S.E.C. v. Black
| Citation | 163 F.3d 188 |
| Decision Date | 17 December 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-3345,98-3345 |
| Parties | Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 90,343 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. John Gardner BLACK; Devon Capital Management, Inc.; Financial Management Sciences, Inc., South Butler County School District; Daniel Boone Area School District; Tyrone Area School District; Blacklick Valley School District; Harmony Area School District; Penn Cambria School District; Penns Manor School District; Northern Lebanon School District * , Appellants Bellefonte Area School; Cornwall-lebanon School District; Cumberland Valley; Fleetwood Area School; North Hills School District; Harrisburg Authority; City Of Harrisburg; St Johns Welfare; Lincoln Consolidated School; Nice Community School; Yale Public School; Bradford Regional Medical Center; Ravenswood Hospital Medical Center; University Of Scranton ** Penn Manor School District; School District of Lancaster *** |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Richard R. Nelson, II (Argued), Cohen & Grigsby, Pittsburgh, PA, for appellants.
Richard A. Finberg, Malakoff, Doyle & Finberg, Pittsburgh, PA, for appellant, South Butler County School District.
David A. Gradwohl, Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Lansdale, PA, for appellant, Daniel Boone Area School District.
Michael J. Betts, Betts & Perry, Pittsburgh, PA, for appellant, Tyrone Area School District.
James H. McConomy, David G. Oberdick, Titus & McConomy, Pittsburgh, PA, for appellant, Blacklick Valley School District.
Mark A. Rush, Kilpatrick & Lockhart, Pittsburgh, PA, for appellees.
Dennis M. Sheedy (Argued), George M. Medved, Sharon F. DiPaolo, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorneys for intervenor-appellee, Richland School District.
Thomas A. French Rhoads & Sinon, Harrisburg, PA, for intervenors-appellees, Bellefonte Area School, Cornwall Lebanon School District, Cumberland Valley, Fleetwood Area School.
Michael J. Witherel, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorney for intervenor-appellee, North Hills School District.
Timothy P. Ryan, Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, Pittsburgh, PA, for intervenors-appellees, Harrisburg Authority, City of Harrisburg.
Joseph F. McDonough,Mary-Jo Rebelo, Manion, McDonough & Lucas, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorneys for intervenor-appellee, St. Johns Welfare.
Philip A. Erickson, Thru, Maatsch & Norberg, Lansing, MI, for intervenors-appellees, Lincoln Consoladated School, Nice Community School, Yale Public School.
Alan J. Steinberg, Horty, Springer & Mattern, Pittsburgh, PA, for intervenor-appellee, Bradford Regional Medical Center.
George J. Arnold, Palos Heights, IL, for intervenor-appellee, Ravenswood Hospital Medical.
Charles B. Gibbons, Klett, Lieber, Rooney & Schorling, Pittsburgh, PA, for intervenor-appellee, University of Scranton.
Kevin M. French, Hartman, Underhill & Brubaker, Lancaster, PA, for Amici-appellees, Penn Manor School District, School District of Lancaster.
Before: SLOVITER, ALITO, RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
We are asked on this appeal to determine whether the District Court erred in releasing the funds of certain investors from a freeze order entered in the context of receivership proceedings instituted by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Appellants are several Pennsylvania school districts who invested funds with defendants. They contend that the District Court orders of May 11 and May 22, 1998 improperly released funds of other investors, denied appellants certain procedural rights in connection with the court proceedings attendant thereto, and also erred in its award of attorneys' fees to the equity receiver appointed in the case. Appellees not only counter these positions, but also challenge our jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
Appellants appeal from five orders entered by the District Court in the ongoing receivership proceedings instituted by the SEC against John Gardner Black ("Black"), Devon Capital Management, Inc. ("Devon"), and Financial Management Sciences, Inc. ("FMS") under the provisions of Section 20(b) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(b), Sections 21(d) and (e) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d), (e), and Section 209(d) of the Advisors Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(d). The five orders at issue include an April 7, 1998 order approving payment of attorneys' fees and expenses ("fee order"), an April 22, 1998 order adopting procedures for a hearing regarding the distribution of funds and an April 27, 1998 order modifying the April 22 order ("procedural orders"), and a May 11, 1998 order modifying a freeze order and a May 22, 1998 order modifying the May 11 order ("orders lifting the freeze").
For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm the procedural orders and the orders lifting the freeze.
