Antenuptial Agreement Guides Court in Broward Divorce Terms

/in /by

Alimony, an antenuptial agreement, real estate appreciation in non-marital assets, and income calculations were among the items addressed in Weymouth v. Weymouth, Case No. 4D10-873 (FL Dist. 4 Ct. App., Apr. 11, 2012).

Highlights of the Appeals Court ruling include:

  • Passive appreciation of the Broward County home was marital property subject to equitable distribution, even though the home remained titled in the husband’s name alone prior to and during the marriage.
  • The parties should equally split the proceeds of the sale of a North Carolina property acquired during the marriage.
  • The Appeals Court agreed that adultery was the basis for the dissolution.
  • The trial court will need to reconsider the issue of the wife’s needs for purposes of alimony in light of the fact that she will need to secure alternative housing in Broward County.

Case Background

The parties were married in 1993. Shortly before their marriage, the parties executed an Antenuptial Agreement prepared by the husband’s attorney. The Antenuptial Agreement contained a schedule of all the husband’s assets and liabilities prior to the execution of the agreement.

Paragraph 3 of the Antenuptial Agreement provided that the wife would “hereby forever remise, release and quit claim all right, title and interest she might have or otherwise could have . . . to any property owned prior to marriage . . . by Michael and specifically waives any and all claim or claims which she might have in and to the real and personal property of Michael, owned prior to marriage . . . .”

Paragraph 4 provided that all “property acquired by either of them during the marriage (other than property acquired by either of them by gift or inheritance)” is marital property. The Antenuptial Agreement did not, however, contain an express waiver of growth or appreciation of pre-marital or non-marital assets.

Paragraph 11 of the Antenuptial Agreement provided that the parties “specifically waive any claims against the other for alimony . . . unless the basis for the dissolution is adultery, physical abuse, mental or emotional abuse.” Furthermore, “[i]n the event of adultery, physical abuse, or mental or emotional abuse, either party shall be able to seek alimony and support from the other pursuant to Florida law; except that adultery or abuse may not be used against the party obligated to pay alimony or support.”

A full copy of the ruling in Weymouth v. Weymouth is available on request from attorney Marcy Resnik, Esq.

Contact a Fort Lauderdale Divorce Attorney

If you have questions about a divorce or dissolution of marriage, contact Fort Lauderdale divorce attorney Marcy Resnik. You can contact her online or call her at 954-321-0176.

OppenheimerFunds to Pay $35 Million to Settle SEC Charges

/in /by

Oppenheimer used derivative instruments known as total return swaps (TRS contracts) to add substantial commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) exposure in a high-yield bond fund called the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund and an intermediate-term, investment-grade fund known as the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund, according to an SEC investigation.

The 2008 prospectus for the Champion fund didn’t adequately disclose the fund’s practice of assuming substantial leverage in using derivative instruments. When declines in the CMBS market triggered large cash liabilities on the TRS contracts in both funds and forced Oppenheimer to reduce CMBS exposure, Oppenheimer disseminated misleading statements about the funds’ losses and their recovery prospects.

Oppenheimer agreed to pay more than $35 million to settle the SEC’s charges.

“Mutual fund providers have an obligation to clearly and accurately convey the strategies and risks of the products they sell,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Candor, not wishful thinking, should drive communications with investors, particularly during times of market stress.”

Julie Lutz, Associate Director of the SEC’s Denver Regional Office, added, “These Oppenheimer funds had to sell bonds at the worst possible time to raise cash for TRS contract payments and cut their CMBS exposure to limit future losses. Yet, the message that Oppenheimer conveyed to investors was that the funds were maintaining their positions and the losses were recoverable.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting settled administrative proceedings against OppenheimerFunds and OppenheimerFunds Distributor Inc., the TRS contracts allowed the two funds to gain substantial exposure to commercial mortgages without purchasing actual bonds. But they also created large amounts of leverage in the funds. Beginning in mid-September 2008, steep CMBS market declines drove down the net asset values (NAVs) of both funds. These losses forced Oppenheimer to raise cash for month-end TRS contract payments by selling securities into an increasingly illiquid market.

According to the SEC’s order, the funds’ portfolio managers under instruction from senior management began executing a plan in mid-November to reduce CMBS exposure. Just as they began to do so, however, the CMBS market collapse accelerated, creating staggering cash liabilities for the funds and driving their NAVs even lower.

