Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GREWAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW ,JERSEY .
Divi·sion of Law
124 Halsey Street
P.O. Box 45029
Newark, New Jersey D7101
Attorney for Plaintiff
RECEIVED
By: . Elisabeth E. Juterbock
JAN 2 9 2019
(NJ Attorney ID 019032013) SUPt:r\•vr\ \IVV" aOF NJ
Deputy Attorney General MERCER VICINAGE
CIVIL DIVISION
(973) 648-3070
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CHANCERY DIVISION: GENERAL EQUITY
MERCER COUNTY
DOCKET NO. MER-C-
GURBIR S. GREWAL,
Attorney General of New Jersey,
on behalf of
CHRISTOPHER W. GEROLD, Civil Action
Chief of the New Jersey Bureau
of Securities,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORD F. GRAHAM;
KATHERINE B. GRAHAM;
SPECIALTY FUELS AMERICAS, LLC;
ARIES · ENERGY GROUP VENTURE, LLC;
CCC HOLDINGS, LLC;
RATTLER PARTNERS, LLC; and
VULCAN ENERGY INTERNATIONAL,
L.L.C. I
Defendants.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General o£ New Jersey, on beh~lf
defendants:
SUMMARY
that he had represented would be used for oil and gas projects
2
to joint accounts in his and his wife's name, repaid prior
or artifice to defraud) ;
agent) ;
agent); and
securities) .
3
gained directly or indirectly from violations of the Securities
of the Securi tie$ Law that are the subject of this complaint
PARTIES
capacity.
and a juris doctor from Tulane University. She has never been
4
11. Defendant CCC Holdings, LLC ("CCC") is an Alabama
5
was the chairman and managing ·director of AEG, which Graham
chairman of RPL.
Center, New York, New ·York, and/or 150 East 52nd Street, New
FACTS
6
January 2014 (the "Relevant Period"), Graham, individually, and
investor funds would be used for specific oil and gas projects,
of securities.
agreement.
on the accounts.
7
22. Investors had no control over the use of their funds
FG Entities and the VEI bank · account, from where the funds were
8
27. Graham and CCC, through Graham, made the following
investment.
9
29. On or about January 14, 2013, Investor A wired
30. Inste~d,· between January 14, 2013 and April 26, 2013,
all of Investor A's funds were misused for other purposes. For
personal expenses;
CCC;
10
f. at least $1,765 was spent at retailers, including
hardware store.
CCC Note were transferred from the SFA bank account to the VEI
camp;
· student; and
11
c. at least $6, 657 was spent at retailers, including
and sale of the CCC Note including, but not limited to, the
following:
$1,500,000 in principal-alone.
49:3-49(m).
12
36. The CCC Note was not registered with the Bureau, not
37. Between June 2012 and May 2013, Graham and SFA,
40. · The SFA Dominican · Notes were · sold for $15, 000 and
13
41. Both Graham and the offering documents accompanying
SFA.
42. Instead, after the $15, 000 used to purchase the June
1, 2012 SFA Dominican Note (the "June SFA Dominican Note") was
- Graham as follows:
b. at l'eas t $3 217
I was transferred to Graham and
his wife; -·
liquor store;
Princeton- University.
14
Investment Summary"), prepared and sent to Investor B by Graham,
the $30, ooo was a purported "deal payment" for the June SFA
Dominican Note.
used the funds· from Investor A's purchase of the CCC Note to\
with Graham, and told others in the Princeton area about the
DGminican Note").
4T. Upon the deposit of the $25, 000 in the SFA bank
to the VEI bank account I and used 'the money to pay for his
15
49. On or about July 23, 2013, Investor B received a
two prior investors, · and. not money gene~ated .. from the Dominican
53. Th~ SFA: · Dominican Not·es ·· were not registered with the
16
56. Graham and SFA, through Graham, · made materially false
sale of the SFA Tank Note, including that Investor B' s funds
57. The $100, 000 from the sale of the SFA Tank Note was
17
59. Despite Graham's representation that the "interest"
source of the funds Graham used for the payment came from a loan
N.J.S.A. 49:3-49(m).
62. The SFA Tank Note was not registered with the Bureau,
with the offer and sale of the SFA Dominican Notes and the SFA
Oil Tran~action;
18
c. the "interest" and "deal" payments made on the SFA
and sale of the SFA Dominican Notes and the SFA Tank Note
bank account;
65. Between May 2013 and ·November ·· 2013, G:raham and AEG,
through Graham, raised $170, 000 ·from the fraudulent offer arid
19
of two promissory notes, and an option in a profits
participation interest.
as chairman of AEG.
AEG.
investment.
