Securities and Exchange Commission v. Champion-Cain

District Court, S.D. California·Decided January 22, 2020·No. 3:19-cv-01628·Unknown

Opinion

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Case No.: 3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG COMMISSION, ORDER ESTABLISHING UNIFORM Plaintiff, PROPERTY SALE PROCEDURES v. GINA CHAMPION-CAIN AND ANI DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Defendants, and

AMERICAN NATIONAL Relief Defendant. On August 28, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) brought this action against Defendants ANI Development, LLC (“ANI Development”) and Gina Champion-Cain and Relief Defendant American National Investments, Inc. (“ANI Inc.”), alleging violations of federal securities laws based on a purportedly fraudulent liquor license loan scheme. ECF No. 1. Along with the Complaint, the SEC filed a Joint Motion and Stipulated Request seeking a preliminary injunction, appointment of a permanent Receiver, and other related relief (ECF No. 2), which the Court granted on September 3, 2019. ECF No. 6 (“the Appointment Order”). In the Appointment Order, the Court established an equity receivership, appointing Krista Freitag as Receiver of ANI Development and ANI Inc. and authorizing her to take control over all funds and assets owned, managed, or in the possession or control of the receivership entities. See id. at 14-16. The Receiver was granted full power over all premises owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by the receivership entities. Id. at 14. On December 10, 2019, Chief Judge Burns granted the parties’ Joint Motion (ECF No. 156) to give limited consent to the undersigned to hear and directly decide all motions filed in this action to approve sales of receivership assets. ECF No. 160. Pursuant to that grant of authority, on December 11, 2019, the undersigned ordered the Receiver to file proposed Property Sale Procedures to govern all future sales of receivership assets and all ancillary relief sought in connection therewith, for the purpose of streamlining the property sale process. ECF No. 164. The Receiver filed her proposed Property Sale Procedures on January 3, 2020. ECF No. 195. The Court permitted objections to the Receiver’s proposal to be filed by January 10, 2020. ECF No. 164. While no formal objections were filed, interested non-party creditor CalPrivate Bank filed a Response to the Receiver’s proposal (ECF No. 205), asking that the Sale Procedures include a provision that all property sales are subject to CalPrivate Bank’s claim of a priority security interest.1 CalPrivate Bank seeks such a provision in the interest of efficiency, to avoid having to repeatedly file responses to each proposed sale to preserve its claim. Id. at 2.

1 CalPrivate Bank’s claim of a priority security interest arises from a $5 million commercial loan it made to ANI License Fund, LLC in September 2015, which was later increased to $12.5 million. ECF No. 205 at 4 (citing ECF No. 31-1, Sowers Decl.). According to CalPrivate Bank, the loan is secured by agreements between CalPrivate Bank and ANI License Fund, LLC and Defendant ANI Development LLC, which grant Having reviewed the Receiver’s proposal and CalPrivate Bank’s response, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: “[I]t is a recognized principle of law that the district court has broad powers and wide discretion to determine the appropriate relief in an equity receivership.” SEC v. Lincoln Thrift Ass’n, 577 F.2d 600, 606 (9th Cir. 1978). As part of its wide discretion, the district court sitting in equity and having custody and control of property “has power to order a sale of the same in its discretion. The power of sale necessarily follows the power to take control of and to preserve property[.]” SEC v. Am. Capital Investments, Inc., 98 F.3d 1133, 1144 (9th Cir. 1996), abrogated on other grounds by Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998) (quoting 2 Ralph E. Clark, Treatise on Law & Practice of Receivers § 482 (3d ed. 1992)). If the court approves an equitable receiver’s proposed property sale, the sale “does not . . . purport to convey ‘legal’ title, but rather ‘good,’ equitable title enforced by an injunction against suit.” Id. (citing 2 Clark, Treatise on Law & Practice of Receivers, §§ 342, 344, 482(a), 487, 489, 491). “The power of a district court to impose a receivership or grant other forms of ancillary relief does not in the first instance depend on a statutory grant of power from the securities laws. Rather, the authority derives from the inherent power of a court of equity to fashion effective relief.” SEC v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363, 1369 (9th Cir. 1980). Nonetheless, federal statutes do provide some authority and guidance for courts overseeing equity receiverships. In particular, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001 and 2002 set forth procedural and notice requirements for the sale of real property in the possession of a court-appointed receiver, while § 2004 governs the sale of personal property. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2001(a), realty in the possession of an appointed receiver is subject to a public sale process, “upon such terms and conditions as the court directs.”2 2 28 U.S.C. § 2001 also provides for a private sale process under subsection (b), but the Thus, the statute lends great discretion to the Court to direct the terms and conditions of the sale. 28 U.S.C. § 2002 creates an additional notice requirement, mandating that prior to the sale of any realty in the possession of a court-appointed receiver, notice must be published once a week for at least four weeks in at least one newspaper regularly issued and of general circulation in the county, state, or judicial district where the realty is located. These safeguards of notice and opportunity to submit overbids help to ensure that the sale is able to fetch the best price possible, which is consistent with the principle that “a primary purpose of equity receiverships is to promote orderly and efficient administration of the estate by the district court for the benefit of creditors.” SEC v. Hardy, 803 F.2d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 1986). As for the sale of personal property, 28 U.S.C. § 2004 also lends the Court great discretion in directing sales of personalty, requiring such sales to comply with § 2001 “unless the court orders otherwise.” The notice requirement of § 2002 governing realty sales by the receiver does not apply to sales of personalty. RECEIVERSHIP ASSETS Because sales of realty and sales of personalty are subject to different requirements, the Court will issue separate uniform procedures for each type of sale. A. SALES OF REAL PROPERTY For all sales of real property included in the receivership estate: (1) The Receiver must list each property with qualified, licensed real estate brokers to market the property to potential buyers. In the proposal, the Receiver states that she interviews and assesses multiple brokers before determining the listing broker. ECF No. 195 at 2 n.1. The Receiver must

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Champion-Cain, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Champion-Cain (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Champion-Cain) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related