Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)


Download Files


Document in Context
October 5, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER. The Court GRANTS in part Veros' Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction, [Filing No. 91], to the extent that it modifies the Preliminary Injunction so that the assets that are the subject of the Trueblaze and MW Banks transactions are excluded from the asset freeze only for the purpose of selling those assets as outlined in the Trueblaze and MW Banks transactions, but the Court DENIES in part Veros' Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction, [Filing No. 91], to the extent that should the transactions take place, the Court ORDERS that the proceeds from the transactions be deposited with the Clerk of Court, to be placed in a segregated, interest-bearing account referencing this case. The Court further ORDERS that if the transactions are completed, MainSource shall be entitled to enforce its security interest in the proceeds of the assets sold to the same extent it would be entitled to enforce its interest in the actual assets, when the sale proceeds are distributed, along with other assets, at a future date. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/5/2015. (BGT)
June 22, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER - Mr. Senefeld's 189 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with the SEC and Mr. Senefeld to address the possibility of an agreed resolution, or to establish a schedule for trial. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/22/2016. (GSO)
November 9, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER denying Movants' 256 Motion to Quash. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 11/9/2016. (SWM)
February 16, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER - Given the ongoing nature of the fraud alleged in this action, the lack of justification for treating investors differently, and the extensive forensic accounting work already performed that will allow significant interest recovery to be accomplished with no added costs, the Court DENIES the Interested Investors' Amended Motion to Stay and Objection to Interim Distribution Method-ology. 312 However, the Court acknowledges the Interested Investors' concerns with the continued accrual of costs by the Receiver, ORDERS the Receiver to file a Report with the Court once he has completed a cost-benefit analysis of pursuing interest recovery from investors in the 2012 Offering, the 2013 Offering, and/or the 2014 Bridge Loan that cannot be accomplished through accounting adjustments, and ORDERS that the Receiver seek Court approval before pursuing any such interest recovery. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/16/2017. (JRB) Modified on 2/17/2017 (JRB).
February 6, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER - Veros Partners, Inc. ("Veros") was an SEC-registered investment adviser in Indianapolis, Indiana. Pin Financial LLC ("Pin Financial") was the placement agent for certain private offerings made to Veros' advisory clients, and Defendant Tobin Senefeld was Pin Financial's Chief Executive Officer and a registered representative. Plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") filed this lawsuit against Mr. Senefeld and others alleging that they violated securities laws in connection with soliciting investors for, and handling investments in, certain private offerings related to farm loans. The SEC alleged that portions of the loan proceeds were not used for current farming operations, as investors were told, but rather were used to cover the farms' prior, unpaid debts. On October 11, 2017, the Court granted a request from the SEC and Mr. Senefeld to approve a bifurcated settlement whereby Mr. Senefeld agreed not to contest the facts in the Amended Complaint and the parties agreed to provide the Court with information necessary to rule on the amount of disgorgement and prejudgment interest, as well as the amount of a civil penalty if the Court finds a penalty appropriate. The issues of disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and the appropriateness of a civil penalty are now fully briefed, and ripe for the Court's decision. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART the SEC's Motion for Disgorgement, Prejudgment Interest, and Civil Penalties, 444, to the extent that it ORDERS Mr. Senefeld to disgorge $698,818.29, pay $94,538.36 in prejudgment interest, and pay a civil penalty of $50,000. The Court DENIES Mr. Senefeld's Motion to Strike References to McShane Affidavit, 465. Final judgment as to Mr. Senefeld shall enter accordingly. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/6/2018. (APD)