Investor Lawyers Blog

Texas Securities Fraud: Ex-Stanford Chief Investment Officer Gets 3-Year Prison Term for Her Part in $7 Billion Ponzi Scam

Published on: September 18, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Three months after pleading guilty to obstruction of an SEC proceeding related to its probe of the Stanford Ponzi scam, ex-Stanford Financial Group chief investment officer Laura Pendergest-Holt, 38, has been sentenced to three years behind bars. Texas financier R. Allen Stanford defrauded investors of over $7 billion. Pendergest-Holt was the first person indicted in the case involving him.

According to prosecutors, a number of former Stanford executives worked to conceal the true financial health of the bank and gave the SEC misleading information during its investigation into the Ponzi scheme in 2009. Pendergest-Holt had been scheduled to go to trial on 21 criminal counts before she decided to plead guilty to the single count of obstruction.

She owned up to lying to the firm’s financial advisers and investors, including telling them that the international money managers that she oversaw had placed most of the bank’s assets in investments that were liquid and conservative. She also claimed to supervise the bank’s whole investment portfolio, when she was actually only familiar with about two portions of it comprising just 12% of total assets. It wasn’t until 2009 that she found out that the portfolio’s third and biggest tier was made up of real estate that was overvalued, high-risk private equity investments, and a $1.6 billion personal loan issued to Stanford himself. Pendergest-Holt admitted that when she met with the SEC after making that discovery she purposely tried to stall the Commission’s investigation. She said that she had wanted to give the company-not Mr. Stanford-an opportunity to amend the disclosures so they “could fall into line.”

According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Varnado, Pendergest-Holt was allowed to plead guilty to just one criminal count because she didn’t know that Stanford was running a Ponzi scam until it was almost over. However, although her legal team tried to get her confinement moved from prison to her home or a halfway house, Varnado opposed the change of venue. He pointed out that because of federal sentencing guidelines, this could have left her with a much shorter sentence. Her efforts to have another month at home with her family, including her 16-month old daughter, were also rejected. (Pendergest-Holt’s friends and family have promoted the image of her as just another Stanford Ponzi scam victim who also lost a great deal financially, Varnado, however, said that he didn’t think Pendergest-Holt, who also gave her own statement in court, was taking responsibility for her actions, which included misleading investors. He said that not only was she not a victim, but “she is a federal felon.”)

Meantime, Stanford is serving his 110 years behind bars in Florida. His Stanford International Bank in Antigua sold fake CDs to investors and he took their money to fund a number of businesses that failed, support his lavish lifestyle, and bribe regulators. All the while, investors from over 100 countries were wrongly led to believe that their money was being invested in bonds, stocks, and other securities.

Ex-Stanford Exec Gets 3 Years for $7B Swindle, ABC News/AP, September 13, 2012

Stanford Ex-Investment Chief Pendergest Holt Gets 3 Years, Bloomberg News, September 13, 2012

United States v. Laura Pendergest-Holt, Gilberto Lopez and Mark Kuhrt, Court Docket Number: H-09-342, US Department of Justice

More Blog Posts:
Ex-Stanford Group Compliance Officer, Now MGL Consulting CEO, Says SEC’s Delay Over Whether to Charge Him in Ponzi Scam is Denying Him Right to Due Process, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 24, 2012

Stanford Ponzi Scam Investors File Class Action Lawsuit Suing The Securities and Exchange Commission, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 25, 2012

Texas Financier Allen Stanford’s Ponzi Scam: SIPC Asks District Court to Toss Out SEC Lawsuit Seeking to Reimburse Fraud Victims, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 5, 2012 Continue Reading ›

SEC Enforcement Roundup: Commission to Make Closer Examination of Revenue-Sharing Between Brokers and Investment Advisers, NYSE to Pay $5M For Alleged Compliance Issues, and Enforcement Director Khuzami Praises His Division’s Performance

Published on: September 18, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission is ramping up its examination of revenue-sharing arrangements between brokers and investment advisers. It made this announcement in a related administrative order involving advisory firms Focus Point Solutions Inc. and H Group Inc. and their owner Christopher Keil Hicks, who have consented to pay $1.1 million to settle charges that they did not disclose to their clients certain revenue-sharing payments that posed possible conflicts of interests.

