Securities and Exchange Commission v. Joseph J. Monterosso , 756 F.3d 1326 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •           Case: 13-10341    Date Filed: 06/30/2014   Page: 1 of 26
    [PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    Nos. 13-10341, 13-10342, 13-10464
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 0:07-cv-61693-JAL
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOSEPH J. MONTEROSSO,
    LUIS VARGAS,
    LAWRENCE E. LYNCH,
    Defendants - Appellants,
    GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS CORP., et al.,
    Consolidated Defendants.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (June 30, 2014)
    Case: 13-10341    Date Filed: 06/30/2014    Page: 2 of 26
    Before PRYOR, JORDAN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    This court issued an unpublished opinion in this case on March 3, 2014.
    Appellee, the Securities and Exchange Commission, subsequently moved to
    publish the opinion. Appellee’s motion is GRANTED. We vacate our prior,
    unpublished opinion and substitute the following opinion for publication.
    Joseph J. Monterosso, Luis Vargas, and Lawrence E. Lynch appeal summary
    judgment for the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the remedies
    and penalties imposed for their participation in a fraudulent revenue scheme. We
    affirm.
    I. BACKGROUND
    A. Formation and Operation of GlobeTel Communications Corp.
    This case involves the SEC’s investigation into a fraudulent scheme to
    generate fictitious revenue for a Florida-based, publicly traded,
    telecommunications (“telecom”) company formerly known as GlobeTel
    Communications Corp. (“GlobeTel”). Timothy Huff was GlobeTel’s chief
    executive officer (“CEO”), Thomas Jimenez served as GlobeTel’s chief financial
    officer (“CFO”) until March 2006, and Lynch was GlobeTel’s chief operating
    2
    Case: 13-10341    Date Filed: 06/30/2014   Page: 3 of 26
    officer (“COO”) from August 2004 until March 2006 and CFO from March to
    October 2006. Monterosso managed GlobeTel’s wholesale telecom business from
    June 2004 to September 2006, served as president until July 2006 for one of
    GlobeTel’s subsidiaries, Centerline Communications (“Centerline”), and served as
    GlobeTel’s COO from July 2006 to May 2007. Monterosso directly reported to
    GlobeTel’s CEO.
    Vargas was the vice president of Centerline and the owner of another
    telecom company, Carrier Services, Inc. (“CSI”). Vargas assisted Monterosso in
    running GlobeTel’s wholesale telecom business; he was also responsible for CSI’s
    accounting and for preparing and forwarding CSI’s and Centerline’s sales
    documentation to GlobeTel.
    In June 2004, Huff and Monterosso negotiated a joint venture agreement
    between GlobeTel and CSI, in which CSI would generate $25 million in revenue
    for Centerline in exchange for 5 million shares of GlobeTel stock. Pursuant to the
    agreement, neither CSI nor Monterosso would receive payment unless Centerline
    generated $25 million in revenue. Monterosso thereafter ran GlobeTel’s wholesale
    telecom business and negotiated agreements on behalf of GlobeTel and its
    subsidiaries, Centerline, Volta Communications (“Volta”), and Lonestar
    Communications (“Lonestar”).
    3
    Case: 13-10341        Date Filed: 06/30/2014      Page: 4 of 26
    B. The Fictitious “Off-Net” Revenue Scheme
    1. Origin and Operation
    Between 2004 and 2006, GlobeTel filed periodic reports describing its
    wholesale telecom business as buying and selling “large blocks of calling minutes
    with particular origination and termination points.” R5–475 at 3. 1 As a wholesale
    telecom company, GlobeTel would generate revenue by connecting individual
    callers with the locations they wished to call, and the calls were routed through
    GlobeTel’s “switch.” 2 R3–313 at 3. Telecom companies pay by the minute for the
    right to route calls through the switches to other companies’ networks. The
    switches then create call detail records (“CDRs”) that register information
    regarding the traffic routed through them. GlobeTel’s revenue depended upon the
    call traffic routed through the switch, as measured by the CDRs.
    In 2004, in an effort to enhance GlobeTel’s reported revenue, the “off-net”
    program was implemented. The term “off-net” referred to telecom traffic run on a
    switch neither owned nor operated by GlobeTel, Volta, Lonestar, or Centerline.
    R5–475 at 5. In essence, the “off-net” program was a scheme that involved
    creating false invoices to reflect alleged transactions between GlobeTel’s
    1
    These periodic reports were filed with the SEC, as required pursuant to the Securities
    Exchange Act of 1934.
    2
    A “switch” is a device that routes calls and creates a temporary circuit or
    communication path to connect a caller to the recipient of that call.
    4
    Case: 13-10341       Date Filed: 06/30/2014      Page: 5 of 26
    subsidiaries and other companies. Each quarter, a GlobeTel executive would tell
    Monterosso an amount of revenue needed for that quarter. To meet the requested
    revenue, Monterosso and Vargas would receive invoices and CDRs from other
    companies and would change the name to reflect sales to and from GlobeTel’s
    subsidiaries. Starting in 2004, Ronald Hay, the owner of Mercury Telecom
    (“Mercury”) and World Communications Carrier Services (“WCCS”), began
    providing Monterosso and Vargas with WCCS invoices and CDRs. These WCCS
    invoices and CDRs were provided to Monterosso as part of a legitimate business
    arrangement Hay had with Monterosso. Upon receipt of the invoices, Vargas
    would change the names on the invoices to show sales from Volta to Mercury and
    purchases from WCCS to Volta. Despite what the invoices showed, Volta never
    sold anything to, or bought anything from, WCCS or Mercury. 3
    On December 27, 2004, Monterosso sent an email to John Petuoglu, one of
    Hay’s employees, requesting “additional revenue” before the end of the year. In
