Peters, Gamm, West & Vincent, Inc., Richard L. West, Judith L. West, Marc A. Vincent, Deborah S. Vincent, Gary L. Gamm and Connie F. Gamm - Page 14

                                         14                                           
               The actual tender offer, which was excluded from the                   
          partnership agreement, was not the origin of the claim.  Rather,            
          the origin of the claim was the alleged misappropriation of                 
          inside information, followed by improper trading.                           
               Peters received $7,500 from Lounsbury and $43,000 from Mick            
          on November 19 and 20, 1985, respectively.  The SEC alleged in              
          its suit brought against Peters that although these payments were           
          debt repayment, they were only made as a result of Peters' having           
          illicitly obtained inside information concerning the pending                
          tender offer for stock of ERG, which he then relayed to Mick and            
          Lounsbury, who profited therefrom by trading in ERG stock.  The             
          underlying transaction, or set of facts that gave rise to the               
          claim, is not the actual debt repayment, but rather the facts               
          giving rise to the claim are that the debt repayment was in                 
          actuality the profits of insider trading.  The claim is the SEC's           
          allegations.  PGWV was not named as a defendant in the SEC's                
          suit.  If the gain had been realized by or for the benefit of               
          PGWV, then the activity, although illicit, would have been within           
          the company's trade or business.  For instance, if a bank                   
          executive is charged with embezzlement, that conduct would be               
          within his own profit-seeking activities, not that of the bank,             
          but if the bank executive were found guilty of causing improper             
          foreclosures, and such foreclosures benefited the bank, that                
          activity, although improper, would be in the trade or business of           
          the bank.                                                                   




Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011