SEC – Regulation Best Interest – Reg BI

  • FINRA – Reg BI – [link]
  • 2008 – Report – Rand – SEC – Investor and Industry Perspectives on Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers, Sponsored by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission – 228p
  • 2011 – Report – SEC – Study on Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers, As Required by Section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act – 208p
  • reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201810&RIN=3235-AM35
  • 2018 0418 – SEC – Regulation Best Interest Proposed Rule – 408p
    • 17 CFR Part 240 – Release No. 34-83062; File No. S7-07-18 – RIN: 3235-AM35
    • SUMMARY: We are proposing a new rule under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) establishing a standard of conduct for broker-dealers and natural persons who are associated persons of a broker-dealer when making a recommendation of any securities
      transaction or investment strategy involving securities to a retail customer
  • 2018 – SEC – Comments on Proposed Rule: Regulation Best Interest – [Release No. 34-83062; File No. s7-07-18] – sec.gov/comments/s7-07-18/s70718.htm
  • 2018 0430 – SEC – Memorandum from the Office of Commissioner Hester M. Peirce regarding an April 30, 2018, meeting with representatives of the Institute for the Fiduciary Standard – 26p
    • It appears the industry is coming in this direction on the brokerage front. There is a great awareness of the importance of conflicts.
      • However, in insurance, there has not been much change from how it was twenty years ago.
  • 2018 0803 – ACLI – SEC – Re: Proposed Regulation Best Interest (“Reg. BI”) – 85p
    • 2 Since 2007, ACLI submitted input on four SEC actions concerning broker-dealers and investment adviser standards of conduct, including:
      • ACLI’s response to the SEC Chairman’s Request for Information about Standards of Conduct for
        Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers (Oct. 3, 2017) found at https://www.sec.gov/comments/ia-bdconduct-standards/cll4-2640466-161282.pdf.
      • ACLI’s July 5, 2013 Submission in response to the SEC’s Request for Data and Information on Brokers,
        Dealers and Investment Advisers;
      • ACLI’s August 30, 2010 Submission in response to the SEC’s request for information on its Study on the Responsibilities of Brokers, Dealers, and Investment Advisers in fulfillment of Section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Act; and
      • ACLI’s December 13, 2007 Submission in response to the RAND Study on Broker-Dealer and Investment Advisory Issues.
    • ACLI’s RAND Study Submission (and those of other commentators) does not appear to be available on the SEC’s website or through RAND.
      • The RAND report included scant, if any, reference to the role life insurance Reg. BI regarding appropriate conduct standards for broker-dealers.
      • Our submission focuses on this initiative from the perspective of life insurers, their products, their distributors and their customers to ensure the regulation provides an inclusive, business model neutral framework that helps Americans achieve financial and retirement security.
      • We will also offer comments separately on Proposed Form CRS3 and the SEC’s Proposed Interpretation for Investment Adviser Standards of Conduct4 and its request for input on related questions. 
  • 2018 0926 – GOV (House) – Oversight of the SEC’s Division of Investment Management, Bill Huizenga (R-MI)
    • [PDF-43p, [VIDEO-YouTube – 01:40:14 – Starts at 31:00]
    • SEC – Dalia Blass, Director, Division of Investment Management – Testimony – p26-43
      • (p36) – Variable Insurance Product Summary Prospectus
        • Investors in variable annuities and other variable insurance products often have to navigate a complex set of disclosures about the variable contract and underlying investment options when deciding whether to invest.
        • The Division is considering a recommendation that the Commission propose rules designed to provide investors with more user-friendly, layered disclosure about variable insurance products.
        • Variable insurance products are generally more complex than other retail investment products, like mutual funds, because they combine both investment and insurance features.
        • In addition, the products typically offer a number of underlying fund investment options that have their own fees, and often include a variety of optional features, like living benefit riders that have additional charges.
        • The Division is considering whether to recommend a new summary prospectus that would help investors better understand these products’ costs and risks, and also produce cost savings that could be passed on to investors. 
    • (p1) – Huizenga – variable insurance products
    • Relationship Summary
    • financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=408963
  • 2019 1212 – CRS – Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI): The SEC’s Rule for Broker-Dealers (R46115) – Version 1 – 29p
  • 2019 0314 – GOV (House) – Putting Investors First? Examining the SEC’s Best Interest Rule, Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY)
    • [PDF-185p, VIDEO-YouTube-02:12:00]
    • House – Committee on Financial Services – Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets
  • 2019 0605 – SEC – Regulation Best Interest: The Broker-Dealer Standard of Conduct – Final rule – 770p
    • 17 CFR Part 240, Release No. 34-86031; File No. S7-07-18
      RIN 3235-AM35