    this email, Monterosso listed the December invoices he already had received and
    requested a specific amount be added to each one. After this request, Hay did not
    provide Monterosso and Vargas with any additional invoices. Monterosso and
    Vargas subsequently submitted the WCCS-to-Volta and the Volta-to-Mercury
    3
    Apparently, Volta was never operational and did not have its own customers.
    5
    Case: 13-10341   Date Filed: 06/30/2014   Page: 6 of 26
    invoices to GlobeTel’s accounting department. The invoices matched the real
    invoices but the customer name had been changed to Volta, and the amounts had
    been increased.
    After Hay stopped providing invoices, Monterosso and Vargas started
    receiving CDRs from Chuck Leblo, and would use the data from these CDRs to
    create invoices on WCCS letterhead. Leblo had no connection to Hay’s
    companies, and there was no authorization from Mercury or WCCS to create these
    invoices. Vargas used Leblo’s CDRs to create invoices showing sales of minutes
    from WCCS to Volta and sales of minutes by Volta to Mercury. Vargas would
    then submit the invoices and CDRs to GlobeTel.
    Leblo’s CDRs and invoices also were used to manufacture revenue for
    Lonestar. In 2004 and early 2005, Monterosso and Vargas obtained CDRs and
    invoices purporting to show Lonestar had purchased minutes from Leblo’s
    company XSTEL and had sold minutes to Leblo’s company Telmetriks. Even
    after Leblo stopped providing invoices in 2005 and sent only CDRs, Vargas
    prepared XSTEL-to-Lonestar and Lonestar-to-Telmetriks invoices using Leblo’s
    CDRs. Lonestar actually never transacted with XSTEL or Telmetriks.
    GlobeTel also reported “off-net” revenue for Centerline from Vargas’s
    company, CSI. Centerline, however, never bought from nor sold anything to CSI
    6
    Case: 13-10341      Date Filed: 06/30/2014      Page: 7 of 26
    as part of the “off-net” program. From September 2004 to March 2006,
    Monterosso and Vargas created and submitted invoices showing Centerline and
    CSI were purchasing minutes from, and selling minutes to, each other.4
    2. Continuation of the Scheme and GlobeTel’s Knowledge
    At Monterosso’s direction, Vargas submitted the phony manufactured
    invoices reflecting the “off-net” business of Volta, Lonestar, and Centerline, to
    GlobeTel’s accounting department. GlobeTel recorded revenue, costs of goods,
    and expenses from Centerline and its subsidiaries by making entries in its general
    ledger. Lynch, as GlobeTel’s COO from August 2004 to March 2006 and CFO
    from March 2006 to October 2006, and Jimenez, as GlobeTel’s CFO until March
    2006, were responsible for recording the “off-net” revenue. Lynch told Jimenez he
    always had believed the “off-net” revenue was “fake.” R5–475 at 13.
    Additionally, on January 12, 2005, Vargas accidentally sent Lynch an invoice from
    WCCS to another unrelated telecom company, and the following day, Lynch
    requested a “new one.” R5–475 at 12.
    In April 2005, Lynch asked Monterosso to provide an extra $1.6 million in
    revenue for the first quarter of the year. Monterosso then contacted Leblo to ask
    whether he had “any additional revenue . . . that GlobeTel could utilize.” R5–475
    4
    Monterosso and Vargas initially obtained those invoices from Leblo, but once Leblo
    stopped providing invoices, Vargas used Leblo’s CDRs to generate the CSI-Centerline invoices.
    7
    Case: 13-10341     Date Filed: 06/30/2014   Page: 8 of 26
    at 12. Vargas also emailed Leblo the precise amount of revenue needed for each
    GlobeTel subsidiary over particular time periods within the quarter. After sending
    the email requesting the particular amount, on May 2, 2005, Vargas sent Leblo
    another email stating the additional $1.6 million was “need[ed] . . . within the next
    couple of days.” R–314–28 at 79 (Ex. 161). That same day, GlobeTel recorded
    the approximate $1.6 million in revenue in its general ledger.
    In 2004 and 2005, the fraudulent “off-net” revenue accounted for
    approximately 58% and 87.4% of GlobeTel’s revenue, respectively; and for the
    first quarter of 2006, it accounted for approximately 92%. Because of the fictitious
    “off-net” revenue, from October 2004 through June 2006, GlobeTel’s financial
    statements misstated the company’s revenue by more than $100 million. These
    misstatements were consequently made a part of GlobeTel’s periodic reports,
    securities registration statements, and press releases.
    C. SEC Investigations and Proceedings Below
    In November 2007, the SEC filed a complaint against Monterosso and
    Vargas and alleged multiple violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities
    Act”)5 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). 6 In a separate
    action, in May 2008, the SEC filed a complaint against GlobeTel, Lynch, Huff, and
    5
    15 U.S.C. §§ 77a–77aa.
    6
    15 U.S.C. §§ 78a–78mm.
    8
    Case: 13-10341       Date Filed: 06/30/2014      Page: 9 of 26
    Jimenez. Lynch settled with the SEC on liability, but the civil penalties
    determination was left for a later date. Huff consented to judgment on both
    liability and remedies. The cases were consolidated in November 2008. In June
    2009, the SEC filed the operative second amended combined complaint
    incorporating its allegations against all defendants. 7 As to Monterosso and Vargas,
    the SEC alleged: (1) violations of section 17(a) of the Securities Act; 8 (2)
    violations of section 10(b) of the Exchange Act 9 and Rule 10b–5; 10 (3) aiding or
    abetting violations of section 10(b) and Rule 10b–5; (4) aiding or abetting
    violations of section 13(a) of the Exchange Act 11 and Rules 12b–20, 13a–1, and
    13a–13;12 (5) aiding and abetting violations of section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange
    Act; 13 and (6) violations of Rules 13b2–1 and 13b2–2.14
    During their depositions, Vargas and Lynch invoked their Fifth Amendment
    privilege against self-incrimination and refused to answer substantive questions.
    The SEC requested an adverse inference be drawn against them. While the district
