INFOMERCIAL "TEACH ME TO TRADE" SALESWOMAN SETTLES FRAUD CHARGES WITH SEC

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Former "Teach Me to Trade" Saleswoman and Infomercial Personality Linda (Knudsen) Woolf Agrees to Settle Securities Fraud Charges and Pay a $225,000 Penalty

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on April 16, 2013 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered settled final judgments against Linda (Knudsen) Woolf and Hands On Capital, Inc. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Linda Woolf, Hands On Capital, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 1:08cv235 (E.D.Va. filed March 11, 2008). The final judgments resolve the Commission’s case against Woolf and Hands On Capital.

Woolf sold securities trading products and services such as classes, mentoring, and software called "Teach Me to Trade" to investors who wanted to learn how to trade securities. The Commission’s complaint alleges that Woolf told investors at Teach Me to Trade workshops that she had purchased mentoring, classes and software to learn to trade and had quickly turned profits by trading securities using Teach Me to Trade methods. The Commission alleges that Woolf’s tales of making money by trading were untrue; she was not a successful securities trader. Woolf sold the products and services pursuant to an independent contractor agreement between Hands On Capital and Teach Me to Trade

Under the terms of the settlement, Woolf (who filed for bankruptcy while this action was pending) agreed to pay a civil penalty of $225,000. Without admitting or denying the Commission’s allegations, Woolf and Hands On Capital also consented to the entry of final judgments permanently enjoining them from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Additionally, the final judgments will permanently enjoin Woolf and Hands On Capital from receiving compensation for participating in the development, presentation, promotion, marketing, or sale of any classes, workshops, or seminars (and from receiving compensation for any sales of connected products or services) given to actual or prospective securities investors concerning securities trading.

SEC CHARGES COMPANY AND SENIOR OFFICERS WITH SECURITIES FRAUD

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Charges Massachusetts-Based Corporation and Senior Officers in $26 Million Fraudulent Securities Offering
On September 10, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed an enforcement action in federal court in Boston charging Massachusetts-based Bio Defense Corporation and others for their roles in a fraudulent offering of unregistered Bio Defense securities. The defendants are charged with defrauding investors through various misrepresentations and schemes while raising at least $26 million in investor funds.

In addition to Bio Defense, the Commission’s complaint charges Michael Lu of Lexington, Massachusetts, the founder and former CEO and Chairman of Bio Defense; Jonathan Morrone of Newton, Massachusetts, a former Senior Executive Vice President of Bio Defense; Z. Paul Jurberg of Brookline, Massachusetts, a senior officer of Bio Defense and most recently a Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing; Anthony Orth of Tustin, California, a former Vice President of Marketing for Bio Defense; and Brett Hamburger of Delray Beach, Florida, a consultant to Bio Defense who raised investor funds for the company. The Commission also named May’s International Corporation, an entity controlled by Michael Lu, as a relief defendant based on its receipt of investor funds.

According to the Commission’s complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Bio Defense, which purports to develop, manufacture and sell a machine for combating the use of dangerous biological agents through the mails, and its principals began engaging in unregistered offers and sales of securities to investors in the United States by at least 2004 and, after attracting the attention of various domestic state regulators in 2008, began utilizing "boiler room" firms to assist in selling shares of Bio Defense securities to overseas investors primarily in the United Kingdom.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that, while making unregistered offers and sales of securities to US investors from at least 2004 through August 2008, Lu, Morrone, and Jurberg made false claims to investors that Bio Defense was not paying financial compensation to its employees and officers. The complaint further alleges that these individuals gave potential investors the false impression that Bio Defense preserved its cash assets by having employees who worked for no, or very little, pay, suggesting that these employees were working solely or primarily for "sweat equity" shares, which might later become valuable when the company became profitable or underwent an initial public offering of stock. In fact, Bio Defense’s largest expense during those years was the money it paid to Lu, Morrone, and Jurberg and other employees from funds raised from investors; in 2004 alone, Bio Defense paid approximately $1 million in compensation to its officers and employees.

