https://www.brokeandbroker.com/6314/schottenstein-sdfl/

The saga of Beverley Schottenstein's lawsuit against JP Morgan Securities and her grandsons Evan and Avi has been widely reported in the press. This litigation is the stuff of soap operas, rom-coms, and television mini-series. As with the old serial movies of years long since past, just when you think the end is near, there's a cliff-hanger. As we return to the action, a federal court seems to have blown the final whistle. But for the fact that this may be less American football and more like soccer where the time runs out but they keep playing into something called "extra time" which, for the life of me, I don't quite get because, you know, the clock shows "0:00" but, regardless, they keep on running around kickin' the ball. Best I can tell, the federal court's whistle is ending the game but let's see how that all pans out over the next few months.

This Notice provides guidance to firms about the supervision of complex products, which may include a security or investment strategy with novel, complicated or intricate derivative-like features, such as structured notes, inverse or leveraged exchange-traded funds, hedge funds and securitized products, such as asset-backed securities. These features may make it difficult for a retail investor to understand the essential characteristics of the product and its risks. 

The Notice identifies characteristics that may render a product "complex" for purposes of determining whether the product should be subject to heightened supervisory and compliance procedures and provides examples of heightened procedures that may be appropriate. 

[M]alekzadeh started his business in 2013 by purchasing limited edition and collectible sneakers to resell online. Beginning as early as January 2020, Zadeh Kicks began offering preorders of sneakers before their public release dates, allowing Malekzadeh to collect money upfront before fulfilling orders. Malekzadeh advertised, sold, and collected payments from customers for preorders knowing he could not satisfy all orders placed.

For example, in 2021, Malekzadeh began selling preorders of Nike Air Jordan 11 Cool Grey sneakers. Zadeh Kicks received and accepted preorder sales of over 600,000 pairs of sneakers, resulting in payments to Malekzadeh of more than $70 million. Malekzadeh had no way of acquiring the quantity of sneakers needed to fill the preorders received. In fact, he was only able to acquire just over 6,000 pairs. Customers were either left with unfulfilled orders or they received a combination refund of cash and Zadeh Kicks gift cards.

By April 2022, Malekzadeh owed customers more than $70 million in undelivered sneakers and unknown additional millions held by customers in worthless company gift cards.

In her role as Zadeh Kicks chief financial officer, Mockerman conspired with Malekzadeh to provide false and altered financial information to numerous financial institutions-including providing altered bank statements-on more than 15 bank loan applications. Together, Mockerman and Malekzadeh received more than $15 million in loans from these applications.

As part of the government's ongoing criminal investigation, federal agents have seized millions of dollars in cash and luxury goods that Malekzadeh acquired with the proceeds of his fraud. The seized items include nearly 100 watches, some valued at over $400,000, jewelry, and hundreds of luxury handbags. The government also seized nearly $6.4 million in cash which was the result Malekzadeh's sale of watches and luxury cars manufactured by Bentley, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, and others.

[I]n 2017 and 2018, Merson participated in a scheme to defraud involving investments in Standby Letters of Credit (SBLCs). Investors were promised that they could receive a portion of the value of an SBLC, worth millions of dollars, for a much smaller initial investment. Investors were promised returns equal to many times the amounts of their initial investments in a matter of weeks. They were also promised that their money would remain in the attorney trust account of a co-conspirator-who at the time was a licensed attorney in Florida-until confirmation was received that the SBLC had been issued.

In his role as an intermediary between investors and the principal members of the conspiracy, Merson falsely represented to investors that the investment was not risky and that he had been involved in similar successful deals in the past. He also falsely represented that he was an independent consultant who was only going to receive a small finder's fee, and claimed not to know the details of the transaction or the payouts the clients could expect. In fact, he had a significant independent financial interest in the investment transaction that he affirmatively misled investors about as he responded to investor inquiries.

[S]ince 2017, defendants have raised approximately $4.7 million from over one hundred individuals across the United States through the fraudulent offer and sale of securities in Semisub, a company formed by the Jacksons purportedly for the construction and operation of a partially submersible vessel that would be used for commercial sightseeing tours in Hawaii. The complaint alleges that despite telling investors through offering documents and other communications that their funds would be used to construct the initial vessel and then construct and market additional vessels to potential buyers, defendants misappropriated a significant portion of the funds raised to pay for their personal expenses, including, among other things, private homes, vacations, groceries, psychics, and recreational drugs. According to the complaint, to perpetuate the fraud and solicit additional funds to support their personal spending, defendants repeatedly lied to investors about the status of construction of the vessel and potential business relationships with reputable entities and organizations.

