united states district court western …securities.stanford.edu › filings-documents › 1045 ›...

Case 1:10-cv-00793-RJA Document 1 Filed 10/04/10 of 33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CAROL FORTI, individually and as representative of a Proposedclass of investor victims,JAMES FORTI,DR. JEAN FORTI,KEVIN WINCENCIAK,LAURA WINCENCIAKROBERT WOOD, ANNE WOOD,PAT HOTNICH, individually and ffb/o MYA WOOD,DAN SMITH, EDNA SMITH,FRANCIS TOBIAS, MARGARET TOBIAS,ANTHONY GEORGE, CAROL BARTON,BEVERLY FLANNIGAN, ANTHONY GEORGE,MICHAEL PANZICA, LOUIS PANZICA, COMPLAINTJOANNE GERKEN, MARY GERKEN, and JURY DEMAND BRANDON WILEY

Case No.: Plaintiffs,

V.

TIMOTHY GEIDEL,EVE GEIDEL,GEORGETOWN CAPITAL GROUP, INC.,andROYAL ALLIANCE ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Carol Ford, individually and on behalf of a Proposed class of investor victims,

and plaintiffs James Ford, Dr. Jean Forti, Carol Barton, Beverly Flannigan, Anthony George,

Joanne Gerken, Mary Gerken, Pat Hotnich, Michael Panzica, Louis Panzica, Dan Smith, Edna

Smith, Robert Wood, Anne Wood, Kevin Wincenciak, Laura Wincenciak, Francis Tobias,

Margaret Tobias, Brandon Wiley, by their attorneys, Duke, Holzman, Photiadis & Gresens LLP,

1


for their Complaint against Timothy Geidel, Eve Geidel, Georgetown Capital Group, Inc., and

Royal Alliance Associates, Inc., states and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF CLAIMS

1. This lawsuit is a federal securities class action, with related state law claims, on

behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired fraudulent securities offered for sale

by defendants Timothy Geidel, Georgetown Capital Group, Inc. and Royal Alliance Associates,

Inc., beginning in or before June 1990 until in or about September 2010 ("Class Period") seeking

to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77a, et seq., Securities and

Exchange Act of 1934,15 U.S.C. § 78a, et seq., and New York law.

2. This action seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief in addition to

compensatory damages in redress for defendants' violations of federal and state law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the federal law claims in this

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 and Section 27 of the Securities and Exchange

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa.

4. This court has supplemental jurisdiction over the subject matter of the state law

claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

5. This action seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief in addition to

compensatory damages in redress for defendants' violations of federal and state law and punitive

damages as allowed under state law.

2


6. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2) because

all parties reside in New York and defendants Timothy Geidel, Eve Geidel, and Georgetown

Capital Group, Inc. reside u1 this district and because a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.

THE PARTIES

7. Plaintiffs Carol and James Ford are New York residents who purchased or

otherwise acquired bogus securities offered for sale by Timothy Geidel, Georgetown Capital

Group, Inc., and Royal Alliance Associates, Inc.

S. Plaintiff Dr. Jean Forti is a Pennsylvania resident who purchased or otherwise

acquired bogus securities offered for sale by Timothy Geidel, Georgetown Capital Group, Inc.,

and Royal Alliance Associates, Inc.

9. Plaintiffs Dan and Edna Smith are New York residents who purchased or



10. Plaintiffs Robert and Anne (Nancy) Wood are New York residents who purchased

or otherwise acquired bogus securities offered for sale by Timothy Geidel, Georgetown Capital


11. Plaintiffs Kevin and Laura Wincenciak are New York residents who purchased or



3


12. Plaintiff Beverly Flanagan is a New York resident who purchased or otherwise



13. Plaintiff Anthony George is a New York resident who purchased or otherwise



14. Plaintiff Carol Barton is a New York resident who purchased or otherwise



15. Plaintiff Joanne Gerken is a New York resident who purchased or otherwise



15. Plaintiff Mary Gerken is a New York resident who purchased or otherwise



17. Plaintiff Pat Hotnich is a New York resident who purchased or otherwise acquired

bogus securities offered for sale by Timothy Geidel, Georgetown Capital Group, Inc., and Royal

Alliance Associates, Inc.

