Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

In the Courts

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
December 31, 2015

Ninth Circuit: Appellate Review of Telemarketer Convictions and Sentences for Sale of Unregistered Securities

On Dec. 4, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rendered its decision in United States v. Lloyd, 2015 WL 7873401, a case involving the sale of unregistered securities. The five defendants worked for telemarketing “boiler rooms” (outbound call centers) in California and Florida and were responsible for soliciting investments to finance production and distribution of films. Approximately 650 individuals invested a total of over $23 million after the defendants promised high returns with little to no risk, and many of these individuals lost their entire investment.

The indictments against the individuals ' all of whom were connected to two movie production companies ' charged conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud and securities fraud, spanning a period from 2001 to 2009. The two managers for the California and Florida offices (Lloyd and Keskemety) pleaded guilty and appealed their sentences. One telemarketer (Greenhouse) convicted after a trial appealed his sentence, and two additional telemarketers (Nelson and Baker), convicted at the same joint trial as Greenhouse, appealed their convictions and sentences. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Lloyd's sentence, vacated Keskemety's sentence and remanded for resentencing, reversed Nelson's conviction, affirmed Baker's conviction, and affirmed Greenhouse's sentence. The court noted that “[t]he number of defendants, the lengthy period involved, and the type of conduct made this a difficult case for any trial court to resolve. The record shows that the district judge competently and fairly resolved many of the innumerable issues that arose in trial and at sentencing. The points on which we disagree with the district judge raise issues that are both complex and close.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?