    judge conditionally granted the request, she declined to draw inferences as to each
    7
    Upon consent, the district judge entered judgment against Jimenez and GlobeTel.
    8
    15 U.S.C. § 77q(a).
    9
    15 U.S.C. § 78j(b).
    10
    17 C.F.R. § 240.10b–5.
    11
    15 U.S.C. § 78m(a).
    12
    17 C.F.R. §§ 240.12b–20, 240.13a–1, 240.13a–13.
    13
    15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(A).
    14
    17 C.F.R. §§ 240.13b2–1, 240.13b2–2.
    9
    Case: 13-10341       Date Filed: 06/30/2014      Page: 10 of 26
    of the unanswered questions and noted she would “address each inference sought
    as it comes up.” R5–464 at 18.
    In March 2011, the district judge granted summary judgment in favor of the
    SEC against Monterosso and Vargas and found (1) they were liable for violating
    the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act; 15 (2)
    alternatively, they were secondarily liable for aiding and abetting GlobeTel’s
    violations of the antifraud provisions; (3) they were liable for aiding and abetting
    GlobeTel’s violations of section 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) and Rules 12b–20, 13a–1,
    and 13a–13; and (4) they were liable for violating Rules 13b2–1 and 13b2–2.
    The district judge thereafter entered an order adopting the magistrate judge’s
    report and recommendation to impose officer-and-director bars, order
    disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and assess civil penalties (“remedies
    order”). The district judge held Monterosso and Vargas jointly and severally liable
    for disgorgement of $675,000, plus prejudgment interest, and assessed civil
    penalties of $300,000 against Monterosso, and $150,000 against Vargas. Lynch,
    having settled with the SEC on liability, was ordered to pay $780,000 in civil
    penalties. The judge rejected Lynch’s arguments regarding his minimal
    involvement in the fraudulent scheme and disproportionate treatment and found his
    15
    Section 17(a)(1), section 10(b), and Rule 10b–5(a).
    10
    Case: 13-10341        Date Filed: 06/30/2014        Page: 11 of 26
    “claim that his involvement in the subject fraud was minimal and unknowing is
    contradicted not only by the record but by his own consent to entry of judgment.”
    R6–554 at 16. The judge determined the magistrate judge’s recommended
    amounts were warranted in light of the “egregiousness” of the violations and the
    parties’ respective abilities to pay. R6–554 at 13–15, 16–17. The judge also
    enjoined Monterosso and Vargas from future violations of securities laws and
    imposed officer-and-director bars against them.
    II. DISCUSSION
    Although appellants raise a number of issues, our principal concern is
    Monterosso and Vargas’s appeal of the district judge’s granting of summary
    judgment and Monterosso, Vargas, and Lynch’s appeal of the remedies order.16
    A. Antifraud Violations
    Monterosso and Vargas challenge the summary judgment on the SEC’s
    antifraud claims. They contend there was no evidence they were liable for the
    antifraud violations, and there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
    they acted with scienter. We review a district judge’s order granting summary
    judgment de novo and apply the same legal standards. Capone v. Aetna Life Ins.
    16
    We find the other arguments raised on appeal are meritless and do not warrant further
    discussion, because (1) the second amended combined complaint was pled with sufficient
    particularity as to each defendant; and (2) the district judge acted within her discretion in striking
    the portion of Monterosso’s answer that contradicted his previous admissions, see Krinsk v.
    SunTrust Banks, Inc., 
    654 F.3d 1194
    , 1202 (11th Cir. 2011).
    11
    Case: 13-10341     Date Filed: 06/30/2014    Page: 12 of 26
    Co., 
    592 F.3d 1189
    , 1194 (11th Cir. 2010). In conducting our analysis, we
    construe the facts and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
    the non-moving party. Burger King Corp. v. E-Z Eating, 41 Corp., 
    572 F.3d 1306
    ,
    1312–13 (11th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows
    that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
    judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Speculation or conjecture
    cannot create a genuine issue of material fact, and a “mere scintilla of evidence” in
    support of the nonmoving party cannot overcome a motion for summary judgment.
    Young v. City of Palm Bay, 
    358 F.3d 859
    , 860 (11th Cir. 2004).
    Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act provides:
    It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the
    use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the
    mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange . . . [t]o
    use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security
    registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so
    registered, . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in
    contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may
    prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
    protection of investors.
    15 U.S.C. § 78j. Rule 10b–5, which implements section 10(b), provides it is
    unlawful “[t]o employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud.” 17 C.F.R. §
    240.10b–5(a). It also is unlawful “[t]o make any untrue statement of a material
    fact” or to omit “a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in
    12
    Case: 13-10341   Date Filed: 06/30/2014   Page: 13 of 26
    the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.” 17
    C.F.R. § 240.10b–5(b).
    In order to establish a section 10(b) or Rule 10b–5 violation, the SEC must
    prove (1) a material misrepresentation or materially misleading omission; (2) in
    connection with the purchase or sale of securities; (3) made with scienter. SEC v.
    Merch. Capital, LLC, 
    483 F.3d 747
    , 766 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Aaron v. SEC,
    