The SEC’s order found that continued CMBS declines forced the funds to sell more portfolio securities in order to raise cash for anticipated TRS contract payments. This task became increasingly difficult for the Champion fund, ultimately prompting Oppenheimer to make a $150 million cash infusion into the fund on November 21. Over the next two weeks, the funds continued to reduce their CMBS exposure to avoid further losses.

According to the SEC’s order, Oppenheimer advanced several misleading messages when responding to questions in the midst of these events. For instance, Oppenheimer communicated to financial advisers (whose clients were invested in the funds) and fund shareholders directly that the funds had only suffered paper losses and their holdings and strategies remained intact. Oppenheimer also stressed that absent actual defaults, the funds would continue collecting payments on the funds’ bonds as they waited for markets to recover.

These communications were materially misleading because the funds were committed to substantially reducing their CMBS exposure, which dampened their prospects for recovering CMBS-induced losses. Moreover, the funds had been forced to sell significant portions of their bond holdings to raise cash for anticipated TRS contract payments, resulting in realized investment losses and lost future income from the bonds.

The SEC’s investigation found that the Champion fund’s 2008 prospectus was materially misleading in describing the fund’s “main” investments in high-yield bonds without adequately disclosing the fund’s practice of assuming substantial leverage on top of those investments. While the prospectus disclosed that the fund “invested” in “swaps” and other derivatives “to try to enhance income or to try to manage investment risk,” it did not adequately disclose that the fund could use derivatives to such an extent that the fund’s total investment exposure could far exceed the value of its portfolio securities and, therefore, that its investment returns could depend primarily upon the performance of bonds that it did not own.

The SEC’s order finds that OppenheimerFunds violated Section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), and Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 205(4)-8 promulgated thereunder. The order finds that OppenheimerFunds Distributor violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act.

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, OppenheimerFunds agreed to pay a penalty of $24 million, disgorgement of $9,879,706, and prejudgment interest of $1,487,190. This money will be deposited into a fund for the benefit of investors. OppenheimerFunds and OppenheimerFunds Distributor also agreed to provisions in the order censuring them and directing them to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations or future violations of these statutes and rules.

Florida Securities Litigation and FINRA Arbitration

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities dispute. In addition to being an experienced securities litigation attorney, Mr. Kahn also serves as a FINRA arbitrator for individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

First District Court of Appeal addresses “as is” language in Commercial Real Estate Contract

/in /by

In the recent decision styled Thomas J. Duggan, LLC v Peacock Point, LLC, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1206 (Fla. 1st DCA May 23, 2012), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a claim for rescission involving an auction sale of subdivision lots under a contract containing an “as is” provision.

The parties had entered into a contract to sell a six-lot waterfront subdivision in Destin, Florida for $3.2 million. The sale arose from an auction and the contract contained an “as is” provision. The buyer sought to rescind the contract because the lots were not as the seller had represented, immediately ready for residential construction. The city would not issue building permits until the development obtained a certificate of completion.

Ruling against the buyer, the trial court found that although the parties made a mutual mistake of fact, that at the time of the auction, the houses could not be constructed on the lots, the buyer had failed to establish that the contract did not put the risk of mistake on him.

On appeal, the buyer argued the the trial court erred by failing to rescind the contract based upon either a fraudulent or innocent mistake and the seller’s failure to make full disclosure despite the “as is” provision or mutual mistake of fact. The court on appeal found that the evidence did not support fraud in that neither the seller nor the auction house knowingly made a false statement of material fact.

The court on appeal also rejected the argument based upon innocent mistake because the buyer failed to show that the seller possessed superior knowledge over the buyer, a sophisticated developer. Since the issue was a matter of public record, the buyer had the same access to the information and the alleged representation did not pertain to some latent defect in the land.

The appellate court also stated that the duty to disclose imposed on sellers in residential real estate transactions does not similarly apply to commercial property sellers. Under the ‘as is” provision, the buyer disclaimed any warranties or representations of any kind or character made by the seller and its agent, the auctioneer.

Finally, the appellate court concluded that to prevail on a claim for mutual mistake, the plaintiff not only must prove the mutual mistake but that the contract did not place the risk of mistake on the party seeking rescission. In this case, the court on appeal concluded that the ‘as is’ language placed the risk of mutual mistake on the buyer.

Florida Real Estate Litigation Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale real estate litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a real estate or business contract dispute. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Female Entrepreneurs and Professionals Lack Disability Insurance

/in /by

Women are most at risk both physically and financially when it comes to disability, according to a new study released by The State Farm® Center for Women and Financial Services at The American College.

