Opinion ID: 3171512
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Post-Misrepresentation Events

Text: Next, Bravata insists that his convictions must be vacated because of events that occurred after the misrepresentations. First, Bravata notes that investors received quarterly interest payments and full or partial redemptions before the company collapsed, showing that he never intended to defraud them of their investments. But “subsequent investigations, repayments, or settlement attempts shed no light on whether a defendant had a previous intent to defraud.” United States v. Carter, 483 F. App’x 70, 75 (6th Cir. 2012). Second, Bravata remarks that Boerkoel, Cowell, Plohr, Scherer, and Vidosics never requested their investment principal back. This, combined with continued acceptance of interest payments, constituted ratification of the investments under the terms set forth in the written documents. Capital Dredge & Dock Corp. v. City of Detroit, 800 F.2d 525 (6th Cir. 1986). Ratification, however, consents to unauthorized acts, not illegal ones. Id. at 530. Investors may not ratify wire fraud. Third, Bravata argues that the wire fraud convictions for investors who rolled their BBC Equities accounts into Phoenix Venture Capital cannot stand. He fails to support this bizarre position, and we examine it no further.