Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. v. Haddy

January 21, 1998

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

BRAD HADDY, A/K/A BRADLEY J. HADDY BRAD HADDY, APPELLANT IN NO. 96-5589

(D.C. CRIM. NO. 93-CR-00558-3)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ERIC WYNN, APPELLANT IN NO. 96-5622



(D.C. Crim. No. 93-cr-00558-1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

Before: MANSMANN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges, and ALARCON, Circuit Judge. *fn*

MANSMANN, Circuit Judge.

Filed January 21, 1998

Argued October 20, 1997

OPINION OF THE COURT

Eric Wynn and Brad Haddy appeal from judgments in criminal cases entered by the District of New Jersey after a jury found them guilty of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and of substantive crimes relating to manipulation of the stock market. Wynn was also convicted of wire fraud. After sentencing, Wynn and Haddy appealed, raising a number of assertions of error. Two questions -- whether the indictment contained duplicitous counts and whether investor reliance is a requisite of proof to convict under section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934 -- require discussion. Several other issues, involving constructive amendment of the indictment, statute of limitations, severance, willfulness as an element of the securities law violation, character evidence of a witness, prosecutorial misconduct, admission of evidence, jury instructions, competency and sentencing, are without merit and do not warrant further discussion. *fn1

We will affirm the judgments entered. We concludefirst, that the indictment does not suffer from the vice of duplicity. The relevant statutory and regulatory language allow charging an overall scheme to defraud in a single count of an indictment. Second, criminal liability under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act does not require deception of and reliance by an identifiable buyer or seller of securities. The statute's objective of maintaining the integrity of the stock market forbids deceitful practices without mention of whether investors relied upon the manipulative devices in connection with a securities transaction.

Our jurisdiction is granted by 28 U.S.C. Section(s) 1291.

I.

We review the facts in a light favorable to the government, the verdict winner.

A. The Scheme

In approximately 1987, Eric Wynn and Barry Davis formed a company called Princeton Financial Consultants to raise capital for companies and to promote stocks. Through this entity, Wynn and Davis masterminded and directed a number of securities trading scams by designing a plan to artificially raise the prices of particular securities, known as penny stocks. Penny stocks, generally valued at under $5.00 a share, are traded on the over-the-counter market through the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation system (NASDAQ).

Princeton employees called on brokers and traders throughout the country touting different stocks. The participation of collaborating stockbrokers was essential to the effectiveness of the scheme. One of the brokers who followed the Princeton/Wynn recommendations was Brad Haddy, who sold securities through the Minneapolis brokerage firm of L'Argent Securities.

The manipulation involved four basic steps:

(1) control the quantity of stock available for trading; (2) generate demand for the stock; (3) raise the price of the stock; and (4) sell out at a large profit.

Control of the supply of securities was gained by "boxing" the initial public offerings ("IPOs") of securities in particular companies. Boxing refers to an allocation of almost all of the available stock to accounts controlled by "players" -- those who had agreed to trade the stock per the direction of Wynn. One directive required that when the after-trading market commenced -- the public trading that occurs after the close of the IPO -- the players could not sell the stock until Wynn gave the go-ahead. With this restriction, Wynn was able to control the supply of stock which, in turn, enabled him to regulate the price of the stock.

Step two, generation of demand, was primarily accomplished through bribery of brokers. Colluding brokers sold securities to their customers at prices and from brokerage firms designated by Wynn. The brokers were then instructed to hold the particular stock off the market for a period of time (usually six months). In exchange, the brokers received various inducements, including cash, stock below the market price, guaranteed profits and promises of participation in future deals. Another way Wynn created demand for a particular stock was by secretly advising brokers of impending mergers of certain companies before public announcement of the event.

The next step, the price increase, was realized through pre-arranged and restricted trading in which selected brokers bought stock at steadily increasing prices -- again, as directed by Wynn.

Once the price of the manipulated securities rose to certain levels, the inflated value was maintained through deals with "market maker" brokerage firms. These firms represent themselves to the investing public as being willing to sell and trade risky securities. Wynn induced certain market makers to set their buy (bid) and sell (ask) for some securities at prices in accordance with his instructions in exchange for guaranteed trading profits. By manufacturing a demand for these securities, the participants insured their personal profits occasioned by transactions in these securities.

The manipulations detailed in the indictment concern the use of the services of Sheffield Securities, a brokerage firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Sheffield was run by Ronald Martini, who, despite being barred from participation in the securities business, was a secret owner of Sheffield. Wynn entered into an agreement with the principals of Sheffield which allowed him to dominate the initial public offerings of stocks in certain shell companies underwritten by Sheffield. Wynn would also be permitted to direct the after market trading in these particular securities.

Three security offerings in particular epitomize the scope of the illegal activity and are the subjects of counts ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.