The Commission’s complaint further alleges that, as Bio Defense began raising money overseas in August 2008, the defendants transformed the company into a deceptive and fraudulent device designed to enrich its principals while also paying as much as 75% of investor proceeds as commissions to its overseas boiler room fundraisers. From August 2008 through approximately July 2010, Bio Defense’s most substantial source of cash generation and most significant expense was not manufacturing and selling machines, but instead was its securities promotion and sales activities. Bio Defense and its representatives did not tell investors that 75% of funds received from them would be going straight to boiler room operators.

The Commission alleges that all defendants violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; that Bio Defense, Lu, Morrone, Jurberg and Orth violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act; and that Lu, Morrone, Jurberg, Hamburger and Orth violated Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act. The Commission also alleges, in the alternative, that Lu and Morrone are liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as control persons of Bio Defense for Bio Defense’s violations of Securities Act Section 17(a) and Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC seeks in its action permanent injunctions, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and, against Lu, Morrone, Jurberg and Orth, officer and director bars.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Massachusetts Securities Division, the UK Financial Services Authority and the City of London Police in this matter.

THE ALLEGED BOILER-ROOM ENTREPRENEUR

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., May 16, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Hawaii resident and two firms he used to orchestrate a scheme in which he covertly founded small companies, installed management, and recruited overseas boiler rooms that pressured investors into buying their stock while he pocketed more than $2 million in consulting fees from proceeds of the fraudulent stock sales.

The SEC alleges that Nicholas Louis Geranio worked behind the scenes to create eight U.S.-based companies used to raise money through the sale of Regulation S stock, which is exempt from SEC registration under the securities laws because it is offered solely to investors located outside the United States. Geranio handpicked the management for the companies, primarily Keith Michael Field of Sherman Oaks, Calif., who served as an officer, director, or investor relations representative for each company and also is charged in the SEC’s complaint. Geranio then set up consulting arrangements through his firms — The Good One Inc. and Kaleidoscope Real Estate Inc. — so he could instruct management on how to run the companies and raise money offshore. Geranio extracted consulting fees from the companies, which generally had few or no employees, little or no office space, and no sales or customers.

The SEC alleges that Field drafted misleading business plans, marketing materials, and website information about the companies that were provided to investors as part of fraudulent solicitation efforts by teams of telemarketers operating in boiler rooms that Geranio recruited primarily in Spain. The boiler rooms used high-pressure sales tactics and false statements about the companies to raise more than $35 million from investors. Meanwhile, Geranio instructed Field and others to buy and sell shares in some of the companies to create an illusion of trading activity and manipulate upwards the price of the publicly-traded stock.

“Geranio covertly set up companies and manipulated the market for their stock to profit from aggressive offshore boiler room activity,” said Stephen L. Cohen, Associate Director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Geranio pulled the strings while Field scripted the show for the boiler rooms to bring a payday to everyone but the investors.”

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Geranio was the subject of a previous SEC enforcement action in 2000. In his latest misconduct, he concealed his role from investors and the public at all times by acting through The Good One and Kaleidoscope. The scheme lasted from April 2007 to September 2009. Geranio began by locating and acquiring shell companies to create the issuers used in the scheme: Blu Vu Deep Oil & Gas Exploration Inc., Green Energy Live Inc., Microresearch Corp., Mundus Group Inc., Power Nanotech Inc., Spectrum Acquisition Holdings Inc., United States Oil & Gas Corp., and Wyncrest Group Inc. Geranio then appointed management for these companies, in some cases turning to business associates, friends, or others. For example, the former CEO of Blu Vu was someone Geranio met while kite surfing in Malibu.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Geranio worked behind the scenes to keep the companies’ publicly-traded shares trading at prices conducive to the boiler room sales. He did this by directing Field, personal friends, and others to open accounts and buy or sell shares in at least five of the companies as part of matched orders and manipulative trades that created the false impression of active trading and market value in these stocks. The manipulative trades allowed the boiler rooms to sell the Regulation S shares to overseas investors at higher prices.

