Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3d
Timestamp: 2016-12-07 22:31:16
Document Index: 245684107

Matched Legal Cases: ['§80', '§77', '§77', '§78', '§77', '§78', '§80', '§77', '§78', '§80', '§77', '§78', '§80', '§279', '§279', '§77', '§78', '§240', '§80', '§80', '§80', '§80', '§80', '§80', '§275', '§80', '§275', '§77', '§78', '§240', '§80', '§275', '§80', '§80', '§77', '§275', '§80', '§275', '§77', '§78', '§80']

SEC Complaint against Locke Capital Management, Inc. and Leila C. Jenkins | SEC v. Locke Capital Management, Inc. and Leila C. Jenkins | Doug Cornelius - JDSupra
SEC v. Locke Capital Management, Inc. and Leila C. JenkinsSEC Complaint against Locke Capital Management, Inc. and Leila C. Jenkins
The SEC Complaint alleges that Locke and Jenkins invented a billion-dollar client in order to gain credibility and attract legitimate investors. Jenkins lied to SEC staff about the existence of the invented client and furnished the staff with bogus documents. Even as Locke began to take on real clients, the assets under management of its real clients never amounted to more than a very small portion of the billion-plus dollars that Jenkins claimed to manage. They continued to make false statement concerning the confidential accounts were made in brochures, meetings, submissions to online databases that prospective clients used to select money managers, and in SEC filings. Besides the invented client and assets under management, they misrepresented performance for years in which Locke had no clients and deceived clients about the makeup of the firm, including the number, identity, and role of its employees.
The Complaint alleges that Locke and Jenkins violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Complaint further alleges that Locke violated, and Jenkins aided and abetted violations of, Sections 204, 204A, and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rules 204-2(a), 204A-1, and 206(4)-1(a)(5) thereunder.
Download PDF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR~ . DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND C~hh-.. . ....."1t1) MI,D "."'I{' 09 ) lJ.. '" tikI!} AND ) S l)1s ) 4 lil.~~C1' ) -"l4!fC]toftlJJq ) ) No. ) INC. and ) C. ) ) ) ---'----------------) FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF Securities and Exchange Coinmission the following defendants Locke Capital Management, Inc. ("Locke") Leila ("STATEMENT concerns investment adviser (Locke), with and and its President, Chief Executive Officer, owner (at early 2009, Locke and filings with the Commission; marketing materials, and communications clIents i.n. to thei.r in Locke's accounts, Switzerlimd, order inflate Locke's reported assets told and has Blinf UNDITISETDR SICTATT OEFS RDHISOTDREIC ITS CLAONUDR%c *^c t) Ma a"* 0 9 M!f SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, f-S. Plaintiff, 'crAPP. V*T v. Case No. X LOCKE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. and f U«£ 100 LEILA C. JENKINS, JLTRY E Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF Plaintiff Secuities and Exchange Commission ("the Commission") alleges the following against defendants Locke Capital Management, Inc. ("Locke") and Leila C. Jenkins ("Jenkins"): PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This enforcement action concens a registered investment adviser (Locke), with offices in New York and in Newport, Rhode Island, and its President, Chief Executive Oicer, and sole owner (Jenkins). From at least 2003 until early 2009, Locke and Jenkins lied repeatedly in ilings with the Commission, marketing materials, and communications with clients and prospective clients in order to mislead investors into placing their assets in Locke's care. First, Locke and Jenkins invented several large advisory client accounts, supposedly based in Switzerland, in order to inflate Locke's reported assets under management. Since late 2006, Locke and Jenkins have told clients, potential clients, and the Commission that Locke has more 1 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3din assets much $1.6 billion), whereas assets ofLocke's real clients comprised only a small fraction of that figure (less than Second, Locke and Jenkins fabricated including . several had no real clients and was not managing any real assets. Third, Locke and Jenkins made false statements about other aspects ofLocke's business. Lastly, to perpetuate the scheme and conceal her deceptions, Jenkins lied repeatedly during a routine examination and subsequent enforcement investigation by the Commission. 2. Through the activities alleged in this Complaint, Locke and Jenkins engaged in: fraud in the offer or sale securities, Section ofthe Act of ("Securities (ii) fraudulent or deceptive conduct in connection· with the purchase of securities, of Section 1O(b) Securities Exchange 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; (iii) fraudulent or deceptive conduct with respect to investment advisory clients, in violation of Sections 206(1) and (2) ofthe Investment Advisers 1940 Advisers and (iv) the making of untrue statements of material fact reports . the Section ofthe Advisers Act. in: fraudulent or deceptive in violation Actand 4)-1 (thereunder; and (ii) violations of numerous reporting, record-'keeping and other provisions of Sections 204 and 204A of the Advisers Act and Rules 204-2(a) and 204A-l thereunder, and Jenkins aided and abetted Locke's violations of those provisions. . the Commission seeks: ofa injunction Locke and from further violations ofthe relevant provisions ofthe than $1 billion in assets under management (and sometimes as much as $1.6 billion), whereas the assets of Locke's real clients comprised only a small raction of that igure (less than $165 million). Second, Locke and Jenkins fabricated investment performance returns, including returns for several years when Locke had no real clients and was not managing any real assets. Third, Locke and Jenkins made false statements about other aspects of Locke's business. Lastly, to perpetuate the scheme and conceal her deceptions, Jenkins lied repeatedly during a routine examination and subsequent enforcement investigation by the Commission. 2. Through the activities alleged in this Complaint, Locke and Jenkins engaged in: (i) raud in the offer or sale of securities, in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Secuities Act"); (ii) raudulent or deceptive conduct in connection with the purchase or sale of secuities, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Secuities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; (iii) raudulent or deceptive conduct with respect to investment advisory clients, in violation of Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"); and (iv) the making of untrue statements of mateial fact in reports filed with the Commission, in violation of Section 207 of the Advisers Act. In addition, Locke engaged in: (i) raudulent or deceptive advertising for investment advisory services, in violation of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-1(a)(5) thereunder; and (ii) violations of numerous reporting, record-keeping and other provisions of Sections 204 and 204A of the Advisers Act and Rules 204-2(a) and 204A-1 thereunder, and Jenkins aided and abetted Locke's violations of those provisions. 