    446 U.S. 680
    , 695 (1980)). Section 17(a) of the Securities Act,17 requires
    substantially similar proof, and “[t]o show a violation of section 17(a)(1), the SEC
    must prove (1) material misrepresentations or materially misleading omissions, (2)
    in the offer or sale of securities, (3) made with scienter.” 
    Id. (citing Aaron,
    446
    U.S. at 697). To show a violation of section 17(a)(2) or 17(a)(3), the SEC need
    only demonstrate (1) material misrepresentations or materially misleading
    omissions, (2) in the offer or sale of securities, (3) made with negligence. 
    Id. (citing Aaron,
    446 U.S. at 702).
    With the exception of the scienter element, little discussion is warranted
    regarding the elements of the antifraud violations because there is simply no doubt
    as to whether GlobeTel issued misrepresentations or false statements concerning
    its revenue figures and whether those statements were issued in connection with
    17
    15 U.S.C. § 77q(a).
    13
    Case: 13-10341    Date Filed: 06/30/2014    Page: 14 of 26
    the offer, purchase, or sale of securities. As appellants admit, from October 2004
    through June 2006, GlobeTel’s financial statements misstated the company’s
    revenue by more than $100 million, and GlobeTel incorporated those
    misstatements into numerous periodic reports, securities registration statements,
    and press releases.
    Monterosso and Vargas argue they did not “make” those false statements
    and contend under Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 131 S.
    Ct. 2296 (2011), they cannot be liable. Janus addressed the scope of Rule 10b–
    5(b) and the language providing it is unlawful to “‘make any untrue statement of a
    material fact’ in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.” Janus, 131 S.
    Ct. at 2301 (quoting 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b–5). The Court concluded that “[f]or
    purposes of Rule 10b–5, the maker of a statement is the person or entity with
    ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to
    communicate it.” 
    Id. at 2302.
    The Court consequently held a mutual-fund-
    investment advisor who had been involved in preparing prospectuses for a client
    did not “make” the statement contained therein for purposes of Rule 10b–5(b). 
    Id. at 2305.
    While Janus addressed misstatement claims under Rule 10b–5(b),
    Monterosso and Vargas are liable under section 17(a), section 10(b), and Rule
    14
    Case: 13-10341        Date Filed: 06/30/2014       Page: 15 of 26
    10b–5, because they made “deceptive contributions to an overall fraudulent
    scheme.” R5–475 at 44. Janus only discussed what it means to “make” a
    statement for purposes of Rule 10b–5(b), and did not concern section 17(a)(1) or
    (3) or Rule 10b–5(a) or (c). See 
    Janus, 131 S. Ct. at 2299
    –302. The operative
    language of section 17(a) does not require a defendant to “make” a statement in
    order to be liable. See 15 U.S.C. § 77q. Likewise, subsections (a) and (c) of Rule
    10b–5 “are not so restricted” as subsection (b), because they are not limited to “the
    making of an untrue statement of a material fact.” Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah
    v. United States, 
    406 U.S. 128
    , 152–53 (1972). The case against Monterosso and
    Vargas did not rely on their “making” false statements, but instead concerned their
    commission of deceptive acts as part of a scheme to generate fictitious revenue for
    GlobeTel. Therefore, Janus has no bearing on this case.18
    Monterosso and Vargas’s primary contention on appeal is that summary
    judgment was precluded under section 10(b) and section 17(a)(1), because they did
    not intend to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.
    Scienter may be established by a showing of knowing
    misconduct or severe recklessness. . . . . Proof of recklessness [ ]
    18
    In their motions opposing summary judgment, Monterosso and Vargas failed to raise
    the argument that the district judge should have distinguished between Rule 10b–5(a) and (c) and
    Rule 10b–5(b) violations, and we will not consider an argument on appeal not raised with the
    district judge. See, e.g., Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. 232, Inc., 
    920 F.2d 815
    , 817 (11th Cir. 1991)
    (per curiam) (“[A]n appellate court generally will refuse to consider an issue not presented to the
    trial court and raised for the first time on appeal.”).
    15
    Case: 13-10341     Date Filed: 06/30/2014     Page: 16 of 26
    require[s] a showing that the defendant’s conduct was an extreme
    departure of the standards of ordinary care, which presents a danger of
    misleading buyers or sellers that is either known to the defendant or is
    so obvious that the actor must have been aware of it.
    SEC v. Carriba Air, Inc., 
    681 F.2d 1318
    , 1324 (11th Cir. 1982) (citation and
    alterations omitted). While scienter is an issue ordinarily left to a trier of fact,
    there are cases in which summary judgment may be appropriate. See, e.g., SEC v.
    Ficken, 
    546 F.3d 45
    , 51–52 (1st Cir. 2008); SEC v. Lyttle, 
    538 F.3d 601
    , 603-04
    (7th Cir. 2008) (finding summary judgment was appropriate because without
    testimony to contradict the SEC’s circumstantial evidence of the defendants’
    beliefs and state of mind, “no reasonable jury could doubt that they had acted with
    scienter”); In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig., 
