SEC v MoneyTalks

6/12/2009 SEC v MoneyTalks

Securities and Exchange Commission v. John S. Morgan, Marian I. Morgan, Morgan European Holdings ApS a/k/a Money Talks, Inc., ApS, Stephen E. Bowman, Bowman Marketing Group, Inc., and Thomas D. Woodcock, Jr., Case 8:09-CV-01093-RAL-EAJ

SEC OBTAINS EMERGENCY RELIEF AGAINST ALLEGED PERPETRATORS OF PRIME BANK SCHEME

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that, on June 11, 2009, it filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Morgan European Holdings ApS, a/k/a Money Talks, Inc. ApS (“MEH”), John Morgan, Marian Morgan, Bowman Marketing Group, Inc. (“BMG”), Stephen E. Bowman, and Thomas D. Woodcock, Jr., for allegedly soliciting investments in fictitious prime bank trading programs. MEH is based in Denmark and in Sarasota, Florida, where John Morgan and Marian Morgan also reside. BMG is located in Omaha, Nebraska, where Bowman resides. Woodcock is a resident of Rockwall, Texas.

The Complaint alleges that, during 2006 and 2007, the defendants raised millions of dollars from investors to participate in a fictitious investment program involving the trading of financial instruments among top financial institutions. The defendants told investors that their principal was guaranteed or never placed at risk. However, according to the Complaint, the defendants used investor funds for various undisclosed purposes, including Bowman’s gambling expenses, mortgage payments by the Morgans, and Ponzi payments to some investors. The SEC claims that John Morgan, Marian Morgan, and Stephen Bowman have continued to lull investors into remaining complacent by promising the imminent payment of their principal and returns. None of the relevant offerings was registered with the Commission, nor were any of the defendants registered as a broker-dealer or associated with a registered broker-dealer.

The Complaint claims that, based on this conduct, all of the defendants violated Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Complaint also claims that John Morgan, Marian Morgan, Bowman, and Woodcock violated Exchange Act Section 15(a). On the Commission’s motion, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order, Asset Freeze and Other Equitable Relief (“Order”) on June 11, 2009. Among other things, the Court’s Order froze the assets of defendants John Morgan, Marian Morgan, MEH, Bowman, and BMG, wherever located, which are derived from, or reasonably traceable to, any investor funds. A hearing for a preliminary injunction has been set for June 25, 2009.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr21082.htm

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Blackout Media Corporation

SEC Litigation Release No. 21083 / June 12, 2009

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 21083 / June 12, 2009
Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No. 2990 / June 12, 2009

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Blackout Media Corporation and Sandy Winick, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 09 CV 5454 (GBD)
SEC CHARGES PENNY STOCK COMPANY AND CANADIAN CITIZEN WITH ILLEGAL STOCK DISTRIBUTION THROUGH CORPORATE SPINOFFS

The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against penny stock company Blackout Media Corporation, formerly known as First Canadian American Holding Corporation (“First Canadian”), and its former principal Sandy Winick, a resident of Toronto, Canada. The SEC alleges that First Canadian and Winick engaged in a scheme to create publicly traded companies through illegal distribution of the securities of more than 50 First Canadian subsidiaries.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that from April 2002 to May 2004, First Canadian spun off 59 subsidiaries through unregistered distribution of their securities to shareholders. As alleged in the complaint, these spinoffs had no legitimate business purpose and were instead a means to create publicly traded companies without providing the disclosure required by registration. According to the complaint, while conducting the spinoffs, First Canadian never filed periodic reports with the Commission, and made no meaningful disclosure about the financial and business operations of First Canadian or any of the subsidiaries. The complaint alleges that while First Canadian “reported” the spinoffs on Forms 8-K and proxy statements on Schedule 14A, these filings failed to disclose the true nature of the spinoff transactions and that Winick had control over 16.5% of First Canadian’s stock through his wife, his friends, and affiliated entities.