3. Accordingly, the Commission seeks: (i) entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting Locke and Jenkins rom further violations of the relevant provisions of the federal 2 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3ddisgorgement ofLocke and Jenkins' gotten (iii) ofa civil monetary penalty due to the egregious .JURISDICTION seeks injunction 20(b) ofthe Securities 15 U.S.Section 21 (Act 78u(d)(1)], and ofthe Act C. §80b-9(d)]. the imposition monetary ofthe Securities [15 U.S.C. §77t(d)], Section 21 (3) of the Act 209(e) ofthe Advisers Act jurisdiction over this action pursuant Sections a) of Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§77t(d), 77v(a)], Sections 21 (d), 21(e) and 27 ofthe Exchange [15 U.S.C. §§78u(d), 78u(e), 78aa], 214 of the Advisers Act c. Venue is proper this District because; here and Jenkins maintained a residence the and or indirectly made use of the mails or the instruinents oftransportation interstate commerce. ofLocke fraud, deceit, or deliberate reckless of and resulted in substantial loss, or significant risk of 3 securities laws; (ii) disgorgement of Locke and Jenkins5 ill-gotten gains, plus pre-judgment interest; and (iii) the imposition of a civil monetary penalty due to the egregious nature of Locke and Jenkins' violations. JURISDICTION 4. The Commission seeks a permanent injunction and disgorgement pursuant to Section 20(b) of the Secuities Act [15 U.S.C. §77t(b)], Section 21(d)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78u(d)(l)], and Section 209(d) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-9(d)]. The Commission seeks the imposition of a civil monetary penalty pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Secuities Act [15 U.S.C. §77t(d)], Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78u(d)(3)], and Section 209(e) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-9(e)]. 5. This Court has juisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(d) and 22(a) of the Secuities Act [15 U.S.C. §§77t(d), 77v(a)], Sections 21(d), 21(e) and 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§78u(d), 78u(e), 78aa], and Sections 209(3) and 214 of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§80b-9(d), 80b-14]. Venue is proper in this District because, at all relevant times, Locke maintained an office here and Jenkins maintained a residence here. 6. In connection with the conduct described in this Complaint, Locke and Jenkins directly or indirectly made use of the mails or the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce. 7. The conduct of Locke and Jenkins involved raud, deceit, or deliberate or reckless disregard of regulatory requirements, and resulted in substantial loss, or significant isk of substantial loss, to other persons. ;a Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3d8. Locke Capital Management, Inc. ("Locke") is a Rhode Island corporation with an office in Newport, Rhode At all relevant times, an office York. Locke has been registered with the Commission as an investment adviser Locke markets itself as a global equity management included institutions, high net worth individuals, two separately managed accounts for wrap fee clients, and a hedge fund with approximately $10 million in assets. 9. Leila C. Jenkins, age 54, maintains residences in Newport, Rhode Island, and in Palm Beach, Florida. She is the founder and sole owner ofLocke, and cUrrently serves as its President, Chief Executive Officer, and ChiefInvestment Officer. On February 3, 2009, Jenkins submitted a sworn declaration to the Commission in which she invoked her Fifth Amendment right against incrimination in connection with the the filing of this action. COUNTS Investment 10. Two factors that investors often consider when choosing an investment adviser are the adviser's assets under management and the investment returns that the adviser lias from its various investment strategies. Several commercial services compile data assets assist investors in evaluating investment advisers. Many of Locke's clients reviewed information about DEFENDANTS 8. Locke Capital Management, Inc. ("Locke") is a Rhode Island corporation with an ofice in Newport, Rhode Island. At all relevant times, Locke also maintained an ofice in New York, New York. Locke has been registered with the Commission as an investment adviser since March 1997. Locke markets itself as a global equity management boutique, and its clients have included institutions, high net worth individuals, two separately managed accounts for wrap fee clients, and a hedge fund with approximately $10 million in assets. 9. Leila C. Jenkins, age 54, maintains residences in Newport, Rhode Island, and in Palm Beach, Floida. She is the founder and sole owner of Locke, and currently serves as its President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Investment Oficer. On February 3, 2009, Jenkins submitted a sworn declaration to the Commission in which she invoked her Fifth Amendment ight against self-incimination in connection with the investigation that preceded the iling of this action. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS The Importance of Assets Under Management and Investment Returns in the Selection of an Investment Adviser 10. Two factors that investors oten consider when choosing an investment adviser are the adviser's assets under management and the investment returns that the adviser has achieved rom its vaious investment strategies. Several commercial services compile data about investment advisers, including assets under management and investment returns, to assist investors in evaluating investment advisers. Many of Locke's clients reviewed information about 4 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3d· under management and investment returns in connection with their investment adviser. Under 11. registered with the Commission, 203 ofthe Advisers current an application for registration on Form ADV. 17 C.F.R. §279.1] Part I of a Form ADV, which is filed available to the public, the disclosure of certain material about the adviser, the amount of assets under its management. 