    886 F.2d 1109
    , 1113 (9th Cir. 1989).
    Scienter can be established through circumstantial or direct evidence. SEC v.
    Ginsburg, 
    362 F.3d 1292
    , 1298 (11th Cir. 2004).
    Monterosso and Vargas attempt to claim ignorance and argue they were
    under the impression that GlobeTel management had approved the “off-net”
    program. Despite this alleged declaration of management assurance, however,
    Monterosso and Vargas cannot point to a genuine issue of material fact to
    demonstrate that a reasonable jury could doubt they acted with scienter.
    Monterosso and Vargas cannot plausibly argue they believed GlobeTel could
    report revenue from switches neither owned nor leased by GlobeTel or its
    16
    Case: 13-10341     Date Filed: 06/30/2014   Page: 17 of 26
    subsidiaries. As the district judge explained, “the concept is akin to Verizon
    recording revenue from telecom traffic run by AT&T.” R5–475 at 38. And after
    submitting fictitiously manufactured invoices and unrelated CDRs to GlobeTel’s
    accounting department, Monterosso and Vargas cannot plead ignorance of the fact
    that such reported revenue was illegitimate. See 
    Lyttle, 538 F.3d at 603
    –04. Their
    defense that GlobeTel’s executives were fully aware of the program and the nature
    of the invoices does not negate scienter, because “[o]ne doesn’t have to be the
    inventor of a lie to be responsible for knowingly repeating it.” See 
    id. at 604.
    In order to corroborate Volta’s fraudulent “off-net” invoices, Vargas would
    obtain and submit CDRs from Leblo, who had no connection to the companies that
    allegedly transacted business with Volta. Monterosso knew the fraudulent “off-
    net” invoices would be entered in the company’s ledger, and Vargas knew the
    Volta-to-Mercury invoice would be recognized as Volta revenue. Monterosso and
    Vargas changed the names of customers and vendors and altered the amounts on
    invoices, and no reasonable person could have believed it was proper to report
    revenue from fabricated invoices. They also submitted invoices and CDRs
    suggesting transactions between GlobeTel’s subsidiaries and Hay’s and Leblo’s
    companies, yet never sent Hay or Leblo invoices showing the transactions. Nor
    did they pay any purported vendors for the “off-net” traffic.
    17
    Case: 13-10341       Date Filed: 06/30/2014       Page: 18 of 26
    Moreover, Monterosso and Vargas were asked to reverse-engineer an ever-
    increasing amount of revenue. Most notably, in April 2005, Monterosso and
    Vargas were involved in producing an “additional” $1.6 million in revenue for the
    previous quarter. Lynch spoke with Monterosso and requested the additional
    revenue, and Monterosso then contacted Leblo to find out if he could provide the
    revenue. Vargas sent Leblo an email (with a copy to Monterosso) that attached a
    spreadsheet delineating the sources and amounts of the additional $1.6 million
    requested and allocating the amounts among GlobeTel’s subsidiaries. According
    to the invoices submitted by Monterosso and Vargas, Volta only did business with
    Hay’s companies. Consequently, by asking Leblo, someone who had no
    connection to Hay or his companies, to provide additional revenue for Volta,
    Monterosso and Vargas clearly knew the CDRs and invoices did not correspond to
    actual telecom traffic.
    The evidence of Monterosso and Vargas’s actions in GlobeTel’s fraudulent
    scheme is overwhelming. 19 No reasonable jury could conclude Monterosso and
    Vargas were not conscious of the obvious risk that the fabricated invoices they
    were submitting misrepresented revenue and that by submitting those invoices and
    19
    As to Vargas, we note the evidence of scienter is reinforced by the adverse inference
    from his invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege at his deposition. See 
    Lyttle, 538 F.3d at 604
    ; United States v. Two Parcels of Real Prop. Located in Russell Cnty., Ala., 
    92 F.3d 1123
    ,
    1129 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (recognizing, in civil actions, an adverse inference can be
    drawn when a party refuses to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds).
    18
    Case: 13-10341        Date Filed: 06/30/2014        Page: 19 of 26
    CDRs the accountants would rely on them to make entries in GlobeTel’s general
    ledger. Monterosso and Vargas’s actions in reverse-engineering revenue
    demonstrated, at the very least, proof of severe recklessness. Therefore, we agree
    with the district judge’s conclusions and find no genuine issue of material fact as to
    scienter.20
    B. Recordkeeping and Reporting Violations
    Monterosso and Vargas also raise challenges to the district judge’s granting
    summary judgment for the recordkeeping and reporting violations. First,
    Monterosso and Vargas contend they were not liable for violating Rule 13b2–1,21
    because they were not responsible for making entries in GlobeTel’s books and
    records. Rule 13b2–1 prohibits directly or indirectly falsifying or causing to be
    falsified any book, record, or account subject to section 13(b)(2)(A) of the
    Exchange Act. Section 13(b)(2)(A) requires companies to “make and keep books,
    records, and accounts, which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the
    transactions and dispositions of the assets of the issuer.” 15 U.S.C. §
    20
    Monterosso and Vargas also challenge the district judge’s alternative finding that they