The SEC alleges that boiler room representatives recruited by Geranio induced investors by using aggressive techniques consistent with boiler room activity. For instance, they promised immediate and substantial investment returns, convinced investors that they needed to purchase the shares immediately or miss the grand opportunity altogether, and threatened legal action if an investor did not agree to purchase shares that the representatives believed the investor had already agreed to purchase. The boiler rooms also used “advance fee” solicitations, telling investors that only if they purchased shares in one of these companies would the boiler room agree to sell their other shares. Many of the investors were elderly and living in the United Kingdom.

According to the SEC’s complaint, investors were directed to pay for their Regulation S stock by sending money to U.S.-based escrow agents. As arranged by Geranio, the escrow agents paid 60 to 75 percent of the approximately $35 million raised from investors to the boiler rooms as their sales markups, kept 2.5 percent as their own fee, and paid the remaining proceeds back to the companies that Geranio created. The companies (or in some cases the escrow agents) then funneled approximately $2.135 million of the proceeds back to Geranio through The Good One and Kaleidoscope in the form of consulting fees, and paid Field approximately $279,000.

The SEC alleges that Geranio also assisted in diverting $240,000 in investor funds toward an undisclosed down payment on a property to start a Hawaiian wedding planning company.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Geranio, Field, The Good One and Kaleidoscope violated Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder. The complaint alleges that Field also violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act and aided and abetted the companies’ violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder, and Geranio is liable as a control person of The Good One and Kaleidoscope under Exchange Act Section 20(a). The SEC is seeking financial penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, penny stock bars, and permanent injunctions against all of the defendants, as well as officer and director bars against Geranio and Field. The complaint seeks disgorgement and prejudgment interest against relief defendant BWRE Hawaii LLC based on its alleged receipt of investor funds.
The SEC's investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by Ricky Sachar, Carolyn Kurr, and Wendy Kong under the supervision of Josh Felker with assistance from Jim Daly in the Office of International Affairs. Richard Simpson will lead the litigation. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the City of London Police, Macedonian Securities and Exchange Commission, Macedonian Public Prosecutor, Lithuanian Securities Commission, Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Comision Nacional del Mercado de Valores (Spain), and Financial Market Supervisory Authority (Switzerland).

SEC CHARGES APARTMENTS AMERICA AND ITS OWNERS IN SCHEME TO DEFRAUD INVESTORS

Photo:  Wikimedia
FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
May 11, 2012
On May 10, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged a California-based real estate company and its owners with defrauding potential investors by boasting a false company track record to tout their purported real estate expertise while concealing the bankruptcy of their previous company.

The SEC alleges that Michael J. Stewart, John J. Packard, and Randall A. Smith created Apartments America, LLC to pool investor proceeds from an unregistered offering of securities and invest primarily in apartment buildings in Southern California and Arizona. They solicited potential investors through a website, Internet advertisements and postings, cold calls, solicitation letters, and advertising in a national newspaper. They boasted a track record of producing more than a 60 percent annual return on investment and creating more than $100 million in net equity.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Orange County, California, what potential investors did not know is that Apartments America was a new company with no assets and no track record. Stewart, Packard, and Smith were merely using the same investment strategy and selective statistics from their prior bankrupt company that had defaulted on $91.6 million in promissory notes held by 647 investors.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Stewart lives in San Clemente, California, and Packard and Smith each live in Long Beach, California. Together they formed Apartments America in September 2009, just three months after Pacific Property Assets (PPA) filed for bankruptcy. Stewart and Packard owned PPA and Smith worked for them. In the months prior to defaulting on its promissory notes, PPA was actively soliciting investor funds and promising an annual interest rate of 24 to 30 percent.

The SEC alleges that under Apartments America, whose securities have never been registered with the SEC, Stewart, Packard, and Smith similarly solicited investor funds with the same plan to purchase apartment buildings. But they engaged in a concerted scheme to distance themselves from PPA and its bankruptcy. In communications to potential investors, they selectively and misleadingly used some of PPA’s historic investments and touted them as Apartments America data. For instance, they arrived at their fabricated statistic of a 60 percent annual return on investment by cherry-picking PPA’s successful property investments while omitting the losses incurred on more than 50 properties in PPA’s portfolio at the time of its bankruptcy. Stewart, Packard, and Smith also misrepresented that they had created more than $100 million in net equity by calculating some of PPA’s property investments while omitting information about its bankruptcy and the losses on its bankrupt properties. They also falsely represented to potential investors that they were managing a property portfolio valued at more than $200 million when that in fact referred to PPA’s bankrupt property portfolio, which was actually being managed by the bankruptcy trustee.

