FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials

Pages:     | 1 || 3 |

«SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : Civil Action No. : 3:08-CV-0499-N W FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, : ADLEY H. ABDULWAHAB a/k/a ...»

-- [ Page 2 ] --

On December 9, 2008, the Commission served RFAs on Wahab, Wallens Sr. and Wallens Jr. [FF at 39-41]. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 36(a), the Defendants were obligated to respond to these RFAs no latter than January 12, 2009. None of the Defendants provided their responses within the prescribed time. 3 [id.].

Rule 36 provides that a party may serve any other party with written requests for admissions of the truth of any matter within the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). The matter is deemed admitted unless the party to whom the request is directed serves the requesting party with a written answer or objection thirty days after service of the request. Fed.R.Civ.P 36(a).

Any matter deemed admitted is “conclusively established unless the court on motion When Defendants’ counsel served the Commission with tardy responses, his papers constituted little more 3 than an unsupported refusal to provide any substantive information. [App 016-017, 134-152][Stewart Dec. at 5 and 6, Exhs. 4-6]. Mr. Teakell asserted objections to every RFA that can only be described as mystifying. First, Mr.

Teakell contends that Defendants are not obligated to respond because “[t]here is a Rule 54 judgment in this case.” [App 016-017, 134—135, 140-141, 146-147][Stewart Dec. at 5 and 6, Exhs. 4-6]. If Mr. Teakell had bothered to glance at the Agreed Interlocutory Judgment, he would have learned that this contention is wrong. Second, Mr.

Teakell contends that Defendants refuse to respond because “[d]iscovery is in progress and has not been completed.” [id.]. This objection is incomprehensible, as Mr. Teakell appears to describe precisely the circumstances that obligate Defendants to respond. Finally, Mr. Teakell objects that the Commission’s RFAs are inappropriate because “they are duplications of the ones previously sent by Plaintiff.” [id.] This objection is Kafkaesque, as Defendants refused to respond to the previous set of discovery requests on the grounds that they were purportedly premature. Once again, Defendants openly parade their strategy of obstruction and delay.

–  –  –

Carolina Insurance Co., 770 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 1985); In re Carney, 258 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir.

2001). This provision has been enforced repeatedly by Courts in the Northern District of Texas.

See Robax Corp. v. Professional Parks, Inc., 2008 WL 3244150 *2 (N.D. Tex. 2008)(District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater); Unum Life Ins. Company of Am. v. Munoz, 2007 WL 628084 *3 (N.D.

Tex.)(Chief Judge Joe A. Fish); Hall v. Advo, Inc., 2007 WL 210357 * 1-3 (N.D. Tex.)(District Judge Sam A. Lindsay); Williams v. Conseco, 202 WL 31107510 * 2-3 (N.D. Tex. 2002)(District Judge John H. McBryde); Worsham v. Minyard Food Stores, 2001 WL 611173 (N.D. Tex.)(District Judge Jorge A. Solis).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) specifies that “admissions on file” can be an appropriate basis for granting summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Since Rule 36 admissions, whether express or by default, are conclusive as to the matters admitted, they cannot be overcome at the summary judgment stage by contradictory affidavit testimony or other evidence in the summary judgment record. Duke v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 770 F.2d at 548-49; United States v. Kasuboski, 834 F.2d 1345, 1350 (7th Cir. 1987). See also American Automobile. Ass’n (Inc.) v. AAA Legal Clinic of Jefferson Crooke, P.C., 930 F.2d 1117, 1119 (5th Cir. (Tex.) May 13, 1991)(default admissions cannot be overcome by conflicting trial testimony). 4 While “deemed admissions” under Rule 36(b) may be sufficient, without additional evidence, to support a summary judgment motion without any additional evidence, the Commission is not requesting that the Court apply this principle here. Kasuboski, 834 F.2d 1345 at 1350 (citing Duke v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 770 F.2d 545 (5th Cir.1985); Donovan v. Carls Rule 36 provides that the subject of the admissions may file a motion showing that there is good cause to 4 withdraw the admissions. Here, such a motion would constitute a futile gesture, as the Commission’s summary judgment motion is more than sufficiently supported by other evidence.

–  –  –

Commission easily satisfies the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See US v. Persuad, 229 F.R.D. 686, 694 (M.D. Fla. 2005)(request to withdraw admissions moot where, even if defendant were relieved of his deemed admissions, the plaintiff would still be entitled to summary judgment).