18. Plaintiff Michael Panzica is a New York resident who purchased or otherwise



4


19. Plaintiff Louis Panzica is a New York resident who purchased or otherwise



20. Plaintiffs Dan Smith and Edna Smith are Florida residents who purchased or



21. Plaintiffs Francis Tobias and Margaret Tobias are New York residents who

purchased or otherwise acquired bogus securities offered for sale by Timothy Geidel,

Georgetown Capital Group, Inc., and Royal Alliance Associates, Inc.

22. Plaintiff Brandon Wiley is a New York resident who purchased or otherwise



23. Defendant Timothy Geidel ("Geidel") is a New York resident who is or was a

securities broker and investment advisor with Georgetown Capital Group, Inc. and registered

with Royal Alliance Associates, Inc.

24. Defendant Eve Geidel ("Eve Geidel") is a New York resident who is or was

married to defendant Timothy Geidel during the relevant time periods and shared joint bank

accounts with him

25. Defendant Georgetown Capital Group, Inc. ("Georgetown Capital") is a New

York Corporation with a principal place of business at 5330 Main Street, Williamsville, New

York 14221.

5


26. Defendant Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. ("Royal Alliance") is a Delaware

Corporation authorized to do business in New York with its principal place of business believed

to be located at One World Financial Center, New York, New York, 10281-1003.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

27. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 23(a)(3) and (b)(3) on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who

purchased or otherwise acquired fraudulent securities from or through Geidel during the Class

Period and who were damaged thereby (the "Class"). Excluded from the Class are defendants

and their immediate family members, legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, any

entity in which any of the defendants have or had a controlling interest, and the officers and

directors of the corporate defendants.

28. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable. While the exact number of Class members is unknown to the plaintiffs at this

time and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, plaintiffs believe that are least

50-100 members in the proposed Class. It is believed that other members of the proposed Class

will be identified through records maintained by and in the possession of the defendants.

29. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and

predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. Among the

questions of law and fact common to the Class are:

(a) Whether the federal securities laws were violated by the defendants acts and

omissions as alleged herein;

6


(b) Whether New York state laws were violated by the defendants acts and

omissions as alleged herein;

(c) Whether statements made by the defendants to the investing public and

members of the Class misrepresented or omitted material facts about the

nature of the securities being offered for sale, the risks associated with such

securities, and whether these securities were federally insured;

(d) Whether statements made to the investing public and the members of the

Class misrepresented material facts about the business, operations, and

management of Georgetown Capital and/or Royal Alliance;

(e) To what extent the members of the Class have sustained damages and the

proper measure of damages.

30. The claims of the proposed Class representative, Carol Forti, are typical of the

claims of the members of the Class as all members of the Class are similarly affected by

defendants' wrongful acts and omissions in violation of the federal and state law as complained

of herein. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the Certification of Proposed Lead Plaintiff, Carol

Forti.

31. The proposed Class representative, Carol Forti, will fairly and adequately protect

the interests of the Class and has, along with the other named plaintiffs, retained counsel

competent and experienced in class and securities litigation, and has no interests which conflict

with the Class.

32. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. Defendants


acknowledge that Geidel provided services to over 100 known "clients." Investigations to date

indicate there are at least forty (40) investor victims many of whom who reside in Erie County,

but others who reside in Rochester, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

33. Further, as the damages suffered by individual class members may be relatively

small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it impossible for members of the

Class to individually redress the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the

management of this action as a class action.

34. In the alternative, the Class may be certified under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23(b)(1) and/or 23(b)(2) because: (a) the prosecution of separate actions by the

individual Class members would create a risk of incompatible standards of conduct for

defendants; (b) the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create a

risk of adjudications with respect to them which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of

the interests of other Class members not parties to the adjudications, or substantially impair or

impede their ability to protect their interests; and (c) defendants have acted or refused to act on

grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with

respect to the Class as a whole.

BACKGROUND

A. Royal Alliance, Georgetown Capital and "Wealth Manager" Tim Geidel-Twenty Years of "Servicing" the Public

35, Royal Alliance is a SEC-registered broker-dealer and investment advisor that is

member of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc ("F1NRA") and Securities Investor

Protection Corporation ("SIPC").8


36. Royal Alliance's website states that, as of December 31, 2009, it had 1,549

financial advisors, 217 offices nationwide, a gross revenue of $317 million dollars, $41.3 billion

in assets under management, and that it is part of the second-largest independent broker-dealer

network based on gross revenue.

