such extensive disclosures. Now, the SEC may consider a possible overhaul after a study of company filing-rules, which was mandated by the 2012 Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, is released. The JOBS Act mandates that the regulator figure out how to simplify rules for smaller companies.

White said that certain disclosure details are no longer necessary in the wake of such information that is now widely available online, including via social media. She pointed to examples of information being disclosed that may not be as relevant now as before, such as the ratio of earnings to fixed charges or dilution disclosure requirements. White also spoke about how it might be prudent to begin getting certain information to investors sooner than what current rules and forms mandate for timeframes or whether this could become an added burden to companies.

A district court judge has ordered Groupon Inc. to face a securities lawsuit filed against it accusing the deal-of-the-day coupon company of misleading investors regarding its financial state right before its IPO in 2011. The Illinois-based company had sought to have the securities fraud case brought by investor Michael Carter Cohn, dismissed. Cohn wants his claim to get class action securities status.

The investor claims that Groupon committed securities fraud and used refund accounting that was not allowed to spike revenues in a prospectus related to its initial public offerings, as well as in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. According to U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle in Chicago, the claims “present plausible violations.” Norgle also turned down requests by Morgan Stanley (MS) and Goldman Sachs (GS), and Credit Suisse (CS) to throw out the claims against them. These banks arranged the public offering.

On March 30, 2012-not long after opening at $28 in Nasdaq stock exchange trading on November 4, 2011-Groupon reported a “material weakness” in its financial controls, as well as first reported quarterly sales as a company that was now publicly traded were not as high as stated earlier because of high refunds received by merchants. This lowered revenue during 2011’s last quarter to $492 million-that’s a $14.3 million difference. The company’s shares by November 13, 2012 hit $2.63 dollars.