Hicks and Focus Point Solutions are accused of not telling clients that in return for specific services, they were getting a portion of the revenues from a brokerage firm that managed mutual funds, which were being recommended to investors. Hicks’ other firm, H Group Inc., allegedly improperly voted on its clients’ behalf to make Focus Point a sub-adviser to one mutual fund (most of that fund’s shareholders were clients of H Group.)

Meantime the New York Stock Exchange has consented to pay $5 million to settle compliance failure charges that allegedly gave some customers an advantage over certain trading information. The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the charges, which are the first of its kind, on September 14. This is also the first financial penalty for an exchange.

According to the Commission, under Regulation NMS, market data cannot be sent to proprietary customers before the same information has been sent out in consolidated feeds, which give quote and trade information to the public. Yet, starting in 2008, the NYSE allegedly violated this regulation over a certain time period when it sent the data through its proprietary feeds first. NYSE also allegedly failed to ensure proper compliance when it did not correctly monitor the proprietary feeds’ speed compared to the speed of the consolidated feeds. According to SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami, even just “milliseconds” of a head start in terms of access to market data “disproportionately disadvantages retail and long-term investors.”

Although the NYSE is settling, it is not denying or admitting to wrongdoing. It and parent NYSE Euronext Inc. (NYX), however, have consented to having an independent party examine their market data delivery systems. On its website NYSE said that the SEC did not accuse it of taking part in any intentional misbehavior or that the data delays had hurt any investors.

Khuzami also recently spoke about the SEC’s other enforcement efforts. At a Practicing Law Institute conference, he said that the Division of Enforcement is doing well. He partially credits its performance to an organizational restructuring that took place in 2010, the agency’s whistleblower program, and stronger investigative work. Khuzami noted that the restructuring generated five specialized units, which has let SEC staff become experts in certain enforcement areas, and, with the help of data-driven analytics, allowed the Commission to look into violations.

Khuzami said that contrary to the idea that his division has not been investigating purported violations that allegedly took place during the 2008 economic crisis, these investigations have been taking place and that 75% of them have gone to litigation. Also, he noted that the SEC has begun a number of initiatives to try to identify additional violations, such as private fund analysis for zombie-funds and looking at whether hedge fund performances are aberrational compared to a certain strategy’s benchmark.

Khuzami also spoke about the SEC whistleblower program that was created under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, saying that it has already been “successful.” In just one year, August 2011 – 2012, the program has received about 2,870 tips—about 8 a day—with financial fraud, disclosure, market manipulation, and offering fraud among the most common alleged violations named. Khuzami said most tips in the US have from Texas, Florida, New York, and California. Whistleblower fraud tips have also come from abroad.

In re Focus Point Solutions Inc., SEC, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-15011 (PDF)

NYSE fined after some clients got early look at data, Reuters/Yahoo News, September 14, 2012

Division of Enforcement, SEC

More Blog Posts:
SEC Commissioners Paredes and Gallagher ‘Dismayed’ Over Chairman Schapiro’s Announcement Regarding Failed Money Market Mutual Fund Industry Overhaul Proposal, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 7, 2012

Institutional Investor Securities Roundup: FHFA Can Start Discovery in MBS Litigation Against Banks, SEC Sues Puerto Rico Man Over Alleged $7M Scam, and Assets of Two Colorado Men are Temporarily Frozen Over Alleged Promissory Note Ponzi Scheme, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 31, 2012

SEC Study Reports that Many Retail Investors Are Financially Illiterate, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 5, 2012

Technology and Market Developments Warrant Review of IPO Quiet Period, Says SEC Chairman Schapiro

Published on: September 15, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Replying to House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.)’s worries about the IPO process, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro wrote him a letter that, while standing by the existing structure, acknowledged that the Commission does need to take a look at the rules involving the “quiet period.” Per the rules, companies are not allowed to talk about their stock price to an offering during this time. Issa had recently told her that the SEC and Congress needed to take a more in-depth examination of both the way IPO’s are being priced and current communication restrictions.

Citing Facebook’s (PB) recent IPO in May, Issa pointed out that its underwriters gave negative forecasts about the company to certain institutional investors, which was a communication that current IPO rules allow. Retail investors, however, were not privy to this same information, so that when FB’s share price dropped significantly soon after trading started, it was the retail investors who were the ones that sustained most of the losses. Issa believes that quiet period rules discourage effective price discovery, which gives underwriters too much discretion in being able to establish IPO prices.