37. Geidel was an employee of and/or affiliated with Georgetown Capital from April

1989 until September 2010.

38. Geidel was a registered representative with Royal Alliance from November 1989

until September 2010.

39. Geidel has been offering financial services and investment advisory services

through Georgetown Capital and Royal Alliance for the past twenty years.

40. Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capitall represented to plaintiffs and the public

that Geidel was a fully licensed, certified, and registered investment and financial advisor.

41. Geidel was an agent with actual and apparent authority to act for and on behalf of

Royal Alliance.

42. Geidel was an agent with actual and apparent authority to act for and on behalf of

Georgetown Capital.

43. Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital provided Geidel with access to the

securities markets.

44. Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital provided Geidel with the credentials and

credibility to solicit prospective investors.

45. Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital facilitated the ability of Geidel to

establish a relationship of trust and confidence with plaintiffs and the public.

9


46. Upon becoming a registered representative of Royal Alliance and based on his

affiliation with Georgetown Capital, Geidel possessed the credentials and access to the securities

markets necessary to solicit and service the accounts of various employers and institutions.

47. Royal Alliance and Georgetown provided Geidel with the means and opportunity

to identify, solicit, and induce prospective investors, including plaintiffs and other victims, to

make investments.

48. Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital promoted Geidel to prospective investors

so as to instill investors with confidence in his credentials, representations, and trustworthiness.

49. Georgetown Capital represented to plaintiffs and the public that Geidel, along

with its other advisors, are specialized in offering clients professional investment advice and

service.

50. Georgetown Capital represented to plaintiffs and the public that many of its

advisors, including Geidel, "have multiple securities registrations and insurance licenses, so they

are qualified to offer financial advice on a broader scale."

51. Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital represented to and advised plaintiffs and

the public that Geidel was a "Financial Advisor" and "Wealth Management Team Leader."


the public that Geidel had successfully established and was the head of the "Geidel Group"

within Georgetown Capital.

53. Royal Alliance and Georgetown facilitated and enabled Geidel to access the

retirements accounts and plans of active and retired members of the Lake Shore Central School

District beginning in or about 1991.

10

Case 1:10-cv-00793-RJA Document 1 Filed 10/04/10 Page 1 1 of 33


the public that they, with Geidel as their agent, strive to advise clients "who have been working

all their lives and are too afraid to retire because they are uncertain about their financial future,"

and that they would "map out a strategy" to achieve financial goals that would take "into

consideration the client's goals, time frame, investment experience and risk tolerance."

55. Royal Alliance and/or Georgetown Capital promoted Geidel to plaintiffs and the

public through Holiday parties and dinners, including events at Shea's Buffalo and Brookfield

Country Club. The invitees included actual account holders with Royal Alliance and

Georgetown Capital as well as others who had purchased fraudulent securities through Geidel.

56. Over the course of twenty years, Geidel, working with Royal Alliance and

Georgetown Capital, established a relationship with over 100 investor clients, including

plaintiffs.

B. Geidel's Twenty Year Ponzi Scheme as enabled by Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital

57. Beginning in or before June 1990 until September 2010, Geidel conducted a Ponzi

scheme through the securities and investment advisor services of Royal Alliance and Georgetown

Capital.

58. Geidel induced, through false representations, assurances, and promises, plaintiffs

and other members of the public to make substantial investments in certificates of deposit and

other so-called securities which he could offer and make available through a special bonus

program offered by Georgetown Capital and Royal Alliance (hereinafter "CD's").

11


59. Geidel enticed existing, new, and potential clients through his status and

affiliation and status with Georgetown Capital and Royal Alliance, including the plaintiffs, to

invest in CDs.

60. Geidel told existing, new, and potential clients, including the plaintiffs, that the

CDs were a safe way to invest money at stable rates of return of 6% and more.

61. Georgetown Capital provided Geidel with printed promotional materials

promoting the sale of Certificates of Deposit which he used in furtherance of his sale of CD's.

62. On or about August 30, 2010, a customer of Geidel, Georgetown Capital, and

Royal Alliance contacted the Georgetown Capital office to make arrangements to cash in part of

a certificate of deposit account Geidel had established for her.

63. The customer's inquiry led to the revelation that the securities Geidel had been

offering and selling to plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class were unregistered and

fictitious.

64. The CD's promoted and sold by Geidel to plaintiffs and other investors, while

fictitious, are securities within the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of

1934.

