S.E.C. v. Homa

Decision Date24 January 2008
Docket NumberNo. 07-1590.,No. 06-3320.,06-3320.,07-1590.
Citation514 F.3d 661
PartiesSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Phillip S. Stenger, Receiver, Intervenor-Appellee, v. Charles R. HOMA, et al., Defendants, Appeals of Paul Jones, David Pollock and Caribbean Ventures International, Inc., Non-Party Respondents-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Steven J. Levine, Securities and Exchange Commission, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Douglas W. Vanessen (argued), Stenger & Stenger, Grand. Rapids, MI, for Intervenor-Appellee.

Steven L. Baron (argued), Brendan J. Healey, Mandell & Menkes, David B. Goroff (argued), Foley & Lardner, Chicago, IL, for Non-Party Respondents-Appellants.

Phillip S. Stenger, Stenger & Stenger, receiver, Intervenor-Appellee.

Before RIPPLE, MANION and WOOD, Circuit Judges.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.

In the underlying litigation, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") sought, and was granted, an order freezing the assets of Charles Homa. In this appeal, Paul Jones and David Pollock, nonparties to the underlying action, appeal a judgment of contempt for failing to comply with that freeze order.1 Caribbean Ventures International, Inc. ("CVI2"), another nonparty, appeals a default judgment imposed as a sanction for failure to comply with discovery requests and the consequent appointment of Philip Stenger as receiver over its assets.2 For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I BACKGROUND
A.

Between 1995 and 1999, Charles Homa operated an automobile title lending business called Cash 4 Titles ("C4T"). Sunset Financial. Services, Ltd., was the marketing company for the various C4T entities. The C4T entities actually operated a huge Ponzi scheme: the loss by innocent investors exceeded $165,000,000.

On October 15, 1999, the SEC filed a civil enforcement suit (the "SEC Action") against Mr. Homa; the suit accused Mr. Homa of civil fraud in violation of United States securities laws.3 At that time, the United States Department of Justice also brought criminal charges against Mr. Homa for securities laws violations.4

The SEC promptly sought freeze orders for all the C4T assets. The court granted the motion's and issued two freeze orders. The first was entered on October 15, 1999. That order initially froze the assets of the defendants in the. SEC Action.5 A second freeze order, issued October 18, 1999, froze any bank account in which any of the defendants had signatory authority or, beneficial interest, including C4T and Banc Caribe.

On November 2, 1999, Mr. Stenger was appointed receiver over the assets of Mr. Homa, Sunset Financial and other affiliated C4T entities, including the interests of any individuals or entities that constituted C4T property in Banc Caribe. The receiver's general mandate was to marshal receivership property for distribution to the injured investors.

B.

Mr. Pollock and Mr. Jones met and became friends in 1978. Mr. Pollock is a citizen of the United States who maintained a Florida driver's license until at least September 26, 2004, and who currently resides in St. Lucia, an independent country within the British Commonwealth. From 1998 until 2002, Mr. Pollock resided in Dominica, another island nation in the Caribbean Sea. Mr. Pollock continuously maintained, through at least January of 2006, an accounting practice with a post office box address in Winter Park, Florida.

Paul Morgan. Jones is a citizen of the United States who maintains a Florida driver's license. From 1998 until 2002, Mr. Jones also resided in Dominica. Mr. Jones carries both a United States and a Dominica passport.

In the early 1990s, Mark Ellison invited Mr. Pollock to Dominica to look at a large tract of land, Point Round, that Mr. Ellison sought to develop. The development did not occur. In 1995, Mr. Pollock learned from Reginald Shillingford, a part owner of Point Round, that Dominica had enacted new legislation permitting offshore banking and financial industry development. Mr. Pollock became interested in financing a bank in Dominica.

Mr. Pollock first learned of Mr. Homa through his brother. In March 1998, Mr. Pollock met in Florida with Mr. Homa and several other potential investors. They discussed the tract of land in Dominica. and the possibility of starting a bank to assist in the development of the property.