Data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows women are increasingly more likely to experience a disabling condition during their working and senior years. Arthritis, the leading cause of disability among adult Americans, is more than twice as likely to affect women as men. The incidence of disability for females has risen at a disproportionate rate relative to males, according to data from the Social Security Administration.

Employer-sponsored plans are the most common means of disability insurance, however less than half have this benefit with women less likely than men (45 percent vs. 51 percent) to be covered. Female entrepreneurs are at even greater risk.

Another survey released by The American College in January 2012, focused on small business owners, found that only 22 percent of women small business owners own, and offer their employees, short and long-term disability coverage.

Even when professionals have disability insurance, a commonly held myth is that the insurance policy will cover all conditions and health care costs. The truth is that even when you have disability benefits, the insurance company may try to deny or discredit valid claims.

Read more about Women and the Risk of Disability.

Fort Lauderdale Disability Lawyer for Professionals

If you are a business professional who has suffered an unexpected disability through illness or injury, contact Fort Lauderdale disability lawyer Howard Kahn if your disability benefits are at risk. We can help you understand and protect your legal rights to disability benefits. Contact us onlineor by phone at 954-321-0176.

Florida Penny Stock Financiers Face SEC Charges

/in /by

Mark Lefkowitz, Compass Capital Group, Mark Lopez, Unico, Inc., Steven R. Peacock, Shane H. Traveller, and Advanced Cell Technology allegedly violated federal securities laws in connection with the unregistered distribution of billions of shares of penny stocks through the repeated misuse of the exemption from registration contained in Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, according to an SEC civil injunctive action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Section 3(a)(10) provides an exemption from registration that permits a company to issue common stock to public investors “in exchange for one or more bona fide outstanding securities, claims or property interests” without having to file a registration statement “where the terms and conditions of such issuance and exchange are approved after a hearing upon the fairness of such terms and conditions” by any court or any governmental authority “expressly authorized by law to grant such approval.” The Complaint alleges that the Section 3(a)(10) exemption was not available for any of the stock offerings at issue because the terms and conditions of the exchanges – including the fact that the issuers were raising capital through such exchanges – were not fully disclosed to the court.

According to the Commission’s Complaint, in or about early 2006, Lefkowitz, a penny stock financier, devised a strategy for penny stock issuers to pay off past due debts while, at the same time, improperly raising additional capital in reliance upon Section 3(a)(10). According to the Complaint, Lefkowitz executed his illegal strategy with Lopez, the chief executive officer of Unico, a penny stock issuer based in California, and William Caldwell IV, the chief executive officer of Advanced Cell Technology, a penny stock issuer based in Massachusetts. The Complaint further alleges that Peacock and Traveller, two penny stock financiers who learned of the illegal strategy from Lefkowitz, executed the strategy with Unico and other penny stock issuers.

The Complaint alleges that from September 9, 2006 through January 29, 2009, in order to satisfy the fairness hearing requirement of Section 3(a)(10), more than fifty pre-settled lawsuits were filed in a Florida state court purportedly to settle past due debts owed by Unico, Advanced Cell, or other penny stock issuers (collectively, the “Penny Stock Issuers”) to Compass Capital Group and several offshore financing entities affiliated with Lefkowitz, and Sequoia International, Inc., an entity affiliated with Peacock and Traveller (collectively, the “Financiers”).

The Complaint further alleges that in each case, one of the Penny Stock Issuers entered into a written settlement agreement with one or more of the Financiers whereby the Penny Stock Issuer agreed to issue unrestricted common stock to the Financiers at a substantial discount to the prevailing market price, purportedly to retire the past due debt. The settlement shares allegedly were worth multiple times more than the debt that was to be extinguished and the Financiers agreed to remit monies to the Penny Stock Issuer following the sale of the settlement shares to the public on the open market.

According to the Complaint, none of the settlement agreements submitted to the court for approval, disclosed, nor did the parties ever apprise the presiding judges of, the existence of the side agreements, that the market value of the shares to be issued greatly exceeded the debts that were to be extinguished, or that significant sums of monies would be remitted to the Penny Stock Issuers as a result of the Section 3(a)(10) settlements.

