Private Placements

Published on: August 17, 2018

EquityBuild, Issuer of Purported Secured Notes, is a Ponzi Scheme, SEC Alleges

An issuer of purported secured notes backed by real estate has been sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that amid losses, it “devolved into a Ponzi scheme.” The group of companies, known as EquityBuild, solicited investors via Internet advertising, social media, and other methods, the SEC alleges. According to the SEC suit, EquityBuild and its leaders defrauded investors that invested in notes backed by South Side of Chicago real estate and other assets. EquityBuild affiliates “sustained heavy losses and the properties they pitched to investors failed to earn anywhere near enough to pay the promised double-digit returns,” the SEC complaint says. “As a result, (the EquityBuild) investment program devolved into a Ponzi scheme: Defendants could only pay earlier investors by raising funds from unwitting new investors.”

Jerome and Shaun Cohen, father and son, run EquityBuild and a subsidiary, EquityBuild Finance. EquityBuild allegedly has raised at least $135 million from more than 900 investors since 2010, according to the SEC suit, filed in federal court in Chicago. EquityBuild allegedly solicited investors to invest in debt used to finance properties. EquityBuild allegedly touted outsize returns of 12 to 20 percent with minimal risk of loss of principal. and downplayed the risks, according to the SEC complaint. The SEC alleges that EquityBuild, based in Marco Island, Florida, skimmed 15 to 30 percent off each investment through fees that the company and the Cohens didn’t disclose. EquityBuild also allegedly paid returns to older investors with the proceeds of newer investments, paying investors about $14.5 million in interest payments between January 2015 through February 2017 although income and fees from EquityBuild properties totaled only $3.8 million, according to the SEC suit.

It is unclear from publicly available information whether EquityBuild investments were sold by FINRA or SEC-registered financial advisors. Investors in EquityBuild may wish to consider claims against professionals such as stockbrokers, financial advisors, or insurance agents who sold them the investments, or any professional services firms (law firms, accounting firms, etc.) that may have materially participated in EquityBuild’s unregistered securities offering. As the SEC has alleged that the EquityBuild investments were securities that were not registered or exempt from registration, investors may be able to pursue claims against various third-parties that materially participated in these transactions.

Published on: July 27, 2018

SEC Alleges Financial Visions, Colorado-Based Funeral Financing Business, Operated as Ponzi Scheme

by InvestorLawyers

Piggybank In A Cage The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has filed a fraud lawsuit in federal court in Colorado against a group of companies known as “Financial Visions” and their principal, Daniel B. Rudden (“Rudden”), who allegedly bilked at least 150 investors in a $55 million alleged Ponzi scheme.

The SEC’s complaint charges that Rudden, operating under the name Financial Visions and through a group of companies, issued promissory notes to fund a line of business involving providing financing for funeral services and related expenses to consumers. The SEC alleges that Rudden/Financial Vision defrauded as many as 150 investors after promising them annual returns of 12% or more. Since 2010 or 2011, Rudden allegedly used new investor funds to pay interest and redemptions to existing investors and concealed the Financial Visions companies’ true financial performance and condition.

The SEC Complaint is accessible here.

Published on: July 23, 2018

Jerry Raines, Formerly of HD Vest, Allegedly Sold Unregistered Woodbridge Securities

by InvestorLawyers

woodbridge mortgage funds Investors in unregistered Woodbridge First Position Commercial Mortgages (“FPCMs”) notes and/or units upon the recommendation of former financial advisor Jerry Davis Raines (CRD# 4578689, hereinafter “Raines”) may be able to recover losses in arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). According to FINRA BrokerCheck, a number of investors have already filed claims against Mr. Raines in connection with allegations surrounding Mr. Raines’ alleged recommendation of unsuitable Woodbridge investments to customers. Mr. Raines was most recently affiliated with HD Vest Investment Services (CRD# 13686, hereinafter “HD Vest”) from 2014 – May 2017. Previous to that, Mr. Raines was affiliated with Signal Securities, Inc. (CRD#15916) and Woodmen Financial Services, Inc. (CRD# 117365).

As recently reported, the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC (“Woodbridge”) of Sherman Oaks, CA, and certain of its affiliated entities, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on December 4, 2017 (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware – Case No. 17-12560-KJC). The SEC has alleged that Woodbridge, through its owner and former CEO, Mr. Robert Shapiro, purportedly utilized “more than 275 Limited Liability Companies to conduct a massive Ponzi scheme raising more than $1.22 billion from over 8,400 unsuspecting investors nationwide through fraudulent unregistered securities offerings.”

Beginning as early as 2012, Woodbridge and its affiliates offered securities nationwide to numerous retail investors through a network of in-house promoters, as well as various licensed and unlicensed financial advisors. Woodbridge investments came in two primary forms: (1) “Units” that consisted of subscriptions agreements for the purchase of an equity interest in one of Woodbridge’s seven Delaware limited liability companies, and (2) “Notes” or what have commonly been referred to as “First Position Commercial Mortgages” or “FPCMs” consisting of lending agreements underlying purported hard money loans on real estate deals.

