Articles Posted in Tenant-In-Common Exchanges

The Supreme Court of Montana says that a lower court erred when it found that an investor’s stake in a tenancy-in-common venture promising fixed return rates is not a securities under the Montana Securities Act. The case is Redding v. Montana 1st Judicial District .

Holding that the Montana First Judicial District Court improperly ruled that the plaintiff failed to invest in a common venture that would be considered an “Investment contract” under the act, the state’s highest court granted plaintiff Billie Redding’s petition seeking writ of supervisory control over the district court.

Redding had filed her Montana securities lawsuit against her accountant and number of entities, after a failed $4.5M investment in four TICs in commercial property through DBSI Housing Inc., which promised a steady return and that it would manage the properties. (Unfortunately, DBSI not only had to file for bankruptcy protection in 2008, but also its receiver found out that the company had been running a Ponzi scam.) Both sides moved for summary judgment on a number of matters, including whether a TIC constitutes a security under the state’s law.

Finding there was no common venture between DBSI and Redding, the district court said that the TICs in question are not to be considered securities. The lower court applied the horizontal commonality approach to reason that the plaintiff hadn’t been burdened with the same risks as other investors because her contract stated there would be fixed profit returns. The court also said that the vertical commonality test was not satisfied because Redding stood to gain regardless of how much was collected from the properties at any month.

Montana Supreme Court Justice Michael Wheat noted that under the Montana securities law, the courts in the state interpret that an investment contract has to satisfy the prongs that it is an a) investment having a b) common venture that c) comes with reasonable expectations and profits d) through the managerial or entrepreneurial efforts of others. Wheat said that seeing as the state hasn’t adopted a method to determine what satisfies the common prong venture for the Montana Securities Act’s purposes, a common venture can be set up by fulfilling the element of “either horizontal, broad vertical, or narrow vertical commonality.” In the matter of Redding, the state’s Supreme Court said that the district court’s finding in regards to common venture conflicted with United States Supreme Court precedent in SEC v. Edwards and was therefore incorrect.

In that case, the nation’s highest court determined that a fixed return rate could be an investment contract and, hence, a security that was “subject to federal securities laws.” The Montana Supreme Court found that the district court’s “reliance on a promised return as dispositive of common venture” needed to be reversed. The state’s highest court said that vertical commonality or horizontal community is the “keystone” when it comes to common venture and not the investment return’s accompanying fluctuation and risk.

Court Erred in Finding TIC Investments Not Securities, Montana High Court Rules, Bloomberg/BNA, July 10, 2012

Redding v. Montana 1st Judicial District (PDF)

SEC v. Edwards

More Blog Posts:

Securities Fraud Lawsuit Seeks to Recover $49M From 96 Independent Broker-Dealers Liable Over Sales of Tenant-In-Common Exchanges, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 15, 2010
SEC to Push for Money Market Mutual Fund Reform Provisions Despite Opposition, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 6, 2012

Barclays LIBOR Manipulation Scam Places Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, and UBS Under The Investigation Microscope, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2012 Continue Reading ›

The trustee for the DBSI Inc. bankruptcy is suing 96 independent broker-dealers for securities fraud related to suspect tenant-in-common exchanges that were sold to investors. James Zazzali is seeking about $49 million in commissions earned.

In his securities fraud complaint, Zazzali, who is a retired Supreme Court of New Jersey justice, claims that DBSI’s TIC deals were part of a $600 million Ponzi scam. The lawsuit contends that the following companies made the most commissions from selling DBSI:

• Berthel Fisher & Company Financial Services Inc.
• QA3 Financial Corp.
• DeWaay Financial Network LLC,
• The Private Consulting Group • Questar Capital Corp.

22 of the broker-dealers named as defendants are no longer in business. Zazzali contends that the commissions were fraudulent transfers by DBSI and that due to the Ponzi nature of the enterprise, old investors benefited from funds put in by new investors. The trustee believes that the broker-dealers should return investor payments and commissions, which should be distributed to DBSI creditors.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has not filed securities fraud charges against DBSI. Other private placement issuers, such as Provident Royalties and Medical Capital Holdings, were charged by the regulator last year. Provident Royalties’ receiver sued over 40 broker-dealers this year in an effort to obtain claw-back in principal and commissions from firms that sold private placements.

TICs are a form of real estate ownership involving two or more parties with fractional interests in a property. DBSI Inc. was one of the biggest distributors and creators of the product until it defaulted on investor payments and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in November 2008. Before then, independent broker-dealers actively sold DBSI TICs. The financial product grew in popularity in 2002 after the Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling that let investors defer capital gains on commercial real estate transaction involving property exchanges.

Related Web Resources:
Sour real estate deals land B-Ds in hot water, Investment News, December 12, 2010
Something in common: Firms that sold TICs from DBSI, Investment News, December 15, 2010
Iowa brokerages included in lawsuit, DesMoines Register, December 14, 2010
Institutional Investors Securities Blog
Continue Reading ›

Contact Information