    would be liable under an aiding and abetting theory. Their arguments, however, again focus on
    their alleged lack of knowledge and awareness. As discussed above, the evidence was simply
    beyond question that they knowingly and actively participated in the scheme by fabricating
    invoices and submitting them to GlobeTel; therefore, their arguments as to aiding and abetting
    also fail. See SEC v. Goble, 
    682 F.3d 934
    , 947 (11th Cir. 2012) (recognizing to establish aiding
    and abetting liability under the securities laws, the SEC must show (1) a primary violation; (2)
    the aider and abettor had knowledge of the primary violation; and (3) the aider and abettor
    provided substantial assistance in the commission of the primary violation).
    21
    17 C.F.R. § 240.13b2–1.
    19
    Case: 13-10341     Date Filed: 06/30/2014    Page: 20 of 26
    78m(b)(2)(A). While Monterosso and Vargas were not the ones who made the
    entries in GlobeTel’s books and records, there was no genuine issue of material
    fact that they created the fake invoices and CDRs and transmitted those documents
    to GlobeTel. As a result of Monterosso and Vargas’s actions, GlobeTel’s books,
    records, and accounts were falsified and the district judge did not err in holding
    them liable for violating Rule 13b2–1.
    Vargas also argues Rule 13b2–2 does not apply to him because he was not
    an officer or a director of GlobeTel until late 2006. Rule 13b2-2, however,
    prohibits a director or officer, “or any other person acting under the direction
    thereof,” from misleading an accountant engaged in the audit or review of
    documents or reports required to be filed with the SEC. 17 C.F.R. § 240.13b2–
    2(b)(1). An “officer” includes a “president [or] . . . any person routinely
    performing corresponding functions.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.3b–2. Because Monterosso
    was Centerline’s president and Vargas was “acting under the direction” of
    Monterosso when he created and submitted the fraudulent GlobeTel invoices and
    CDRs, we find his argument to be unavailing.
    20
    Case: 13-10341    Date Filed: 06/30/2014   Page: 21 of 26
    C. Remedies
    Monterosso and Vargas challenge different aspects of the district judge’s
    disgorgement order, and all three appellants attack the district judge’s imposition
    of civil penalties on several grounds.
    1. Disgorgement
    Disgorgement is an equitable remedy intended to prevent unjust enrichment.
    SEC v. Yun, 
    327 F.3d 1263
    , 1269 n.10 (11th Cir. 2003); CFTC v. Sidoti, 
    178 F.3d 1132
    , 1138 (11th Cir. 1999). In order to be entitled to disgorgement, the SEC
    needs to produce only a reasonable approximation of the defendant’s ill-gotten
    gains, and “[e]xactitude is not a requirement.” SEC v. ETS Payphones, Inc., 
    408 F.3d 727
    , 735 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citation and internal quotation marks
    omitted). Once the SEC has produced a reasonable approximation of the
    defendant’s unlawfully acquired assets, the burden shifts to the defendant to
    demonstrate the SEC’s estimate is not reasonable. SEC v. Calvo, 
    378 F.3d 1211
    ,
    1217 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). We review a district judge’s findings
    regarding the amount of ill-gotten gains to be disgorged for abuse of discretion.
    See 
    id. at 1217–18.
    First, Monterosso contends the district judge erred by imposing the
    disgorgement of funds not received in connection with any wrongdoing. We find
    21
    Case: 13-10341     Date Filed: 06/30/2014     Page: 22 of 26
    this claim unpersuasive. While Monterosso maintains he profited by only
    $116,000 from the fraudulent scheme, he ignores the proceeds he received in the
    form of debt-forgiveness and other cash he received. Based on Monterosso’s
    admissions in his deposition and pleadings, the district judge found: (1)
    Monterosso had received between $250,000 and $275,000 in cash compensation
    from GlobeTel for his work under the joint venture agreement; (2) Monterosso had
    received $325,000 in debt forgiveness from GlobeTel; and (3) Monterosso had
    been allowed to keep $100,000 in payments owed to GlobeTel by third parties.
    Because the district judge’s findings are supported by the record, we find no abuse
    of discretion.
    Vargas also argues the district judge erred in holding Monterosso and
    Vargas jointly and severally liable for the disgorgement amount. “It is a well
    settled principle that joint and several liability is appropriate in securities laws
    cases where two or more individuals or entities have close relationships in
    engaging in illegal conduct.” 
    Calvo, 378 F.3d at 1215
    . The district judge found
    that “Monterosso and Vargas clearly acted in concert to violate the securities law.”
    R6–554 at 9. Vargas argues it would be inequitable to hold him liable for
    disgorgement when he did not receive proceeds. The Ninth Circuit, however, has
    stated, and we agree, “a personal financial benefit” is not “a prerequisite for joint
    22
    Case: 13-10341      Date Filed: 06/30/2014   Page: 23 of 26
    and several liability.” SEC v. Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp., 
    617 F.3d 1072
    , 1098
    (9th Cir. 2010). Vargas was the sole owner of CSI, and CSI was to receive 5
    million shares from GlobeTel if $25 million in revenue was generated. GlobeTel
    paid CSI at least $130,000 for the revenue generated pursuant to the joint
