Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00319/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00319-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv319-GPC(JMA)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION AND FOR AN

ORDER PARTIALLY FREEZING

ASSETS OF ABS MANAGER AND

THE FUNDS, PRESERVING

DOCUMENTS AND REQUIRING

AN ACCOUNTING; AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN ORDER FREEZING ALL

FUNDS’ ASSETS AND PERSONAL

ASSETS; AND AN ORDER

APPOINTING A RECEIVER

[Dkt. No. 5.]

vs.

ABS MANAGER, LLC and GEORGE

CHARLES CODY PRICE,

Defendants,

ABS FUND, LLC [ARIZONA]; ABS FUND,

LLC [CALIFORNIA]; CAPITAL ACCESS,

LLC; CAVAN PRIVATE EQUITY

HOLDINGS, LLC; and LUCKY STAR

EVENTS, LLC,

 Relief Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and an order freezing assets,

appointing a receiver, preserving documents and requiring an accounting. (Dkt. No. 5.) Defendants

filed an opposition on March 6, 2013. (Dkt. No. 25.) Plaintiff filed a reply on March 11, 2013. (Dkt.

No. 28.) On March 15, 2013, Defendants filed a sur-reply. (Dkt. No. 29.) A hearing was held on

- 1 - [13cv1319-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:13-cv-00319-GPC-BGS Document 31 Filed 03/20/13 Page 1 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

March 19, 2013. (Dkt. No. 30.) Lynn Dean, Esq. and Sam Puathasnanon, Esq. appeared on behalf

of Plaintiff and Timothy Pestotnik, Esq. and Mark Chester, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

After a review of the parties’ briefs, applicable law, hearing oral argument, and Defendants’ consent

to some of the relief sought, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and

an orderfreezing the assets of ABS Manager and the Funds, with the exception of distributionsto nonaffiliated investors as calculated by the Funds’ third-party accountant, and with five (5) business days

1

notice to the SEC; and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion prohibiting the destruction of and requiring the

preservation of documents; and requiring an accounting. The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion

for an order freezing Price’s personal assets and all the Funds’ assets. The Court also DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion for an order appointing a receiver. 

Background

On February8, 2013,Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a complaint

along with an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order(“TRO”) and orderfreezing assets;

appointing a receiver over defendant ABS Manager, LLC and the entities it controls and manages;

prohibiting the destruction of documents; granting expedited discovery; and requiring an accounting. 

(Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.) The SEC also filed an ex parte application, without notice, for an order temporarily

sealing the entire file until the asset freeze is served or until February 26, 2013, whichever is sooner. 

(Dkt. No. 2.) The complaint alleges violations of sections 206(a) and 206(2) of the Investment

Advisors Act of 1940; violation of section 206(4) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 and Rule

206(4)-8; violations of section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933; violations of section 10(b) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5; and violations of section 20(a) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934. (Dkt. No. 1.) 

On February 11, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application for TRO and denied

Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to temporarily file entire case under seal. (Dkt. No. 3.) On February

19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction along with an ex parte motion to shorten

time for hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 5.) After briefing by both parties,

At the hearing, affiliated investors were identified as Charles Code Price; ABS Manager, LLC; 1

ABS Manager LLC 401(k); and Cavan Private Equity Holdings, LLC. The Court also includes Derek

Price, Defendant Price’s brother, as an affiliated investor. 

- 2 - [13cv1319-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:13-cv-00319-GPC-BGS Document 31 Filed 03/20/13 Page 2 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

on February 27, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion and set the matter for hearing. 

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from committing violations of the antifraud provisions of the

federal securities laws. It also moves for an order freezing assets, appointing a receiver, preserving

documents and requiring an accounting. 

In opposition, Defendants consent to the preliminary injunction and portions of other relief

sought by Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 25 at 7.) They also consent to relief not sought by the SEC. 

Specifically, Defendants consent to a preliminary injunction against future violations of Section 17(a)

of the Securities Act; Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5; and Sections 206(1), 206(2),

and 206(4) of the Advisers Act (Commission’s Proposed Order at Sections II, III, IV, and V). 

Defendants also agree to an asset freeze over the assets of ABS Manager and the Funds , but not over 2

Price’s personal accounts or over distributions to non-affiliated investors, (id. Sections VI and VII);

and agree to an order prohibiting the destruction of and requiring the preservation of documents, and

an order requiring an accounting, (id. Sections IX, XX and XVIII). 

Defendants consented to relief not even requested by the Commission which include an order

prohibiting Price, ABS Manager and the Funds from accepting any additional investment into the

Funds or any other investment vehicle from non-affiliated investors pending resolution of this matter

on the merits; and an order prohibiting Price, ABS Manager and the Funds from making any

distribution or paying any management fees, except allowing them to make distributions to

non-affiliated investors as expresslycalculated bythe Funds’ third-partyaccountant,with five business

days advance notice to the Commission. (Dkt. No. 25 at 7.) 

According to Plaintiff, two disputed issues remain. First, whether all of ABS Manager and the

Funds’ assets and Price’s personal assets should be frozen. Second, whether a receiver should be

appointed over ABS Manager and the Funds.

Factual Background

According to the Complaint Defendant George Charles Cody Price (“Price”), through his

The Funds include the Relief Defendants: ABS Fund, LLC in Arizona (“ABS Fund”), ABS

2

Fund, LLC in California (“Platinum Fund”), and Capital Access, LLC in Nevada (“Capital Access

Fund”). (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 2.) 

- 3 - [13cv1319-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:13-cv-00319-GPC-BGS Document 31 Filed 03/20/13 Page 3 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

unregistered investment advisory company, Defendant ABS Manager, LLC (“ABS Manager”), raised

about $18.8 million dollars from about 35 investors nationwide to invest in three funds (collectively

known as the “Funds”) - Relief Defendants ABS Fund, LLC in Arizona (“ABS Fund”), ABS Fund,

LLC in California (“Platinum Fund”), and Capital Access, LLC in Nevada (“Capital Access Fund”). 

(Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 2.) 

In March 2009, Defendant Price formed ABS Manager and continues to operate and control

the firm today. (Dkt. No. 5-3, Doran Decl., Ex. 1 at 6 (ABS Fund Private Placement Memorandum

(“PPM”), Ex. 2 at 17 (Platinum Fund PPM); Ex. 3 at 9-10 (Capital Access Fund PPM); Dkt. No. 15-1,

Price Decl. ¶ 3.) 

For each fund offering, Defendants distributed a Private Placement Memorandum, (“PPM”),

which described the terms of each Fund’s offering. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 22.) Starting in March

2009, Defendants first offered investment in the ABS Fund. (Id. ¶ 23.) ABS Fund’s PPM stated that

the proceeds from its offering would be used to purchase collateralized mortgage obligations

(“CMOs”). (Id.) CMOs aremortgage based securities that pay the investors, depending on the “class”

or “tranche” of CMO they hold, the cash flows generated from the principal and interest payments on

a pool of mortgages. (Id. ¶ 3.) However, the Funds did not buy ordinary CMOs but bought “Interest

Only (“IOs”) and “Inverse Interest Only” (“Inverse IOs”) CMO tranches. (Id. ¶ 4.) These types of

CMOs are among the riskiest forms of CMOs. (Id.) They only receive interest payments from the

underlying mortgages and not the principal. (Id.) As the mortgages in the pool are prepaid, paid

down, re-financed or defaulted, the interest-only income stream from those mortgages stop. (Id.) 

Since at least 2010, Defendants have claimed that the ABS Fund earned annual returns of 18%

and the Platinum Fund and Capital Access Fund would earn annual returns of 12.5%. (Dkt. No. 5-3,

Doran Decl., Ex. 2 at 13; Ex. 3 at 3, 14.) The investors’ monthly account statements indicate that each

CMO held in the Funds was performing at 18% or better or 12% or better. (Id., Ex. 19 at 2-6; Ex. 20

at 2-4; Ex. 21 at 2-4; Ex. 22 at 2-3.) Moreover, in an October 2010 email to investors, Price wrote that

all bonds were making well over 18% and as of January 2013, the Capital Access Fund website shows

monthly returns of 1.04% (12.5% annualized) from January 2010 through June 2012. (Id., Ex. 35 at

1; Ex. 12 at 10.) Lastly, on radio shows, Price stated that the Funds earned “extraordinary” and

- 4 - [13cv1319-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:13-cv-00319-GPC-BGS Document 31 Filed 03/20/13 Page 4 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“double-digit” returns. (Id., Ex. 6 at 23, 32.) 