–  –  –

The central perpetrators in a fraud such as the WFG scheme are liable for disgorgement in the full amount of funds collected from investors, less any monies that are returned to the investors in the course of the scheme. Numerous courts have found that, where wrongdoers engaged in a the pervasively fraudulent offering of securities, the defendants must disgorge all proceeds that they collected in connection with the offering that have not already been returned to investors. See SEC v. JT Wallenbrock & Assoc., 440 F.3d 1109, 1113 (9th Cir.

2006)(proper to hold principals in fraudulent scheme liable for disgorgement for entire amount collected, less amount returned to investors during the scheme); SEC v. Better Life Club of Am., Inc., 995 F.Supp. 167, 179 (D.D.C. 1998)(proper to charge principals in fraudulent scheme with disgorgement of the total amount of unreturned investor principal); SEC v. Chem. Trust, 2000 WL 33231600 at *11 (S.D. Fla. 2000)(proper to charge principal with full amount raised from investors). See also SEC v. Manor Nursing Ctrs., Inc., 458 F.2d 1104, 1082 (2nd. Cir. 1972);

SEC v. Merrill Scott & Assoc., 505 F.Supp.2d 1193, 1216 (D. Utah 2007); SEC v. R.J. Allen & Assoc., 386 F.Supp. 866, 880 (S.D. Fla. 1974); SEC v. Kenton Capital, Ltd., 69 F. Supp.2d 1, 15

–  –  –

See also SEC v. Interlink Data Network of Los Angeles, Inc., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. 98,049, 1993 WL 603274 (C.D. Cal. 1993); SEC v. United Monetary Serv., Inc., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. 95,284, 1990 WL 91812 (S.D. Fla. 1990).

Furthermore, the disgorgement liability of the Defendants should not be reduced by expenses incurred in committing their fraud. The disgorgement amount is not reduced, for example, for commission payments to brokers and other business expenses connected with operating the fraudulent scheme. This disgorgement calculation comports with the “overwhelming weight of authority holding that securities laws violators may not offset their disgorgement liability with business expenses.” SEC v. Hughes Capital Corp., 917 F. Supp. 1080, 1086 (D.N.J. 1996). See also SEC v. Great Lakes Equities Co., 775 F. Supp. 211, 214-215 (E.D.

Mich. 1991) (rejecting deductions from the disgorgement amount for overhead, commissions, and other expenses); SEC v. Benson, 657 F. Supp. 1122, 1134 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (stating that the “manner in which [party] chose to spend his misappropriations is irrelevant as to his objection to disgorge”); SEC v. Kenton Capital, Ltd., 69 F. Supp.2d at 15-16.

Finally, it is appropriate in this case to hold each of the Defendants jointly and severally liable for the entire disgorgement amount. The District Court has broad discretion to hold offending parties jointly and severally liable for disgorgement in a securities case. SEC v.

Hughes Capital Corp., 124 F.3d 449, 455 (3rd Cir. 1997). The allegations in the Commission’s Complaint, deemed admitted for the purpose of this motion, establish that the Defendants acted in concert to perpetrate the scheme at issue here.

–  –  –

The Declaration of CPA Rex Rector and accompanying exhibits establish that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for disgorgement in the amount of $13,797,966. [FF at 34-37]. As set forth by Mr. Rector, based on an exhaustive review of bank and business records, he determined that the Defendants collected a gross amount of $17,708,200 from WFG victims. [FF at 34]. Mr. Rector further concludes that the Defendants provided $3,080,139 to investors in refunds of principal and made purported interest payments of $666,478 to victims.

[FF at 35 and 36]. Subtracting payments to investors from the amount collected, the Defendants’ unjust enrichment totals $13,797,966. [FF at 37].

As set forth in the Rector Declaration, the Commission submits that the Court should fix the amount of Defendants’ prejudgment interest at $1,846,574. As mandated by the Commission, Rector calculated prejudgment interest using the rate published quarterly by the IRS pursuant to Section 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code to calculate interest on tax underpayments. See SEC v. First Jersey Sec., Inc., 101 F.3d 1450, 1476 (2d Cir.

1996)(appropriate to calculate prejudgment interest based on the rate used by the Internal Revenue Service for unpaid balances). [FF at 38].

In calculating prejudgment interest, it would obviously be appropriate to start the accumulation of interest at the date that each investor’s funds were acquired by WFG and halt the accumulation at the date that final judgments are entered. The calculation offered by Mr.

Rector, however, uses a simplified procedure that actually results in a reduced prejudgment interest amount. Prejudgment interest has been calculated on the entire disgorgement amount of $13,797,966 for the period starting March 1, 2007, the approximate date that Defendants

–  –  –

conservative calculation yields a prejudgment interest figure of $1,846,574. [id.].