Published on: July 20, 2018

CT Financial Advisors Temenos Advisory and George Taylor Charged By SEC

by InvestorLawyers

Money in Wastebasket On July 18, 2018, the SEC filed a lawsuit in the District of Connecticut naming Temenos Advisory, Inc. (“Temenos”) and George L. Taylor (“Taylor”) as Defendants and essentially alleging that Defendants made improper recommendations of certain private placement investments to their investment advisory clients. A copy of the SEC Complaint is accessible here: SEC v Temenos & Taylor

Temenos, founded by Taylor, is a Connecticut corporation headquartered in Litchfield, CT, with additional offices located in St. Simons Island, GA and Scottsdale, AZ. Temenos has been registered with the SEC as a registered investment advisor (RIA) since 1999, and is owned by Mr. Taylor and a trust that was purportedly established for purposes of benefiting Taylor’s former business partner.

As alleged by the SEC, prior to 2014, Temenos’ business was largely focused on the sale of traditional financial products to its clientele, including “[m]utual funds, exchange traded funds, variable annuities, and publicly traded stocks.” Like many RIAs, Temenos charged an advisory fee to its customers based upon a percentage of assets under management. However, as alleged in the Complaint, beginning in 2014 Temenos began recommending private placement investments to its clients: “Between 2014 and 2017, Defendants placed more than $19 million in investments by their clients and others in [the securities of] four private issuers … And they did so without ever sufficiently examining the marketing claims, financial statements, or business activities of those companies.”

Published on: July 19, 2018

Massachusetts Securities Regulator Targets Brokerages in Private Placement Sales

by InvestorLawyers

Financial Fraud As recently reported by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), investments in so-called private placements have experienced a substantial upswing in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. In fact, according to a May 7, 2018 WSJ article entitled, A Private-Market Deal Gone Bad: Sketchy Brokers, Bilked Seniors and a Cosmetologist, “In 2017 alone, private placements using brokers totaled at least $710 billion … a nearly threefold increase rise from 2009.” Of considerable concern, the article indicates that that financial advisors recommending private placements are “six times as likely as the average broker to report at least one regulatory action against them…” and, moreover, that 1 in 8 brokers recommending private placement investments have “three or more red flags on their records, such as investor complaint, regulatory action, criminal charge or firing… .”

In response to growing concerns about the many risks and pitfalls associated with private placements, some securities regulators have stepped up their efforts to combat the problem. For example, on July 2, 2018, the Massachusetts Securities Division (the “Division”) announced its investigation into sales practices linked to private placement investments. Pursuant to the Division’s investigation – which will be spearheaded by Mr. William Galvin, the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts – a total of 10 broker-dealers will be subjected to regulatory inquiry. These brokerage firms, which have a demonstrated history of sales practice abuse surrounding private placement investments, include: LPL Financial, Arthur W. Wood Company, Santander Securities, U.S. Boston Capital, Bolton Global Capital, Advisory Group Equity Services, Moors & Cabot, Inc., Detwiler Fenton & Co., BTS Securities, and Winslow, Evans & Crocker.

In connection with its investigation, the Division is seeking to examine firms and advisors with disciplinary reports on file from 2 years ago, when the Division surveyed over 200 brokerage firms regarding their hiring and disciplinary practices. According to Mr. Galvin: “Private placements are risky investments that reward the salesperson handsomely with high commissions. Firms offering these to the public, especially seniors, have an obligation to see that they are sold to benefit the investor, not the broker. Individuals with a history of disciplinary actions magnify the risk of unsuitable sales in connection with private placements.”

Published on: June 7, 2018

Essex Capital Corp and Principal Ralph Iannelli Charged With Securities Fraud by SEC

by InvestorLawyers

On June 5, 2018, the SEC filed a Complaint in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California (Case 2:18-cv-05008), charging Ralph T. Iannelli and Essex Capital Corporation (“Essex”) with violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC has alleged that Mr. Iannelli — acting through his equipment leasing company, Essex — perpetrated a long-running fraud in connection with an $80 million securities offering involving approximately 70 investors. The Complaint is accessible below:

Essex SEC Complaint

As alleged by the SEC, from 2014 – 2017, Mr. Iannelli attracted investor capital through the sale of promissory notes that paid a high rate of return (typically 8.5%, but as high as 10% per annum). In certain of its marketing materials, Essex claimed that 100% of investor funds would be utilized to purchase equipment, and that investors would be paid back on their investment within a 3-year time frame. In actuality, however, the SEC has alleged that Essex’s business was anything but profitable: “Unbeknownst to the investors… the representations Iannelli made about their investment were materially false and misleading.” By 2014, the SEC has alleged that Essex spent only $2.3 million, or approximately 9% of capital it had raised that year through the sale of promissory notes ($20 million) and certain bank loans ($6 million), to actually purchase equipment.

Published on: May 10, 2018

Investors in Illiquid REITs and Real Estate Limited Partnerships May Encounter Considerable Difficulty in Redeeming Shares for Cash

by InvestorLawyers

investing in real estate through a limited partnership Investors in numerous non-traded REITs and real estate limited partnerships may have recently encountered difficulty in exiting their investment position through redemption of shares with the sponsor. As we have highlighted in several previous blog posts, non-traded REITs and similar limited partnership investments (often sold via private placement), are extremely complex and risky investments.