Plaintiff alleges that the representations about the Funds’ performance were false and

misleading because the Funds were not performing at these rates of return. From 2010 to 2012,

although the Funds received interest payments from the securities they held in excess of 12% to 18%,

the underlying value of these securities decreased significantly during this time. (Dkt. No. 5-2, Shau

Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.) According to the SEC’s analysis, in 2010, 2011 and 2012, the IOs and Inverse IOs that

the Funds owned lost significant value. (Id.) Their annual returns never exceeded 3% and some

investments had a return of negative 2%. (Id. ¶ 6.) 

In order to attract investors, Defendants claims that these securities were “very safe”, “secure”

and “government bonds.” (Dkt. No. 5-3, Doran Decl., Ex. 6 at 12, 24, 30-32; Ex. 17 at 2.) The PPM’s

also stated that the they were government backed bonds CMOs. (Id., Ex. 1 at 6; Ex. 2 at 11, 24; Ex.

3 at 7.) Defendants solicited investors through newspaper advertisements, radio infomercials,

websites, and mass-mailers. (Id., Ex. 6 (radio transcript); Ex. 12 (website); Ex. 13 (newspaper ad);

Ex. 14 (mass-mailers).) From November 2010 through January2011, Price regularlyco-hosted a radio

infomercial called “The Wealth Weekend Hour,” which aired on KFMB Radio in San Diego,

California. (Id., Ex. 6.) On these shows, Price recommended that listeners invest in ABS Fund and

invited listeners to contact him for a free portfolio review and if ABS Fund was not “right for you”

then he would refer the listener to another professional. (Id. at 14, 25-26.) 

Moreover, the Funds were only required to pay a management fee to ABS Manager if their

returns exceeded 12.5% or 18%. (Dkt. No. 5-3, Doran Decl., Ex. at 8; Ex. 2 at 17; Ex. 3 at 9; Ex. 6

at 24.) No fees should have ever been paid during this period because the actual annual returns never

exceeded 3%. (Dkt. No. 5-2, Shau Decl., ¶ 10.) However, Defendants caused the Funds to pay Price

and ABS Manager about $578,402 of Fund Assets during this time. (Id.) Moreover, a substantial 3

portion of it was distributed to Defendants Cavan Private EquityHoldings, a companyowned byPrice,

There is a dispute as to $332,100 of the alleged misappropriation of management fees by 3

Defendants. SEC claims that $332,100 was improperly paid to ABS Manager as compensation and

provides a copy of a withdrawal slip signed by Price. (Dkt. No. 20-9, Supp. Shau Decl., Ex. 1.) Price

states that he withdrew $332,100 for a client disbursement which was not made for his benefit and

provides copies of bank statements showing the withdrawal and deposit of that amount on May 1,

2012. (Dkt. No. 15-1, Price Decl. ¶ 9; Dkt. No. 21, Suppl. Price Decl. ¶ 6; Exs. E, F.) 

- 5 - [13cv1319-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:13-cv-00319-GPC-BGS Document 31 Filed 03/20/13 Page 5 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and Lucky Star Events, LLC, a company owned by Price’s wife. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 53-58.) 

Lastly, in radio shows and in the PPM for the Funds’ offerings, Defendants misrepresented Price’s

professional experience and grossly inflated the amounts of funds under management. (Id. ¶ 7.)

In response, Price states the Funds began operating in 2009. (Dkt. No. 15-1, Price Decl. ¶ 3.) 

He has hired a staff of licensed professionals as well as outside professional to provide legal, financial,

accountant and administrative services to the Funds. (Id. ¶ 4.) The Funds obtained U.S. government

issued agency (interest only) CMOs which were purchased through brokerage accounts maintained by

the Funds with licensed broker dealers. (Id. ¶ 6.) Most are held in a brokerage account with Morgan

Stanley Smith Barney and Capital Securities. (Id.) There are around 35 agency CMOs in those 4

accounts. (Id.) 

Each month, the cash that has accrued is distributed to the investors, pro rata, on a monthly

preferred return basis, according to the terms of the PPM which provides a specific formula to be used. 

(Id. ¶ 7.) The calculations are provided by a third-party accounting professionals who have complete

access to the brokerage accounts. (Id.) The Funds, through ABS Manager, distribute the accumulated

monthly interest to the investors according to the accountant’s spreadsheets. (Id.) The accounting

firms then send monthly account statements to each investor which show distributions and the

investor’s monthly membership interest account statements. (Id. ¶ 7.)