In August 1997, during a routine investigation of Devon, the SEC discovered that Devon was carrying assets on its books at materially inflated values and had incurred massive trading losses totaling at least $50 million of the $345 million entrusted to it by its investment clients. The investigation also determined that Devon and Black 1 were concealing the losses from their clients, most of whom were school districts and governmental entities, and were continuing to accept funds from new investment clients without disclosing information regarding these losses. The SEC believed that Devon was seeking new clients so as to use their funds to fulfill obligations to existing clients under their investment advisory agreements. On September 26, 1997, the SEC filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Black, Devon and FMS seeking to enjoin their illegal conduct and freeze their assets pending an investigation. The SEC alleged violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder against Black, Devon and FMS, and violations of Sections 206(1), (2) and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. SS 80b-6(1), 80b-6(2), 80b-6(4), and Rule 206(4)-2, 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-2, promulgated thereunder against Black and Devon.
The District Court granted the SEC's motion for entry of a temporary restraining order whereby all assets "presently held by [defendants], under their control or over which they exercise actual or apparent investment or other authority, in whatever form such assets may presently exist and wherever located" were to be immediately frozen. The order was entered pursuant to Section 20(b) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(b), Sections 21(d) and (e) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d), (e), and Section 209(d) of the Advisors Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(d). Pursuant to this order, the customer accounts later categorized as A, B, C and D were frozen.
The court appointed Richard Thornburgh as the equity receiver ("Trustee"), and he employed Price Waterhouse, LLP to provide accounting and auditing services for the ensuing investigation. The Trustee identified four general categories of investment relationships between defendants and their investor clients. Category A clients entered into an investment advisory and management relationship with Devon whereby Devon had authority to direct the purchase and sale of securities investments held in the name of the client at the client's custodian bank. Category A includes clients who entered into investment management arrangements whereby the client bore the risk and benefit of performance of investments, clients with investment advisor arrangements with a guaranteed minimum rate of return whereby Devon bore the risk of investments, and clients with investment advisor arrangements with a fixed rate of return whereby Devon bore the risk, and would reap the benefit, of investments. Category B includes those clients who entered into Repurchase Agreements ("Repos") and Non-Pooled Collateralized Investment Agreements ("CIAs") with defendants. Under Repos, Devon used client funds to buy securities, chosen by Devon, at a set price, and later would re-sell the securities at a set, higher price, providing an assured return. The securities were held in the interim in the client's name by a custodian bank which held a promise of Devon's repurchase obligation. The Repos required Devon to provide additional securities on behalf of the client if the securities' value fell below the set purchase price. Under non-pooled CIAs, Devon used clients' funds to invest in FMS "units" that were credited to the client's account. FMS promised a fixed rate of return to the client and granted the client a security interest in securities held by a custodian bank. Category C clients entered into agreements with Devon similar to B non-pooled CIAs, except that the securities serving as collateral for the FMS "units" were pooled in one account in the name of FMS at Mid-State Bank ("MSB"). Category D clients entered into investment management arrangements with Devon similar to the A clients, except that MSB served as the custodian of the D accounts. As with the A and B accounts, the D accounts were held in the clients' names. Pursuant to the foregoing agreements, the defendants managed the accounts of A, B and D clients, while the actual funds or securities of those clients remained either in their own names or with a custodian bank named by them, other than MSB. The funds and/or securities invested by clients of the C accounts were maintained in a pooled account in the name of FMS in its principal depository bank, MSB. The present shortfall in assets is primarily in the pooled account at MSB. As of September 30, 1997, although approximately $156,000,000 had been invested in pooled CIAs on behalf of the C clients, the value of the collateral underlying the pooled account was only approximately $86,000,000.
After assessing the different types of contractual arrangements that existed, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Pressman-Gutman Co., Inc.
...wind up a receivership, and [3] orders refusing to take steps to accomplish the purposes of winding up a receivership." SEC v. Black, 163 F.3d 188, 195 (3d Cir.1998). PGI asserts that "[a]lthough the Court characterized Mr. Pichini as a `guardian ad litem,' the court has in fact appointed a......
-
Lamar Advertising of Penn v. Town of Orchard Park
...bound up with the [preliminary injunction].'" SEC v. Credit Bancorp, Ltd., 290 F.3d 80, 86-87 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting SEC v. Black, 163 F.3d 188, 194 (3d Cir.1998)) (asserting jurisdiction over partial summary judgment ruling that certain assets could be liquidated and distributed as part o......
-
S.E.C. v. Antar, 93-CV-3988 (HAA).
...principles enunciated in that case are not applicable at this stage in these proceedings. The relief defendants also cite SEC v. Black, 163 F.3d 188, 196 (3d Cir.1998), in which the court held that the district court may only grant a freeze of assets if the assets are property, or deemed pr......
-
Okla. Dep't Of Sec. Ex Rel. Irving L. Faught v. Blair
...is innocent with respect to the securities violation and is named as a “nominal party” to recover proceeds of fraud. SEC v. Black, 163 F.3d 188, 196-197 (3d Cir.1998).21 Thus, the “nominal party” distinction maintains the concept that the funds are being disgorged by the wrongdoer, although......