Unlike exchange traded REITs that trade on deep and liquid national securities exchanges, publicly registered non-traded REITs are sold through an offering or successive offerings to the retail investing public, often over the course of several years. Once the offering has closed, investors may find that their ability to redeem shares with the sponsor is severely restricted, or in some instances, outright suspended. This is particularly problematic for retail investors who quite often were steered into the investment by a financial advisor who, in some instances, may have failed to fully disclose the nature of the investment, including its illiquid nature.

In the same vein, investments in real estate limited partnerships are often conducted via a private placement, pursuant to Regulation D as promulgated by the SEC. As a general rule, a private placement investment in real estate carries with it many of the same risks embedded in investing in non-traded REITs. These risks include: (1) high fees and commissions, (2) a general lack of transparency concerning the investment (while publicly registered non-traded REITs will typically provide more information than a private placement, the fact remains that many non-traded REITs are structured as blind pools, and accordingly an investor will not be able to readily ascertain the nature of the underlying property portfolio), and (3) difficulty exiting an illiquid investment position.

Published on: April 25, 2018

Hard Rock Exploration Oil and Gas Private Placements Impacted By Bankruptcy Filing

by InvestorLawyers

Oil Drilling Rigs Hard Rock Exploration, Inc. (“Hard Rock”) of Charleston, West Virginia and certain of its affiliate entities, including Blue Jacket Gathering LLC, Blue Jacket Partnership, Caraline Energy Company, and Brothers Realty, LLC (“Hard Rock Affiliates”), are independent oil and gas development companies.

On September 5, 2017, Hard Rock and Hard Rock Affiliates filed for bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of West Virginia Bankruptcy Court (2:17-bk-20459). Shortly after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Hard Rock reported a monthly cash flow shortage of $325,000. According to Hard Rock’s lender, Huntington National Bank, “rehabilitation of the Debtors’ business is impossible” due to their ongoing hemorrhaging of cash.

Hard Rock and Hard Rock Affiliates operate approximately 390 well sites in the Appalachian Basin. In addition, Caraline Energy Co. owns and maintains approximately 365 miles of pipeline developed to support natural gas collection.

Published on: March 24, 2018

Alaska Financial Company III Promoters Allegedly Misappropriated Funds and Violated SEC “Regulation D”

by InvestorLawyers

Stealing Money The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reportedly has settled charges against the operators of a real estate investment business that caused millions in loses to investors. Up to 300 investors may have lost money on interests in a fund known as Alaska Financial Company III, LLC (“AFC III”), which two individuals named Tobias Preston and Charles Preston sold to investors via their company McKinley Mortgage Co. LLC (“McKinley”).

The SEC accused defendants of falsely portraying AFC III as a safe investment and reporting that it had profitable operations. However, according to the SEC, in reality AFC III was insolvent and unable to make interest payments as they came due. According to the SEC, although a portion of the raised funds were invested as promised to investors, Messrs. Preston and McKinley diverted millions of dollars in proceeds of outside investments to fund business and personal expenses as well as McKinley’s operations.

AFC III has made so-called Form D filings with the SEC since 2013 stating that AFC III qualifies for an exemption from registration of its securities offering under Rule 506(c), which allows for general solicitation of investors, such as through AFC III’s website and social media platforms, but limits sales to accredited investors. As a general rule, offers of securities to the public (which includes offers made over the internet) must be registered with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933. However, under federal securities law, the SEC recognizes certain instances where companies seeking to raise capital are exempt from registering securities. Securities offerings exempt from registration are sometimes referred to as “private placements.” AFC III sought to be treated as exempt from registration by the SEC and was marketed as a private placement.

Published on: March 20, 2018

Recent Tax Ruling Sparks Selloff in Energy Master Limited Partnerships

by InvestorLawyers

As recently reported, on March 15, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) indicated that it would no longer allow oil and gas pipelines structured as Master Limited Partnerships (“MLPs”) to recover an income tax allowance for cost-of-service rates. The cost-of-service model particularly impacts those MLPs which operate interstate pipelines in the sector’s midstream. These MLPs charge customers a regulated price, a portion of which is to cover corporate tax charges. However, MLPs don’t pay corporate taxes in the first instance, because they are pass-through entities which distribute their pre-tax income to unit holders, who then pay taxes on it according to their own individual situation.

FERC has announced — in the wake of recent tax cuts and a D.C. Circuit Court decision in United Airlines vs. FERC – that for more than a decade MLPs have been able “to recover an income tax allowance in their cost of service.” In effect, this has served to boost the amount of pre-tax income to be pass through to investors.

While it is unclear as to when any rule issued by FERC will go into effect, perhaps no sooner than 2020, MLPs were adversely impacted in trading. At one point during trading on March 15, the Alerian MLP ETF (NYSE: AMLP) — which serves to track the MLP sector — was down as much as 10%. This ETF has lost approx. 18% in the past year.