12. February 2003 and September 2008, Locke filed Forms ADV representations about its assets under of Form ADV 1, 2003 January 16, 2004 2005 2, 2007 $1,232,689~661 April 2, 2008 Locke's signed each Form ADV penalties of perjury. 5 assets under management and investment returns in connection with their choice of an investment adviser. Misrepresentations about Locke's Assets Under Management Locke's Reported Assets Under Management 11. As an investment adviser registered with the Commission, Locke is required by Section 203 of the Advisers Act to execute and keep current an application for investment adviser registration on Form ADV. [See 17 C.F.R. §279.1] Part I of a Form ADV, which is filed with the Commission and made available to the public, requires the disclosure of certain mateial information about the adviser, including the amount of assets under its management. 12. Between February 2003 and September 2008, Locke filed Forms ADV containing the following representations about its assets under management: Assets under Date of Form ADV Management February 1,2003 $82,000,000 January 16, 2004 $88,000,000 February 16,2005 $62,118,262 September 8, 2005 $74,838,002 January 20, 2006 $89,317,924 April 2,2007 $1,232,689,661 April 2, 2008 $1,306,692,872 September 26, 2008 $1,327,635,399 Jenkins, as Locke's President, signed each Form ADV under the pains and penalties of perjury Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3dmaintained and periodically updated distributed prospective clients. ofthe representations about Locke's assets management: under 1, 2006 14. periodically clients. brochure representations about Locke's assets under 400;000,000 . of~arch ofNov. for clients and consultants 13. Locke and Jenkins maintained and peiodically updated a "due diligence questionnaire" that was distributed to clients and prospective clients. Two versions of the questionnaire contained the following representations about Locke's assets under management Assets under Date of Questionnaire Management December 1,2006 $1,200,000,000 November 30, 2008 $1,200,000,000 14 Locke and Jenkins maintained and periodically updated a firm brochure that was distributed to clients and prospective clients. Various versions of the firm brochure contained the following representations about Locke's assets under management: Assets under Year Management 2003 $400,000,000 2004 $649,000,000 2005 $893,000,000 2006 $1,231,000,000 2007 $1,312,000,000 2008 (as of March 31) $1,377,000,000 2008 (as of June 30) $1,386,000,000 2008 (as of Sept. 30) $1,241,000,000 2008 (as of Nov. 30) $1,217,000,000 15. Locke and Jenkins supplied data to several commercial services which, as set forth above, compile information for clients and consultants to review when evaluating 6 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3dadvisers. ofLocke's this selector as and one in assets under management September · provided another service with the following about Locke's assets under $1,231,000,000 $1,312,000,000 emails to clients prospective clients containing information Several of the emails contained the following representations about Locke's assets under ofEmail 27,2007 28, 2008 23, 2008 investment advisers. Many of Locke's clients and potential clients reviewed this information when deciding whether to select or retain Locke as an advisor. a. In late 2006, Locke and Jenkins told one service that Locke had more than $1.1 billion in assets under management as of September 30, 2006. b. In 2008, Locke and Jenkins provided another service with the following information about Locke's assets under management: Assets under Year Management 2003 $400,500,000 2004 $602,100,000 2005 $893,000,000 2006 2007 2008 $1,377,000,000 16. Jenkins sent emails to clients and prospective clients containing information about Locke. Several of the emails contained the following representations about Locke's assets under management: Assets under Date of Email Management November 27, 2007 $1,230,671,049 January 13,2008 $1,312,000,000 January 28,2008 $1,500,000,000 March 27, 2008 $1,361,000,000 May 23,2008 $1,306,692,872 7 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3dduring with clients. 13, 2004, in assets a Swiss in assets under management as Julie or $1.6 billion in assets under management. Jenkins told prospective client in assets under management 1.4 billion in assets £. told client in assets under management. 2000, Jenkins has told some of Locke's Switzerland which she sometimes described as manager and sometimes as a Swiss private bank. Jenkins often "accounts;" she at least Private Bank." 8 17. Jenkins made representations about Locke's assets under management during meetings with prospective clients. Examples include: a. On or about December 13,2004, Jenkins told a prospective client that Locke had $581 million in assets under management for three clients, including a Swiss bank. b. On or about July 31, 2006, Jenkins told a prospective client that Locke had more than $1 billion in assets under management as of June 30, 2006. c. On or about November 16, 2007, Jenkins told a prospective client that Locke had $1.4 billion or $1.6 billion in assets under management. (Jenkins used both figures during the meeting.) d. On or about January 28, 2008, Jenkins told a prospective client that Locke had more than $1.5 billion in assets under management as of September 30, 2007. e. On or about August 19, 2008, Jenkins told a prospective client that Locke had $ 1.4 billion in assets under management. f. As recently as January 29, 2009, Jenkins told a client that Locke had $1.2 billion in assets under management. Locke's Fictitious Swiss Client 18. Since at least 2000, Jenkins has told some of Locke's employees, clients, and prospective clients that Locke's clients include an entity in Switzerland which she sometimes descibed as a Swiss money manager and sometimes as a Swiss pivate bank. Jenkins oten referred to the purported Swiss client's accounts as "SPB accounts/' which she told at least one Locke employee meant "Swiss Pivate Bank.5? Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3dunti11ate 2006, Locke had client, to new clients, including in a hedge fund formed by Locke. The period the ten-fold increase in Locke's assets as reported in its Form ADV --from than $100 million dated 20,2006) to more than $1.2 billion (Form ADV April began a routine examination of Locke in late May 2008. During .for months, Locke provided information of its more than $1.3 billion in reported assets under management controlled Jenkins investment advice, that she telephoned client with lists of recommended transactions, that the client told her by phone the prices and her recommendations had been sent reflecting the execution ofthe completed transactions. the 2008 examination, Jenkins stated had recently been set so client on trade execution. records ofthe investigation a list of trades for a particular day from head frequently to the Hotmail account for as long as three or four weeks after the putative trade date, and she the proposed for all. Also, Jenkins received account on only a few occasions, and on at least ofthem, 19. From approximately mid-2003 until late 2006, Locke had no clients except for the purported Swiss client, but beginning in late 2006, Locke started to attract new clients, including two foreign banks who in 2007 invested in a hedge fund formed by Locke. The peiod when Locke began attracting new clients coincided with the ten-fold increase in Locke's assets under management as reported in its Form ADV --rom less than $100 million (Form ADV dated January 20, 2006) to more than $ 1.2 billion (Form ADV dated April 2, 2007). 