Español Inner

Articles Posted in Private Placements

Published on:

woodbridge mortgage fundsAs we have discussed in previous blog posts, on December 21, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) formally announced charges against the Woodbridge Group of Companies (“Woodbridge”) of Sherman Oaks, CA, as well as Woodbridge’s related unregistered investment funds and the firm’s owner and former CEO, Robert Shapiro.  Essentially, the SEC has alleged that “[D]efendant Robert H. Shapiro used his web of more than 275 Limited Liability Companies to conduct a massive Ponzi scheme raising more than $1.22 billion from over 8,400 unsuspecting investors nationwide through fraudulent unregistered securities offerings.”

The SEC’s recent charges come on the heels of Woodbridge filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on December 4, 2017 in Delaware Bankruptcy Court (Case No. 17-12560-KJC).  Through filings with the Bankruptcy Court, the SEC has alleged that Mr. Shapiro sought Chapter 11 protection in order to shield himself from charges of allegedly orchestrating a Ponzi scheme: “[h]e needed to create the appearance of a bankruptcy that resembled a bona fide Chapter 11, complete with legal and restructuring professionals of the type normally seen in a real organization.  So instead of allowing a District Court to appoint an independent fiduciary, Robert Shapiro decided that he would select the victims’ fiduciaries when he started hiring the team of managers and professionals who are representing the Debtors’ estates today.”

On January 2, 2018 — in light of these allegations and concerns related to ensuring adequate representation of the numerous Woodbridge investors nationwide — the SEC filed a Motion to Direct the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee.  Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1104(a), the SEC has sought to appoint an independent Chapter 11 trustee for cause, in order to ensure Woodbridge investors are best protected.  In seeking the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, the SEC has argued that cause exists, given allegations that “[M]r. Shapiro engaged in widespread fraud, dishonesty, incompetence and gross mismanagement in operating the Debtors prior to bankruptcy.  This conduct is sufficient cause for a trustee under Section 1104(a)(1).  In re Vaughan, 429 B.R. 14 (Bankr. D. N.M. 2010) (conduct relating to operation of Ponzi scheme falls squarely within Section 1104(a)).”

Published on:

Money MazeInvestors in Roundstone Healthcare Capital V, L.P. (“Roundstone V” or the “Limited Partnership”) may be able to recover losses on their investment through initiating an arbitration proceeding with FINRA Dispute Resolution if the recommendation to purchase Roundstone V was unsuitable or if a broker or investment advisor who sold Roundstone V made a misleading sales presentation.

Roundstone V is structured as a Delaware limited partnership and is based in Acton, MA.  The Limited Partnership was formed in 2009 as a capital investment entity, to invest in discounted portfolios of medical receivables.  On March 27, 2009, Roundstone V first sold securities through its private placement offering pursuant to Regulation D (“Reg D”) of the federal securities laws.

Investors who participated in the offering were required to invest a minimum of $10,000.  Shortly after commencing its initial offering of up to $25,000,000 in investor capital, the Limited Partnership sold $4,459,000 of securities through private placement by May 18, 2009.

Published on:

woodbridge mortgage fundsAs recently discussed in our blog, on Monday, December 4, the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC (“Woodbridge”) of Sherman Oaks, CA, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Delaware Bankruptcy Court (Case No. 17-12560-KJC).  Woodbridge has asserted that a restructuring of its debt was necessary due to increased operating and development costs, in addition to expenses associated with ongoing litigation and regulatory compliance.  As we have discussed in several previous blog posts, Woodbridge continues to face considerable regulatory scrutiny in connection with allegations of offering and selling unregistered securities, in addition to allegations of possible misconduct by Woodbridge and its President, Robert Shapiro.

As reported on December 6, Woodbridge’s First Day Motions in Delaware Bankruptcy Court (“Motions”) were successful.  The Bankruptcy Court issued certain interim authorizations to help ensure Woodbridge’s ability to continue operations in the ordinary course during its restructuring process.  For instance, the Bankruptcy Court approved Woodbridge’s request to access debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing through a California private direct lender specializing in real estate debt investments, Hankey Capital, LLC (“Hankey”).

This DIP financing, combined with cash on hand generated by Woodbridge’s operations, is intended to support continued business operations during the restructuring process.  In signing off of on Woodbridge’s request to borrow $6 million for a day through its DIP financing, Judge Kevin Casey indicated “The request here is a relatively modest one.”  In addition to receiving approval on its initial DIP financing request, Woodbridge also received approval for, among other things, cash to pay employee salaries and benefits.

Published on:

woodbridge mortgage fundsIf you are have invested in Woodbridge Wealth or in any of the Woodbridge Mortgage Funds, you may have questions concerning your rights in light of Woodbridge’s recent bankruptcy filing.