The complaint further alleges that, as a result of the spinoffs, Winick assembled an inventory of public company shells for sale and later sold many of them. In addition, the complaint alleges that Winick traded in the shares of some of these companies and profited by at least $3.2 million from 2004 through 2007.

The SEC’s complaint charges Blackout Media and Winick with violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 14a-9 thereunder. The complaint also charges Blackout Media with violating, and Winick with aiding and abetting violations of, Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder; and Winick with violating Sections 13(d) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13d-1 and 16a-3 thereunder.

The Commission seeks permanent injunctions and civil penalties against Blackout Media and Winick, and seeks from Winick an accounting, disgorgement, a penny stock bar, and the surrender of all stock he owns or controls in the companies spun off by First Canadian or their successors.

Also today, the Commission filed an action in the Northern District of California alleging fraud and registration violations against one of the companies First Canadian spun off, Pearl Asian Mining Industries, Inc. (now known as ZNext Mining Corporation), and its principal, Elvira Gamboa (also known as Pearl Asian). SEC v. ZNext Mining Corporation, Inc. and Elvira G. Gamboa, Civil Action No. CV 09-2611 (VRW) (N.D. Cal.); LR-21084 (June 12, 2009).

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Ontario Securities Commission.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr21083.htm

SEC Charges Attorneys for Fraudulent Legal Opinions

5/5/2009 SEC Press Release:

SEC Charges Attorneys for Fraudulent Legal Opinions Used by Promoters in Pump-and-Dump Scheme

Washington, D.C., May 5, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two California-based attorneys as well as a California corporation and its owner for preparing and issuing fraudulent legal opinions involving unregistered stock that enabled promoters and others to sell shares in an illegal pump-and-dump scheme.

The SEC alleges that attorneys Albert J. Rasch, Jr. and Kathleen R. Novinger together with Sandra B. Masino and her company 144 Opinions, Inc. drafted and executed at least 24 legal opinion letters that fraudulently induced the removal of restrictive legends on unregistered shares of Mobile Ready Entertainment Corp. As a result, certificates representing more than 22 million shares of Mobile Ready were sold to the public in violation of Rule 144, which governs the conversion of restricted stock that otherwise cannot be sold to the public. The SEC previously charged Mobile Ready and two of its officers in connection with the fraudulent pump-and-dump scheme that was made possible, in part, by the bogus opinion letters.

“The market relies on lawyers to act as gatekeepers who exercise their function in good faith,” said Katherine S. Addleman, Regional Director of the SEC’s Atlanta Regional Office. “As alleged in our complaint, these defendants disregarded the investing public by operating a legal opinion mill of fraudulent letters that misrepresented critical facts and cited to non-existent documents.”

The SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleges that after the fraudulent letters were prepared and issued, Masino and 144 Opinions made further false statements to a transfer agent to induce the removal of the restrictive legends on the respective shares of Mobile Ready. The fraudulent legal opinion letters contained false and misleading statements about the origin of the securities at issue, the existence of adequate public information concerning Mobile Ready, the existence of agreements between Mobile Ready and the relevant shareholders, and the applicability of Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933 to the restricted shares identified in each of the Mobile Ready Legal Opinions.

Mobile Ready, headquartered in Alpharetta, Ga., is a non-reporting, publicly-traded company that claims to market software applications for mobile devices and was previously quoted on the Pink Sheets under the symbol MRDY. Rasch and Masino each reside in Costa Mesa, Calif., Novinger resides in Cypress, Calif., and 144 Opinions was formerly headquartered in Newport Beach, Calif., before it became administratively dissolved.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that the defendants violated the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC’s complaint also seeks permanent injunctions against future violations; disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest from Rasch and Masino; imposition of financial penalties against Rasch, Novinger and Masino; and an order permanently prohibiting defendants from participating in any offering of penny stock.

# # #

For more information, contact:

Katherine S. Addleman, Regional Director
William P. Hicks, Regional Trial Counsel
M. Graham Loomis, Assistant Regional Director
SEC’s Atlanta Regional Office
404-842-7600

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-103.htm