Although Schapiro did not talk about the Facebook IPO in her 32-page response, she argued that communication rules let the underwriter and company employ different means of figuring out the right securities price while simultaneously making sure that all prospective investors are given access to information that is consistent. She also spoke about how the quiet period is for making sure that all investors look at the offering documents of an issuer to get information about the IPO. Shapiro acknowledged that the SEC should look at current restrictions and she was adamant that making sure there is a proper regulatory structure for IPOs is integral to the “Commission’s mission to protect investors, facilitate capital formation, and maintain fair and orderly markets.”

Commenting on the exchange between Issa and Schapiro, Securities Lawyer William Shepherd had this to say: “The securities markets now operate at warp speed, but technological advances can work in two directions. Better technology can benefit all participants. Yet, better technology can also disadvantage all but the highest tech financial firms. The SEC should remember its role to protect investors from such disparities. If greater information is available to any investor, it should be easily available to all.”

Specifically addressing the “quiet period”, Shepherd, who is the founder of a stockbroker fraud law firm that represents clients throughout the US, said, “The required ‘quiet period,’ when a new issue is eminent, should not be violated to benefit a few, as was the situation during the Facebook initial public offering. Rather than working on plans to change the ‘quite period’ rules for the future, the SEC should first file charges against those who broke the current rule.”

Read Schapiro’s Letter to Issa (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
REIT Retail Properties of America’s $8 Public Offering Results in Major Losses for Fund Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 17, 2012

Should Retail Investors Be Given Greater Access to IPO Information?, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 29, 2012

Will the JOBS ACT Will Expand Private Offerings But Hurt Public Markets?, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 6, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Class Action MBS Securities Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs is Reinstated by 2nd Circuit

Published on: September 14, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reinstated a would-be class action securities lawsuit accusing Goldman Sachs (GS) (in the role of underwriter) and related entities of misstating the risks involving mortgage-backed securities certificates. The revival is based on 7 of 17 challenged offerings, causing the appeals court to conclude that the plaintiff can sue on behalf of investors in mortgaged-back certificates whose lenders originated the mortgages backing the certificates that were bought. The 2nd Circuit said that those investors’ claims and the pension fund’s claims implicate the same concerns.

Per the court, NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund is alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933’s Sections 15, 12(a)(2), and 11 involving a would-be class of investors who bought certain certificates that were backed by mortgages that Goldman had underwritten and one of its affiliates had issued. The certificates were sold in 17 offerings pursuant to the same shelf registration statement but with 17 separate prospectus supplements that came with specific details about each offering.

In its class action securities lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the shelf registration statement had material misrepresentations about both the risks involving the instruments and underwriting standards that are supposed to determine the ability of a borrower to repay. A district court dismissed the lawsuit.

The Second Circuit acknowledged that NECA suffered personal injury from the defendants’ use of allegedly misleading statements in the offering documents linked to the certificates that it bought. However, whether the defendants’ behavior implicates the same concerns as their decision to include similar statements in the Offering Documents associated with other certificates is more difficult to answer.

While the plaintiff’s claims are partially based on general allegations of a deterioration in loan origination practices that is industry wide, the most specific claims link the allegedly abusive conduct to the 17 trusts’ 6 main originators. However, Wells Fargo Bank (WFC) and GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc., the only two entities that are the originators of the loans behind the certificates that the fund bought, are not defendants in this securities lawsuit.

That the alleged misrepresentations showed up in separate Offering Documents doesn’t alone bring up fundamentally different concerns because their location doesn’t impact a given buyer’s “assertion that the representation was misleading,” said the court. Because of this, and other reasons, the plaintiff has class standing to assert the claims of the buyers of the Certificates from the 5 other Trusts that have loans that were originated by Wells Fargo, Greenpoint, or both.

The second circuit said that the fund didn’t need to “to plead an out-of-pocket loss” to allege a cognizable diminution in the value of a security that was not liquid under that statute. Finding the “requisite inferences” in favor of the plaintiff, the appeals court said that not only was it “plausible,” but also it was obvious that mortgage-backed securities, such as the Certificates, would experience a drop in value because of ratings downgrades and uncertain cash flows. The fund “plausibly alleged” a distinction between how much it paid for the certificates, their value, and when the class action MBS lawsuit was filed.

NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Justia (PDF)

Citigroup Inc.’s $590M CDO Putative Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval from District Court

Published on: September 13, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has given preliminary approval to the putative class action settlement reached between Citigroup Inc. (C) and its shareholders. Citigroup has agreed to pay $590 million over allegations that it misled the plaintiffs about its exposure to tens of billions of dollars collateralized debt obligations that were backed by residential mortgaged-backed securities and instead hid its toxic assets on its books. The plaintiffs contend that they sustained huge losses as a result. A settlement hearing for final approval is scheduled in January 2013.

The preliminary deal reached between the parties is the third largest shareholder class action settlement to be reached related to the 2008 financial crisis. Automated Trading Desk LLC shareholders, led by founder David Whitcomb and ex-ATD executive Jonathan Butler, are spearheading this securities case. (Citigroup had paid $680 million to buy ATD in 2008.) Other plaintiffs include pension funds in Ohio, Colorado, and Illinois.

Per the plaintiff shareholders, who purchased Citigroup shares between February 26, 2007 and April 18, 2008, it was around this time that Citigroup was involved in a “quasi-Ponzi scam” to make it seem as if its assets were doing well. The financial firm allegedly made material misrepresentations about CDO exposure-instead, claiming that it had sold CDOs worth billions of dollars and was no longer contending with their related risks-and failed to let investors know that it had guaranteed the securities (even transferring the guarantees it had established so the risks would be hidden).

The plaintiffs are also accusing Citibank of failing to do write-downs of the instruments in a timely manner during the class period ,even though it was aware that the subprime crash would cause great harm to its CDO holdings, and repackaging securities that no one wanted to buy into new CDOs so its exposure to the securities would be concealed. Also, per the amended complaint, Citigroup allegedly failed to modify its valuations when the CDO indexes revealed a huge drop in the securities values. Instead, the financial firm depended on higher valuations provide by sales it made to itself or from ratings firms.

Although Citibank is settling, it continues to deny the shareholder plaintiffs’ allegations. It claims it reached the agreement to get rid of the “burden and expense” of allowing this litigation to proceed. It also is saying that it is a different company now than what it was at the start of the economic crisis. Meantime, the interim lead plaintiffs have said they agreed to settle because it would be a “significant benefit” especially in light of the risk that the Settlement Class might not get anything if they had lost the CDO securities lawsuit.

Citigroup agrees to $590 million subprime settlement, The Washington Post, August 29, 2012

Citigroup Pays ATD Executives Again in $590 Million Deal, Bloomberg, August 30, 2012

More Blog Posts:

Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and UBS to Pay $9.1M Over Leveraged and Inverse ETFs, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 3, 2012 Continue Reading ›

IRS Pays Whistleblower $104M for Exposing Tax Evasion at UBS AG

Published on: September 13, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the largest individual federal payout in our nation’s history, the Internal Revenue Service has awarded ex-UBS AG (UBSN) Bradley Birkenfeld $104 million for acting as a whistleblower and exposing wide scale tax evasion involving the Swiss Bank. Birkenfeld, who was released from prison last month after serving 2.5 years in prison for fraud conspiracy related to this matter, is the one who revealed to the IRS how the Swiss bank helped thousands of Americans evade paying their taxes. He reported that in handling $20 billion in undeclared assets annually, UBS made $200 million a year.

The information that he provided led to UBS paying a $780 million fine so that it wouldn’t be prosecuted over the allegations. The Swiss bank also consented to an unprecedented agreement for it to give over the names of thousands of US citizens suspected of tax evasion and admitted that it fostered tax evasion between 2000 and 2007. UBS would eventually hand over information on 4,700 of its accounts.

At least 33,000 Americans have since voluntary disclosed to the IRS that they have offshore accounts. This resulted in over $5 billion.

Securities Roundup: FINRA Fines Rodman & Renshaw $315K, Convictions Reached in $1B High Yield Fraud Scam Involving FBI, SEC Sues Wwebnet over $2.1M Fraud, and Ex-Hedge Fund Manager Settles Unsuitable Investment Recommendation Allegations for Over $421K

Published on: September 11, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

To settle Financial Industry Regulatory Authority allegations that it committed numerous violations involving dealings between investment banking and research functions, Rodman & Renshaw LLC has agreed to pay a $315,000 fine. According to the SRO, from January 2008 to March 2012, the financial firm did not have an adequate supervisory system in place to properly monitor these interactions. Rodman & Renshaw also allegedly did not keep research analysts from soliciting investment banking business, compensated one analyst for such contributions, and did not stop Rodman’s CEO (he was on its Research Analyst Compensation Committee while taking part investment banking activities) from having control or influence over research analyst evaluations and compensation.