Investors who purchased Woodbridge FPCMs through a stockbroker or financial advisor may have viable FINRA arbitration claims if the brokerage firm did not perform adequate due diligence before recommending the Woodbridge investment.  Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. offers a confidential, no-obligation consultation to Woodbridge investors.

Woodbridge Wealth, a California-based firm, sells structured financial products to investors, often through intermediary brokers.   Woodbridge has reportedly raised over $1 billion by selling investors instruments known as First Position Commercial Mortgages (“FPCMs”). The Woodbridge Funds advertise that their management team’s substantial experience lets them maintain a successful lending model and find lending opportunities that are favorable for investors. Investors do not have any role other than providing money. An FPCM consists of a promissory note from a Woodbridge Fund, a loan agreement, and a non-exclusive assignment of the Woodbridge Fund’s security interest in the mortgage for the underlying hard-money loan. The Woodbridge Funds pool money from multiple investors for each hard-money loan. The Woodbridge Funds’ promissory notes effectively guarantee the underlying hard-money loans, and the Woodbridge Funds’ advertising materials state that the Woodbridge Funds are obligated to make payments to FPCM investors even if the hard-money borrower defaults.

Published on:

woodbridge mortgage fundsOn December 4, 2017, the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC (“Woodbridge”) of Sherman Oaks, CA, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  As we have previously highlighted in a series of blog posts, Woodbridge has come under considerable regulatory scrutiny over the past year, both by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and various state securities regulators including officials in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

In a letter to investors dated December 5, Woodbridge announced the bankruptcy filing and stated that “[t]he Company took this action in an effort to recapitalize its debt and establish a stronger financial platform.”

In the investor letter, Woodbridge elaborated as follows concerning the purported reasons for the bankruptcy: “While Woodbridge continues to be a leading developer of high-end real estate, as the  business has grown, increased operating and development costs have been exacerbated by the unforeseen costs associated with ongoing litigation and regulatory compliance.  This combination of rising costs and regulatory pressure led to a loss of liquidity, resulting in an inability to make our regularly scheduled one-year Notes payment due December 1, 2017.  So you understand, this unpaid obligation incurred by Woodbridge prior to December 4, 2017 is now frozen and will be considered as general unsecured claims in the restructuring proceedings.”

Published on:

https://i0.wp.com/www.investorlawyers.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/15.10.21-bags-of-money-2.jpg?resize=300%2C213&ssl=1

On December 4, 2017, the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC (“Woodbridge”) of Sherman Oaks, CA, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  As we have previously highlighted in a series of blog posts, Woodbridge has come under considerable regulatory scrutiny over the past year, both by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and various state securities regulators including officials in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas.  Further, according to bankruptcy filings, Woodbridge has received information requests from state securities regulators in approximately 25 states.  The investigations conducted by securities regulators at both the federal and state level have centered on allegations of offering and selling unregistered securities that are not exempt from registration.

In addition, at the federal level, the SEC has raised allegations of possible misconduct by Woodbridge and its President, Robert Shapiro (“Shapiro”).  On Friday, December 1, Mr. Shapiro resigned as Woodbridge’s CEO.  As of Monday, December 4, according to bankruptcy proceeding filings, Woodbridge owes approximately $750 million to an estimated 8,998 noteholders who invested in various Woodbridge funds.  Holders of these notes are entitled to a fixed rate of interest generally ranging from 4.5 – 13%, payable on a monthly basis, and repayment of principal upon maturity (typically within 12-20 months of issuance) of the note.

Woodbridge operates through a complex structure of interrelated companies (numbering about 250) which are owned either directly or indirectly by RS Protection Trust, an irrevocable Nevada trust, of which Mr. Shapiro is the trustee and his family members are the sole beneficiaries.  Included among the various Woodbridge entities or mortgage funds are the following:

Published on:

woodbridge mortgage fundsOn March 18, 2016, the Securities Commissioner of the State of Texas (“Securities Commissioner”) entered a Cease and Desist Order (“Order”) against Woodbridge Mortgage Investment Fund 3, LLC (“Woodbridge 3” or “Respondent”).  Respondent Woodbridge 3 is a Delaware-organized limited liability company formed in or around 2014.  Woodbridge 3 is one of a number of mortgage funds offered by the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC (“Woodbridge”), the successor firm to Woodbridge Structured Funding, LLC.  Woodbridge is headquartered in Sherman Oaks, CA, and its principal and controlling person is Robert H. Shapiro (“Shapiro”).