20. The Commission began a routine examination of Locke in late May 2008. Duing that examination, which lasted for several months, Locke provided information indicating that approximately $1.2 billion of its more than $1.3 billion in reported assets under management was comprised of money in certain accounts controlled by a Swiss client. Jenkins explained that the Swiss client had retained Locke to provide investment advice, that she regularly telephoned the client with lists of recommended transactions, that the client told her by phone the pices and quantities at which her recommendations had been executed, and that the client later sent her information reflecting the execution of the completed transactions. 21. In connection with the 2008 examination, Jenkins stated that an email account at Hotmail had recently been set up so that she could send the Swiss client her trade recommendations and the client could send her data on trade execution. However, records obtained during the course of the investigation indicate that when Jenkins received a list of proposed trades for a particular day rom Locke's head trader, she frequently did not forward the list to the Hotmail account for as long as three or four weeks after the putative trade date, and she did not forward the proposed trades for certain days at all. Also, Jenkins received trade execution data from the Hotmail account on only a few occasions, and on at least one of them, 9 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3dthe log-in to the account took place from New York, where Locke maintained an office, and not from Switzerland, where the client was supposedly located. (None of the log-ins for which information is available took place from Switzerland.) Further, Jenkins sometimes provided Locke's employees with purported trade execution data for the Swiss client for dates when she received no emails from the Hotrnail account. 22. connection with the 2008 examination, Jenkins produced documents which she represented were copies of custodial statements for the Swiss client's accoun~s at JP Morgan Chase ("Chase"). Jenkins claimed that she had obtained the statements from the Swiss client by mail. However, the custodial statements are not genuine, and Chase has no record of any accounts for the Swiss client, for Locke itself, or for any Lock~relatedentity other than some of Locke's genuine clients. In addition, laptop computers used by Jenkins contain files which were used to create the purported custodial statements, including images of Chase's logo and drafts of the custodial statements with names like "chase in word," "chase paper" and "try." 23. investigation, Jenkins admitted she never visited the Swiss client, never met anyone from the client, and kept no phone records reflecting any calls with the client (supposedly because she used prepaid phone cards). addition, nine former employees ofLocke, including the former head trader, stated that they never communicated with any representatives ofthe Swiss client and never saw any trade tickets, confirmations, or brokerage account statements reflecting any trading for the client. (No .having any communications or having seen reflecting the existence of, the Swiss client.) Also, records available to Swiss authorities contain no trace ofthe Swiss client (which Jenkins identified as "AM AG") or the persons named by the log-in to the account took place rom New York, where Locke maintained an ofice, and not from Switzerland, where the client was supposedly located. (None of the log-ins for which information is available took place rom Switzerland.) Further, Jenkins sometimes provided Locke's employees with purported trade execution data for the Swiss client for dates when she received no emails rom the Hotmail account. 22. In connection with the 2008 examination, Jenkins produced documents which she represented were copies of custodial statements for the Swiss client's accounts at JP Morgan Chase ("Chase"). Jenkins claimed that she had obtained the statements rom the Swiss client by mail. However, the custodial statements are not genuine, and Chase has no record of any accounts for the Swiss client, for Locke itself, or for any Locke-related entity other than some of Locke's genuine clients. In addition, laptop computers used by Jenkins contain files which were used to create the purported custodial statements, including images of Chase's logo and drats of the custodial statements with names like "chase in word," "chase paper" and "try.5J 23. During the course of the Commission's investigation, Jenkins admitted that she never visited the Swiss client, never met anyone rom the client, and kept no phone records reflecting any calls with the client (supposedly because she used prepaid phone cards). In addition, nine former employees of Locke, including the former head trader, stated that they never communicated with any representatives of the Swiss client and never saw any trade tickets, conirmations, or brokerage account statements reflecting any trading for the client. (No employee reported having had any communications with, or having seen any documents reflecting the existence of, the Swiss client.) Also, records available to Swiss authoities contain no trace of the Swiss client (which Jenkins identified as "AM AG") or the persons named by 10 12. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3dher contacts at the Swiss client, no entity named "AM can provided repeated calls to the phone number provided unanswered. 24. client fiction a set forth above about Locke's under management were materially The figures for 2004 and 2005 were completely false, because years. figures for 2006, 2007 arid materially overstated, because ofLocke's $165 million in those consistently figures in excess and, on some occasions, as billion. after the had the filing ofthis action, Jenkins produced ofa letter. January 6, 2009 from the Swiss client terminating with Locke of 2009. continued to 1 in assets a. 29,2009, Jenkins told client in assets b.