California Securities Fraud Lawyer Blog

The list of private-placements marketed through a network of stockbrokers embroiled in securities fraud litigation continues to grow. This week, the SEC alleged that Striker Petroleum, LLC deceived approximately 540 investors into purchasing $57 million worth of fraudulent debentures. The SEC is alleging that Striker was selling the debentures to pay fixed returns to investors who held interests Legacy oil and gas properties and also to pay off prior debenture holders.

According to a December 7, 2009, article in Investment News the Striker debentures were sold through a nationwide network of stockbrokers, including CapWest Securities. As a result, many of the stockbrokers who sold Striker debentures may have also sold interests in Provident Asset Management and Medical Capital--two infamous private placements that are the focus of SEC and investor lawsuits. As we noted in a recent blog posting on this very subject: Brokers who recommended these investments have a lot of explaining to do.

Click here for related blog postings.

Since my last two blog postings about the Medical Capital securities class action lawsuits pending in California, I have heard from several investors that were defrauded into purchasing not only Medical Capital Holdings, but also Provident Asset Management. Brokers who recommended either one of these investments have a lot of explaining to do. Before recommending any investment, brokers have a fiduciary duty to exercise due diligence in determining whether an investment is appropriate and suitable for their customer. Defrauded investors interested in recouping their investment losses should consider all of their legal options, including the filing of a securities arbitration claim against their stockbroker or investment advisor that recommended the investment.

Below is a brief overview of the Provident Asset Management and Medical Capital securities fraud matters.

Provident Asset Management

On July 1, 2009, the SEC charged Provident Royalties LLC, Provident Asset management, and its founders with securities fraud for running what is alleged to be a $485 million Ponzi scheme involving at least 7,700 investors. The complaint also names as defendants numerous entities through which Provident raised funds: Provident Energy 1, LLP; Provident Energy 2, LLP; Provident Energy 3, LLP; Shale Royalties II, Inc.; Shale Royalties 3, LLC; Shale Royalties 4, LLC; Shale Royalties 5, LLC; Shale Royalties 6, LLC; Shale Royalties 7, LLC; Shale Royalties 8, LLC; Shale Royalties 9, LLC; Shale Royalties 10, LLC; Shale Royalties 11, LLC; Shale Royalties 12, LLC; Shale Royalties 13, LLC; Shale Royalties 14; LLC Shale Royalties 15, LLC; Shale Royalties 16, LLC; Shale Royalties 17, LLC; Shale Royalties 18, LLC; Shale Royalties 19, LLC; and Shale Royalties 20, LLC.

Click here to read the full complaint.

Medical Capital Holdings

On September 18, 2006, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Central District of California against the following brokerage firms Securities America, Inc., Ameriprise Financial, Inc., CapWest Securities, Inc, and Cullum & Burks Securities, Inc on behalf of investors that invested in Medical Capital Notes issued by Medical Provider Financial Corp. III, IV, V and/or VI.

See our blog posting: Medical Capital Class Action or Arbitration: Investors Should Consider Their Options

There are also many other brokerage firms who aggressively sold Medical Capital Notes to their customers who were omitted from the class action lawsuit, including some large brokerage firms and smaller regional firms. In addition to the class action defendants discussed above, I have heard from investors who invested in Medical Capital through brokers working with National Securities Corporation, QA3 Financial, Okoboji Financial Services, Redwine Securities and others that are still being reviewed.

On November 2, 2009, a class action was filed in the Central District of California against Wells Fargo Bank and Bank of New York Mellon on behalf of investors who purchased Medical Capital notes. The class action alleges that the banks failed to safeguard investor assets while acting as trustees of the Special Purpose Corporations created by Medical Capital Holdings. The action, Michel Rapoport v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association et. al, has not yet been certified by the court.

There are currently two separate class actions arising from the Medical Capital fiasco. In addition, a growing number of investors are pursuing securities arbitration claims directly against the financial advisors that solicited their purchase of Medical Capital notes.

See related blog entry: Medical Capital Class Action or Arbitration: Investors Should Consider Their Options

Investors Have Choice to Make Regarding Medical Capital Corporation Fraud Recovery

A class action lawsuit was filed in the Central District of California on September 18, 2009, against brokerage firms Cullum & Burks Securities, Inc., Securities America, Inc., Ameriprise Financial, Inc., and CapWest Securities, Inc., on behalf of investors who purchased so called "Medical Capital Notes" issued by Medical Provider Financial Corp. III, IV, V and/or VI on or after September 18, 2006. [Download class action complaint.]

The class action alleges that the defendant brokerage firms made materially false and misleading representations in the sale of the sale of the Medical Capital Notes. This class action has not yet been certified by the court. If the class is certified, the parties will be required to submit a proposed timeline for class members that want to opt out of the class action. Class members that elect to opt out can file a claim for their Medical Capital losses with FINRA. For more information about opting out of a class action and submitting an arbitration claim, please see our blog posting: Securities Arbitration vs. Class Actions: Consider Your Options. Investors who purchased Medical Capital Notes from brokerage firms that were not named as defendants are currently not included in the class action. If you believe you have a meritorious securities claim, speak with a securities attorney to discuss your rights and the advisability of opting out based on your individual circumstances.