SEC OBTAINS AN ASSET FREEZE AND OTHER RELIEF AGAINST ALLEN WEINTRAUB

FROM:  SEC
April 24, 2012
On April 4, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami issued an Order to Show Cause and Other Emergency Relief (Order) to halt Allen Weintraub’s ongoing fraudulent scheme of selling securities of an investment vehicle that he falsely represented owned pre-IPO shares of Facebook, Inc. The Court’s Order temporarily freezes the assets of Weintraub and certain shell companies through which he apparently operates. The order also directed Weintraub to demonstrate, among other things, why he should not be held in contempt for violating the Court’s Final Judgment in SEC v. Allen E. Weintraub and AWMS Acquisition, Inc., d/b/a Sterling Global Holdings, Case No. 11-21549-CIV-HUCK/BANDSTRA (S.D.Fla.), which was entered on January 10, 2012 (Final Judgment). The Final Judgment enjoined Weintraub from violating, among other things, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Commission’s motion for an order to show cause alleges that in February 2012, Weintraub, acting through an alias, William Lewis, and through entities named Private Stock Transfer, Inc., PST Investments III, Inc. (PST Investments), and World Financial Solutions, defrauded investors by selling them worthless shares in PST Investments. Weintraub had falsely represented that he would sell the investors pre-IPO shares of Facebook, Inc., and that PST Investments had an ownership interest in Facebook stock. The Commission’s motion also alleges that Weintraub was utilizing the website privatestocktransfer.com to perpetrate his scheme. The Court’s Order directed that this website be deactivated.

On December 30, 2011, the Court entered an order granting the Commission’s motion for summary judgment against Weintraub and his shell company, Sterling Global. In its Order, the Court found that Weintraub deceived the public by making false and misleading statements regarding Sterling Global’s ability to purchase and operate Eastman Kodak Company and AMR Corporation. The Court’s January 2012 Final Judgment permanently enjoined Weintraub and Sterling Global from future violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-8 thereunder, and ordered them to each pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $200,000.

ALLEGEDLY A BRITISH ROBOT STOCK PICKER SWINDLED ABOUT 73,000 OUT OF THEIR MONEY

FROM:  SEC

April 20, 2012

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Thomas Edward Hunter and Alexander John Hunter, Civil Action No. 12-CV-3123 (S.D.N.Y.)

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged twin brothers from the U.K. with defrauding approximately 75,000 investors through an Internet-based pump-and-dump scheme in which they touted a fake “stock picking robot” that purportedly identified penny stocks set to double in price. Instead, the brothers were merely touting stocks they were being paid separately to promote.

The SEC alleges that Alexander John Hunter and Thomas Edward Hunter were just 16 years old when they set their fraud in motion beginning in 2007. They disseminated e-mail newsletters through a pair of websites they created to tout stocks selected by the robot – which they described as a highly sophisticated computer trading program that was the product of extensive research and development. Their claims were persuasive as the Hunters received at least $1.2 million from investors primarily in the U.S. who paid $47 apiece for annual newsletter subscriptions. Some investors paid an additional fee for the “home version” of the robot software.

The SEC alleges that the brothers separately created a third website where they marketed their newsletter subscriber list to penny stock promoters and boasted, “One email to this list of people rockets a stock price.” The Hunters were in turn paid to send selected penny stock ticker symbols to their subscribers, who were misled to believe that the stock “picks” were the product of the robot. The Hunters sent out their newsletters near the beginning of the trading day, and the price and volume of the promoted stocks spiked dramatically as newsletter subscribers rushed to purchase shares. However, the stocks typically fell precipitously shortly thereafter, leaving investors in most cases with shares worth less than they had purchased them for earlier in the day.

According to the SEC’s complaint, the Hunters also offered subscribers a downloadable version of the stock picking robot for an additional fee of $97. Rather than performing the analysis advertised, the software was actually designed to deliver users a stock pick supplied by the brothers.