Pursuant to Paragraph II of the Interlocutory Judgment, the Commission is entitled to civil penalties against each defendant. Moreover, the allegations in the Commission’s Complaint are deemed admitted for the purpose of determining appropriate civil money penalties against defendants. The Commission requests that the Court exercise its discretion to determine what civil penalties are appropriate in light of the conduct of Defendants, as alleged by the Commission.

Section 20(d) of the Securities Act and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act authorize the Commission to seek, and the Court to impose, a third-tier penalty if the defendant’s violation (1) “involved fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement” and (2) “directly or indirectly resulted in substantial losses or created a significant risk of substantial losses to other persons.” These provisions authorize third-tier civil penalties of $120,000 per violation for a natural person and $600,000 per violation for any other person. 5 Third-tier civil penalties against WFG, Wahab, Wallens Sr and Wallens Jr. are clearly appropriate under the facts of this case. Based on the allegations in the Commission’s Complaint, which are deemed admitted, there is no question that the Defendants committed violations of the antifraud provisions involving fraud and deceit and that their violations resulted in substantial losses, or the risk of substantial losses, to investors. [FF at 1-38]. According to 5 Given the multitude of victims injured by Defendants’ fraud, the Commission submits that Defendants committed multiple violations and, accordingly, multiple civil penalties would be legally justified. Realistically, however, the Commission concedes that merely collecting the full amount of disgorgement from the Defendants is an unlikely occurrence.

–  –  –

were jointly responsible for the egregious misrepresentations and omissions that induced investors to purchase SDOs. [id.]. The fundraising efforts were saturated with outrageous misrepresentations and omissions concerning the use of investor funds, the safety of the investment and Defendants’ history of financial responsibility. [id.]. Moreover, Defendants together diverted virtually all investor funds to undisclosed uses involving substantial risk. [id.] Moreover, while the Commission continues its efforts to provide meaningful restitution to investors, the victims of the fraudulent conduct are still likely to lose a substantial portion of their investment principal. Accordingly, it is appropriate to assess third-tier civil penalties against each of the Defendants. Rather than request a specific civil penalty amount, the Commission asks the Court to exercise its discretion to determine appropriate civil penalties against each of the Defendants.


Each of the individual Defendants has chosen to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege rather than testify in this matter. [FF at 38]. Having made this choice, they should be precluded from presenting evidence in response to the Commission’s motion.

There is no doubt that a party may assert a legitimate testimonial privilege as a shield and thus prevent an opponent from obtaining certain relevant evidence during pretrial discovery. It is likewise clear that a party cannot use the same undiscoverable evidence as a sword at trial in support of his claims or defenses. See Lyons v. Johnson, 415 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1969); 4 Moore's Federal Practice 26.60 [6] (2d ed. 1987). Principles of fundamental fairness and justice require that a party who invokes a testimonial privilege elect either to waive the privilege in a timely manner and allow discovery of the evidence or to forego introducing the evidence at trial.

–  –  –

Pages:     | 1 || 3 |

Similar works:

«‫کارنامک علمی‬ ‫سید ضیاء الدین تاج الدین‬ ‫دانشیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی‬ Zia Tajeddin Associate Professor of TEFL Address )‫(نشانی‬ Department of English Language and Literature, Allameh Tabataba’i University, South Allameh Street, Saadatabad, Tehran, Iran ‫(گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی دانشگاه عالمه‬ )‫طباطبائی‬ zia_tajeddin@yahoo.com Education )‫(تحصیالت‬...»

«How to Conduct a Successful and Fun Beer Tasting Event A Guide By Peter L. Cherpack Contents: Introduction 1. Decide what kind of tasting you would like to host 2. Decide the number of beers to taste 3. Assemble and prepare your equipment 4. Research your selected beer and styles 5. Help your guests describe a beer’s characteristics 6. Set up your tasting room 7. Place your beers in the correct order for the tasting 8. Other tips for the tasting Conclusion Conduct your own beer tasting event!...»

«LA CES™ Program Manual Landscape Architecture Continuing Education System™ A collaboration of the American Society of Landscape Architects, Canadian Society of Landscape Architects, Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture, Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards, Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board, and the Landscape Architecture Foundation Introduction The Landscape Architecture Continuing Education System (LA CES) establishes, maintains, and enforces...»