· February 11,2009, Locke filed ADV stating in assets 11 Jenkins as her contacts at the Swiss client, no entity named "AM AG" can be found at the address provided by Jenkins, and repeated calls to the phone number provided by Jenkins have gone unanswered. 24. In short, the Swiss client is pure fiction invented by Jenkins. As a result, the representations set forth above about Locke's assets under management were mateially false and misleading. The figures for 2004 and 2005 were completely false, because Locke had no real clients in those years. The igures for 2006, 2007 and 2008 were mateially overstated, because the assets of Locke's real clients never exceeded $165 million in those years, whereas Locke and Jenkins consistently reported igures in excess of $1 billion and, on some occasions, as high as $1.6 billion. 25. In mid-January 2009, ater the Commission had commenced the investigation that preceded the iling of this action, Jenkins produced a document purporting to be a copy of a letter dated January 6, 2009 rom the Swiss client terminating the advisory agreement with Locke as of January 1, 2009. Nevertheless, Locke and Jenkins have continued to claim that Locke has more than $1 billion in assets under management. a. On or about January 29, 2009, Jenkins told a client that Locke had r $1.2 billion in assets under management. b. On or about February 11, 2009, Locke iled a Form ADV stating that Locke has more than $1.3 billion in assets under management. 11 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3dat least 2008, Locke and Jenkins made the investment returns on Locke's various Examplesinclude: . period, Locke and Jenkins prepared pro~pective Clients Locke's dating back to 1990. did not even 1990. due questionnaire dated 1,2006 figures purporting ·to show that the had an II-(from 1995 In reality, Locke had no clients in 2004 and 2005, and those and and a brochUre to be sent to prospective investors in the hedge 2004. on September the hedge In reality, the hedge fund only came into existence in January at least Global Investment Performance ("GIPS"), set of standardized principles that provide investment firms guidance investment returns in a manner 12 Misrepresentations about Locke's Investment Returns 26. From 2005 until at least 2008, Locke and Jenkins made misrepresentations to clients and potential clients about the investment returns on Locke's vaious investment strategies. Examples include: a. Throughout this peiod, Locke and Jenkins prepared and distributed to clients and prospective clients certain marketing brochures that presented Locke's purported investment returns dating back to 1990. In reality, Locke did not even exist in 1990. b. Locke's due diligence questionnaire dated December 1, 2006 included igures purporting to show that the firm had an 11-year track record (rom 1995 through 2006) for investment performance. In reality, Locke had no clients in 2004 and 2005, and thus Locke could not have had any investment performance in those years. c. On or about November 9, 2005 and January 24, 2006, Locke and Jenkins caused a brochure to be sent to prospective investors in Locke's hedge fund that listed the hedge fund's investment performance results dating back to January 2004. Similarly, on September 29, 2008, Jenkins told a prospective client that the hedge fund had been in operation since early 2004. In reality, the hedge fund only came into existence in January 2006, and it was not funded by any investors until 2007. 27. From 2005 until at least 2008, Locke and Jenkins told clients and potential clients that Locke's investment performance figures complied with Global Investment Performance Standards ("GIPS"), a set of standardized pinciples that provide investment irms with guidance on how to calculate and report their investment returns in a manner that enables the investing 12 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3dresults. In figures GIPS-compliant. about Locke's Business. frequently misrepresented of its employees, including without limitation, in its Form ADV, materials, and Examples was ·for Locke. 22,2007, made a similar representation to another prospective client. named was Locke's Chief Operating Officer. 27,2007, Jenkins sent certain portfolio since 1999. not for Locke in 2003 and the individual's with Ev~n manager's employment had been by-prospective had left She also told another prospective in February 2008 that manager manager and was not on a leave of absence. told ADV Locke filed on February 11, 2009 stated public to compare such results. In reality, Locke's investment performance igures were not GIPS~compliant. Other Misrepresentations about Locke's Business 28. Locke and Jenkins requently misrepresented the number, identity, role, and employment status of its employees, including without limitation, in its Form ADV, in its marketing mateials, and at meetings with clients and prospective clients. Examples include: a. On or about July 29, 2007, Jenkins told a prospective client that a certain individual was one of Locke's current clients and could provide a reference for Locke. On or about August 22, 2007, Jenkins made a similar representation to another prospective client. In reality, the person named was Locke's Chief Operating Oficer. b. On or about November 27, 2007, Jenkins sent a brochure to a prospective client stating that Locke had employed a certain portfolio manager since 1999. In reality, the individual did not work for Locke in 2003 and 2004, and the individual's employment with Locke had been terminated by October 31, 2007. c. Even though the portfolio manager's employment had been terminated by October 31, 2007, Jenkins told at least one prospective client in January 2008 that no key personnel had let Locke. She also told another prospective client in February 2008 that the portfolio manager was on a medical leave of absence. In reality, the portfolio manager had no medical condition and was not on a leave of absence. d. On or about January 29, 2009, Jenkins told a client that Locke had eight employees. Similarly, the Form ADV which Locke iled on February 11,2009 stated that Locke 13 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3dhad between six and ten employees. In reality, Locke employed only Jenkins and one other individual when the statements were made. e. 15,2009, Locke and Jenkins provided a firm brochure to a consultant and a prospective client which stated that Locke employed a certain individual as an analyst and another individual as a trader. In reality, the trader had stopped working for Locke in December 2008, and the analyst had only volunteered at Locke between January and April 2008. to Commission Employees 29. During the 2008 examination and the subsequent investigation, Jenkins made numerous misrepresentations to Commission employees in order to perpetuate the scheme described above and prevent its discovery. Examples include: a. On several occasions (including but not limited to June 15, July 1, September 26, November 25, and December 30, 2008), Jenkins stated that the Swiss client and its accounts actually existed. As set forth above, the Swiss client does not actually exist. b. the examination, Jenkins produced documents that she represented were custodial statements for the Swiss client's accounts at Chase. In reality, as set forth above, the statements are not genuine, and Jenkins prepared them on a laptop computer. c. During the examination, Jenkins produced a document purporting to be an investment advisory agreement with AM AG dated January 2, 1997. In reality, AM AG does not exist, and Locke had no advisory clients in January 1997. 