District Judge Vernon S. Broderick

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Puma owned Hudson Capital Partners Corp. (HCP). Hansen was president of RAHFCO Mgmt. Grp LLC. From April 2007 through May 2011 the four engaged in a scheme to defraud investors by convincing them to invest in RAHFCO hedge funds,. In actuality investor funds were used for defendants’ own purposes and to make Ponzi payments to other investors. In its securities fraud action, the SEC sought to hold Puma liable, jointly and severally with HCP, for disgorgement of $1,649,604. The court entered a $1,874,633 judgment—representing the disgorgement amount and prejudgment interest—for which Puma was held jointly and severally liable with now defunct HCP. It found that Hansen, Puma, and Onsa—with whom Hansen operated a now-defunct “feeder fund”—were coconspirators, such that whatever money passed through Hansen to Onsa for trading purposes was fraudulently received in the first instance. Thus, amounts paid to Puma and HCP were not to be offset by amounts directed by Hansen to Onsa during the course of the parties’ scheme for trading purposes. The court agreed with Puma that the SEC’s calculations failed to credit repayments made within the applicable statute of limitations against his profits during the same period.

District Judge Vernon S. Broderick

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Puma owned Hudson Capital Partners Corp. (HCP). Hansen was president of RAHFCO Mgmt. Grp LLC. From April 2007 through May 2011 the four engaged in a scheme to defraud investors by convincing them to invest in RAHFCO hedge funds,. In actuality investor funds were used for defendants’ own purposes and to make Ponzi payments to other investors. In its securities fraud action, the SEC sought to hold Puma liable, jointly and severally with HCP, for disgorgement of $1,649,604. The court entered a $1,874,633 judgment—representing the disgorgement amount and prejudgment interest—for which Puma was held jointly and severally liable with now defunct HCP. It found that Hansen, Puma, and Onsa—with whom Hansen operated a now-defunct “feeder fund”—were coconspirators, such that whatever money passed through Hansen to Onsa for trading purposes was fraudulently received in the first instance. Thus, amounts paid to Puma and HCP were not to be offset by amounts directed by Hansen to Onsa during the course of the parties’ scheme for trading purposes. The court agreed with Puma that the SEC’s calculations failed to credit repayments made within the applicable statute of limitations against his profits during the same period.