65. Geidel offered to and did move money from the plaintiffs' bank, investment, and

retirement accounts that were under the management of Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital

into the CDs.

66. Geidel offered to and did take cash and checks from the plaintiffs and other clients

to invest in the CDs.

12


67. Geidel's conduct is a violation of the securities laws and FINRA rules, and

commonly referred to as "selling away."

68. Geidel furnished plaintiffs with periodic account statements and summaries that

fraudulently indicated equity and earned interest in the special CDs.

69. Geidel took all of the foregoing actions while knowing that the CDs that he

offered to the plaintiffs and other clients were fictitious and non-existent.

70. Geidel misappropriated investment funds for the personal use of himself and his

wife, co-defendant Eve Geidel.

C. Control Person Liability and Failure to Supervise

71. Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital owed a duty to oversee and supervise

their registered representatives and agents to ensure compliance with the securities laws.

72. Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital failed to establish adequate procedures

for the review, monitoring, and/or supervision of their registered representatives and investment

advisors.

73. Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital failed to use due care in the enforcement

and/or implementation of and/or failed to adequately enforce and/or implement any procedures

that they did have in place to review, monitor, or supervise their registered representatives and

investment advisors.

74. Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital allowed Geidel to have almost sole and

exclusive contact with plaintiffs.

13


75. Rather than supervise Geidel, Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital allowed

him to function with almost complete autonomy and, in fact, fostered his ability to solicit clients

and work independently without supervision, including that they provided him with grandiose

titles such as "Wealth Management Team Leader" and being the head of the "Geidel Group."

76. In an effort to insulate Royale Alliance and Georgetown Capital from liability for

the investment losses of plaintiffs and others, Georgetown Capital spokesman Steve Reszka

falsely stated to the media that plaintiffs and other investment victims of Geidel "are told when

they sign up, and they are told continually, when you're writing a checl^ you're writing a check to

the brokerage house, clearing house, wherever your investments are. You never write a check to

an individual. You never write a check even to a specific financial planning firm."

77. Contrary to Reska's false "blame the victim" claims, defendants Royal Alliance

and Georgetown Capital had little, if any, contact with plaintiffs and other investor victims other

than through Geidel and failed to warn or caution plaintiffs about writing out checks directly to

Geidel.

78. On September 10, 2010, Royal Alliance wrote to various plaintiffs and investor

victims characterizing the securities law violations of defendants merely as Geidel having

"accepted loans from two clients...." and that since his termination defendants had learned of

other "loans" to Geidel. Royal Alliance's characterizations are transparent and self-serving

denials of responsibility for its failure to monitor and supervise Geidel.

79. In response to inquiries about their prospects for recovery of their investment

losses, Georgetown Capital president Joseph Curatolo has denied defendants Royal Alliance and

14


Georgetown Capital have any responsibility, and sarcastically responded "Good Luck!" before

terminating telephone conversations with the victims of the fraud.

80. Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital failed to adequately review, monitor,

and/or supervise Geidel and his dealings with investors.

81. Royal Alliance and Georgetown failed to use due care in the review, monitoring,

and/or supervision of Geidel.

82. Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital failed to use due care in the enforcement

and/or implementation of and/or failed to adequately enforce and/or implement any procedures

that they did have in place to review, monitor, or supervise Geidel and insure that investors such

as plaintiffs were properly protected.

81 Royal Alliance failed to establish adequate procedures for the review of records of

its registered representatives at satellite offices.

84. Royal Alliance failed to establish adequate procedures for monitoring the

activities at its satellite offices.

85. Royal Alliance failed to use due care in the enforcement and/or implementation

of, and/or failed to adequately enforce and/or implement, any procedures that it did have in place

to review the records of and monitor the satellite offices to insure that investors such as plaintiffs

were properly protected.

86. Royal Alliance's failure to monitor and supervise Geidel is part of a chronic and

ongoing failure by Royal Alliance to comply with its obligations under the securities laws.

87. On February 26, 2007, the Connecticut Banking Commissioner entered a Consent

Order against Royal Alliance which imposed an administrative penalty of $750,000 based on the

15


allegation that Royal Alliance failed to adequately enforce and maintain a system for supervising

the activities of its agents reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities

laws and regulations. The underlying violations were committed by registered representative

Kevin 0. Kelley between 1999 and 2004 whereby customers, many of whom were senior

citizens, were defrauded of approximately $4.2 million in a scheme much like Geidel's.