Mr. Pollock then prepared a written document, the prospectus,6 to solicit Mr Homa's investment in the bank that he and Mr. Jones hoped to finance in Dominica, Banc Caribe. The prospectus contemplated a minimum of 500,000 shares at $10 per share for a total of $5,000,000,7 and reflected an ultimate goal of raising a maximum of $15,000,000 in equity for the bank. Mr. Pollock again met with Mr. Homa on April 27, 1998, in Florida. At that time, Mr. Pollock presented Mr. Homa with the Banc Caribe prospectus.8 Mr. Homa indicated that he was interested in the proposal and that the would like to meet Mr. Jones.

Mr. Pollock, Mr. Jones and Mr. Homa met together in May 1998. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Homa indicated that he would pursue the Banc Caribe plans with Mr. Pollock and Mr. Jones, but that he wanted no other partners or investors in the project. Mr. Pollock and Mr. Jones agreed.

The precise terms of Mr. Homa's investment in the Banc Caribe project are uncertain. The parties never signed a contract or otherwise reduced their agreement to writing. Moreover, as we shall discuss below, throughout the venture the parties ignored the terms of other documentation created during the Banc Caribe project. In the district court, Mr. Pollock identified at least three possible sources for determining the terms of the agreement between himself, Mr. Jones and Mr. Homa: the prospectus, the investment promissory notes and oral conversations with Mr. Homa. These three sources are in conflict regarding key terms of the agreement.9

After Mr. Homa indicated his intention to go forward with Banc Caribe, Mr. Pollock and Mr. Jones worked quickly to establish an offshore account through which Mr. Homo, could transfer large amounts of C4T money out of the United States. Mr. Pollock first created Caribbean Ventures International, Ltd. ("Caribbean Ventures") as a holding company for the bank's equity. The shares of Caribbean Ventures were held by Mr. Shillingford, who also was a director of Caribbean Ventures. Mr. Pollock and Mr. Jones filled the remaining director positions in Caribbean Ventures.

Mr. Pollock, Mr. Jones and. Mr. Homa planned to put the funds from the offering into Caribbean Ventures and then have Caribbean Ventures apply for a banking license in Dominica so that Banc Caribe could become a legal entity. Then, the funds in Caribbean Ventures would be transferred to Banc Caribe and shares in the bank would be issued, possibly pursuant to the terms of the offering in the prospectus.10 In accordance with this plan, on June 5, 1998, Mr. Homa, through Sunset Financial, wire transferred his initial $500,000 investment in Banc Caribe to the account of Caribbean Ventures at the Commercial Bank of Dominica. On March 16, 1999, Mr. Homa invested a second installment of $500,000 in the same manner.

Mr. Pollock then drafted an investment promissory note that documented Mr. Homa's first investment of $500,000 in Banc Caribe.11 He later drafted a second note with identical terms for the second investment of $500,000. These notes served as the second alleged source of the terms of the agreement between Mr. Pollock, Mr. Jones and Mr. Homa. Notably, Mr. Homa took no part in the creation of the notes, never signed them and did not have possession of them. Mr. Jones also had no knowledge of the notes; he did not see them until 2004. The true purpose of the notes was to support the bank license application and to prove to the regulators in Dominica that Banc Caribe had met the minimum requirement of $1,000,000 in unrestricted capital.

On June 12, 1998, Mr. Pollock, Mr. Jones and Caribbean Ventures filed Banc Caribe's Articles of Incorporation with' the Government of. Dominica. On August 18, 1998, Banc Caribe filed its application with Dominica. When it applied for its license, Banc Caribe was funded with $1,000,000, the minimum capital requirement under the law of Dominica. It opened for business shortly thereafter.

