Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

With little formal education (a high school GED) Miller passed several securities industry examinations and “maintained a public persona of a very successful entrepreneur.” Miller sold investors over $41 million in phony “promissory notes,” which were securities under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(1), 78c(a)(10), and not exempt from federal or state registration requirements. Miller did not register the notes; he squandered the money, operating a Ponzi scheme. Miller pled guilty to one count of securities fraud, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and one count of tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. 7201. He was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the court improperly applied the Sentencing Guidelines investment adviser enhancement, U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(19)(A)(iii). The court interpreted the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11) to apply broadly, with exceptions that do not apply to Miller. The court also rejected arguments that the government breached Miller’s plea agreement and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

Witter contends that in August 2007 he telephoned Skelton, an employee of his broker, TransAct, with instructions to cancel several standing orders. Skelton did not do so, and Witter lost $23,000 on the resulting market position. Skelton claims that Witter never told him to cancel all seven of the working orders at issue. Witter filed a complaint with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 7 U.S.C. 18(a), which found no violation. The judgment officer refused to draw an adverse inference based on TransAct’s failure to produce a recording of the “one crucial conversation” because TransAct was not required to record the call; he found that Skelton’s version was more plausible and Witter had a “propensity to confuse trading terms” like “position” and “order.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding the Commission’s decision was supported by the evidence. Federal regulations require that, before buying or selling a commodity, a merchant must receive either “specific authorization” or “authorization in writing,” 17 C.F.R. 166.2. No regulation requires the merchant to record phone calls to cancel previously authorized orders to buy or sell. View "Witter v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n" on Justia Law

In the aftermath of Bernard Madoff's arrrest, the district court appointed a trustee for the liquidation of BLMIS, Madoff's investment advisory business. Several class actions were filed against JPMorgan by customers who directly had capital invested with BLMIS. JPMorgan entered a global resolution on January 6, 2014, involving three settlements. This putative class action seeks to hold liable JPMorgan and two JPMorgan employees: John Hogan, who served as Chief Risk Officer and later Chairman of Risk for JPMorgan, and Richard Cassa, who served as Client Relationship Manager for one of Madoff’s accounts. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that appellants' Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78t(a), claim was untimely and that appellants' federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961, claim was barred by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). View "Dusek v. JPMorgan Chase & Co." on Justia Law

Petitioners seek review of the Commission's decision imposing sanctions for violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-21, and the rule against misleading advertising. Here, the Commission instituted an administrative enforcement action against petitioners for alleged violations of anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act based on how they presented their “Buckets of Money” retirement wealth-management strategy to prospective clients. The court rejected petitioners' contention that the Commission’s decision and order under review should be vacated because the ALJ rendering the initial decision was a constitutional Officer who was not appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause. The court also concluded that there is substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that petitioners’ “Buckets-of-Money” presentation promised to provide an historical-data-only backtest where the analysis would account for “rebucketizing.” Paying deference to the Commission's choice of sanctions, the court upheld the district court's imposition of the lifetime industry bar on Raymond J. Lucia. The court rejected petitioners' remaining contentions and denied the petition for review. View "Raymond J. Lucia Co. v. SEC" on Justia Law

Stevens, an insurance salesman, wanted to sell investment products. Because he was not registered with the SEC, Stevens needed to associate himself with a registered investment advisor, 15 U.S.C. 80b-3(a). In 2003, he associated with IFA, a loosely confederated investment advisory firm. In exchange for sharing clientele and fees with IFA, Stevens had access to IFA’s market resources and proprietary information, including access to a cloud-based data system. Stevens uploaded sensitive nonpublic information, concerning both investment clients and insurance clients (who were not IFA clients). IFA did not know that Stevens had entered the non-IFA client information into the database. IFA learned that Stevens was involved in a Ponzi scheme, severed its association with Stevens, and blocked Stevens from accessing the database. Stevens sued, alleging conversion, violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, and tortious interference with business expectancy. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for IFA on claims relating to securities clients. Federal law prevents a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic information of its clients to a nonaffiliated third party like Stevens. The court also affirmed a verdict in favor of IFA concerning insurance clients, upholding the trial court’s response to a question sent by the jury during deliberations, “Can we consider [filing] the lawsuit a demand for property?” The court stated that filing did not constitute a demand for the purposes of an Illinois law conversion claim. View "Stevens v. Interactive Fin. Advisors, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, a tile salesman, received material, nonpublic information from a corporate inside and then passed that information along to friends, who used it to obtain substantial trading gains. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of committing securities fraud and conspiring to commit securities fraud. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support his conviction, where he was neither a corporate insider nor a trader of securities. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to show that Defendant knowingly breached a duty of confidence; (2) the district court’s instructions did not improperly shift the burden of proof or misstate the state of mind element of the securities fraud offense; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to show that Defendant anticipated receiving a benefit as a result of his disclosure. View "United States v. McPhail" on Justia Law