14 \ had between six and ten employees. In reality, Locke employed only Jenkins and one other individual when the statements were made. e. On or about January 15, 2009, Locke and Jenkins provided a irm brochure to a consultant and a prospective client which stated that Locke employed a certain individual as an analyst and another individual as a trader. In reality, the trader had stopped working for Locke in December 2008, and the analyst had only volunteered at Locke between January and Apil 2008. Jenkins' Misrepresentations to Commission Employees 29. During the 2008 examination and the subsequent investigation, Jenkins made numerous misrepresentations to Commission employees in order to perpetuate the scheme descibed above and prevent its discovery. Examples include: a. On several occasions (including but not limited to June 15, July 1, September 26, November 25, and December 30, 2008), Jenkins stated that the Swiss client and its accounts actually existed. As set forth above, the Swiss client does not actually exist. b. During the examination, Jenkins produced documents that she represented were custodial statements for the Swiss client's accounts at Chase. In reality, as set forth above, the statements are not genuine, and Jenkins prepared them on a laptop computer. c. Duing the examination, Jenkins produced a document purporting to be an investment advisory agreement with AM AG dated January 2,1997. In reality, AM AG does not exist, and Locke had no advisory clients in January 1997. 14 \ "A Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3d26,2008, Jenkins stated by email that an audit ofLocke's figures was nearly completed. In a letter dated November 25,2008, Jenkins stated In reality, the audit had not even begun when Jenkins statements. 25, 2008, Jenkins also stated . figures GIPS compliant materials distributed prospective client. as Locke routinely -" sales materials distributed prospective clients--that its performance figures ·FOR RELIEF of Section 17(oftheSecurities repeats the allegations Jenkins, directly and indirectly, acting intentionally, knowingly tecklessly, securities by the use or instruments of in interstate commerce or artifices defraud; (b) have obtained Or means of material fact or omissions to state material fact necessary order to make the statements in the ofthe circumstances or (c) have engaged which a fraud deceit upon purchasers securities. d. On September 26, 2008, Jenkins stated by email that an audit of Locke's performance igures was nearly completed. In a letter dated November 25, 2008, Jenkins stated that the audit was still ongoing. In reality, the audit had not even begun when Jenkins made those statements. d. In her letter dated November 25,2008, Jenkins also stated that Locke had never claimed that its performance figures were GIPS compliant in any advertising, marketing, or sales materials distibuted to any client, consultant, or prospective client. In reality, as set forth above, Locke routinely claimed ~ in advertising, marketing, and sales mateials distibuted to both consultants and prospective clients — that its performance igures were GIPS-compliant. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act) 30. The Commission repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-29 above. 31. Locke and Jenkins, directly and indirectly, acting intentionally, knowingly or recklessly, in the offer or sale of secuities by the use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the mails: (a) have employed or are employing devices, schemes or artiices to deraud; (b) have obtained or are obtaining money or property by means of untrue statements of mateial fact or omissions to state a mateial fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) have engaged or are engaging in transactions, practices or courses of business which operate as a raud or deceit upon purchasers of the secuities. 15 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3dhave violated unless enjoined, will of Securities 15 CLAIM <violation of Section lOeb) IOb-Jenkins, directly or indirectly, acting intentionally, knowingly ofmeans or instrumentalities of commerce or of the mails, or of securities: or artifices defraud; (b) have making statements of material to state a fact necessary in ofthe circumstances or (c) have engaged practices or of business which as a fraud persons. have violated and, unless enjoined, will ofthe Act b)]andRule lOb-FOR RELIEF <Violation of Sections the Advisers incorporates by the allegations in above. 32. As a result, Locke and Jenkins have violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Section 17(a) of the Secuities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)]. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5) 33. The Commission repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-32 above. 34. Locke and Jenkins, directly or indirectly, acting intentionally, knowingly or recklessly, by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails, in connection with the purchase or sale of secuities: (a) have employed or are employing devices, schemes or artiices to deraud; (b) have made or are making untrue statements of mateial fact or have omitted or are omitting to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) have engaged or are engaging in acts, practices or courses of business which operate as a raud or deceit upon certain persons. 35. As a result, Locke and Jenkins have violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5]. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act) 36. The Commission repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-35 above. 