88. On April 28, 2009, the SEC entered an Order against Royal Alliance for its failure

to reasonably supervise its registered representative David L. McMillen with a view to

preventing and detecting violations of the securities laws between 1999 - 2004 during which time

McMillan operated a Ponzi scheme that defrauded at least 28 investors. McMillen engaged in a

scheme to defraud nearly identical to Geidei, and Royal Alliance was sanctioned $500,000 for its

failure to develop and implement a system to detect and prevent such conduct.

89. Royal Alliance has on multiple other occasions been censured and/or fined by the

Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to adopt, implement, and/or reasonably enforce

adequate procedures and/or policies to supervise the activities of its registered representatives.

90. Royal Alliance's pattern of conduct over the past twenty years, demonstrates a

willful, reckless, and grossly negligent failure to establish, implement, and enforce a reasonable

system to supervise the activities of its representatives.

91. As a result of the willful, reckless, and grossly negligent conduct by Royal

Alliance the investing public has time and again been subjected to Ponzi schemes and securities

fraud violations by its registered representatives.

16


92. But for the breach of duty and violation of the securities laws by Royal Alliance

and Georgetown Capital, Geidel would not have been able to perpetuate a twenty plus (20+) year

Ponzi scheme that has damaged plaintiffs and other members of the proposed Class.

93. The full extent of Royal Alliance's and Georgetown Capital's wrongful conduct in

the scheme conducted by Geidel over a period of twenty years, including their respective

violations of the federal securities laws and actionable failures to supervise Geidel, cannot be

fully known without discovery.

D. Losses Sustained by Plaintiffs

94. Proposed class representative Carol Ford have been customers of Royal Alliance

and Georgetown Capital for over ten years.

95. Fortis purchased CD's -- i.e. false and fraudulent securities -- from Geidel.

96. Plaintiffs and other members of the investing public have purchased CD's from

Geidel.

97. The victims of Geidel's fraud and the securities law violations of Royal Alliance

and Georgetown Capital include retired school teachers, senior citizens, as well as a six year old

girl, Mya A. Wood. By way of example, defendants' have defrauded Mya Wood of more than

$24,000 accumulated through charitable fund raising events to help address her medical care

needs such that all that remains in her Royal Alliance/Georgetown Capital account is $3.41.

98. Specific examples of the false and fraudulent sales of securities by Geidel to

Forti, plaintiffs, and other members of the investing public include, but are not limited to, the

following sales of CD's:

17


Wincenciak June 1990 $ 8,000Wood December 1999 $ 1,500J. Forti March 1999 $ 10,000J. Forti August 1999 $ 8,755.24Wood December 2001 $ 1,500Forti October 2003 $ 3,000Forti March 2004 $ 7,000Forti November 2004 $ 5,000Mya Wood Medical Fund March 2005 $19,000Mya Wood Medical Fund April 2005 $ 5,000Wood August 2005 $ 5,000Ford November 2005 $ 3,000Hotnich December 2005 $ 9,000Wood January 2006 $ 15,000Wood January 2006 $ 5,000Hotnich April 2006 $ 10,000Forti May 2006 $ 6,000Hotnich October 2006 $ 9,000Hotnich December 2006 $ 9,500Hotnich March 2007 $ 5,000Forti March 2007 $ 3,000Hotnich August 2007 $ 6,000Forti September 2007 $ 5,000Forti June 2008 $ 4,000Wood January 2009 $ 2,000Hotnich February 2009 $ 10,000M. Panzica July 2009 $ 7,000Forti November 2009 $ 9,430Forti November 2009 $ 3,095Hotnich December 2009 $ 4,091.60Forti December 2009 $ 4,875Forti December 2009 $ 1,825Wood December 2009 $ 17,500Forti February 2010 $ 12,000Forti March 2010 $ 5,000George April 2010 $ 12,500Forti May 2010 $ 7,000George June 2010 $ 12,500Burton July 2010 $ 2,000L. Panzica August 2010 $ 10,000Hotnich August 2010 $ 4,125

18


99. Further investigation is required to determine the full extent of the losses

sustained by plaintiffs and other investor victims of defendants' securities law violations, but it

appears that the following individuals have made investments and sustained losses of not less

than the following:

James and Carol Forti $ 79,225Dr. Jean Forti $ 18,755.24Kevin and Laura Wincenciak $ 33,000Robert and Anne Wood $118,000Pat Hotnich $ 33,000Pat Hotnich f/b/o Mya Wood $ 24,000Dan and Edna Smith $ 55,000Francis and Margaret Tobias $137,555Anthony George $132,000Beverly Flanagan $ 80,000Carol Barton $ 2,000Michael Panzica $ 17,000Louis Panzica $ 10,000Joanne Gerken $ 3,000Mary Gerken $ 3,000Brandon Wiley $31,00

Total $ 776,535.24

100. Upon information and belief, at least twenty (20) other individuals purchased false

and fictitious securities as a result of defendants' securities law violations and their losses exceed

an additional $1,000,000.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION(Violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,15 U.S.C. § 77q(a),

and Rule 10-5,17 C.F. R. 240.10b-5 As Against Geidel)

101. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs bring this cause of action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.

19


102. From approximately 1989 through the present, Geidel directly or indirectly, singly

or in concert, by the use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails,

or the facilities of the national securities exchange, in connection with the purchase or sales of

securities, knowingly or recklessly: (a) employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud; (b)

made untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to

make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not

misleading; and/or (c) engaged in acts, practices, and/or courses of business which operated as a

fraud and deceit upon investors, purchasers of securities, and other persons.

103. Plaintiffs and other Class members relied upon the statements and representations

made by Geidel in deciding whether to invest, purchase, or otherwise acquire the special CDs

and other securities offered by Geidel, and plaintiffs and other Class members were damaged by

this reliance.

104. By reason of the foregoing, Geidel has violated and is violating Section 10(b) of

the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule IOb-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.1 Ob-5 , and plaintiffs and

other Class members are entitled to judgment against Geidel for compensatory damages an

amount to be proven at trial, plus appropriate interest, court costs, and attorneys' fees.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION(Control Liability § 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against Georgetown

Capital Group, Curatolo, and Royal Alliance)



20


106. At all relevant times, Royal Alliance possessed, directly or indirectly, the power to

direct and control Georgetown Capital Group and/or Geidel, and it acted as control person of

Georgetown Capital Group and/or Geidel within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange

Act.

107. Royal Alliance knew or should have known that Geidel was engaged in fraudulent

conduct, but failed to take steps to prevent Geidel's primary violation of the securities laws.

108. At all relevant times, Georgetown Capital possessed, directly or indirectly, the

power to direct and control Geidel, and acted as a control person of Geidel within the meaning of

Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

109. Georgetown Capital Group knew or should have known that Geidel was engaged

in fraudulent conduct, but failed to take steps to prevent Geidel's primary violation of the

securities laws.

110. Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital Alliance were culpable participants in

Geidel's fraudulent acts and omissions.

Ill. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiffs and other Class members are entitled to

judgment against Royal Alliance and Georgetown Capital, jointly and severally, for

compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus appropriate interest, court costs,

and attorneys' fees.

21


THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION(Fraud Against Geidel)



113. As described above, Geidel made representations of fact to plaintiffs and other

Class members which were false.

114. Geidel knew that such representations were false when he made them and/or he

made such representations recklessly without regard for whether they were true or false.

115. Geidel made such representations to induce the plaintiffs and other Class

members to rely upon them in deciding whether to purchase or otherwise acquire securities and

other investments that were fraudulent, non-existent, or otherwise improper.

116. Plaintiffs and other Class members justifiably relied upon the representations

made by Geidel.

117. As a direct and proximate cause of Geidel's representations and the reliance

thereon by plaintiffs and other Class members, the plaintiffs and other Class members sustained

damages.

118. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiffs and other Class members are entitled to

judgment against Geidel for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, for

punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus appropriate interest, court costs, and

attorneys' fees.

22


FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Conversion Against Geidel)

119. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein..


120. Plaintiffs and other Class members had a possessory right and interest in their

funds, assets, property, and investments.

121. Geidel converted the funds, assets, property, and investments of the plaintiffs and

other Class members and thereby deprived plaintiffs and other Class members of the use of such

funds, assets, property, and investments.

122. Geidel acted consciously, willfully, wantonly and maliciously in converting the

funds, assets, property, and investments of the plaintiffs of other Class members.