    agreement, and Monterosso admitted CSI paid him and Vargas. Given the close
    relationship between Monterosso and Vargas, and their collaboration in the
    fraudulent scheme, we find it was appropriate to hold them jointly and severally
    liable. See 
    Calvo, 378 F.3d at 1215
    –16.
    2. Civil Penalties
    The final arguments raised by the appellants involve the district judge’s
    imposition of civil penalties. Section 20(d) of the Securities Act 22 and section
    21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act 23 authorize three tiers of monetary penalties for
    statutory violations. The first-tier penalty may be imposed for any violation; a
    second-tier penalty may be imposed if the violation “involved fraud, deceit,
    manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement”; and
    a third-tier penalty may be imposed when the second-tier requirements are met and
    the “violation directly or indirectly resulted in substantial losses or created a
    significant risk of substantial losses to other persons,” 15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(d)(2),
    22
    15 U.S.C. § 77t(d).
    23
    15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3).
    23
    Case: 13-10341     Date Filed: 06/30/2014    Page: 24 of 26
    78u(d)(3)(B). Civil penalties are intended to punish the individual wrongdoer and
    to deter him and others from future securities violations. SEC v. Sargent, 
    329 F.3d 34
    , 41 n.2 (1st Cir. 2003). The statutes leave the amount to be imposed to the
    discretion of the district judge. SEC v. Warren, 
    534 F.3d 1368
    , 1369 (11th Cir.
    2008) (per curiam).
    Monterosso argues the district judge’s order imposing third-tier penalties
    was inappropriate because there was “no substantial loss to investors,” and there
    was no evidence he made the misstatements. While there was no direct evidence
    of loss, as the magistrate judge found, and the district judge agreed, the fraudulent
    scheme created a substantial risk of loss as the revenue overstatements would have
    been important to any reasonable shareholder.
    Monterosso and Vargas argue the amount imposed as a civil penalty
    exceeded their ability to pay. “At most, ability to pay is one factor to be
    considered in imposing a penalty.” 
    Warren, 534 F.3d at 1370
    . First, Monterosso’s
    argument that the district judge should have considered his financial condition is
    waived, because he failed to raise this issue below. See Ramirez v. Sec’y, U.S.
    Dep’t of Transp., 
    686 F.3d 1239
    , 1249 (11th Cir. 2012). Regarding Vargas, the
    district judge did consider his financial condition and reduced the SEC’s requested
    penalty because of Vargas’s inability to pay; we therefore find that she did not
    24
    Case: 13-10341       Date Filed: 06/30/2014       Page: 25 of 26
    abuse her discretion in imposing the $150,000 penalty. See 
    Warren, 534 F.3d at 1370
    (“[N]othing in the securities laws expressly prohibits a court from imposing
    penalties or disgorgement liability in excess of a violator’s ability to pay.”).
    Lynch argues the district judge erred in imposing a $780,000 penalty, which
    was higher in comparison to the penalties imposed upon co-defendants. Lynch
    settled as to liability and “for purposes of [a disgorgement and/or civil penalties]
    motion” accepted the allegations of the SEC’s complaint as true. 24 R6–523–1 at 3
    (Ex. A). Lynch therefore stipulated he had made or caused to be made fictitious
    entries for each quarter, he was a participant in the fraudulent scheme, and he had
    acted with scienter in making the fraudulent entries. Therefore, we find no merit to
    his argument the district judge erred in ignoring evidence of “his minimal
    involvement in the fraud.” Lynch Br. at 13, 39–49.
    Lynch also argues the district judge failed to weigh all the evidence before
    imposing the civil fine. It appears from the record, however, the judge did
    examine the evidence thoroughly, and used her discretion in determining the
    magistrate judge’s recommended penalty was appropriate. Finally, Lynch argues
    the district judge imposed a disproportionate penalty compared to the other
    24
    While Lynch makes an argument that the district judge abused her discretion in finding
    an adverse inference could be drawn from his invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights, any
    such inference is immaterial because the judge did not draw upon those inferences in assessing
    the civil penalties against Lynch.
    25
    Case: 13-10341     Date Filed: 06/30/2014    Page: 26 of 26
    defendants in the case. This argument is unavailing, because Lynch chose not to
    settle with the SEC as to penalties and he had a different role in the scheme than
    his co-defendants. Lynch was responsible for making fraudulent entries in
    GlobeTel’s general ledger and knowingly signed several of the filings that reported
    the fictitious revenue. It was within the district judge’s discretion to evaluate his
    involvement and to conclude, based on his activities in the fraudulent scheme, that
    the recommended penalty was appropriate. See VanCook v. SEC, 
    653 F.3d 130
    ,
    143–44 (2d Cir. 2011).
    III. CONCLUSION
    Concluding the district judge did not err in granting summary judgment in
    favor of the SEC or in ruling on disgorgement and civil penalties, we affirm.
    AFFIRMED.
    26
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-10341, 13-10342, 13-10464