Also fined over this matter are ex-Rodman & Renshaw CCO William A. Iommi Sr., who must pay $15,000, is suspended from serving in a principal capacity for 90 days, and has to requalify as a general securities principal, research analyst Lewis B. Fan, who must pay $10,000 fine and is suspended for 30 business days for allegedly trying to solicit investment banking business from public companies, and research analyst Alka Singh, who must pay $10,000 and is suspended for six months for allegedly trying to set up a concealed fee from a public company that she provided with research coverage. Although all of the parties have consented to an entry of FINRA’s findings, they have not denied or admitted to the securities charges.

In an unrelated securities case, a California jury has found ex-Rodman & Renshaw broker and investment adviser William Ferry and former real estate investment manager Dennis Clinton guilty of conspiracy, wire fraud, and mail fraud in a high-yield investment fraud scam that involved efforts to bilk a rich investor of $1 billion. The investor was actually someone who was working undercover for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

US Government Sells $18B of AIG Stock and Turns a $12.4B Profit

Published on: September 11, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The United States Treasury Department has sold $18 billion of American International Group Inc. (AIG) stock in a public offering. The sale cut the government ‘s stake in the insurance company to approximately 21.5% while making it a $12.4B profit on the bailouts that occurred during the economic crisis. This could be largest secondary offering in our nation’s history. AIG’s shares were sold at $32.50 each.

Meantime, AIG repurchased $5B of its shares with the remaining going to the broader public. In a securities filing, the insurance company said that it intends to use $3B of short-term securities and cash and $2B in proceeds from its sale of its stake in AIA Group to repurchase its stock.

Now, underwriters have 30 days to purchase another $2.7B of AIG shares. The deal’s underwriters include Citigroup Inc. (C), Deutsche Bank, AG (DB), Credit Suisse (CS), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), JPMorgan (JPM), Royal Bank of Canada’s (RY) RBC Capital Markets division, Bank of America Corp’s (BAC) Merrill Lynch division (MER), Morgan Stanley (MS), and Barclays PLC (BCS).

This is the government’s largest sell-down of AIG shares since bailing out the insurer. It had even pledged up to $182.3B to bolster AIG in the wake of growing subprime losses at one point. In return, the government acquired a close to 80% stake in AIG.

To date, the government, which used taxpayer funds to keep some companies afloat during the economic crisis, has gotten back $342 billion of the $411 billion that it through Troubled Asset Relief Program. That said, over 300 small banks that were given funding through TARP still need to pay back taxpayers.

In May, the GAO estimated that taxpayers might profit by $15.1 billion on the AIG bailout. Overallotment, if exercised, will allow the government to arrive at that amount. (The government has been reducing its stake in AIG since early last year. With the overallotment option of the stock sale, the government’s stake will go from 53% to 15.9%.)

According to Reuters, with the Treasury’s ownership stake in it dropping under 50%, because AIG is the owner of a small bank the Federal Reserve will begin regulating it as a savings and loan holding company. This means that AIG will have to be in compliance with the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s new rules, such as the Volcker law, which places a limit on a large financial firm’s being able to have stakes in hedge funds and private equity firms or trade for their own account.

The government’s bailout of AIG after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy about four years ago had totaled $182 billion. Now, Chief Executive Robert Benmosche is saying that the financial rescues, paid back at a profit, have left the insurer positioned for success. The government has also been paid back in huge part the bailout loans it gave to other large financial institutions. However, it still is owed much from its rescues of Chrysler and General Motors and the billions of dollars it used to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac afloat.

Treasury sells big chunk of AIG stock at a profit, Reuters, September 11, 2012

Treasury Sells More AIG Shares: $20.7B Total Cuts Stake To 15.9%, Forbes, September 11, 2012
U.S. Plans $18 Billion Sale of AIG Stock, The Wall Street Journal, September 10, 2012

Mutual Funds File Suit Against BP for Violating Texas Statute Prohibiting Fraud in the Sale of Stock

Published on: September 8, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A number of mutual funds are suing BP (BP) in Texas for common fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and statutory fraud. They are contending that they wouldn’t have paid top price for the company’s shares if they’d known the “truth.” Plaintiffs include Skandia Global Funds, Yorkshire Pensions Authority, and GAM Fund Management.