123. As a direct and proximate result of this conduct, Geidel has had use of the finds,

assets, property, and investments that he converted.


judgment against Geidel for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, for

punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus appropriate interest, court costs and

attorneys' fees.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Unjust Enrichment Against Geidel and Eve Geidel)



23


126. Geidel and Eve Geidel benefited from the receipt of fiends, assets, and/or property

received from plaintiffs and other Class members and for which Geidel and Eve Geidel did not

adequately compensate or provide value to the plaintiffs and other Class members.

127. Geidel's and Eve Geidel's enrichment was at the expense of the plaintiffs and

other Class members.

128. Equity and good conscience require full restitution of the monies received by

Geidel and Eve Geidel from the plaintiffs and other Class members.


judgment against Geidel and Eve Geidel for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at

trial, plus appropriate interest.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Respondent SuperiorNicarious Liability Against Georgetown Capital and Royal Alliance)



131. Geidel committed the above-described actions and omissions in furtherance of

Georgetown Capital and/or Royal Alliance's business.

132. Geidel committed the above-described actions and omissions within the scope of

his authority while conducting business for Georgetown Capital Group and/or Royal Alliance's

business.

133. Georgetown Capital Group and/or Royal Alliance had a duty of reasonable care to

train, supervise, and/or monitor the conduct of Geidel.

24


134. Georgetown Capital Group and/or Royal Alliance failed to use reasonable care to

train, supervise, and/or monitor the conduct of Geidel, and this failure resulted in foreseeable

injury to the plaintiffs and other Class members.

135. Georgetown Capital Group and Royal Alliance knew or should have know of

facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to conduct an investigation which would have

uncovered the information about Geidel's wrongful actions and omissions, but failed to do so.

136. Georgetown Capital Group and Royal Alliance failed to use reasonable care to

correct and/or remove Geidel.

137. The failures and omissions of Georgetown Capital Group and Royal Alliance

resulted in foreseeable injury to the plaintiffs and other Class members.


judgment against Georgetown Capital and Royal Alliance, jointly and severally, for

compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus appropriate interest, court costs,

and attorneys' fees.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Constructive Trust Against Geidel and Eve Geidel)



140. As set forth above, the assets of the plaintiffs and other Class members have been

wrongfully diverted as a result of as a result of fraudulent acts and omissions in violation of the

25


securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duties, conversions and other wrongdoing of Geidel for his

own interests and enrichment.

141. Funds, assets, and other property from the plaintiffs and other Class members

were deposited in joint bank accounts for Geidel and his wife Eve Geidel.

142. The plaintiffs and other Class members have no adequate remedy at law.

143. Due to the fraudulent acts and omissions in violation of the securities laws, fraud,

conversions and other wrongdoing of Geidel, the plaintiffs and other Class members are entitled

to the imposition of a constructive trust with respect to any transfer of funds, assets or property

received from plaintiffs and other Class members, as well as any profits in the past and on a

going forward basis in connection with the fraudulent CDs and other securities and/or in

connection with Georgetown Capital and/or Royal Alliance.

144. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiffs and other Class members are entitled to the

imposition of a constructive trust against Geidel and Eve Geidel with respect to any transfer of

funds, assets, or property received from plaintiffs and other Class members, as well as any profits

in the past and on a going forward basis in connection with the fraudulent CDs and other

securities and/or in connection with Georgetown Capital and/or Royal Alliance.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Accounting Against Geidel and Eve Geidel)



26


146. As set forth above, the funds, assets, investments, and/or property of the plaintiffs

and the Class have been wrongfully diverted as a result of fraudulent acts and omissions in

violation of the securities laws, conversions and other wrongdoing of Geidel for his own interests

and enrichment.

147. Funds, assets, and other property from the plaintiffs and other Class members

were deposited in joint bank accounts for Geidel and his wife Eve Geidel.

148. As set forth above, Eve Geidel was unjustly enriched by the deposit of the funds,

assets, investments, and/or property wrongfully deposited into her joint account(s) with Geidel.

149. The plaintiffs and other Class members have no adequate remedy at law.

150. To compensate plaintiffs and other Class members for the amount of monies that

Geisel diverted for his own benefit, it is necessary for Geidel to provide an accounting of any

transfer of funds, assets, or property received from plaintiffs and other Class members, as well as

any profits in the past and on a going forward basis in connection with the fraudulent CDs and

other securities and/or in connection with Georgetown Capital and/or Royal Alliance.