Mytinger

  • Amway
  • Casselberry and Mytinger
  • Lee Mytinger
  • Mytinger Corporation
  • Nutrilite
  • Robert Mytinger
  • 1954 – LC – Seventh Circuit: Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc. v. Nummanna Laboratories Corp., 215 F.2d 382 (7th Cir. 1954);
  • 1958 – LC – Ewing v. Mytinger re: Stern’s Argument April 19, 1958, April 19, 1958
  • 1961– FTC – In the Matter of Mytinger & Casselberry; Inc. et al, Order, etc, In Regard to the Alleged Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and Sec. 3 of the Clayton Act, [Nutrilite] – 31p
    • Docket 6962. Complaint, Nov. 26, 1957 – Decision, Sept. 28, 1960
  • 1961 – LC – Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., Lee S. Mytinger and William S. Casselberry  v. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
  • 1948 – Press-Telegram – 11 Jun 1948, Fri ·Page 15
  • 1955 – Press-Telegram – 18 Oct 1955, Tue ·Page 15
  • 1962 – LR – Trade Regulation-Restraint of Trade-Exclusive Dealing Contracts of Vitamin Distributor Having 8.6 Per Cent of Market are Violative of Section 3 of Clayton Act. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc. v. FTC (D.C. Cir. 1962), [Nutrlite], by William F. Coyle – 7p
  • 1963 – LR – Antitrust Law-Exclusive Dealing Arrangements-Employment by Courts of Dual Tests in Applying Section 3 of the Clayton Act, by Walter A. Urick – [Nutrilite] – 5p

Pyramid Scheme – Legal Cases

  • 1975 – LC – Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 86 F.T.C. 1106, 1178, 1181
  • 1996 – LC – Webster v. Omnitron International, Inc., 79 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 1996), pyramid scheme test
  • Pacer – FreeLife International; Inc American Educational Music Publications Incorporated; et al 22007cv02210 Arizona District Court 11/15/2007 04/05/201
    • 2007 – LC – FreeLife International, Inc= a Connecticut corporation vs American Educational Music Publications Inc.; David Lucas Burge 
    • 2:07-cv-02210-DGC
    • CV07-2210-PHX-DGC
    • Maricopa County Superior Court, case number CV2Dü7-01
    • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRCT OF ARIZONA
    • Order – 11p
    • FreeLife has filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants; rebuttal expert. Jon Taylor Dkt *165
    • Doc 162 – Transcript – FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE – 46p
    • Doc 165- (See J Taylor, “Comparing Recruiting MLM’s with No-product Pyramid Schemes. and with Gambling’ (attached hereto as Exhibit D)
    • E- Taylor produced a modified version of and documents related to this study in response to a subpoena duces tecum in this case (Attached hereto as Exhibit E)
    • F – FreeLife document, the Compensation Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit F)
    • Taylor opined that decline in sales is the result of its having reached market saturation prior to the launch of the Breathe website
    • 2 Taylor’s Opinions About “Loss Rates Are Not Relevant
    • One of Taylor’s opinions is that the majority” of MLM participants lose money (Taylor Dep at 15) That opinion has nothing to do with this case FreeLife is claiming as damages only those monies that FreeLife corporate last as a result of Defendants’ conduct. FreeLife is not claiming as damages any income last by Marketing Executives There is no “fit” between this opinion and any of the issues in this case.
    • Cheerleading for Burge Many Taylor opinions are just cheerleading for Burge
      • Burge is performing a “valuable public service” through the Breathe website
      • It is “definitely in the public interest’ that Burge “be allowed” and to continue’ with his website
      • Burge is a “true hero” because he is “taking such risks in standing up for consumer protection”
      • Burge should be for his courage and integrity in standing up to one of the evils impacting overly-trusting consumers”,
      • Burge’s efforts to “expose FreeLife for what it is should not be stopped but should be encouraged'” and
      • ‘It took great courage to do what Mr Burge dicf’, congratulate Mr Burge far his courage
    • J – Sheffield is FreeLife’s industry expert on the multi-level marketing industry. His testimony is limited to the impact that a website like Breathe would have and has had an a multi-level marketing business like FreeLife (See Sheffield Report at 14-17) (attached as Exhibit J hereto)
    • K- (McDonough Dep at 45 (Exhibit K hereto)
    • L – Von Bargen Report (Exhibit L hereto)
    • Doc 165-1 – Expert Witness Report – Jon M. Taylor – 68p
  • 2012 – LC – FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. BURNLOUNGE -OPINION – 24p
    • 12-55926. D.C. No. 2:07-cv-03654-GW-FMO
    • 12-56197, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-03654-GW-FMO
    • 12-56228, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-03654- GW-FMO
    • The panel affirmed the district court’s order granting a permanent injunction against BurnLounge, Inc.’s continued operation based on the court’s holding that BurnLounge’s
      multi-level marketing business was an illegal pyramid scheme in violation of § 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
    • The panel held that BurnLounge’s scheme satisfied both
      prongs of the Webster v. Omnitron International, Inc., 79
      F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 1996), pyramid scheme test

