William L. Thorp Revocable Trust v. Ameritas Investment Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-02-1040, 34 pp.) (James Dever III, Ch. J.) 4:11-cv-00193; E.D.N.C. Holding: Under the North Carolina Investment Advisors Act, an annuity is not a “security.” Since defendant King received ...Read More »
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-04-0606, 11 pp.) (Max Cogburn Jr., J.) 3:13-cv-00447; W.D.N.C. Holding: Contrary to defendants’ argument, 17 C.F.R. § 230.426(c) did not relieve them of the responsibility to ...
Tagged with: Motion to DismissRead More »
Securities – Commodities Futures – Unlicensed Trader – Website – Civil Practice – Permanent Injunction
Defendant contends he is not a commodity trading advisor (CTA) within the meaning of the Commodity Exchange Act; however, in exchange for a monthly fee, defendant advised his subscribers, via email, as to when they should open and close positions in E-mini S&P’s 500 future contracts.
Tagged with: Exchange ActRead More »
Securities – Fraud Claim – Medical Device Sales – Physician Coding Scam – DHHS Subpoena – Stock Price Fall
Caplin v. TranS1, Inc. Although the defendant-corporation’s Oct. 18, 2011 public statement precipitated a decline in the value of its stock, the statement mentioned only that the corporation had received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The statement did not mention the basis of plaintiff’s fraud claim: that defendant was allegedly engaging in a scheme to get physicians to use the wrong code when making insurance claims involving defendant’s medical devices so that insurance companies would reimburse the physicians for procedures involving the devices.
Tagged with: insurance claimsRead More »
Commodities Futures – Commodity Exchange Act – FraudU.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. PMC Strategy, LLC Defendant Hudspeth, an admitted controlling person of defendant PMC Strategy, LLC, solicited investments based on the results of PMC traders’ demo account, despite the fact that the traders’ actual accounts were losing money.Read More »
NNN Durham Office Portfolio 1, LLC v. Highwoods Realty Ltd. Partnership Where plaintiffs allege that they pooled their money in a common investment – real property subject to commercial leases – with an expected return common to all based on the success of a third party, plaintiffs have alleged an investment contract, which is a “security” within the meaning of the N.C. Securities Act. The defendant-seller and its defendant-real estate agent may have secondary liability for a violation of the NCSA.
Tagged with: N.C. Securities ActRead More »
DeGorter v. Capitol Bancorp Ltd. Even though plaintiff contends that “the business of the parties was to buy, develop, and market banks and bank services” and the underlying transaction was the purchase and sale of a bank, since plaintiff’s unfair trade practices claim is based on allegations that defendants deceived him into buying securities, plaintiff’s claim is not based on activities “in or affecting commerce” within the meaning of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.Read More »
Securities – Fraud – Leveraged Buyout – Disappointed Investors – Civil Practice – Pleadings Amendments
Katyle v. Penn National Gaming Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-01-0289, 31 pp.) (Baldock, J.) No. 09-2272, March 14, 2010; USDC at Greenbelt, Md. (Messitte, J.) 4th Cir. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: Plaintiffs, investors who ...Read More »
Latta v. Rainey. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-07-0208, 29 pp.) (Robert C. Hunter, J.) Appealed from Wilson County Superior Court. (William C. Griffin Jr., J.) N.C. App. Holding: Because the defendant’s company and not the defendant individually was the “offeror” of ...Read More »