Citation Numbers: 756 F.3d 1326

Judges: Fay, Jordan, Per Curiam, Pryor

Filed Date: 6/30/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023

Authorities (20)

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Sargent , 329 F.3d 34 ( 2003 )

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ficken , 546 F.3d 45 ( 2008 )

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Merchant Capital, LLC , 483 F.3d 747 ( 2007 )

William Dwayne Young v. City of Palm Bay , 358 F.3d 859 ( 2004 )

SEC v. Joseph D. Radcliffe , 378 F.3d 1211 ( 2004 )

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Donna Yun, Jerry Burch , 327 F.3d 1263 ( 2003 )

Securities & Exchange Commission v. ETS Payphones, Inc. , 408 F.3d 727 ( 2005 )

Burger King Corp. v. E-Z Eating, 41 Corp. , 572 F.3d 1306 ( 2009 )

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ... , 681 F.2d 1318 ( 1982 )

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Warren , 534 F.3d 1368 ( 2008 )

Krinsk v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. , 654 F.3d 1194 ( 2011 )

federal-deposit-insurance-corporation-as-receiver-of-cypress-savings , 920 F.2d 815 ( 1991 )

United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ginsburg , 362 F.3d 1292 ( 2004 )

No. 95-6267 , 92 F.3d 1123 ( 1996 )

United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Lyttle , 538 F.3d 601 ( 2008 )

Capone v. Aetna Life Insurance , 592 F.3d 1189 ( 2010 )

VanCook v. Securities & Exchange Commission , 653 F.3d 130 ( 2011 )

fed-sec-l-rep-p-94714-in-re-apple-computer-securities-litigation , 886 F.2d 1109 ( 1989 )

Aaron v. Securities & Exchange Commission , 100 S. Ct. 1945 ( 1980 )

Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States , 92 S. Ct. 1456 ( 1972 )

View All Authorities »