151. Complete information regarding the amount of such transfers misused and of any

profits received by Geidel is within the sole possession, custody, and control of Geidel and Eve

Geidel.

152. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiffs are entitled to an accounting from Geidel

and Eve Geidel of: (a) any transfer of funds, assets, or property received from the plaintiffs and

any other Class members; and (b) any profits in the past and on a going forward basis received by

Geidel basis in connection with the fraudulent CDs and other securities and/or in connection with

Georgetown Capital and/or Royal Alliance.

27


WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand relief and judgment against defendants, jointly and

severally, as follows:

A. Determining that this action is a proper class action, designating

plaintiff Carol Ford as Lead Plaintiff, certifying plaintiff Carol Forti as

Class Representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and

designating the counsel of plaintiff Carol Ford and all plaintiffs named

herein as Lead Counsel;

B. Awarding compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and all

other Class members against defendants Timothy Geidel, Royal

Alliance, and Georgetown Capital, jointly and severally, for all

damages sustained as a result of defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount

to be proven at trial, including appropriate interest;

C. Awarding punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial as

against defendant Timothy Geidel as allowed by law;

D. Awarding compensatory damages in an amount proven at trial as

against Timothy Geidel and Eva Geidel, jointly and severely, and such

other relief as determined by the Court.

E. Awarding plaintiffs and the Class their reasonable costs and expenses

incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees;

F. Awarding extraordinary, equitable, and/or injunctive relief as

permitted by law and equity; and

28


G. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages claimed

in the foregoing complaint.

Dated: October 4, 2010Buffalo, New York

Respectfully submitted,

DuxE, HOLzmAN, PHOTIADIS & GRESENS LLPAttorney for Plaintiffs

Al

.&Vbb, ^AL

• 1 arles . Ritter, Jr.ernadette Clor

1800 Main Place Tower350 Main StreetBuffalo, New York 14202(716) [email protected]@dhpglaw.com

29


Exh'ibit•


CERTIFICATION OF PROPOSED LEAD PLAINTIFF

I, Fnr+, , declare the following as to the claims asserted, or to

be asserted, under the federal securities laws:

1. I am an individual residing in the State of New York. I have reviewed the

complaint against Timothy Geidel, Eve Geidel Georgetown Capital Group, Inc., and Royal

Alliance Associates, Inc., and I have authorized the filing of this complaint. This complaint was

prepared by Duke, Holzman, Photiadis & Gresens, LLP ("Duke Holzman"), the law firm that I

designate as counsel for myself in this action for all purposes.

2. I did not purchase or otherwise acquire any securities from Timothy Geidel,

Georgetown Capital Group, Inc., or Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. at the direction of Duke

Holzman or in order to participate in any private action under the federal securities law.

3. I am willing to serve as the lead plaintiff either individually or as part of a group.

I understand that a lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class

members in directing the litigation and whose duties may include testifying at deposition or trial.

4. I will not accept any payment for serving as a representative beyond my pro rata

share of any recovery, except reasonable costs and expenses, including any award for attorneys'

fees and disbursements, lost wages and travel/or expenses, directly related to the class

representation, as ordered or approved by the Court pursuant to law.

5. I have not sought to serve or have served as a representative party for a class in an

action under the federal securities laws within the past three years.

6. I understand that this certification is not a claim form, and my ability to share in

any recovery as a class member is not affected by my decision to serve as a representative party.


7. The securities transactions which are the basis for my complaint against the

defendants are summarized on Schedule A.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Septe ber, q2010.New York 4

2


Schedule A

Summary of Securities Purchases ("CDs") through Tim Geidel

Forti October 2003 $ 3,000Forti March 2004 $ 7,000Forti November 2004 $ 5,000Forti November 2005 $ 3,000Forti May 2006 $ 600Forti March 2007 $ 3,000Forti September 2007 $ 5,000Forti June 2008 $ 4,000Forti November 2009 $ 9,430Forti November 2009 $ 3,095Forti December 2009 $ 4,875Forti December 2009 $ 1,825Forti February 2010 $ 12,000Forti March 2010 $ 5,000Forti May 2010 $ 7,000

united states district court western …securities.stanford.edu › filings-documents › 1045 ›...

Documents