AIL – American Income Life

  • ailife.com/   
  • About
    • American Income Life Insurance is a wholly owned subsidiary of Globe Life Inc. (NYSE: GL), an S&P 500 Company.
    • American Income Life Insurance Company is an international company protecting working families in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and through our wholly-owned subsidiary, National Income Life Insurance Company in New York.
  • 2024 0415 – InsuranceNewsNet.com – Globe Life accused of rampant insurance fraud by short-seller report, by John Hilton – [link]
    • 2024 0411 – Fuzzy Panda – Globe Life (GL): Executives Disregarded Wide-Ranging “Insurance Fraud” While They Received Millions in Undisclosed Kick-Back Scheme – [link]

DOL – Letters – Comments – Testimony

DOL – Fiduciary – Government Hearings

  • 2016 – Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R-MO) discusses how the Administration’s “Fiduciary Rule” is really just Obamacare for Americans’ savings accounts. – youtube.com/watch?v=-_NeKxGmvpw
  • 2011 0211 – GOV (House) – Emerging trends at the National Labor Relations Board, Phil Roe (R-TN)
    • [PDF-xp-GooglePlay, VIDEO-?]
    • House – Committee on Education and the Workforce – Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions
    • 3 See NLRB v. Insur. Agents’ Int’l Union, 361 U.S. 477, 489 (1960), where the Supreme Court referred to the bargaining contemplated by the Act, and observed that the parties “proceed from contrary and to an extent antagonistic viewpoints and concepts of self-interest. * * * The presence of economic weapons in reserve, and their actual exercise on occasion by the parties, is part and parcel of the system that the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts have recognized.”
  • 2011 0712 – GOV (Senate) – Enhanced Investor Protection After The Financial Crisis, Tim Johnson, (D-SD)  —  [BonkNote]
    • [PDF-132, VIDEO-Senate Page]
    • banking.senate.gov/hearings/enhanced-investor-protection-after-the-financial-crisis
    • Surveying The Investor Protection Provisions Contained In The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act One Year After Its Implementation
    • Senate – Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
      • 2011 01 – GAO – Consumer Finance: Regulatory Coverage Generally Exists for Financial Planners, but Consumer Protection Issues Remain, Government Accountability Office – Full Report – 51p
    • ⇒ 02:05:00 – David Massey – NASAA – North American Securities Administrators Association – Best Interest – Conflicts of Interest – Holding self as a Fiduciary. – 11p
    • 02:06:00 – DOL – Fiduciary Rule – Lack of Coordination – SEC – 
  • 2011 0726 – GOV (House) – Redefining ‘Fiduciary: Assessing The Impact Of The Labor Department’s Proposal On Workers And Retirees, David P. Roe (R-TN)
    • [PDF-150p. 
    • House – Committee on Education and the Workforce – Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions
  • 2013 1218 – Testimony – ACLI – GOV (Senate) – The Role of Social Security, Defined Benefits, and Private Retirement Accounts in the Face of the Retirement Crisis – 63p
  • 2013 0131 – GOV (Senate) – CSPAN – Retirement Savings
    • [PDF-p, VIDEO-CSPAN]
    • Senate – Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
  • 2014 0916 – GOV (Senate)
    • [PDF-xp, VIDEO-CSPAN]
    • Senate – Senate Finance Committee
  • 2015 0617 – GOV (House) – Restricting Access To Financial Advice: Evaluating The Costs And Consequences For Working Families And Retirees, David P. Roe (R-TN)
  • 2015 0721 – GOV (Senate) – Restricting Advice and Education: DOC’s Unworkable Investment Proposal for American Families and Retirees, Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
    • (PDF-64p,  VIDEO-CSPAN-01:43:18]
    • Litan. Robert, Economist and Attorney
    • Schneider, Peter, President, Primerica Inc.,
    • Miller, Darlene, President and CEO. PERMAC Industries
    • Puritz, Scott, Managing Director, Rebalance IRA,
    • Senate – Committee on Health, Education, Labor, And Pensions
      – Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
  • 2015 0930 – GOV (House) – DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S PROPOSED FIDUCIARY RULE, Peter Roskam (R-IL) 
  • 2019 0514 – GOV (Senate) – CSPAN – Senate Hearing on Retirement and Financial Security