The Commission’s complaint further alleges that the Defendants violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks permanent injunctions against future violations by the Defendants and disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains, including prejudgment interest and civil penalties.

FORMER CEO AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PUDA COAL, INC., ARE CHARGED WITH FRAUD BY SEC

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

SEC Charges Chairman and Ex-CEO of Puda Coal With Fraud

On February 22, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York charging the Chairman of Puda Coal, Inc. (“Puda”) and the former CEO of Puda with securities fraud for the undisclosed theft of the primary asset of the U.S. public company they controlled. The Commission’s complaint alleges as follows:

Defendants Ming Zhao, the Chairman of Puda, and Liping Zhu, Puda’s former CEO, perpetrated a massive fraud on Puda’s public shareholders by effectively stealing and selling Puda’s operating subsidiary. Before the defendants’ fraud, Puda held an indirect 90% ownership stake in Shanxi Puda Coal Group Co., Ltd (“Shanxi Coal”), a coal mining company located in the Shanxi Province of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”). In September 2009, just weeks before Puda announced that Shanxi Coal had received a highly lucrative mandate from the provincial government authorities to become a consolidator of smaller coal mining companies, Zhao, with Zhu’s knowledge and complicity, transferred Puda’s 90% stake in Shanxi Coal to himself. In July 2010, Zhao transferred a 49% equity interest in Shanxi Coal to CITIC Trust Co. Ltd. (“CITIC Trust”), a Chinese private equity fund controlled by CITIC Group, which is reported to be the largest state-owned investment firm in the PRC. CITIC Trust placed its 49% stake in Shanxi Coal in a trust and then sold interests in the trust to Chinese investors. In addition, Zhao caused Shanxi Coal to pledge 51% of its assets to CITIC Trust as collateral for a loan of RMB 3.5 billion ($516 million) from the trust to Shanxi Coal. In exchange, CITIC Trust gave Zhao 1.212 billion preferred shares in the trust. None of these asset transfers were approved by Puda’s board or its shareholders or disclosed in Puda’s various SEC filings, which Zhao and Zhu signed knowing that those documents were materially false and misleading. Puda also conducted two public offerings in 2010 in the U.S. without disclosing that it no longer had any ownership stake in the coal company, Puda’s sole source of revenue. Thus, at the same time that CITIC Trust was effectively selling interests in the coal company to Chinese investors, Zhao and Zhu were still telling U.S. investors that Puda owned a 90% stake in that company.

In addition, Zhao and Zhu continued their fraudulent scheme to deceive public investors even after the Commission began its investigation. As part of the fraud, Zhu forged a letter purporting to be from CITIC Trust which falsely stated that no funds had actually been loaned to Shanxi Coal and disclaimed any interest in Puda’s or Shanxi Coal’s assets. Zhao’s counsel then provided the forged letter to the Commission’s investigative staff and to Puda’s audit committee in an effort to create the false impression that Puda and its public shareholders had not been harmed by the asset transfers. After Puda disclosed the letter to the public in an SEC filing, further misleading shareholders about the ownership of Puda’s assets, the letter was exposed as a forgery. Zhu admitted forging the letter and resigned as CEO, but Zhao remains Chairman. As a result of the defendants’ fraud, Puda is now little more than a shell company, with no ongoing business operations.

Both Zhao and Zhu are charged in the Commission’s complaint with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, 14a-3, and 14a-9a thereunder. Both men are also alleged to be liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as control persons of Puda for Puda’s violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder, and that they are also liable pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act for aiding and abetting those violations. Zhu is also charged with violating Exchange Act Rule 13a-14. Finally, the Commission alleges, in the alternative, that Zhao and Zhu are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as control persons of Puda for Puda’s violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a), 10b-5(b), and 10b-5(c), 14a-3 and 14a-9, and that they are also liable pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act for aiding and abetting those violations.

The complaint seeks a final judgment permanently enjoining the defendants from committing future violations of these provisions, ordering them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, imposing financial penalties and barring them from acting as officers or directors of a public company."