«This pdf contains:  Dodman, D. 2009. “Urban Form, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate  Vulnerability.” Pp 64‐79 in: Population Dynamics and Climate Change, edited  by J.M.Guzmán, G. Martine, G. McGranahan, D. Schensul and C. Tacoli. New  York: UNFPA; London: IIED.      The contents of the full book can be found here:  https://www.unfpa.org/public/publications/pid/4500      This pdf was downloaded from www.iied.org   4 Urban...»

«CDHO Advisory | Immunosuppression COLLEGE OF DENTAL HYGIENISTS OF ONTARIO ADVISORY ADVISORY TITLE Use of the dental hygiene interventions of scaling of teeth and root planing including curetting surrounding tissue, orthodontic and restorative practices, and other invasive interventions for persons1 subject to immunosuppression. ADVISORY STATUS Cite as College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario, CDHO Advisory Immunosuppression, 2012-01-01 INTERVENTIONS AND PRACTICES CONSIDERED Scaling of teeth and...»

«The Ohio State University Knowledge Bank kb.osu.edu Ohio Journal of Science (Ohio Academy of Science) Ohio Journal of Science: Volume 51, Issue 1 (January, 1951) 1951-01 Chemical Investigations of Two Ancient Bronze Statuettes Found in Greece Caley, Earle R. The Ohio Journal of Science. v51 n1 (January, 1951), 6-12 http://hdl.handle.net/1811/3799 Downloaded from the Knowledge Bank, The Ohio State University's institutional repository CHEMICAL INVESTIGATION OF TWO ANCIENT BRONZE STATUETTES FOUND...»

«NATIONAL CENTER FOR CASE STUDY TEACHING IN SCIENCE Bad Blood: A Case Study of the Tuskegee Syphilis Project by A.W. Fourtner, C.R. Fourtner and C.F. Herreid University at Buffalo, State University of New York The Disease Syphilis is a venereal disease spread during sexual intercourse. It can also be passed from mother to child during pregnancy. It is caused by a corkscrew-shaped bacterium called a spirochete, Treponema pallidum. This microscopic organism resides in many organs of the body but...»

«13 BOOK REVIEWS 1962] ing the temptation of stifling the reader under an undue burden of authoritarianism and slickness. The authors in their preface to this volume intimate that this is not intended as an exhaustive treatment of the subject and this is indeed the case. Under these circumstances there is bound to be some controversy concerning the particular selection of topics made. Since the authors were clearly motivated in their choice of topics by geometric and not purely algebraic...»

«Copyright by Karen Yuan-Yun Twu 2006 The Dissertation Committee for Karen Yuan-Yun Twu Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The NS1A Protein of Influenza A Virus: Its Crucial Role in the Inhibition of 3′ End Processing of Cellular Pre-mRNAs Committee: _ Robert M. Krug, Supervisor _ Henry R. Jr. Bose _ Philip W. Tucker _ Jon M. Huibregtse _ Jon D. Robertus The NS1A Protein of Influenza A Virus: Its Crucial Role in the Inhibition of 3′ End Processing of...»

«Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis June 2003 TITLE: Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis SOURCE: Grand Rounds Presentation, UTMB, Dept. of Otolaryngology DATE: June 25, 2003 RESIDENT PHYSICIAN: Frederick S. Rosen, MD FACULTY ADVISOR: Anna M. Pou, MD SERIES EDITORS: Francis B. Quinn, Jr., MD and Matthew W. Ryan, MD ARCHIVIST: Melinda Stoner Quinn, MSICS This material was prepared by resident physicians in partial fulfillment of educational requirements established for the Postgraduate Training...»

«King George V College Follow up re-inspection monitoring visit report Unique reference number: 130492 Name of lead inspector: Steve Hailstone HMI Last day of inspection: 30 April 2015 Type of provider: Sixth form college Scarisbrick New Road Address: Southport PR8 6LR Telephone number: 01704 530601 Published date June 2015 Inspection Number 463054 Monitoring visit King George V College, 30 April 2015 1 of 6 Monitoring visit: main findings Context and focus of visit This is the third...»

«Nº 240 MARTES, 20 DE OCTUBRE DE 2015 XUNTA DE GALICIA CONSELLERÍA DE MEDIO AMBIENTE, TERRITORIO E INFRAESTRUTURAS. AUGAS DE GALICIA. SERVIZO TERRITORIAL DE LUGO Anuncio INFORMACIÓN PÚBLICA O Concello de Muras, con CIF P2703300J, solicita de Augas de Galicia autorización de obras en zona de policía. O presente anuncio ten por obxecto abrir a regulamentaria información pública que prescribe o art. 52 do Regulamento do dominio público hidráulico. Expediente: DH.W27.50236 As obras...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.