Securities and Exchange Commission v. BIC Real Estate Development Corporation et al
Filing
48
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING (1) DEPOSIT OF CAPITAL ONE CHECKS; (2) UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS; AND (3) STUDENT LOANS signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on April 22, 2016. (Munoz, I)
1
2
3
4
5
6
VICK LAW GROUP, APC
Scott Vick (No. 171944)
800 West Sixth Street, Suite 1220
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 784-6227
Facsimile: (213) 784-6226
E-Mail: Scott@vicklawgroup.com
Attorneys for Defendants
DANIEL R. NASE, and Relief Defendants
BIC SOLO 401K TRUST and
MARGARITA NASE
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
vs.
16
BIC REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION and DANIEL R. NASE,
individually and d/b/a BAKERSFIELD
INVESTMENT CLUB,
17
Defendants,
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BIC SOLO 401K TRUST and MARGARITA
NASE,
Relief Defendants.
Case No. 1:16-cv-00344-LJO-JLT
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING
(1) DEPOSIT OF CAPITAL ONE CHECKS;
(2) UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS; AND (3)
STUDENT LOANS
1
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2016, the Court entered an order that, among other things, imposed
2
an “immediate freeze … on all monies and assets” held by the Defendants and Relief Defendants
3
(Dkt. No. 42);
4
5
6
WHEREAS, Defendant Daniel Nase (“D. Nase”) and Relief Defendant Margarita Nase (“M.
Nase”), through their counsel, represent as follows:
A.
By letters dated April 13, 2016, D. Nase and M. Nase were advised by the
7
California Employment Development Department that they will be receiving
8
unemployment checks (with a weekly benefit of $450 for each), but have not
9
yet received or cashed any such checks;
10
B.
M. Nase is enrolled and taking classes at Fresno Pacific University (“FPU”),
11
and is eligible for $4,500 in subsidized federal student loans and $6,000 in
12
unsubsidized federal student loans to pay for tuition at FPU, and the FPU
13
financial aid department has asked her to sign certain paperwork so that she
14
may obtain this student loan financing;
15
C.
On March 10, 2016 (before the SEC brought this action), M. Nase obtained a
16
personal line of credit advance from her Capital One credit card account
17
(ending in 7180) in the amount of $50,000, in the form of a check payable to
18
Margarita Nase, which will no longer be negotiable, by its terms, after
19
Saturday, April 23, 2016 (in less than two days);
20
D.
On March 10, 2016 (before the SEC brought this action), D. Nase obtained a
21
personal line of credit advance from his Capital One credit card account
22
(ending in 1764) in the amount of $43,962.29, in the form of a check payable
23
to Daniel Nase, which will no longer be negotiable, by its terms, after
24
Saturday, April 23, 2016 (less than two days); and
25
E.
Each of the FPU student loan financing, the $50,000 advance on the line of
26
credit on M. Nase’s Capital One credit card, and the $43,962.29 advance on
27
the line of credit on D. Nase’s Capital One credit card are unsecured
28
liabilities for which no collateral has been offered as security.
1
1
2
WHEREAS, D. Nase and M. Nase request that the Court permit:
A.
Each of D. Nase and M. Nase to cash unemployment checks payable to each
3
and issued by the California Employment Development Department, in the
4
amount of $450 per week, to be used solely for living expenses or as
5
otherwise permitted by law or regulation;
6
B.
M. Nase to execute a promissory note and to sign the paperwork called for by
7
the financial aid department of FPU in order to obtain student loans (in the
8
amount of $4,500 (subsidized) and $6,000 (unsubsidized) for the school
9
year), to be used soley to pay for her tuition at FPU or as otherwise permitted
by law or regulation;
10
11
C.
The Capital One line of credit checks (in the aggregate amount of
12
$93,962.29) to be negotiated and deposited into the Vick Law Group client
13
trust account, where those funds will be held and not drawn upon, pending
14
further order of the Court; and
15
WHEREAS, the SEC does not object to the relief requested by D. Nase or M. Nase,
16
provided that the representations above made by D. Nase and M. Nase, through their counsel, are
17
true and no material facts have been omitted (and the SEC makes no assurance as to the accuracy of
18
these representations, or the manner in which the unemployment insurance, the student loans, or the
19
Capital One lines of credit were obtained).
20
21
NOW THEREFORE, D. Nase and M. Nase agree, and the SEC does not object that:
A.
Each of D. Nase and M. Nase may cash unemployment checks payable to
22
each and issued by the California Employment Development Department, in
23
the amount of $450 per week, where such proceeds shall be used solely for
24
living expenses or as otherwise permitted by applicable law or regulation;
25
B.
M. Nase may execute a promissory note and to sign the paperwork called for
26
by the financial aid department of FPU in order to obtain student loans (in the
27
amount of $4,500 (subsidized) and $6,000 (unsubsidized) for the school
28
year), where such loan proceeds shall be used to pay for M. Nase’s tuition at
2
FPU or as otherwise permitted by applicable law or regulation;
1
C.
2
The Capital One line of credit checks (in the aggregate amount of
3
$93,962.29) may be negotiated and deposited into the Vick Law Group client
4
trust account, provided that those funds (and any interest thereon) must be
5
preserved in their entirety and not drawn upon, pending further order of the
6
Court.
7
8
Dated: April 21, 2016
/s/ Matthew T. Montgomery
John B. Bulgozdy
Manuel Vazquez
Matthew T. Montgomery
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission
Dated: April 21, 2016
/s/ Scott Vick
Scott Vick
Vick Law Group, APC
Attorneys for Defendants
Daniel R. Nase and Relief Defendants
BIC Solo 401k Trust and Margarita
Nase
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
April 22, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?