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Surgalign Holdings, Inc., formerly RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc., and former executives Brian Hutchison and Robert Jordheim for masking disappointing sales numbers by shipping future orders ahead of schedule to accelerate, or "pull forward," revenue and then failing to disclose this practice to investors. In June 2020, RTI restated its public financial statements from 2014 through 2019 to correct errors caused by this practice.

As alleged by the SEC, RTI's reliance on pull-forwards cannibalized future revenue streams and damaged important customer relationships while the company reassured investors it was meeting revenue guidance. The SEC further alleged that RTI sometimes shipped orders early without customer approval and recognized revenue for those shipments prematurely, in violation of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and that RTI's former CEO, Hutchison, and former CFO, Jordheim, permitted RTI to recognize revenue for such shipments.

[I]n 2019, two of Deccan's largest investors and clients sought to fully redeem their investments, which together totaled nearly 18% of Deccan's more than $3 billion in assets under management. The order finds that without full and fair disclosure to either university, Deccan did not seek to liquidate in a reasonable manner certain illiquid securities held by both clients. The Commission's order finds that Deccan also made materially misleading statements and omissions, including at Bodas' suggestion, to one of the redeeming university clients ("University Two") in an effort to advantage Deccan's non-redeeming clients and investors, which included Bodas and other Deccan partners. As the order finds, Deccan breached its fiduciary duty: (i) when advising University Two to sell certain of its interests to Deccan's non-redeeming clients at a price advantageous to the non-redeemers; and (ii) by failing to disclose its intent to tie up nearly 13% of the cash in University Two's account in an illiquid side-pocket in the weeks leading up to University Two's final redemption and at a time when Deccan and University Two were negotiating a short-term extension of their investment advisory agreement.

According to the Commission's order, Deccan also failed to retain text messages, as required by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, including by virtue of Bodas texting Deccan's head of trading operations to delete and to not to back-up their extensive text messages. Finally, the Commission's order finds that Deccan lacked adequate policies and procedures for record retention and client and investor redemptions.

7. On April 26, 2019, one of Deccan's largest investors in its Commingled Fund, University One, timely notified Deccan that it wanted to redeem its entire $146 million investment by June 30. 

8. The day Bodas learned of University One's redemption, he reacted with the following text message to the head of trading and operations with directions on how to handle the redemption (the "April Text"): 

"Use everything to hold [University One] back in the [L]SPV. Anything mildly illiquid. We don't want their withdrawal to impact our other investors . . . And then take our sweet time. Hopefully 2 or 3 years . . . And if [University One] hassle[s] us we can tell them we can liquidate immediately at a 20% discount and have the rest of our funds buy it. . . .So basically whatever cannot be sold the that (sic) one day 6/30 goes into the SPV. Why should we sell in advance and have other investors bear the cost of these fools. And then sell 5% of [average daily volume]. . . .So figure this out. . . ." 

. . .

20. University Two, like Deccan's other clients, had exposure to the unlisted

Indian company, which by December 2019 was approximately $17.4 million, or 6% of the value of its SMA. On December 17, as University Two's final year-end redemption date approached, Bodas learned from Deccan's head of trading and operations that Deccan had received bids at 875 Rupee and 880 Rupee for shares sufficient to liquidate most if not all of University Two's interest in the Indian company. If accepted, Deccan would have needed to obtain approval for the transaction from the company's board of directors to complete the trade. By that time, however, Bodas and Deccan had learned from the third party valuation agent that it expected the shares would be marked at 840 Rupee at December 31. As with the indications of interest Deccan received earlier in 2019 discussed

above, Deccan did not seek to pursue these potential opportunities to sell the Indian security for the benefit of University Two.

21. Instead, Bodas and Deccan offered to sell University Two's interest in the

Indian security as part of the same transaction it would utilize to liquidate the interest of University One and its LSPV. To encourage University Two to accept that offer, on December 17 Bodas texted Deccan's head of trading and operations handling the discussions, "[s]hould you tell [University 2] that if we don't sell we may have to side pocket [the investment in the Indian Company] as that's what we'll be doing for others?" Deccan's head of trading and operations, understanding that a side pocket likely would have significantly delayed University Two's final redemption, replied, "Interesting idea would make selling more compelling right?" Bodas responded, "Yes. And you could say there is a likelihood. So make it vague enough." After the head of trading and operations did so, he reported to Bodas, who had not participated in the discussions, that University

Two "pretty much immediately" agreed to the proposed transaction. On December 20, Bodas directed Deccan's head of trading and operations, "[a]ll I want is max price for portfolio and min price to [University Two for shares of the Indian company]. Figure it out . . . Get [University Two] done at 840."