The outside accounting firm also calculates the compensation that ABS Manager is entitled

to receive each month after distributions are made to the Fund’s investors. (Id. ¶ 8.) ABS Manager

has consistently withdrawn less than what it was entitled to under the PPM. (Id.) The compensation

is used to pay the Funds’ overhead and expenses and is used to purchase more agency CMOs for the

benefit of all members in order to add additional principal to the overall accounts. (Id.) Since

inception, the Fund has timely distributed monthly payments to its investors and has paid over

$3,257,000 to investors during this time. (Id. ¶ 9.) 

Defendants argue that the parties disagree about the valuation of the underlying assets held by

Around February 25, 2013, Morgan Stanley demanded immediate payment of the credit line 4

balance in the ABS account and began liquidating the CMS in order to repay itself the credit line

balance. (Dkt. No. 21, Suppl. Price Decl. ¶ 5.) As of March 2013, Morgan Stanley completed

liquidating the securities the had been pledged to satisfy the credit facility it had offered ABS Manager

and there was a shortfall of $18,000. (Dkt. No. 28-2, Second Suppl. Dean Decl. ¶ 7.)

- 6 - [13cv1319-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:13-cv-00319-GPC-BGS Document 31 Filed 03/20/13 Page 6 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Funds. They argue that SEC incorrectly conflates its view of the value of underlying assets in the

Funds with the investor’s ownership interest in units of the Funds. However, the two are not the same

and must be resolved on the merits later at trial or summary judgment. It is a “technical dispute about

the estimates of the value of esoteric securities that trade in an opaque market.” (Dkt. No. 25, Ds’ Opp

at 5.) 

Discussion

Defendants consent to the reliefsought byPlaintiff seeking a preliminaryinjunction. Theyalso

consent to a freeze of the Funds’ assets, and an order prohibiting the destruction of and requiring the

preservation of documents, and an order requiring an accounting. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary injunction and assets of ABS Manager and the Funds,

with the exception of distributions to non-affiliated investors as calculated by the Funds’ third-party

accountant, with five (5) business days notice to the SEC and GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion

prohibiting the destruction of and requiring the preservation of documents, and requiring an

accounting. The remaining issues are whether the Court should impose an asset freeze on all assets

of ABS Manager and the Funds and Price’s personal assets and whether a receivershould be appointed

over ABC Manager and the Funds.

A. Asset Freeze

Defendants agree to a freeze of the Funds’ assets with the exception of “distribution to nonaffiliated investors” as expressly calculated by the Fund’s third-party accountant, with five business

days advance notice to the SEC. Plaintiff seeks an asset freeze over all the Funds’ accounts because

there are still assets held by the Funds that must be preserved and managed for the benefit of investors

and Defendants have already improperly redeemed certain investors the full value of their investment

to the detriment of other investors. Second, Plaintiff seeks an asset freeze over Price’s personal assets

because he has improperly collected management fees which may be transferred away beyond the

reach of the Court. Plaintiff seeks at a minimum a freeze over any management fees held personally

by Price. Defendants argue that an asset freeze is no longer necessary as they agreed to a freeze of the

Fund’s assets. 

“Generally, federal courts enjoy wide discretion in fashioning relief and protective measures

- 7 - [13cv1319-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:13-cv-00319-GPC-BGS Document 31 Filed 03/20/13 Page 7 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in SEC actions.” In re San Vicente Med. Partners Ltd., 962 F.2d 1402, 1406 (9th Cir. 1992); but see

SEC v. Hickey, 322 F.3d 1123, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he exercise of the district court’s broad

power to fashion ancillary relief[can] be exercised onlywhere necessary.”). “A party seeking an asset

freeze must show a likelihood of dissipation of the claimed assets, or other inability to recover

monetary damages, if reliefis not granted.” Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1085 (9th Cir. 2009)

(finding likelihood of dissipation of assets where defendant had convinced his fellow directors and

trustees to consent to diverting nearly $35 million from the company’s account into his personal bank

account); see also SEC v. Schooler, –F. Supp. 2d– , 2012 WL 4761917, at *15 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5,

2012) (J. Burns) (SEC must show that Defendants are likely to dissipate their own assets along with

those of the general partnerships). 

SEC’s arguments that an asset freeze over the Funds’ accounts is still needed as there are still

assets held by the Funds to be managed and Defendants have already redeemed certain investors to the

detriment of others are now moot. Defendants have agreed to a freeze of the Funds’ assets so concerns

that assets will be misappropriated or that more investors may be paid out are no longer at issue.