In connection with the Securities Commissioner’s Order, State of Texas securities regulators made the following findings of fact concerning their investigation into Woodbridge 3:

  • The Bureau determined that Respondents Woodbridge 3 and Shapiro offered and sold “First Position Commercial Mortgages” (“FPCMs” or “The Note Program”) to investors in Texas that fell within the definition of a security;
Published on:

Cage MoneyFormer United Planners Broker Jerry Lou Guttman allegedly sold over $7,000,000 worth of unregistered securities to customers of his former employer.  Guttman allegedly sold membership interests in at least six different limited liability companies to 31 customers and seven non-customers without first disclosing the sales to United Planners, according to a recent Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (AWC) issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).  According to the AWC, Mr. Guttman neither admitted to nor denied the conduct charged by FINRA.

Guttman was a financial advisor and a registered representative of United Planners Financial Services of America from 2001 to October 2017.   Guttman has also allegedly been the subject of three previous customer complaints.  During his career, Guttman has been affiliated with Guttman Financial Group, Nationwide Planning & Benefits, Champion Entertainment Group, Walled Lake Properties, and Serenity Management.

FINRA Rule 3280 prohibits associated persons from participating in any manner in a private securities transaction without first providing written notice to the registered representative’s employing firm.  The notice to the employer must occur before the private securities transaction begins.  There are other requirements imposed by the rule, including that the employing firm must approve the transaction.

Published on:

woodbridge-300x82As recently reported, the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC (“Woodbridge”) of Sherman Oaks, CA, continue to face considerable regulatory scrutiny in connection with allegations of offering and selling unregistered securities.  For the past year on the federal level, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has been conducting an investigation into Woodbridge.  In that regard, according to a publicly available court filing, the SEC “[i]s investigating the offer and sale of unregistered securities, the sale of securities by unregistered brokers and the commission of fraud in connection with the offer, purchase and sale of securities” by Woodbridge and its affiliated companies and agents.

Concurrently at the state level, Woodbridge has been the subject of investigations by various state securities regulators in Arizona, Texas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (as well as recent inquiries made by the Colorado Division of Securities).  Several of these investigations have resulted in regulators issuing cease-and-desist orders, requiring Woodbridge to stop offering and/or selling unregistered securities, and furthermore, to stop otherwise violating applicable securities laws.

For example, on or about April 24, 2017, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, Bureau of Securities Compliance (the “Bureau”) entered into a Consent Agreement and Order (“Consent Order”) with Woodbridge.  As part of the Consent Order, Respondent Woodbridge — without admitting or denying any of the allegations raised by the Bureau — agreed to pay an administrative assessment of $30,000, and additionally agreed to adhere to Pennsylvania’s state securities laws which prohibit, among other things, selling unregistered securities that are not exempt from registration.

Published on:

Financial FraudIf you have sustained losses in an investment in GWG Renewable Secured Debentures, an illiquid and high-risk alternative investment, you be able to recover losses in arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) if the investment was sold pursuant to a misleading sales presentation or the recommendation to purchase the securities lacked a reasonable basis.  GWG Holdings, Inc. (“GWG”) began selling what it termed Renewable Secured Debentures (“Debentures”) in 2012.  In certain instances, financial advisors and brokers recommending these Debentures reportedly solicited their clients to invest without first fully disclosing the Debentures’ many risks.  In fact, in some instances, financial advisors reportedly made false and misleading oral and written statements concerning these investments offered by GWG, describing them as safe, low-risk, liquid and/or guaranteed.  Further, some financial advisors may have recommended these Debentures without taking into account a customer’s specific investment objectives, risk tolerance, as well as other relevant factors which all touch upon the suitability of a specific investment.

In actuality, these Debentures were anything but safe, liquid investments.  In structuring the Debentures, Minnesota firm GWG purchased life insurance policies in the secondary market at a discount to their face value and then packaged these policies into the Debentures, to be sold to investors.  In structuring the overarching investments, GWG planned to continue paying on the insurance policy premiums, while paying investors interest, ultimately hoping to collect more upon maturity of the policies than GWG had initially paid to purchase, finance and service the policies.  GWG required a minimum investment of $25,000 – with the optionality to make additional investments at $1000 increments.  The Debentures had varying maturity terms and interest rates, ranging from six (6) months at an annual interest rate of 4.75% to seven (7) years at an interest rate of 9.5%.

Significantly, as stated in the GWG Prospectus, the life insurance policies underlying the investments do not serve as collateral for the Debentures, but rather acted as collateral for GWG on a line of credit to purchase the insurance policies, in the first instance.  In addition to the risk of default without secure collateral in place, the GWG Debentures are extremely illiquid in nature.  This means that investors do not have ready access to their initial capital commitment prior to maturity (unless such a request is due to death, bankruptcy, or disability).  Further, there is no active trading market for GWG’s Debentures, making resale extremely difficult.

Contact Information