Trachte, a Wisconsin manufacturer, established an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) in the mid-1980s. In the late 1990s, Fenkell and his company, Alliance, began buying ESOP-owned, closely-held companies with limited marketability. Typically, Fenkell would merge the acquired company's ESOP into Alliance’s ESOP, hold the company for a few years with its management in place, and then spin it off at a profit. Alliance acquired Trachte in 2002 for $24 million and folded its ESOP into Alliance’s ESOP. Trachte’s profits, however, were flat and its growth stalled, so Fenkell arranged a complicated leveraged buyout involving creation of a new Trachte ESOP managed by trustees beholden to Fenkell. The accounts in the Alliance ESOP were spun off to the new Trachte ESOP, which used the employees’ accounts as collateral to purchase Trachte’s equity back from Alliance, Trachte and its new ESOP paid $45 million for Trachte’s stock and incurred $36 million in debt. The purchase price was inflated; the debt load was unsustainable. By the end of 2008, Trachte’s stock was worthless. The employee participants in the new ESOP sued Alliance, Fenkell, and trustees, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The district court found the defendants liable, crafted a remedial order to make the class whole, awarded attorney’s fees, and approved settlements among some of the parties. Fenkell conceded liability. The Seventh Circuit​ affirmed the order requiring him to indemnify his cofiduciaries. View "Chesemore v. Fenkell" on Justia Law

Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) filed a class action suit alleging securities fraud against Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), a government sponsored entity chartered by Congress that operates in the secondary mortgage market. OPERS alleged that Freddie Mac concealed its overextension in the nontraditional mortgage market (subprime mortgages or low credit and high-risk instruments) and its materially deficient underwriting, risk management, and fraud detection practices through misstatements and omissions to investors. OPERS claimed that the fund suffered foreseeable losses triggered when the risk that had been concealed materialized. The district court dismissed, concluding that OPERS failed to show loss causation. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Considering “the relationship between the risks allegedly concealed and the risks that subsequently materialized,” as well as the close correlation between the alleged revelation or materialization of the risk and the immediate fall in stock price, the court concluded that OPERS had alleged sufficient facts to support a plausible claim. View "Oh. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp." on Justia Law

SRM, a registered private investment fund, filed suit against Bear Stearns, its officers, and its auditor, Deloitte, after the collapse of the Bear Stearns companies. The district court dismissed SRM's claims. The court held that the class action tolling rule set forth in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah does not apply to 28 U.S.C. 1658(b)(2), the five‐year statute of repose that limits the time in which plaintiffs may bring claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and SEC 15 Rule 10b‐5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b‐5. The court also concluded that SRM failed adequately to allege that it relied on any misrepresentations in making investment decisions, an element of its common law fraud claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims. View "SRM Global Master Fund v. Bear Stearns" on Justia Law

ESG was a group of investors formed to purchase pre-Initial Public Offering (pre-IPO) Facebook shares. ESG’s managing agent negotiated the purchase with a man he believed to be "Ken Davis." "Ken Davis" was an alias for Troy Stratos, an alleged con artist. Venable represented "Dennis" in the Facebook deal, which is the subject of this securities fraud suit. After learning that ESG had been defrauded, managing agent Burns panicked and hid the news from ESG. ESG claims it did not learn of the alleged fraud and that their money had been stolen until November 2012. ESG filed suit against Stratos and Venable and attorney Meyer on March 6, 2013, alleging eight causes of action. The district court dismissed ESG's complaint, and subsequently the first amended complaint (FAC), with prejudice. The court held that ESG's federal securities fraud claim is sufficiently pled under FRCP 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 17 C.F.R. 240.10b–5; ESG's state law fraud claim, which parallels the federal securities fraud claim, is sufficiently pled under FRCP 9(b); ESG’s nonfraud state law claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, aiding and abetting fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud are sufficiently pled under FRCP 8(a)(2); and ESG's breach of fiduciary duty claim is barred by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 340.6's one-year statute of limitations. Finally, the court concluded that neither the aiding and abetting fraud claim nor the conspiracy to commit fraud claim is barred by Cal. Civ. Code 1714.10’s Agent’s Immunity Rule. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "ESG Capital Partners v. Venable LLP" on Justia Law