The institutional investors are claiming that they lost huge amounts of money because of misleading statements that BP made about having a priority ‘safety first’ policy and that the oil giant tried to mislead them about the true extent of the 2010 oil spill while downplaying the likely scope of its responsibility for the disaster, which killed 11 people and is now considered the worst offshore spill in our nation’s history. They believe that statements were made to make it seem as if: the leak wasn’t as widespread, BP didn’t do anything wrong to cause the tragedy, and “consequential damages were limited,” not only minimized the seriousness in the decline of BP’s stock price but also caused Plaintiffs to make the decision to buy more shares. The mutual funds are accusing BP executives of exhibiting a “reckless disregard” of what was actually happening and concealing that the oil spill was a lot bigger.

The disaster began on April 20, 2010 when an explosion rocked the Deepwater Horizon, a drilling rig that was licensed to BP. Not only were lives lost, but also in two days, the rig, which sank, left an oil slick of five miles in its wake, with millions of gallons of crude oil spilling out before the well could be capped. Already, BP has put aside about $38 billion for lawsuits involving US authorities over civil claims related to the oil spill. (Criminal charges could be likely).

St. Louis Rams Quarterback AJ Feeley and US Soccer Player Heather Mitts Are Among Professional Athletes Allegedly Targeted in Ponzi Scam

Published on: September 7, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

St. Louis Rams Quarterback AJ Feeley, US Soccer Player Heather Mitts, Philadelphia Eagles Tight End Brent Celek, and NFL player Kevin Curtis have filed a securities lawsuit against their former financial advisor William Crafton Jr. for allegedly defrauding them in the Westmoore Capital Ponzi scam and other financial schemes and causing them to lose millions of dollars. Crafton controlled and oversaw over $7.5 million of their funds. The plaintiffs are also suing Martin Kelly Capital Management, Suntrust Bank, and CSI Capital Management (as well as 50 John Does) for their negligent hiring and supervision of Crafton at the relevant times material to this lawsuit.

According to their Ponzi scam complaint, Crafton is the financial representative for at least 20 professional athletes, including members of the NFL, MLB, and NHL. The plaintiffs said that he often referred to these relationships to solicit new pro athlete clients. When he became the plaintiffs’ financial adviser, he managed nearly all of their assets and incomes that they’d obtained through their professional contracts until their relationship with him ended. They say that the three defendant firms also affiliated themselves with having professional athlete clients.

The plaintiffs maintain that from the beginning of their working relationship with Crafton, they each made it clear that they wanted to employ a conservative investment approach involving a portfolio of assets that were liquid and would help preserve their money. They claim that while Crafton assured them that he was a low risk taker and conservative money manager, in 2005 he began putting their money in risky, alternative investment that were either Ponzi scams or other fraudulent investments that were created or run by individuals that Crafton knew. These investments were not liquid and unsuitable for the plaintiffs and Crafton allegedly either had a financial stake or undisclosed relationship with each investment that they did not know about.

The plaintiffs are accusing Crafton of knowingly making false and material misrepresentations to them, providing them with poor quality wealth management services, placing their funds in unsafe investments, misappropriating their money for his personal purposes, and taking inappropriate steps to conceal the fraud scams he was committing against them. They believe that the defendant companies failed in their independent fiduciary duty when they let Crafton invest, in some instances, over 60% of the Plaintiffs’ assets in illiquid, risky, Ponzi scams and alternative investments.

The plaintiffs say they were never required to fill out investment objective statements or client profiles and customized investment programs were never developed for them. They also contend that their financial risks were not defined for them and industry standards allegedly weren’t followed to determine their risk tolerances or set up an appropriate plan for them. They are seeking disgorgement of management fees, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and legal fees.

Snookered in a Ponzi, Pro Athletes Say, Courthouse News, August 15, 2012

Read the Complaint (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Securities and Exchange Commission Charges Former UGA Football Coach Jim Donnan Over Alleged $80M Ponzi Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 16, 2012 Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing Must Pay $20.5M Arbitration Award in Bayou Ponzi Scam, Upholds 2nd Circuit, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 14, 2012

Madoff Trustee Files Clawback Lawsuits Collectively Seeking Over $1B For BLMIS Feeder Fund Transfers, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 12, 2012 Continue Reading ›