69~ The AEG 6~ Ndte and -the AEG 3% Note are securities as
20
70. The AEG 6% Note and AEG 3% Note were not registered
with the Bureau, not federally covered, and not exempt from
registration.
the AEG bank account for the purchas-e of the AEG 6% Note. At
the time of the deposit, the balance of the AEG bank account was
approxim~tely $102.
prior $100, 000 investment in the SFA Tank Note. The resulting
firm's trust account for an entity unrelated -to the Nigerian Oil
Transaction.
21
purportedly "interest" on the AEG 6% Note.
payment was genera~ed by the AEG 6% Note, _in reality the source
of the funds Graham used for the payment came from a loan made
the offer and sale of the AEG 6% Note including, but not limited
to:
by Investor A.
and sale of the AEG 6% Note including, but not limited to, the
following:
22
b. some of Investor B's funds would then be used for
the AEG bank account for the purchase of the AEG 3% Note. At
the time of the deposit, the balance of the AEG bank account was
approximately $30.
From the VEI bank account, at least $6,991 was misused by Graham
23
b. at least $648 was spent at retailers _including
and sale of the AEG 3% Note including, but not limited to:
B. Project Delta
24
AEG in the form of a "purchase _agreement to purchase an option
United States.
Project Delta PPI, including: (a) AEG needed $300 1 000 to fund
prepay shipping, and set up storage for the gasoline, and (b)
25
90. On or about November 6, 2013, the $100, 000 from the
additional $200 000 that was wired on the Game day by Investor B
1
wired from the AEG bank account to the VEI bank account, where
Virginia; and
universities.
from the AEG bank account was transferred to the SFA bank
account. The same day, Investor B received $100, 000 from the
26
93. Graham and AEG, through Graham, failed to pay the
94. Project Delta never came to fruition, and AEG did not
and sale of the Project Delta PPI including, but not limited to,
the fact that Investor B's funds for the Project Delta PPI would
N.J.S.A. 49:3-49(m).
97. The Project Delta PPI was not registered with the
27
Agreement"), a purported oil and gas dri~~ing operation in
Pennsylvania.
negative $4, 893, ·· and the remaining funds were then transferred
91 above.
28
104. Graham and RPL, through Graham, made materially false
that Investor B's money would be transferred to VEI and used for
paragraph 91 above.
108. The RPL Purchase Agreement was not registered with the
29
Bureau, not federally covered, and not exempt from registration.
FG Entities.
reliable;
and
30
111. Despite her representations, Katherine Graham did not
included the SFA Dominican Notes, the SFA Tank Note, the AEG 6%
Note, the Project Delta PPI, and the RPL Purchase Agreement.
bank accounts.
Investor B.
account.
COUNT I
117. Graham, Katherine Graham, and SFA, AEG, CCC, RPL, and
31
VEI, through Graham and Katherine Graham, employed a device,
would do so.
32
COUNT II
121. Graham and f?IfA, AEG, CCC, and RPL, through Graham, and
122. Graham and s·FA, AEG, CCC, and RPL, through Graham, and
were made, not misleading, in connection with the offer and sale
N.J.S.A. 43:3-70.1.
33
COUNT III
125. Graham arid SFA, AEG, CCC, RPL, · and VEI, through
disclosed to investors.
CQUNT IV
34
' .
128. The securities issued by SFA, AEG, CCC and RPL, and
sold by Graham, and SFA, AEG, CCC, and RPL, through Graham, are
Law.
129. The securities issued · by SFA, AEG, CCC and RPL, and
sold by Graham and SFA,· AEG, CCC, and RPL, through Graham, were
COUNT V
35
N.J.S.A. 49:3-49(b) of the Securities Law, without being
COUNT VI
36
140. Each sale to investors is a separate violation of
N.J.S.A. 49:3-70.1.
COUNT VII
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(As to defendants Graham and Katherine Graham)
right.
37
above;
38
defendants Ford F. Graham, Katherine B. Graham,
Securities Law;
GURBIR S: . "GREWAL
ATTORNEY JERSEY
terbock
Deputy Att _rney General
Attorney ID 19032013
DATED: January 28, 2019
39
RULE 1:38-7{c) CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
40
RULE 4:5-1 CERTIFICATION
fully complied with Subpoena 8385 and .- the Bureau compl'eted its
2018.
41
Judgment by failing to produce any documents listed in item (2)
li E. Juterbock
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney ID. No. 19032013
42 .
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL- ·cOUNSEL
"GURBIR S. GREWAL
ATTOR~
NEY GENE~L OF_ NEW JERSEY
c~l
By: EiiSabet':Jllteibock
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney ID 19032013
Dated: January 28, 2019
Newark, New Je~sey
43