 

  • 2024 0215 – GOV (House) – Protecting American Savers and Retirees from DOL’s Regulatory Overreach, Bob Good (R-VA)
    • [PDF-, VIDEO-YouTube-02:06:21]
    • edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=410108
    • Opening statement:
    • Witnesses:
      • NAIC – Doug Ommen, Insurance Commissioner, Iowa Insurance Division – 6p
      • Groom Law Group – Thomas Roberts, Principal, Groom Law Group – 6p
      • PIABA –  Joseph C. Peiffer, President, Public Investors Advocate Bar Association  —  [BonkNote]  —  30p
      • IRI – Jason Berkowitz, Chief Legal and Regulatory Affairs Officer, Insured Retirement Institute – 197p
    • 25 – NAIC – Doug Ommen, Insurance Commissioner, Iowa Insurance Division
    • Subcommittees on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions; Higher Education and Workforce Development

IRA Reboot

  • 2021 – LC – Dolores Stegelin, Wayne Gugel, and Anne H. Rack v. Pacific Life Insurance Company, Minnesota Life, Securian, Shurwest, Melanie Schulze-Miller, Chris Dixon, Few Casson, 
    • Civil Action – 3:21-cv-01444-BHH
  • 2022 0302 – Reif Law Firm – 12 Million Awarded to Two California Senior Citizen Victims Of Insurance Sales Scam – [link]
    • 2019 – LC – Gloria S. Rodillas v. CMAM, Inc. dba Heritage Financial Services, et al, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 19STCV21497
    • 2021 – LC – GLORIA SALVADOR RODILLAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SHURWEST, LLC, et al., Defendants and Respondents. COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE, May 20, 2021
      • B304834
      • Reif Law Group, Brandon S. Reif, Ohia A. Amadi, and Lisa M. Foutch for Plaintiff and Appellant. DLA Piper, Jeanette Barzelay, Evi Schueller, and Hector E. Corea for Defendants and Respondents.
    • 2021 – LC – Gloria Salvador Rodillas v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company
      • California Central District Court – Stanley Mosk Courthouse
      • 2:2021cv09256
      • 11/29/2021 to 02/25/2022 
    • 2019 – LC – Emma A. McKinnon v. CMAM, Inc. dba Heritage Financial Services, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 19STCV21598.
      • The disputes involved an insurance program, known as the IRA Reboot, which targeted vulnerable senior citizens visited by insurance agents in their homes.
      • During these visits, the agents recommended the elderly clients to liquidate their assets, including retirement accounts, cash-on-hand, other insurance products, and securities, to invest in Future Income Payments, Inc. (FIP) and Minnesota Life Insurance Company (MLIC) life insurance policies.
  • – LC – KOLETTE A. PAGE VS MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
    • Pacer
    • Robert Rikard
  • 2020 – The Bombshell Battleplan: How to Defend Against the IRS’ Secret Weapon, by David Phillips and Tom Phillips – 46p
    • p11 – Ed Slott – CPA, National IRA Expert – “Your retirement account beneficiary form is the single most important document in your estate plan because it guarantees that the individuals you name as beneficiaries of what may be the single largest asset you own – your retirement savings – will indeed get that asset when you are gone.”
    • p26 – The IRA Reboot
      • Family Bank Strategy
      • RMD Leverage Strategy
      • p30 – The RMD Leverage Strategy and The IRA Reboot have been a focus of my firm, Estate Planning Specialists for over 30 years.
  • – LC – 36.2–Ayers-v-Dixon-Complaint.pdf – Receiver Kohn FIP
receiverkohnfip.com
http://www.receiverkohnfip.com › pleadings › 36….
PDF
Jan 24, 2020 – … IRA Reboot Program. 2. ELECTRONICALLY FILED – 2019 Apr 17 10:21 AM – ANDERSON – COMMON PLEAS – CASE#2019CP0400752. Exhibit B. 6:19-cv-01112-BHH …
  •  – LC – Galen Hess and Jean Hess v. Edward Storer, Edward Storer & Associates, Financial Gravity Wealth, Faw Casson & Co., LLP, Shurwest, LLC, and Minnesota Life Insurance Company,
    • – LC – Shurwest, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. MJSM Financial, LLC and Melanie SchulzeMiller, 
    • Civil Action No.: 2018-CP-23-04010
    • SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF GREENVILLE
    • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Doug Andrew - Lawsuits

