Posts

Florida Lawyer Cameron Linton Barred from Penny Stock Offerings

/in /by

Writing legal opinion letters for clients involving transactions under the federal securities laws was a primary legal focus for Florida attorney Cameron H. Linton from approximately 2009 to 2012, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On September 21, 2012, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Public Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Cameron H. Linton, Esq. (Linton).

On April 30, 2012, the Commission filed a complaint in federal court against Linton alleging, among other things, that from January 2010 through October 2011, clients of Linton’s unlawfully sold approximately 3.3 billion shares of penny stock in unregistered transactions. They were able to acquire and sell most of this stock only because Linton, their attorney, issued baseless legal opinions stating that the transactions were exempt from the registration requirement of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act).

Linton failed to make necessary factual and legal determinations when he concluded that the transactions qualified under the Section 4(1) exemption and the Securities Act Rule 144 safe harbor. When Linton wrote the opinion letters, he lacked an understanding of the applicable legal principles and failed to substantiate the factual predicate for his opinions.

On September 14, 2012, the court entered an order permanently enjoining Linton from violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act and from providing professional legal services to any person in connection with the offer or sale of securities pursuant to, or claiming, an exemption under Securities Act Rule 144, or any other exemption from the registration provisions of the Securities Act, including, without limitation, participating in the preparation of any opinion letter relating to such offerings.

Linton was also permanently barred from participating in an offering of penny stock pursuant to Section 20(g) of the Securities Act and Section 21(d)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Linton was also ordered to pay $6,250 in disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and a $7,500 civil money penalty.

Based on the above, the Order suspends Linton from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an attorney. Linton consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings in the Order, except he admitted to the entry of the injunction.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

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)

Orlando Penny Stock Fraud: Protégé Enterprises, LLC

/in /by

Florida attorney Cameron H. Linton, Esq., his clients, Christel S. Scucci and her mother Karen S. Beach, and their companies, Protégé Enterprises, LLC, and Capital Edge Enterprises, LLC were charged by the SEC with a scheme to unlawfully sell large quantities of stock in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, which generally requires that securities transactions be registered with the SEC, unless exempt.

According to the SEC, over an approximately 20-month period ending in October 2011, Scucci and her mother sold about 3.3 billion shares of purportedly unrestricted stock that they acquired through so-called debt conversion “wrap around” transactions, reaping proceeds of more than $1.5 million from the sales. The SEC alleges that Scucci and Beach were able to sell most of this stock only because Linton issued baseless legal opinions for them stating that the stock could be issued without a warning on the stock certificate limiting the transfer or sale of the security, which is commonly referred to as a “restrictive legend.” The opinion concluded that their resale was exempt from the federal registration requirements.

According to the SEC’s complaint, the transactions involved notes issued by microcap companies representing debts supposedly owed to affiliates or others often closely associated with the companies. Under the wrap around agreements, the affiliates assigned the right to collect the debts from the issuers to Protégé or Capital Edge. The wrap around agreements also purported to amend the initial debt agreements thereby allowing Protégé and Capital Edge to convert the money owed to them into shares of the issuers’ common stock at a deep discount to the prevailing market price. Protégé and Capital Edge almost always elected to receive stock from the issuers shortly after execution of the wrap around agreements, and regularly sold the stock into the public market, often for large profits, within days or weeks of acquiring it. None of the sales were registered with the SEC.

The complaint alleges that Protégé and Capital Edge paid Linton to write attorney opinion letters for them stating that the stock acquired under these wrap around agreements lawfully could be issued to them by the transfer agent without a restrictive legend and immediately sold to the public.

According to the SEC, Linton lacked any basis for the opinions he issued, which were premised on the notion that through the wrap around agreements and debt conversion, Protégé and Capital Edge could rely on a safe harbor for resale of securities held for at least one year by “tacking” the 12-month period that the affiliates claimed to have held the original debt before transferring it to Protégé and Capital Edge.

However, the complaint alleges that when Linton wrote the opinion letters, he lacked an understanding of the applicable legal principles and failed to substantiate the factual predicate for his opinions. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that in mid-2010, Linton became aware of an injunction issued in another case involving a similar scheme in which his letters were used to effectuate unregistered sales. But for Linton’s opinion letters, transfer agents would not have issued the stock to Protégé and Capital Edge so that they could quickly turn around and sell it into the public market.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Protégé, Capital Edge, Scucci and Beach violated Section 5 of the Securities Act. The complaint further alleges that Linton violated, or aided and abetted the violation of, Section 5 of the Securities Act. The SEC is seeking to have the defendants return their ill-gotten gains, pay penalties, be subject to injunctions, and be barred from participating in future penny-stock offerings. [SEC v. Christel S. Scucci, et al., Case No. 6:12-646-ORL-37-KRS (M.D. Fla.)] (SEC Litigation Release LR-22352)

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.

SEC Charges Kevin Dowd of Boca Raton in Pharmasset Stock Tip

/in /by

Financial advisor Kevin Dowd allegedly gave a penny stock promoter an illegal tip about on a pending acquisition of Princeton, N.J.-based Pharmasset Inc. by California-based Gilead Sciences, according to SEC charges. Dowd allegedly received $35,000 and a jet ski dock from the tipee in exchange for the information.

The SEC alleges that Kevin L. Dowd got details about the Pharmasset Inc. acquisition from one of his supervisors at the brokerage firm where he worked. The supervisor learned about the deal from a customer who sat on Pharmasset’s board of directors.

Dowd, who knew the customer, breached his duty to keep the information confidential by tipping a friend in the penny stock promotion business who bought Pharmasset stock on the last trading day before the public announcement of the deal. The trader also tipped another individual who bought Pharmasset call options, and collectively they made $708,327 in illicit insider trading profits in just two trading days. The SEC’s investigation is continuing.

“As an industry professional, Dowd surely knew what he was doing was wrong, but he incorrectly thought that his scheme was clever enough to avoid detection by investigators,” said Daniel M. Hawke, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit. “Professionals in the securities industry or any sector should know that you’ll be held accountable for violating insider trading laws, even if you don’t trade the securities yourself.”

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey today announced criminal charges against Dowd.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in New Jersey, the Pharmasset director told Dowd’s supervisor in confidence as his financial adviser that Pharmasset was going to be sold and the price would be in the high $130s per share. Dowd’s supervisor provided Dowd with the information along with an instruction that he was restricted from trading or recommending Pharmasset securities. Despite the warning, Dowd tipped his penny stock promoter friend, who wired $196,000 into a brokerage account with a zero balance and bought 2,700 shares of Pharmasset stock on Friday, Nov. 18, 2011. Dowd’s friend tipped another individual who bought 100 out-of-the-money call options, which are securities that derive their value from the underlying common stock of the issuer and give the purchaser the right to buy the underlying stock at a specific price within a specified time period. Investors typically purchase call options when they believe the value of the underlying securities is going up.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Gilead and Pharmasset announced the acquisition on Monday, November 21. Dowd’s tippees immediately sold all of their Pharmasset securities to obtain their illegal profits.

The SEC alleges that Dowd violated Sections 10(b) and (14)(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3 thereunder. The SEC is seeking disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, a financial penalty, and a permanent injunction against Dowd.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.