According to the Complaint, at the conclusion of each of the hearings, the Florida state court granted a Section 3(a)(10) exemption from registration and, thereafter, unrestricted shares were issued to the Financiers, who quickly sold the shares on the open market to public investors unaware of the dilutive effects of the new stock issuances. Also according to the Complaint, the Financiers subsequently remitted millions of dollars to the Penny Stock Issuers, either directly or through an intermediary, as financing, making it an improper capital raising transaction for the Penny Stock Issuers.

The Complaint alleges that Unico extinguished approximately $4.0 million in past due debts but separately raised more than $9.2 million as a result of monies later remitted to it by the Financiers. Advanced Cell allegedly extinguished $1.1 million in debts while separately raising more than $3.5 million through monies later remitted by or on behalf of the Financiers. The Other Penny Stock Issuers allegedly collectively extinguished approximately $1 million in debts while separately raising more than $1.2 million. The Complaint also alleges that Lefkowitz and his affiliated entities profited by at least $1.7 million from these transactions and that Peacock and Traveller profited by at least $455,000.

The Complaint alleges that Unico filed false and misleading disclosures with the Commission concerning the monies it received from the Financiers and that Unico and Advanced Cell failed to timely disclose the settlement agreements and issuance of over 9 billion and 260 million unregistered shares of their respective common stocks in connection with the Section 3(a)(10) settlements. In addition, the complaint further alleges that Peacock, aided and abetted by Traveller, failed to report his beneficial ownership of more than five percent of the outstanding shares of Unico common stock in December 2006.

The Complaint charges all of the defendants with violations of the securities offering registration provisions, Unico and Advanced Cell with periodic reporting violations, Lopez for aiding and abetting Unico’s periodic reporting violations, Peacock with beneficial ownership reporting violations, and Traveller for aiding and abetting Peacock’s ownership reporting violations.

The Commission seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of illegal profits with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties as to Unico, Advanced Cell, Peacock, and Traveller; a permanent injunction and a civil penalty as to Lopez; disgorgement of illegal profits with prejudgment interest and civil penalties as to Lefkowitz and Compass Capital; and an order barring Lefkowitz, Compass Capital, Lopez, Peacock, and Traveller from participating in any future offerings of penny stock.

Lefkowitz, Compass Capital, and Traveller previously have been enjoined from violating various provisions of the federal securities laws, including the antifraud provisions, in connection with unrelated conduct that also involved the misuse of an exemption from registration of securities offerings. [SEC v. Mark A. Lefkowitz, Compass Capital Group, Inc., Mark A. Lopez, Unico, Inc., Steven R. Peacock, Shane H. Traveller, and Advanced Cell Technology, Inc., United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Civil Action No. 8:12-CV-1210T35MAP] (LR-22381)

Miami Homebuyers’ Workshop offers Downpayment Help

/in /by

Wells Fargo & Co. will host a workshop 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Friday and Saturday, June 1 and 2, to help people who otherwise qualify for a mortgage to buy a home in the city of Miami but are short on a down payment, according to the Miami Herald.

“The workshop will be at the Doubletree Miami Airport Convention Center at 711 NW 72 Avenue, Miami. Details and pre-registration are available at neighborhoodlift.com or by calling 866-858-2151. Click on the link for full details.

The San Francisco mortgage giant said it will provide $9 million in aid to homebuyers in the City of Miami, or up to $15,000 in downpayment assistance per qualified applicant.

To participate, homebuyers must meet various criteria, including falling within 120 percent of the median income, or about $78,700 for a family of four. The mortgages can be obtained from any lender, not only Wells Fargo.

The program will be administered by Neighborhood Housing Services of South Florida, a nonprofit that works to help people to acquire and stay in their homes.”

Click on the link to learn what to bring to discuss mortgage loan options.

Fort Lauderdale Foreclosure Defense Attorney

If you are at risk of losing your home to foreclosure, there is action you can take. Contact Fort Lauderdale mortgage foreclosure attorney Marcy Resnik to discuss how you can defend your legal rights in a foreclosure. You can contact Ms. Resnik online or call her at 954-321-0176.

Miami Hedge Fund Adviser Charged with Misleading Investors

/in /by

Quantek Asset Management LLC deceived investors about fund managers having personal investments in the $1 billion Quantek Opportunity Fund, a Latin America-focused hedge fund, according to an SEC investigation.

The Securities and Exchange Commission found that Quantek’s executives never invested their own money in the fund. The SEC’s investigation also found that Quantek misled investors about the investment process of the funds it managed as well as certain related-party transactions involving its lead executive Javier Guerra and its former parent company Bulltick Capital Markets Holdings LP.