  • 1982-2023 - [More Below]
    • 1982 - LC - Investors Life Insurance Company v. Doug Andrew
    • 2011-2014 - LC - Eddie Cressy v. Doug Andrew - OM Financial Life Insurance Company - Fidelity & Guaranty Life  ---  [BonkNote]
    • 2012 - LC - Meiling Children Ltd. v. Douglas Andrew and his company, Paramount Financial Services
      • 2012 0809 - CourthouseNews.com - Radio Financial Guru Sued for $427,000, by Johnny Bonner - [link]
    • 2021 - State of Idaho, Department of Finance, Securities Bureau vs. Douglas Reid Andrew - 2017-7-15-F - Paramount Financial Services, Inc. D/B/A Live Abundant; Aaron Reid Andrew; Marcus Kent Maxfield; Jeremy Alma Watson; Gregory Duckwitz; J. Scott Reynolds; and Leland Whiting
      • Complaint - 27p 
      • Marcus Kent Maxfield - Settlement - 14p
      • FIP - Future Income Payments and Woodbridge
      • Docket No. 2017-7-15-F
      • STIPULATED ORDER RESOLVING ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT RE RESPONDENT MARCUS KENT MAXFIELD
      • The Department and one of the Respondents - Marcus Kent Maxfield ("Respondent Maxfield") -- have agreed to resolve this matter without a public hearing (resolution of the matter with other Respondents has or will be addressed in separate settlement documents).
    • 2020 0129 - SEC - In the Matter of Paramount Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a Live Abundant - [Doug Andrew] - Release No. 88070 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING - File No. 3-19680 - [Woodbridge]  ---  [BonkNote]  ---  3p
      • 2018 - LC - SEC - Live Abundant and Aaron Andrew - [Woodbridge] - California - Case 2: 18-cv-l 0481, U.S. District, Central District of California
    • 2020 - LC - Ashmore v. Paramount Financial Services Inc - FIP - Future Income Payments - [Doug Andrew]  ---  [BonkNote]
    • 2022 - LC - STATE OF UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL - [Sean Reyes] vs. ANDREW, DOUGLAS REID - 221903116
      • Case Number - 221903116 - State Felony  
      • Filed - 2022-03-30
      • THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT - SALT LAKE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
      • SALT LAKE, STATE OF UTAH 
      • Current Assigned Judge - PATRICK CORUM
    • 2023 - LC - Kyle HOLDAWAY vs. LIVE ABUNDANT - [Doug Andrew] - 230905795
      • Case Number - 230905795 - Contracts
      • Complaint - 18p
        • The State of Utah brought criminal charges against Andrew and Andelin in the Utah Third District, Hon. Patrick Corum
          • Utah v. Douglas Reid Andrew - No. 221903116 - <WishList - Where? - not on https://apps.utcourts.gov/XchangeWEB/SearchServlet as of 2025 0704>
          • Utah v. Anthony Andelin - No. 221903125
        • Holdaway was a prosecution witness in a preliminary hearing held on or about April 19, 2023 to April 21, 2023, Room N42, Matheson Courthouse. In July 2023, representatives of the Utah Attorney General's office indicated the following update to Holdaway:
      • ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE [Bonk: re: Allianz Life, not Doug Andrew] -  30905795 - 2p
        • Plaintiff 's claims against Allianz Life are hereby dismissed with prejudice and Allianz Life is dismissed from this lawsuit.

  • 2017 - LC - In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, No. 1:17bk12560 (Bankr. D. Del.)
  • 2018 - LC - In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation Related Case(s): 2:18-cv-00103-DMG-KS (Searles, Donald)
  •  2018 - LC - SEC v
  • 2019 - LC - James Paul Braybrook v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company et al
    • 2:19-cv-01137-SVW-JPR
    • Stephen V. Wilson, presiding
    • Date filed: 02/14/2019, Date terminated: 06/18/2019, Date of last filing: 08/27/2019
    • JAMES PAUL BRAYBROOK, an individual and on behalf of his individual retirement account, Plaintiffs, v. MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation; AARON R. ANDREW, an individual; PARAMOUNT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. dba LIVE ABUNDANT, a Utah corporation; and DOES 1-10 Defendants.
    • Doc 1 - LC - 2:19-cv-01137-SVW-JPR -  Doc 1 - Braybrook v Minnesota Mutual - Doug Andrew COMPLAINT FOR: 1. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 3. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 4. CAL. FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE 5. VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA BUS. & PROF. CODE §17200, ET SEQ. - DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 18p
    • Doc 28 - REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Los Angeles, California - Monday, March 25, 2019 - 18p
    • Doc 31 - NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO VACATE ALL DEADLINES 
  • 2018 - LC -  Honig v. Kornfeld - Doug Andrew
    • re: Woodbridge
    • 9:18-cv-80019-DMM - MDL - Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 01/06/2018 - Open
    • Donald M. Middlebrooks, presiding
    • Date filed: 01/06/2018, Date terminated: 06/07/2019
    • Doc 1 - Complaint - 38p 
    • Doc 75 - Defendants Paramount Financial Services, Inc.'s and Douglas R. Andrew's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law - 75p
    • Doc 87 - Defendants Paramount Financial Services, Inc.'s and Douglas R. Andrew's Unopposed Motion to Attend the Scheduling Conference Telephonically - 7p
  • 2018 - LC - Securities and Exchange Commission v. Robert S. Davis Jr. - [Woodbridge]
    • 2:18-cv-10481-FMO-JC
    • Fernando M. Olguin, presiding
    • Date filed: 12/18/2018, Date terminated: 02/18/2020, Date of last filing: 06/29/2023
    • Doc 1 - Complaint - 18p
      • Andrew and Live Abundant: From November 2015 through July 2017 - approximately $1.8 million in transaction-based commissions earned as a result of raising approximately $43 million from 350 investors in 9 states.
    • Doc 174 - JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT AARON R. ANDREW - 6p
    • Doc 191 - FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT AARON R. ANDREW -
      • IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Andrew is liable for disgorgement of $136,539.85 representing net profits gained as a result of the conduct alleged in the Amended Complaint, together with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $19,587.65, and a civil penalty in the amount of $75,000 pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21(d)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
      • Defendant shall satisfy this obligation by paying $231,127.50 to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the terms of the payment schedule set forth in paragraph II below after entry of this Final Judgment. 
    • Doc 192 - Filed & Entered: 01/21/2021 - FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT PARAMOUNT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., D/B/A LIVE ABUNDANT
      • IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Live Abundant is liable for disgorgement of $647,197.41 representing net profits gained as a result of the conduct alleged in the Amended Complaint, together with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $103,466.90, and a civil penalty in the amount of $100,000 pursuant to Section20(d) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21(d)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendant shall satisfy this obligation by paying $850,664.31 to the Securities and Exchange Commission within 30 days after entry of this Final Judgment. (iv)
  • 2019 - LC - Woodbridge Liquidation Trust v. Aaron Andrew - 19-50186-JKS - Docket - 5p
    • Date filed: 03/29/2019 Date of last filing: 05/25/2021
    • Case type: ap Related bankruptcy: 17-12560-JKS Bankruptcy Judge: J Kate Stickles
    • Doc 1 - COMPLAINT OBJECTING TO CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMING FOR AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF AVOIDABLE TRANSFERS AND FOR EQUITABLE SUBORDINATION - 31p
  • 2019 - LC - Raul A. Ramirez v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company - Doug Andrew - Paramount - Leland Blair Whiting
    • 2:2019cv07426
    • re: FIP - Future Income Payments
    • California Central District Court
    • 08/27/2019, 09/10/2020
    • Document 1 - Complaint - Filed 08/27/19 - 18p
      • PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR:
        • 1. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
        • 2. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
        • 3. INTENTIONAL DECEIT/FRAUD
    • Document 3 - Notice of Related Cases - 3p
    • Document 17 - Answer to Complaint - 10p
      • 26. Defendants admit that the "strategy was presented to the Plaintiff as a tax vehicle," but deny that it was presented as "part of an investment strategy." Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 26.
      • 28. Defendants admit they were aware Plaintiff was funding his IUL with "qualified funds and non-qualified cash savings." Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny whether the "monthly premiums were derived about one-half from Plaintiff's IRA and one half from his non-qualified retirement savings at his parishioner's credit union account." Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 28.
      • 32. Defendants deny that "[it] (FIP) was an unlawful, concentrated and illiquid investment in a high-risk, non-qualified asset."
      • 38. Defendants admit that "[p]rior to purchasing the life insurance policy, Plaintiff informed Defendants . . . that he intended to fund the premiums with qualified tax-deferred assets and liquid retirement savings." Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 38.
      • 41. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs, with the assistance of Whiting, completed and submitted a "policy application through Allianz on behalf of Plaintiff" and that the "Alliance policy application was declined due to Plaintiff's medical history and preexisting condition." Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 41.
      • 45. Defendants deny that they "placed" Plaintiff in the "FIP structured cash flow product." Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 45.
      • 46. Defendants deny that they "placed" Plaintiff "into the PMLIC IUL policy and FIP." Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 46 and therefore deny the same.
      • AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
    • Document 20 - DEFENDANT THE PENN INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - Filed 10/24/19 - 17p
      • 30. Referring to the allegations of paragraph 30, admits that it issued an Accumulation Builder Advantage IUL policy ("the Policy"), with an issue date of May 30, 2017, which policy contained an Application Amendment, signed by Plaintiff on June 12, 2017, amending the January 28, 2017 application in Section C, to reflect a supplemental term amount of $177,182, a face amount (excluding riders) of $708,728, and a total initial coverage amount of $885,910. PIA further admits that the Policy listed a planned initial monthly premium of $6,346.39, with a guideline annual premium of $41,427.70, and on the Policy Specifications Page (which is page 3 of the Policy), there is an Overloan Protection Benefit rider listing a minimum age of 75, minimum years of 15, specified loan percentage of 96%, and a one time charge of 3.5%. PIA further admits that the Policy otherwise speaks for itself. Except as so admitted, PIA denies the allegations in paragraph 30.
      • 44 .............. With respect to the third sentence of paragraph 44, PIA alleges that, based on the information supplied with the application, which it relied upon, PIA had no basis or obligation to make any inquiry, protest or question Plaintiff's payment of the insurance premiums and that it had no information that any premiums were being made from tax-deferred funds, assets or savings, and except as so alleged, PIA denies the allegations in the third sentence of paragraph 44.
      • 48. Referring to the allegations of paragraph 48, PIA denies that it has ever "had a history of preying on senior citizens," or had any information or belief that other defendants named in this action had such a history.
      • 49. Referring to the allegations of paragraph 49, PIA denies that it had any information that FIP was being investigated by regulators due to predatory lending practices.
      • 54. Referring to the allegations of paragraph 54, PIA denies that any of the "knowledge" set forth in the allegations is or can be imputed to PIA (or Penn Mutual).
      • AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST DEFENSE
        • FIRST DEFENSE - (FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FOR RELIEF)
          • 1. PIA alleges that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
        • SECOND DEFENSE - (ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF OTHERS)
          • 2. PIA alleges that the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiff, if any, were the direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct or other actions of parties other than PIA, including but not limited to Plaintiff. Accordingly, PIA's liability, if any, is limited in direct proportion to the percentage of fault, if any, actually attributable to PIA.
        • THIRD DEFENSE - (FAILURE TO MITIGATE)
          • 3. PIA alleges that Plaintiff has failed, refused, and/or neglected to take reasonable and/or necessary steps to mitigate any damages allegedly incurred as a result of PIA's alleged conduct, thus barring, or at least reducing, any recovery in this action.
      • Document 39 - Notice of Settlement - Filed 07/27/20 - 2p
  • 2020 - LC - Ashmore v. Paramount Financial Services Inc - FIP - Doug Andrew  ---  [BonkNote]
    • re: FIP - Future Income Payments
    • 20-cv-01357
    • 04/08/2020, 12/08/2023
    • BEATTIE B. ASHMORE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER FOR SCOTT A. KOHN, FUTURE INCOME PAYMENTS, LLC, JOSEPH P. HIPP, KRAIG S. AIKEN, AND DAVID N. KENNEALLY
    • South Carolina District Court
    • ecf.scd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/HistDocQry.pl?110418531781226-L_1_0-1
    • Docket - 13p
    • Entry Number 1 - Complaint - 13p 
  • 2020 - LC - Harvey v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company
    • U.S. District Court - California Northern District (Oakland)
      • CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:20−cv−03146−SBA
      • Assigned to: Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong
      • Doc 33 - PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, Filed 08/05/20 - 24p
      • Doc 34 - Defendants Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company and The Penn Insurance and Annuity Company's Answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - Filed 08/07/20 - 24p
      • Doc 35 - Douglas Andrew, Paramount Financial Services, Inc., And Karl M. Nelson's Answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - Filed 08/13/20 - 12p
      • Doc 36 - Notice of Settlement - Filed 10/23/20 - 2p
    • 2020 - LC - PENN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation; DOUGLAS ANDREW, an individual; PARAMOUNT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a Utah corporation dba UTAH PARAMOUNT FINANCIAL INSURANCE SERVICES and dba LIVE ABUNDANT; KARL M. NELSON, an individual; and DOES
      • Case in other court: Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 20CV364939 
  • 2020 - SEC - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING - In the Matter of Paramount Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a Live Abundant, Respondent - File No. 3-19680 - Woodbridge
    • 2020 0129 - SEC - Paramount, dba Live Abundant - Release No. 88070 - Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant To Section 15(B) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934, Making Findings, And Imposing Remedial Sanctions - 3p
      • 2. On January 17, 2020, a judgment was entered by consent against Live Abundant permanently enjoining it from future violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Robert "Lute" Davis et al., Civil Action Number 2:18-cv-10481-FMO-JC, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
      • 3. For the Fund Offerings, Andrew and Live Abundant received a 5% sales commission that Woodbridge purposefully mischaracterized as a "marketing bonus," to avoid the appearance of paying transaction based commissions. Andrew and Live Abundant received approximately $1.8 million in transaction based commissions from Woodbridge earned as a result of raising approximately $43 million through the sale of Woodbridge securities to investors. 
      • IV - Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, that Respondent Live Abundant be, and hereby is barred from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization; and 
  • 2021 1005 - LC - Continental Casualty Company v. Paramount Financial Services
    • 2:2021cv00585
    • Filed: October 5, 2021
    • Court: US District Court for the District of Utah
    • Doc 2 - Complaint - 21p
      • re: FIP - Future Income Payments
      • Woodbridge Claims
      • Hybrid Lawsuit 
      • against Aaron Andrew, Emron Andrew, Sharee Andrew, Gregory Duckwitz, Karl Nelson, Paramount Financial Services, J. Scott Reynolds, Jeremy Watson (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AUTDC-4131781) filed by Continental Casualty Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Master Policy, #2 Exhibit 2 - Certificates of Insurance, #3 Exhibit 3 - FIP Claims, #4 Exhibit 4 - SEC Order, #5 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet) Assigned to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett (Hill, Rebecca)
      • 34. The Master Policy excludes coverage for any Loss in connection with any Claim "based upon, directly or indirectly arising out of, or in any way involving the use of or investment in any security that is not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission."  Id., § XVI.W (the "Unregistered Security Exclusion").
      • LC - 48. - LC - Duennebeil v. Paramount Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a Live Abundant, et al., Case No. 180903806 (Dist. Ct., Salt Lake Cty., Utah)
      • SEC - 50. According to the Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions, entered on January 29, 2020, in In the Matter of Paramount Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a Live Abundant, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-19680, before the Securities and Exchange Commission, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 4, "between from at least November 2015 and July 2017, Live Abundant and [Aaron] Andrew offered and sold Woodbridge securities," and "[n]one of Woodbridge's securities offerings were registered with the Commission."
      • HYBRID LAWSUIT - 52. Numerous plaintiffs filed lawsuits against the Insureds that have been consolidated into the matter styled Ababat, et al. v. Paramount Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 190906436 (Dist. Ct., Salt Lake Cty., Utah) (the "Hybrid Lawsuit").
    • Doc 10 - Answer - 44p
    • Document 68 - MOTION HEARING/ORAL RULING VIA ZOOM BEFORE THE HONORABLE HOWARD C. NIELSON, JR. - 29p
  • 2019 - LC - James and Cheryl Hall v. LSW, Devin Patel, Charles Oliver, Hidden Wealth Management
    • Case - 16-2819, Division  - CV-A
    • File #: 161273239 -  DEFENDANT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST'S

      MOTION TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT WITNESS STEVEN E. M. ROTH - https://trellis.law/doc/184379694/motion-deft-life-insurance-company-southwests-to-preclude-testimony-pltf-expert-witness-steven-e-m-roth

  • Devin Patel
    • Pacer
    • Patel, Devin (dft) 3:2022cv02349 Cruz et al v. Resolute Capital Partners LTD LLC et al Texas Northern District Court 10/19/2022 04/20/2023
        Patel, Devin (dft) 2:2020po00189 USA vs Patel - Devin Patel Washington Western District Court 11/10/2020 11/10/2020