Moreover, as to the SEC’s contention that Defendants have already paid some investors the full

amount of their investment to the detriment of others, such action is not improper or illegal. SEC v.

Schooler , 2012 WL 4761917, at *25 (even if “hush money” was distributed, it still went to a recipient

with a rightful claim to it and does not show a likelihood of dissipation of assets or waste.). 

As to Price’s personal assets, SEC seeks to freeze his personal assets to prevent the dissipation

of assets and ensure their availability for the benefit of defrauded investors, or at a minimum, the SEC

seeks a freeze over any management fees personally held by Price. Price objects to a freeze of his

personal assets because he has to provide for himself, his wife and two children and has invested

heavily in the Funds. (Dkt. No. 25-1, Price Second Suppl. Decl. ¶ 6.) 

The SEC has been conducting an investigation of the Funds since May 2012. (Dkt. No. 15-1,

Price Decl. ¶ 15.) Price has cooperated in the SEC’s investigation. (Id. ¶¶ 15-17.) In support of its 5

SEC argues that Defendants have not fully complied with the SEC’s July 25, 2012 subpoena. 5

(Dkt. No 20-2, Dean Suppl. Decl. ¶ 6; Ex. 3.) However, in a late response, Defendants’ counsel

provided a response as to remaining issues in the subpoena. (Id., Ex. 4.) While there may have been

delays in responding to the SEC’s subpoena requests, Price has not been uncooperative. At the

- 8 - [13cv1319-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:13-cv-00319-GPC-BGS Document 31 Filed 03/20/13 Page 8 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

motion to freeze assets, the SEC has offered no evidence that Defendant Price will likely dissipate his

own personal assets or the corporate assets. F.T.C. v. Millennium Telecard, 2011 WL 2745963, at *13

(D. N.J. July 12, 2011) (Plaintiff failed to show that despite one year long investigation, government

has only been able to provide a single incident of “financial impropriety” - three bounced checks from

2009); FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1236 (9th Cir. 1999) (district court made a

clear finding that defendants will conceal, dissipate or otherwise divert their assets based on

defendants’ history of diverting their commissions away to a Cook Islands trust). Accordingly, the

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for an asset freeze on Price’s personal assets and a freeze on all the

assets of ABS Manager and the Funds.

D. Receiver

Plaintiff seeks the appointment of a receiver over ABS Manager and the Funds to protect the

Funds from further dissipation and the misappropriation of assets. Defendants object to the

appointment of a receiver as unnecessary and harmful to the investors. Specifically, Defendants argue

that their consent to the preliminary injunction and other measures will protect the investors in the

Fund. They further assert a receiver will impose unnecessary costs on the Funds as the proposed

receiver seeks to employ a team of professionals to conduct an investigation of the Funds. They

contend that all of the Funds’ assets are held by independent, third-party custodians and the accounting

is being handled by a qualified, independent, third-party public accounting firm. 

“As part of the Court’s equitable powers under the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934, it may

impose receiverships in securities fraud actions to prevent further dissipation of defrauded investors’

assets.” SEC v. Wencke, 783 F.2d 829, 937 n. 9 (9th Cir. 1986). The appointment of a receiver is

considered to be an extraordinaryremedyand should be granted onlywhen clearlynecessary. Citibank

v. Nyland, Ltd., 839 F.2d 93, 97 (2d Cir. 1988). “A receivership is justified where there is a need to

(1) marshal and preserve assets from further misappropriation and dissipation; (2) clarify the financial

affairs of an entity for the benefit of investors; (3) allow the receiver to conduct an independent

investigation of claims an entity might have against former management or other parties; and/or (4)

hearing, it was further noted that Defendants provided documents to the SEC in response to the

subpoena and all that is at issue is a broad request for all emails that will take time to retrieve. 

- 9 - [13cv1319-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:13-cv-00319-GPC-BGS Document 31 Filed 03/20/13 Page 9 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

discover and assert defenses against actions brought against an entity.” SEC v. Schooler, No.

12cv2164-GPC(JMA), at 6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2012) (citing SEC v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363, 1372

(9th Cir. 1980)). A receivership may also be justified where management of an entity, collection of

revenue, and/or the proper distribution of investor funds are required. See Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v.