Bulltick, Guerra, and former Quantek operations director Ralph Patino are charged along with Quantek in the SEC’s enforcement action. They agreed to pay more than $3.1 million in total disgorgement and penalties to settle the charges, and Guerra and Patino agreed to securities industry bars.

“When making an investment decision, private fund investors are entitled to the unvarnished truth about material information such as management’s skin in the game or the adviser’s handling of related-party transactions,” said Bruce Karpati, Co-Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. “Quantek’s investors deserved better than the misleading information they received in marketing materials, side letters, and other fund documents.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting settled administrative proceedings, fund investors frequently inquire about the extent of the manager’s personal investment during their due diligence process, and many require it in fund selection. Quantek, particularly Patino, misrepresented to investors from 2006 to 2008 that management had skin in the game. These misstatements were made when responding to specific questions posed in due diligence questionnaires that were used to market the funds to new investors. Quantek made similar misrepresentations in side letter agreements executed by Guerra with two sought-after institutional investors.

The SEC’s order also found that Quantek misled investors about certain related-party loans made by the fund to affiliates of Guerra and Bulltick. Because the fund permitted related-party transactions with Bulltick and other Quantek affiliates, investors were wary of deals that were not properly disclosed.

In 2006 and 2007, Quantek caused the fund to make related-party loans to affiliates of Guerra and Bulltick that were not properly documented or secured at the outset. Quantek and Bulltick employees later re-created the missing related-party loan documents, but misstated key terms of the loans and backdated the materials to give the appearance that the loans had been sufficiently documented and secured at all times. Quantek and Guerra provided this misleading loan information to the fund’s investors.

“The related-party transactions were problematic to begin with, and the false deal documents left investors in the dark about the adviser’s conflicts of interest,” said Scott Weisman, Assistant Director in the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit.

According to the SEC’s order, Quantek also repeatedly failed to follow the robust investment approval process it had described to investors in the fund. Quantek concealed this deficiency by providing investors with backdated and misleading investment approval memoranda signed by Guerra and other Quantek principals.

Quantek, Guerra, Bulltick, and Patino settled the charges without admitting or denying the findings. Quantek and Guerra agreed jointly to pay more than $2.2 million in disgorgement and pre-judgment interest, and to pay financial penalties of $375,000 and $150,000 respectively. Bulltick agreed to pay a penalty of $300,000, and Patino agreed to a penalty of $50,000.

Guerra consented to a five-year securities industry bar, and Patino consented to a securities industry bar of one year. Quantek and Bulltick agreed to censures. They all consented to orders that they cease and desist from committing or causing violations of certain antifraud, compliance, and recordkeeping provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Securities Act of 1933.

Florida Securities Litigation and FINRA Arbitration

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities dispute. In addition to being an experienced securities litigation attorney, Mr. Kahn also serves as a FINRA arbitrator for individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Social Media Gets Attention in Jewish Divorce Disputes

/in /by

Jewish husbands who refuse to finalize a Jewish divorce by not signing divorce papers known as a “get” are finding themselves subject to unwanted public attention. Social media updates, email, Facebook posts, tweets and website comments all are being used to bring pressure on divorce hold-outs, according to a recent Sun-Sentinel article titled “Social media used to pressure Jewish husbands who refuse divorce.”

Without a get, the wife is not able to remarry. The dispute between one now well-known South Florida couple continues to draw media attention. According to one expert:

“The use of Twitter and Facebook to pressure husbands brings get conflicts into an uncharted realm, said Rabbi Joel Roth, a professor of Talmud and Jewish law at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. He said only a Jewish judicial court can compel a man to sign the papers; other types of coercion could potentially invalidate a divorce.”

Read the full story.

Contact a Fort Lauderdale Divorce Attorney

If you have questions about a divorce, contact Fort Lauderdale divorce attorney Marcy Resnik. You can contact her online or call her at 954-321-0176.

SEC Charges Two Feeders in Rothstein Ponzi Schemes

/in /by

George Levin and Frank Preve, who live in the Fort Lauderdale area, allegedly raised more than $157 million from 173 investors in less than two years by issuing promissory notes from Levin’s company and interests in a private investment fund they operated, according to SEC charges.

They used investor funds to purchase discounted legal settlements from former Florida attorney Scott Rothstein through his prominent law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt and Adler PA. However, the settlements Rothstein sold were not real and the supposed plaintiffs and defendants did not exist.

Rothstein simply used the funds in classic Ponzi scheme fashion to make payments due other investors and support his lavish lifestyle. Rothstein’s Ponzi scheme collapsed in October 2009, and he is currently serving a 50-year prison sentence.

The SEC alleges that Levin and Preve misrepresented to investors that they had procedural safeguards in place to protect investor money when in fact they often purchased settlements without first seeing any legal documents or doing anything to verify that the settlement proceeds were actually in Rothstein’s bank accounts.

Moreover, as the Ponzi scheme was collapsing and Rothstein stopped making payments on prior investments, Levin and Preve sought new investor money while falsely touting the continued success of their investment strategy. With their fate tied to Rothstein, Levin and Preve’s settlement purchasing business collapsed along with the Ponzi scheme.

“Levin and Preve fueled Rothstein’s Ponzi scheme with the false sense of security they gave investors,” said Eric I. Bustillo, Director of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office. “They promised to safeguard investors’ assets, but gave Rothstein money with nothing to show for it.”

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Miami, Levin and Preve began raising money to purchase Rothstein settlements in 2007 by offering investors short-term promissory notes issued by Levin’s company – Banyon 1030-32 LLC. In 2009, seeking additional funds from investors, they formed a private investment fund called Banyon Income Fund LP that invested exclusively in Rothstein’s settlements. Banyon 1030-32 served as the general partner of the fund, and its profit was generated from the amount by which the settlement discounts obtained from Rothstein exceeded the rate of return promised to investors.

The SEC alleges that the offering materials for the promissory notes and the private fund contained material misrepresentations and omissions. They misrepresented to investors that prior to any settlement purchase, Banyon 1030-32 would obtain certain documentation about the settlements to ensure the safety of the investments. Levin and Preve, however, knew or were reckless in not knowing that Banyon 1030-32 often purchased settlements from Rothstein without obtaining any documentation whatsoever.

Furthermore, the SEC alleges that Banyon Income Fund’s private placement memorandum misrepresented that the fund would be a continuation of a successful business strategy pursued by Banyon 1030-32 during the prior two-and-a-half years. Levin and Preve failed to disclose that by the time the Banyon Income Fund offering began in May 2009, Rothstein had already ceased making payments on a majority of the prior settlements Levin and his entities had purchased.

They also failed to inform investors that Levin’s ability to recover his prior investments from Rothstein was contingent on his ability to raise at least $100 million of additional funding to purchase more settlements from Rothstein.

The SEC’s complaint seeks disgorgement of ill gotten gains, financial penalties, and permanent injunctive relief against Levin and Preve to enjoin them from future violations of the federal securities laws.

Florida Securities Litigation and FINRA Arbitration

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities dispute. In addition to being an experienced securities litigation attorney, Mr. Kahn also serves as a FINRA arbitrator for individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Aventura Condo Manager for Atlantic II at the Point Gets Jail Term

/in /by

A $500,000 grand theft put condo manager Lourdes Rodriguez behind bars for 21 months.

The former Pembroke Pines resident, age 49, served as property manager for the Atlantic II at the Point Condominium Association in Aventura, FL. The South Florida condo development features 168 units on 2.5 acres, with panoramic views of the Atlantic Ocean and the Intracoastal.

Rodriguez opened credit card accounts in the association’s name and made personal charges, according to a recent press release issued by Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle. Credit card withdrawals for gambling and other expenses were then paid by Rodriquez using association funds.

In her role as condo property manager, Rodriguez also arranged unauthorized wage payments from the association’s payroll processing company.

Stolen funds amounted to almost $470,000 before the condo embezzlement scheme was halted. The Atlantic II was insured for theft, and most of the losses were covered.

Jail is not the end of Rodriquez’s woes. She also faces criminal orders of restitution to Continental Casualty Insurance Company in the amount of $250,000.00; $150,000.00 to The Travelers Insurance Company, and $66,309.75 to Atlantic II at the Point Condominium Association, Inc.

The moral here is that crime does not pay, including white collar crime involving a condominium association. South Florida condo and HOA board members are reminded to be alert to potential theft of funds by even trusted association employees.

Fort Lauderdale Condominium Litigation Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale condo litigation attorney Marcy Resnik to discuss potential theft or legal matters relating to your condo association. You can contact Ms. Resnik online or call her at 954-321-0176.