16 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3d"202(a)(11) of 11)]. Likewise, Jenkins was an investment control ofLocke. Locke of the mails or any means or instrumentality of commerce, directly or indirectly, intentionally, or recklessly: or artifices defraud; or (b) have engaged of which as a fraud violated unless enjoined, will 206(1) and (2) ofthe Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§80b-6(1), FOR RELIEF of Section repeats the allegations above. ofthe Advisers Act for any person to make any untrue statement material fact any filed with the Commission under Section 203, or to omit to state any such material fact which is required to be stated Locke filed with the Commission its President) which made untrue statements of material fact, or willfully a material which was required to be stated. 17 37. Locke was an "investment adviser" within the meaning of Section 202(a)(l 1) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-2(a)(l 1)]. Likewise, Jenkins was an "investment adviser" due to her ownership and control of Locke. 38. Locke and Jenkins, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, acting intentionally, knowingly or recklessly: (a) have employed or are employing devices, schemes, or artiices to deraud; or (b) have engaged or are engaging in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operate as a raud or deceit upon a client or prospective client. 39. As a result, Locke and Jenkins have violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§80b-6(l), (2)]. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Section 207 of the Advisers Act) 40. The Commission repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-39 above. 41. Section 207 of the Advisers Act provides that it is unlawful for any person willfully to make any untrue statement of a mateial fact in any registration application or report iled with the Commission under Section 203, or to omit to state in any such application or report any mateial fact which is required to be stated therein. 42. As set forth above, Locke iled Forms ADV with the Commission (signed by Jenkins as its President) which made untrue statements of material fact, or willfully omitted to state a mateial fact which was required to be stated. 17 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3d. violated unless enjoined, will CLAIM FOR RELIEF <Violation of Section 20G(and 20G(l(S» repeats 1 (provide fraudulent, deceptive, ofbusiness for any registered investment adviser, directly or indirectly, any advertisement contains any untrue statement published, circulated, or distributed advertisements -including limitation numerous versions ofits due finn contained enjoined, will ofthe [15 U.S.C. §80b-6(4)] and Rule 206(4)-1 (R. 4)-I(In addition, Jenkins aided and Locke's ofthose provISIOns. 43. As a result, Locke and Jenkins have violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Section 207 of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-7]. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-l (a)(5)) 44. The Commission repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-43 above. 45. Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-1(a)(5) promulgated thereunder provide that it shall constitute a raudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act, practice or course of business for any registered investment adviser, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate or distribute any advertisement which contains any untrue statement of a material fact, or which is otherwise false or misleading. 46. As set forth above, Locke published, circulated, or distributed advertisements — including without limitation numerous versions of its "due diligence questionnaire" and firm brochure -that contained untrue statements of material fact or were otherwise false or misleading. 47. As a result, Locke violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-6(4)] and Rule 206(4)-1(a)(5) thereunder [17 C.F.R §275.206(4)-! (a)(5)]. In addition, Jenkins aided and abetted Locke's violation of those provisions. 18 n Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3d·CLAIM FOR RELIEF of Sections .. l) 48. The Commission repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-47 above. and rulesproinulgated aregistered investment adviser to make and keep true, accurate and current books and records. 50. Rule 204-2(a)(6) promulgated under the Advisers Act requires an investment adviser to make and keep accurate trial balances and financial statements. Locke's trial balances for 2007 and 2008 (produced in the course of the 2008 examination) reflect unequal credits and debits. In addition, Locke's cash flow statements for 2007 and 2008 (also produced in the course of the 2008 examination) do not accurately account for all the fees which Locke received from clients. requires a list ofall the investment adviser to funds or transactions. The client list ofLocke's current clients and included eight with had terminated.. 52. Rule 204-2(a)(10) promulgated under the Advisers Act requires an investment or copies of all written agreements between the adviser client. Despite repeated requests, Locke was unable to provide the Commission with copies of SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Sections 204 and 204A of the Advisers Act and Rules 204-2 and 204A-1) 48. The Commission repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-47 above. 49. Section 204 of the Advisers Act and certain rules promulgated thereunder require a registered investment adviser to make and keep true, accurate and current books and records. 50. Rule 204-2(a)(6) promulgated under the Advisers Act requires an investment adviser to make and keep accurate trial balances and inancial statements. Locke's trial balances for 2007 and 2008 (produced in the course of the 2008 examination) reflect unequal credits and debits. In addition, Locke's cash flow statements for 2007 and 2008 (also produced in the course of the 2008 examination) do not accurately account for all the fees which Locke received rom clients 51. Rule 204-2(a)(8) promulgated under the Advisers Act requires an investment adviser to keep a list or other record of all accounts for which the investment adviser has discretionary authority with respect to any funds or transactions. The client list which Locke provided to the Commission failed to include eight of Locke's current clients and included eight other clients whose agreements with Locke had been terminated. 52. Rule 204-2(a)(10) promulgated under the Advisers Act requires an investment adviser to maintain originals or copies of all written agreements between the adviser and any client. Despite repeated requests, Locke was unable to provide the Commission with copies of such written agreements for several clients. 