Lexplug logoLexplug

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Fife

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
311 F.3d 1, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23048, 2002 WL 31474187 (2002)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A preliminary injunction and asset freeze are warranted in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement action when the SEC demonstrates a substantial likelihood of success on the merits by presenting evidence that defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions with scienter regarding the risk, security, and management of investor funds.


Facts:

  • Michael A. Clarke raised approximately $51.75 million from several investors for an investment program operated through Brite Business, promising extraordinary returns.
  • Martin D. Fife agreed to manage the Brite Business funds in a "balance sheet enhancement program," promising investors returns between 30 and 100 percent per year.
  • Fife opened a brokerage account at Raymond James in the name of Brite Corp., into which approximately $44.5 million of investor funds were deposited with Fife as the signatory.
  • Fife transferred $15.5 million from the Brite account to a separate account controlled by Mary Lee Capalbo, the "Capalbo Account," without investor authorization.
  • Fife wrote a letter to investor Rheaume Holdings, Ltd., assuring that its $12.5 million deposit was "safe, secure, unencumbered," had "no risk of loss," and would not be moved without approval, after he had already begun transferring funds.
  • Fife and his associates sent Rheaume's representative forged account statements and false reports purporting to show its funds were safe and growing in various accounts.
  • Farouk Khan, Fife's business partner in a successor entity called Seaview, sent letters to investor Al Bloushi soliciting a new $100 million investment, promising a guaranteed return "without any risk."
  • Ultimately, approximately $20.5 million in investor principal was lost or dissipated while under Fife's control.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed an action in U.S. District Court against Martin D. Fife, Farouk Khan, and seven other defendants.
  • The SEC's complaint alleged violations of federal securities laws and requested a preliminary injunction and an asset freeze.
  • The district court (the court of first instance) granted the SEC's request for a preliminary injunction and an asset freeze against Fife, Khan, and others.
  • Fife and Khan, as Defendants-Appellants, appealed the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Securities and Exchange Commission establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for a preliminary injunction against securities fraud when it presents evidence that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the risk, security, and management of investor funds?


Opinions:

Majority - Fletcher, J.

Yes. The Securities and Exchange Commission established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, justifying the preliminary injunction and asset freeze. The record shows Fife and Khan made material misrepresentations and omissions with the requisite scienter. Fife falsely assured investor Rheaume that its funds were safe and would not be moved without authorization, even as he was transferring them to an account he did not control. He also sent forged statements to conceal the dissipation of funds. Khan, his partner, similarly misrepresented the nature of the investments by promising guaranteed returns 'without any risk' to another investor, despite knowing the ventures were highly speculative. These actions constitute an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care, satisfying the scienter requirement of recklessness for a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violation. Given the defendants' past conduct, their occupations, and their continued claims of blamelessness, there is a strong likelihood of future violations, making the injunction and asset freeze a proper exercise of the district court's discretion.



Analysis:

This case provides a clear application of the standard for granting a preliminary injunction in an SEC enforcement action. It reinforces that courts will find a likelihood of success on the merits based on classic indicia of fraud, such as misrepresenting investment risk, guaranteeing high returns, and using forged documents to conceal losses. The court's broad, flexible interpretation of who qualifies as an 'investment adviser' under the Investment Advisers Act underscores the remedial purpose of securities laws, focusing on the substance of the advisory relationship rather than technicalities like the timing of compensation. The decision serves as a strong precedent for the SEC's ability to quickly secure assets and halt fraudulent schemes pending full litigation.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Securities & Exchange Commission v. Fife (2002) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Securities & Exchange Commission v. Fife