Defendant Name:
Wells Fargo Securities LLC
Defendant Type:
Subsidiary of Public Company
Document Reference:
LR-23796
Document Details
Legal Case Name
SEC v. Rhode Island Commerce Corporation (f/k/a Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation), Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Peter M. Cannava, Keith W. Stokes, and James Michael Saul
Document Name
SEC Obtains Final Judgment Against Rhode Island-Based Issuer of 38 Studios Bonds
Document Date
03-Apr-2017
Document Format
Civil Proceeding
Case Number
16-cv-00107
Federal District Court
Rhode Island, District of Rhode Island
Federal District Judge
John J. McConnell Jr.
Allegation Type
Municipal Securities & Public Pensions
Document Summary
On April 3, 2017, the SEC announced in a litigation release that it has obtained a final judgment against Rhode Island Commerce Corporation in a previously filed enforcement action. According to the SEC, "the defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that the project being financed by the bonds, the development of a video game, could not be completed with the financing the bonds would provide. [...] [and] the defendants did not disclose that even with the proceeds of the loan financed by the 38 Studios Bonds, 38 Studios faced a known shortfall in funding." As to Wells Fargo, litigation continues.
Related Documents:
Complaint
In the Complaint, the SEC stated: "This case involves misconduct by the [Rhode Island Commerce Corporation or the 'EDC'] and Wells Fargo relating to an offering of municipal securities. On November 2, 2010, the EDC issued $75,000,000 of taxable revenue bonds to investors in a private placement (the '38 Studio Bonds'). The EDC loaned most of the money it received from selling the 38 Studio Bonds to 38 Studios, LLC ('38 Studios'), a pre-revenue video gaming company headed by a former professional baseball player. The disclosure document provided to the investors who were offered the 38 Studio Bonds was materially misleading. This document failed to disclose that the project being financed by the Bonds, the development of a video game, could not be completed with the financing the Bonds would provide. The document did not disclose that even with the proceeds of the loan financed by the 38 Studio Bonds, 38 Studios faced a known shortfall in funding. In light of the other disclosures made in the offering document, this omission was significant, and rendered the offering document a misleading half-truth. The offering document was misleading in a second way. It failed to disclose the full amount of compensation that the offering's lead placement agent, Wells Fargo, was receiving as a result of the 38 Studios Bond offering."
SEC Charges Rhode Island Agency and Wells Fargo with Fraud in 38 Studio Bond Offering
On March 7, 2016, the SEC announced that it "charged a Rhode Island agency and its bond underwriter Wells Fargo Securities with defrauding investors in a municipal bond offering to finance startup video game company 38 Studios."
2016-37
07-Mar-2016
Press Release--Civil Action
SEC Charges Rhode Island Agency and Wells Fargo With Fraud in 38 Studios Bond Offering
On March 7, 2016, the SEC announced that it "charged a Rhode Island agency and its bond underwriter Wells Fargo Securities with defrauding investors in a municipal bond offering to finance startup video game company 38 Studios."
Court Penalizes Wells Fargo Securities for Disclosure Failures in 38 Studios Bond Offering
The SEC stated: "A federal court has ordered Wells Fargo Securities to pay more than $800,000 in civil penalties for disclosure failures associated with a municipal bond offering it underwrote to finance startup video game company 38 Studios."
Final Judgment as to Defendant Wells Fargo Securities, LLC
The Court stated: "The Securities and Exchange Commission having filed a Complaint and Defendant Wells Fargo Securities, LLC ("Wells Fargo" or "Defendant") having entered a general appearance; consented to the Court's jurisdiction over Defendant and the subject matter of this action; consented to entry of this Final Judgment without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint (except as to jurisdiction); waived findings of fact and conclusions of law; and waived any right to appeal from this Final Judgment."
Other Defendants in Action:
