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)

Download PDF
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?