0

Stock Manipulation Scheme

PRESS RELEASE

(June 14, 2017, San Diego, CA) The securities fraud and elder financial abuse law firm of Richard A. Nervig, P.C. has launched an investigation on behalf of victims of the stock manipulation scheme involving shares of stock in National Waste Management Holdings, Inc. (“NWMH”), CES Synergies, Inc. (“CESX”), Grilled Cheese Truck (“GRLD”), Hydrocarb Energy Corporation (“HECC”) and Intelligent Content Enterprises, Inc. (“ICEIF”).

On July 12, 2017, the US Attorneys’ Office unsealed a nine-count indictment filed in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, against 14 defendants including San Diego resident Lawrence Isen and Tarzana California resident Robert Gleckman.

 

According to the indictment, between January 2014 and July 2017, the defendants, together with others, engaged in a $147 million scheme to defraud investors, including the elderly, in one or more of the following publicly traded companies: NWMH, CESX, GRLD, HECC, and ICEIF by artificially controlling the price and volume of traded shares in the Manipulated Public Companies through, among other things, (a) artificially generating price movements and trading volume in the shares, and (b) material misrepresentations and omissions in their communications with victim investors about the stock of the Manipulated Public Companies, relating to, among other things, the advisability of purchasing such stock.   The defendants also fraudulently concealed their control of shares of the Manipulated Public Companies that were held in brokerage accounts in the names of other individuals or entities.  See, Press Release, Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of New York (7/12/2017).

 

Although the criminal prosecution of perpetrators of such schemes is certainly warranted, the harsh reality is that victims of such schemes more often than not receive little if any recovery of funds from the criminal prosecution.    Instead, most meaningful recoveries typically come from the pursuit of third party liability claims against the banks and/or brokerage firms who may have either aided and abetted the unlawful schemes and/or who negligently failed to detect and prevent such in the face of suspicious circumstances.

If you are an investor who has lost money purchasing one or more of the above stocks and are interested in learning more about your legal rights and remedies, please contact  Richard A. Nervig (info@nerviglaw.com) at (800) 837-0441 or (760) 451-2300. If you email, please include your phone number

SOURCE CAPITAL GROUP, INC. (CRD#36719)

The investor rights law firm of Richard A. Nervig, P.C. is investigating potential securities sales practice abuse claims on behalf of investors who purchased securities issued from the following companies through Source Capital Group, Inc.:

Blue Ridge Group, Inc.


2011-C Two Well Drilling Program, LP


2010/2011 Year End Drilling Program, LP

2011 Year End Drilling Program, LP


Galveston Bay Drilling Program, LP


2012 Belmont Drilling Program, LP

On October 10, 2016, the State of California Department of Business Oversight issued a Desist and Refrain Order against Source Capital Group, Inc. and the above entities alleging among other things, violations of sections 25110 and 25401 of the California Corporations Code, and that:

Respondents made, or caused to be made, misrepresentations of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.

See, http://www.dbo.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/2016/Blue%20Ridge%20Group%20Inc..pdf.

Securities issued by oil and gas drilling program are typically high risk investments suitable only for the most risk tolerant individuals willing to accept a total loss on their investment.  Retirees and other risk averse individuals are typically not suitable for such investments.    If you purchased an oil and gas limited partnership investment based upon the advice and recommendation of a broker and/or brokerage firm like Source Capital Group, Inc. and you believe such was not suitable for your investment needs and/or that you were not provided all information necessary for you to make an informed investment decision, my firm would like to speak to you about your investments.

To learn more about your legal rights and remedies, please contact Richard A. Nervig (info@nerviglaw.com) at 760-451-2300.  If you email, please include your phone number.

0

ATTENTION HOLDERS OF CANCELLED SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC. SECURITIES

The investor rights law firm of Richard A. Nervig, P.C. has launched an investigation and is offering free initial consultations to preferred and common stock investors of Sandridge Energy, Inc. (“Sandridge”) whose shares are subject to cancellation. Sandridge filed for bankruptcy on May 16, 2016 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas, Case No. # 16-32488 and pursuant to the Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan approved by the Court on October 4, 2016, preferred and common stockholders will have their interests cancelled.

On October 20, 2016, the Enforcement Section of the Massachusetts Securities Division filed an administrative complaint against a securities brokerage and broker alleging among other things that certain retiree investors had their brokerage accounts unsuitably concentrated in Sandridge stock. See, https://www.sec.state.ma.us/sct/current/sctspartanrevere/Spartan-10-20-16.pdf.

Stock interests like those issued by Sandridge are typically risky investments suitable only for the most risk tolerant individuals willing to accept a substantial loss on their investment. Retirees and other risk averse individuals are typically not suitable for such investments. If you were an investor in Sandridge securities now subject to cancellation and you purchased such based upon the advice and recommendation of a broker and/or brokerage firm and you believe the investment may not have been suitable for your investment needs and/or if you believe you were not provided all information necessary for you to make an informed investment decision, my firm would like to speak to you about your investments.

To learn more about your legal rights and remedies, please contact Richard A. Nervig (richard@nerviglaw.com) at 760-451-2300. If you email, please include your phone number.

FREE CONSULTATION
Toll Free Tel. (800) 837-0441

Email: info@nerviglaw.com

San Diego
600 West Broadway
Suite 1540
San Diego, CA 92101

Denver
1873 S. Bellaire Street
Suite 1401
Denver, CO 80222

www.nerviglaw.com

ATTENTION: Atlas Resource Limited Partnership Investors

The investor rights law firm of Richard A. Nervig, P.C. has launched an investigation regarding securities sales practice abuses potentially suffered by investors of Atlas Resource securities. On July 27, 2016, Atlas Resource Partners, L.P. and certain of its subsidiaries (“Atlas”) filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Pursuant to a Restructuring Support Agreement dated July 25, 2016 and proposed pre-packaged plan of reorganization, holders of Atlas’ limited partnership units will receive no recovery and on the bankruptcy Plan Effective Date all preferred limited partnership units and common limited partnership units will be cancelled without the receipt of any consideration. Limited partnership interests like those issued by Atlas are typically high risk ventures suitable only for the most sophisticated investors. If you purchased Atlas securities based upon the recommendation of a broker and/or brokerage firm and you believe such was not suitable for your investment needs and/or that you were not provided all information necessary for you to make an informed investment decision, my firm would like to speak to you about your investment. The following is a list of limited partnerships issued by Atlas and/or affiliates over the last six years: Atlas Resource Partners, L.P. Atlas Resources Series 31-2011 L.P. Atlas Resources Public #19-2010 (A) L.P.    Atlas Resources Series 32-2012 L.P. Atlas Resources Public #19-2010 (B) L.P.    Atlas Resources Series 33-2013 L.P. Atlas Resources Public #19-2011 (C) L.P.    Atlas Resources Series 34-2014 L.P. Atlas Resources Series 30-2011 L.P.    If you are an Atlas Resources limited partnership investor and are interested in learning more about your legal rights and remedies, please contact Richard A. Nervig (richard@nerviglaw.com) at 760-451-2300. If you email, please include your phone number.

Heartburn For the Securities Industry

Eleventh Circuit Rules Investor Claim Of Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention Does NOT Require Existence Of A Broker Client Relationship. Late last month the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the case of Martha F. Owens et al. v. Stifel Nicolaus and Company, Inc., et al., 2016 WL 3033158 (11th Cir. 2016) reversed a trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of Stifel relating to various claims asserted by the Plaintiffs including one based upon negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The case arose from the solicitation and sale of certain promissory notes issued by a company called Cardiac Network, Inc. (CNI) by Stifel broker Anthony Fisher. CNI defaulted on its obligations to investors including Plaintiffs Donald Pope and Refuse Materials, Inc. who invested approximately $345,000 in CNI securities. Fisher, was ultimately fired by Stifel for among other things engaging private securities transactions involving CNI notes — a practice commonly referred to in the securities industry as “selling away”. Plaintiffs Pope and RMI who were also not formal clients of Stifel, asserted various claims against Stifel arising from the losses they sustained in CNI notes including inter alia, a claim for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment filed by Stifel ruled that “… Pope and RMI “failed to establish that SNC owes a duty to exercise any degree of care toward non-clients,” [and] concluded that Pope and RMI’s negligence claims failed as a matter of law.” On appeal however the Eleventh Circuit ruled the trial court’s decision on this issue to be error finding that: Neither the lawyer who runs a red light nor the accounting firm that fails to warn of a slippery floor could escape general tort liability by arguing that the plaintiff was not a client. RMI’s negligence claim against SNC is not that SNC negligently gave RMI bad investment advice.4 Rather, RMI claims that SNC negligently hired, supervised, and retained Fisher, a fraudster who used his employment with SNC to gain RMI’s trust and thereby perpetuate his scheme. The availability of this tort theory does not necessarily require a broker-client relationship. [emphasis added]. Although an unpublished opinion, the decision is significant as it confirms the general principal that securities broker dealers may not limit their tort liability to only those with whom they have a formal broker customer relationship.

1 2