Fifth Ave. Coach Lines, Inc., 289 F. Supp. 3, 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) (defendant needed a strong

independent management to lead company out of its difficulties, clean up the past and prepare for the

future); SEC v. Credit First Fund, LP, No. CV05-8741 DSF(PJWx), 2006 WL 4729240, at *15 (C.D.

Cal. Feb. 13, 2006). 

Plaintiff contends that it is critical that the Court appoint a receiver to marshal and preserve

existing assets from further dissipation and ensure that Defendants do not further misappropriate

assets. Defendants argue that theywill consent to an order prohibiting them from paying management

fees and agreed to a freeze of the Funds’ assets, with the exception of distribution to non-affiliated

investors with notice to the SEC. Therefore, this argument is without merit. 

Plaintiff also argues that while Morgan Stanley has liquidated all of the Funds’ CMOs pledged

as collateral for the credit facility, the Funds still hold securities with a different broker-dealer. 

Because SEC claims it has established a prima facie case that Defendants committed securities fraud,

and the integrity of Defendants’ management is at issue, a receiver is needed as the Funds need

oversight and management by an independent party. The Funds are held by a third party broker and

the distribution calculations are conducted by a third party accountant. The integrity of these thirdparty professionals have not been questioned. At the hearing, Defendants stated that while Price

oversees the operation, he is not involved in the day to day management of the Funds. Moreover, 

Defendants consent to the preliminary injunction sought by Plaintiff and other additional relief. 

Therefore, based on these factors, it does not appear that Price will be an active manager of the Funds. 

Plaintiff also argues that a receiver is needed to clarify the interests of investors as Price has

shown that he hides the truth from investors. For example, as recently as January and February 2013,

he spoke with the investors by phone but failed to disclose the ongoing SEC investigation or what was

going with Morgan Stanley. In their sur-reply, Defendants argue that Price did not conceal the truth

from investors by failing to disclose the SEC investigation. At this time, there is no need to clarify the

- 10 - [13cv1319-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:13-cv-00319-GPC-BGS Document 31 Filed 03/20/13 Page 10 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

interests of the investors or the financial affairs of the Funds. Moreover, it would appear that the

interests of investors could be easily obtained from accounting records.

Plaintiff also claims that the investors are being treated differently as some investors were

already fully redeemed. Since the assets have decreased in value by 26% over the past three years,

these redemptions favored the redeeming investors over those who did not redeem. Again, this issue

is moot as Defendants have agreed to stop making any disbursements out of the Fund by agreeing to

a freeze of the Funds’ assets. Moreover, in their sur-reply, Defendants state that Price testified that

as to Mr. Nittoli, who redeemed 100% of his initial capital investment, ABS redeemed Nittoli by

purchasing his shares with funds from the ABS Manager reserve account, which is comprised of ABS

Manager’s profits. (Dkt. No. 29-1, Price Depo. at 196:3-197:3.) The Funds’ assets have not been

affected, at least with regards to the distribution made to Nittoli. 

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the factors needed to appoint a receiver. Many of the

concerns raised by Plaintiff are addressed by a freeze of the assets of ABS Manager and the Funds. 

Moreover, the costs involved in appointing a receiver and hiring other professionals to investigate

would only further dissipate the assets of the investors. Accordingly, at this time, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion for an order appointing a receiver. 

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and

an order freezing the assets of ABS Manager and the Funds, with the exception of distribution to nonaffiliated investors calculated by the Funds’ third-party accountant, and with five (5) business days

6

notice to the SEC; and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion prohibiting the destruction of and requiring the

preservation of documents; and requiring an accounting. (See Commission’s Proposed Preliminary

Injunction Order at Sections II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, IX, XX, and XVIII.) The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

motion for an orderfreezing Price’s personal assets and all the Funds’ assets. The Court also DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion for an order appointing a receiver. 

No later than seven days after the date this Order is entered, the SEC and Defendants shall

Affiliated investors include the following: Charles Code Price; ABS Manager, LLC; ABS

6

Manager LLC 401(k); Cavan Private Equity Holdings, LLC; and Derek Price. 

- 11 - [13cv1319-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:13-cv-00319-GPC-BGS Document 31 Filed 03/20/13 Page 11 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

meet and confer, and then serve and lodge, via email (efile_curiel@casd.uscourts.gov) a proposed

preliminary injunction order, in WordPerfect or Word format, that is consistent with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 20, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 12 - [13cv1319-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:13-cv-00319-GPC-BGS Document 31 Filed 03/20/13 Page 12 of 12