19 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3drequires a cash fee for solicitation activities to receive from clienthas as as written disclosure statement. Rule 204-2(a)(15) requires to maintain into a written solicitation agreement the that the clients had been provided with the solicitor's disclosure statement. a)(l6) papers, and to form for the calculation ofreturn any all managed in newspaper article, investment article, investment letter, bulletin circulates or distributes, directly or more persons (other than persons connected with such investment adviser); provided, respect ofmanaged retention ofall statements, if they reflect debits, credits, and other transactions in a client's account for the period of the statement, and all worksheets necessary to demonstrate the calculation of the all managed accounts to requirement. During the 2008 examination, Locke was unable to provide support for the reported performance of all its client accounts. 53. Rule 206(4)-3 promulgated under the Advisers Act requires an investment adviser that pays a cash fee for solicitation activities to receive rom its solicited clients an acknowledgment that the client has received the adviser's written disclosure statement on Form ADV as well as the solicitor's written disclosure statement. Rule 204-2(a)(15) requires an investment adviser to maintain copies of the client acknowledgments and solicitor disclosure documents. Locke has entered into a witten solicitation agreement but, during the 2008 examination, Locke was unable to produce copies of the client acknowledgments or any other evidence that the clients had been provided with the solicitor's written disclosure statement. 54. Rule 204-2(a)(16) promulgated under the Advisers Act requires an investment adviser to keep all accounts, books, internal working papers, and any other records or documents that are necessary to form the basis for or demonstrate the calculation of the performance or rate of return of any or all managed accounts or securities recommendations in any notice, circular, advertisement, newspaper article, investment article, investment letter, bulletin or other communication that the investment adviser circulates or distributes, directly or indirectly, to ten or more persons (other than persons connected with such investment adviser); provided, however, that with respect to the performance of managed accounts, the retention of all account statements, if they reflect debits, credits, and other transactions in a client's account for the period of the statement, and all worksheets necessary to demonstrate the calculation of the performance or rate of return of all managed accounts shall be deemed to satisfy this requirement. During the 2008 examination, Locke was unable to provide support for the reported performance of all its client accounts. 20 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3dand Rule 204A-1 thereunder to adopt a Code ofEthics with the ofits ofEthics. will Sections 204A ofthe Advisers and 2042(275.2042(8), 204-2(a)(10), 204-2(a)(15), 204-2(a)(16), 204A-1]. Jenkins abetted Locke's violation ofthose requests injunction restraining Locke, Jenkins and each oftheir agents, employees and attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with notice ofthe injunction or otherwise, including or overnight delivery from or indirectly engaging in the above, or in conduct of similar purport effect, in violation 1. ofthe Act and IOb-240.1 Ob-1), 206(4) ofthe Advisers 80b6(1 (a)(5) thereunder 17 Advisers ofthe 15 S.and 2042(55. Section 204A of the Advisers Act and Rule 204A-1 thereunder require an investment adviser to adopt a Code of Ethics with certain minimum standards. During the 2008 examination, Locke was unable to produce a copy of its Code of Ethics. 56. As a result, Locke violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Sections 204 and 204A of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§80b-4, 80b-4A] and Rules 204-2(a)(6), 204-2(a)(8), 204-2(a)(10), 204-2(a)(15), 204-2(a)(16), and 204A-1 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§275.204-2(a)(6), 204-2(a)(8), 204-2(a)(10), 204-2(a)(15), 204-2(a)(16), 204A-1]. In addition, Jenkins aided and abetted Locke's violation of those provisions. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission requests that this Court: A. Enter a permanent injunction restraining Locke, Jenkins and each of their agents, servants, employees and attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, including facsimile transmission or overnight delivery service, rom directly or indirectly engaging in the conduct described above, or in conduct of similar purport and effect, in violation of: 1. Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)]; 2. Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5]; 3. Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§80b-6(1), 80b-6(2), 80b-6(4)] and Rule 206(4)-l(a)(5) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §275.206(4)-1(a)(5)]; 4. Section 207 of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-7]; 5. Section 204 of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-4] and Rules 204-2(a)(6), 204-2(a)(8), 204-2(a)(10), 204-2(a)(15), and 204-2(a)(16) 21 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3d2042(2{and . 204A and l l]. to their gotten C. appropriate civil ofthe Act §77t(21 (ofthe ofthe Advisers Act over and tenns ofall such as deems for Plaintiff Street, 23rd Floor MA 02110 573-4590 1, 2009 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§275.204-2(a)(6), 204-2(a)(8), 204-2(a)(10), 204-2(a)(15), 204-2(a)(16)]; and 6. Section 204A of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-4A] and Rule 204A-1 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §275.204A-1]. B. Require Locke and Jenkins to disgorge their ill-gotten gains, plus pre-judgment interest; Order Locke and Jenkins to pay an appropriate civil monetary penalty pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77t(d)], Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78u(d)(3)], and Section 209(e) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-9(e)]; D. Retain jurisdiction over this action to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and decrees that may be entered; and E. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, \ Martin F. Healey (Mass. "Bar No. 227550) Regional Tial Counsel Frank C. Huntington (Mass. Bar No. 544045) Senior Trial Counsel Michele T. Peillo (Mass. Bar No. 629343) Senior Enforcement Attorney Naomi J. Sevilla (Mass. Bar No. 645277) Senior Enforcement Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 33 Arch Street, Floor Boston, MA 02110 (617) 573-8960 (Huntington direct) (617) 573-4590 (fax) Dated: March f, 2009 22 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=5ceb6ce2-9fd5-42a3-a128-3ce0a790ae3d
Download PDF[932KB]
Reference Info:Pleadings | Federal, 1st Circuit, Rhode Island | United States Send