Mr. Homa, through Sunset Financial, later paid an additional $2,000,000 to Caribbean Ventures, for a total investment of $3,000,000 in Banc Caribe. No other investment promissory notes were prepared to document this subsequent $2,000,000 investment from Mr. Homa. Banc Caribe did not receive a capital contribution from any source other than Mr. Homa. Caribbean Ventures owned all the stock of Banc Caribe:

Mr. Pollock identified the third source of the agreement between the parties as a series of conversations with Mr. Homa. Mr. Pollock was inconsistent in his representations to the court regarding which of these three sources of the agreement controlled on any given point, and the court found him to be entirely without credibility.12

Banc Caribe began doing business in September 1998, subject to the banking laws of Dominica. Mr. Jones served as its president and secretary, and Mr. Pollock served as the managing director and chief financial officer. Mr. Pollock leased approximately 6,000 square feet of space for the bank, and its doors officially opened in October 1998. In January 1999, Mr. Homa was designated as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Banc Caribe.

C.

On October 15, 1999, the SEC brought a civil, suit against Mr. Homa and. C4T, the combined Ponzi-scheme entities. The district court entered the first freeze order against Mr. Hama and C4T on that day, and a second, clarifying order on October 18. By that time, Banc Caribe had between 100 and 150 accounts, and it had expanded to fifteen employees.

Sunset Financial, one of Mr. Homa's corporate entities that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • Alderwoods Grp., Inc. v. Garcia
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 30 Mayo 2012
    ...the party explicitly enjoined. ClearOne Communications, Inc. v. Bowers, 651 F.3d 1200, 1215–16 (10th Cir.2011); Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Homa, 514 F.3d 661, 673–75 (7th Cir.2008); Waffenschmidt, 763 F.2d at 714. Analogously,in cases that are essentially in rem—and therefore concern the orderl......
  • Gucci Am., Inc. v. Bank of China
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 17 Septiembre 2014
    ...order issued by the district court, and in active concert or participation with a party, violates that order”); SEC v. Homa, 514 F.3d 661, 673–75 (7th Cir.2008) (affirming contempt order against two American nonparties living abroad who knowingly aided and abetted the violation of an order ......
  • Nat'l Spiritual Assembly of Bahá'ís of U.S. Under Hereditary Guardianship, Inc. v. Nat'l Spiritual A
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 29 Diciembre 2010
    ...an injunction. Id.; Chase Nat'l Bank v. City of Norwalk, Ohio, 291 U.S. 431, 436, 54 S.Ct. 475, 78 L.Ed. 894 (1934); S.E.C. v. Homa, 514 F.3d 661, 673-77 (7th Cir.2008); Rockwell Graphic Sys., Inc. v. DEV Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 914, 919 (7th Cir.1996). This principle is codified in subsectio......
  • Limostars, Inc. v. New Jersey Car and Limo, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • 8 Agosto 2011
    ...(10th Cir., July 8, 2011) (quoting Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 714 (5th Cir. 1985) and citing Sec. and Exch. Comm'n v. Homa, 514 F.3d 661, 673-75 (7th Cir. 2008)). The "injunctive mandate of a federal court runs nationwide, and the issuing court has the authority to deal with def......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Trials
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 Agosto 2022
    ...F.3d 373, 381-82 (6th Cir. 2003) (contempt appropriate for CEO because failed to follow court order directed at corporation); SEC v. Homa, 514 F.3d 661, 676 (7th Cir. 2008) (contempt appropriate for nonparty associates of defendants because knowingly helped transfer money to avoid freeze or......
  • Nonparty Jurisdiction.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 55 No. 2, March 2022
    • 1 Marzo 2022
    ...230 (4th Cir. 2019) ("[T]he mere act of aiding and abetting is not always enough to provide minimum contacts."). (120.) S.E.C. v. Homa, 514 F.3d 661, 671-75 (7th Cir. 2008) ("[T]he district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Pollock and Mr. Jones, by their direct and indi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT