Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions
File No. 3-19680
In the Matter of Paramount Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a Live Abundant
2011 - LC - Eddie L. Cressy v. OM Financial Life Insurance Company - Doug Andrew - 2:11-cv-05871 - California, District Court --- [BonkNote]
2012 - LC - Eddie Cressy v. Paramount Financial Services - Doug Andrew - 12-56032
Opening Date - 06/05/2012, Last Docket Entry - 10/14/2015
Originating Case - 0973-2 : 2:11-cv-05871-JAK-JC -
2014 0605 - LC - Eddie L. Cressy vs. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Paramount Financial Services and Douglas Andrew - Case No.: BC514340 - Superior Court of California - Los Angeles
Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - 17p
p99 - [Bonk: Binder16 - 270p] - re : 2012 - LC - 12-56032 - Andrew and Paramount's Ninth Circuit Appeal - Until the proposed settlement is consummated by the parties and final approval is entered by the Court, Andrew and Paramount's Counsel will work with Plaintiffs Counsel, in good faith, to postpone the Ninth Circuit proceedings on, and ultimate judicial resolution of, Andrew and Paramount's pending appeal, Ninth Circuit Case No.
p99 - [Bonk: Binder16 - 270p] - Q. Disclosure by Andrew and Paramount Regarding Amount of Settlement Andrew and Paramount represent and warrant that the amount of consideration they are providing as part of the Settlement is the most they can afford to contribute.
LC - Eddie L. Cressy vs. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Paramount Financial Services, Inc. and Douglas Andrew - BC514340 - Docket
1- NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTNG MOTION TO ENJOIN CLASS MEMBER JOSEPH RICHARDSON FROM PURSUING LITIGATION - 7p
2 - ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ENJOIN CLASS MEMBER JOSEPH RICHARDSON FROM PURSUING LITIGATION - 7p
3 - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE - 1p
4 - 2p
5- SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JOSEPH RICHARDSON - 10p
Fidelity and Guaranty from its files as discovery in Civil Action 5:17-CV-01081, Joseph Richardson, Plaintiff v Fidelity and Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Defendant, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
6 - CLASS COUNSEL'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DATED APRIL 10, 2018 - 5p
7 - PROOF OF SERVICE - 3p
8 - 6p
9 - DECLARATION OF CINDY MCGARITY - 12p
10 - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENJOIN CLASS MEMBER JOSEPH RICHARDSON FROM PURSUING LITIGATION; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MR. RICHARDSON SHOULD NOT BE SO ENJOINED - 6p
11 - - 3p
12 -
13 - RESPONSE OF JOSEPH RICHARDSON TO MOTION TO ENJOIN CLASS MEMBER - 27p
14 - NOTICE OF ERRATA RE MOTION TO ENJOIN CLASS MEMBER JOSEPH RICHARDSON FROM PURSUING LITIGATION; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MR. RICHARDSON SHOULD NOT BE SO ENJOINED- 3p
15 - PROOF OF SERVICE ON CLASS COUNSEL OF: FIDELITY AND GUARANTY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER ENJOINING CLASS MEMBER JOSEPH RICHARDSON FROM PURSUING LITIGATION; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MR. RICHARDSON SHOULD NOT BE SO ENJOINED; AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS - 3p
x - 16 - DECLARATION OF KATHY J. HUANG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENJOIN CLASS MEMBER JOSEPH RICHARDSON FROM PURSUING LITIGATION; 011, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MR. RICHARDSON SHOULD NOT BE SO ENJOINED - 270p - [$40 - 2023 0114]
17 - DECLARATION OF KELLY KRATZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENJOIN CLASS MEMBER JOSEPH RICHARDSON FROM PURSUING LITIGATION; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MR. RICHARDSON SHOULD NOT BE SO ENJOINED - 6p
18 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO ENJOIN CLASS MEMBER JOSEPH RICHARDSON FROM PURSUING LITIGATION; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MR. M RICHARDSON SHOULD NOT BE ENJOINED - 3p
19 - 284
20 -
....
27 - Vol 4 - 305p
....
x - 32 - Vol 3 - 416p - [$40 - 2023 0114]
33 - DECLARATION OF JEFFREY D. DAHL REGARDING NOTICE AND SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES COMPLETED AS OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 - 364p
34 - PLAINTIFF EDDIE L. CRESSY'S NOTICE OF UNOPPOSED MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND CONDITIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION - 294p
x - 35 - Vol 2 - 370p - [$40 - 2023 0114]
x - 36 - 314p - [$40 - 2023 0114]
.........
41 - 46p
2017 - LC - In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, No. 1:17bk12560 (Bankr. D. Del.)
2018 - LC - and In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation Related Case(s): 2:18-cv-00103-DMG-KS (Searles, Donald)
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. et al
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
2:2019cv07426
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.
2020 - LC - Ashmore v. Paramount Financial Services Inc - Doug Andrew
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
Docket - 13p
Entry Number 1 - Complaint - 13p
2020 - LC - Harvey v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company
U.S. District Court - California Northern District (Oakland)
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
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
FIP
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”).
