ILNews

Hauke receiver files suit against his former accounting firm

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The receiver representing investors in the Ponzi scheme run by convicted money manager Keenan Hauke has sued Hauke's former accounting firm, charging that its negligence contributed to millions of dollars in investor losses.

Carmel attorney William Wendling Jr. filed suit in Marion Superior Court on Monday against Indianapolis-based DeWitt & Shrader PC and executives David DeWitt and Matthew Hickey.

The lawsuit claims the firm violated the Indiana Securities Act and committed negligence and fraud, as well as breach of contract, by failing to monitor Hauke’s bank accounts.

DeWitt & Shrader had served as the accounting firm for Hauke’s Fishers-based hedge fund, Samex Capital Partners LLC, from January 2006 until April 2011.

Wendling charges in the complaint that DeWitt & Shrader failed to monitor Samex’s bank accounts, enabling Hauke to pilfer investor funds for his personal use.

“As Samex’s accountants, defendants either knew or should have known that Hauke was not following generally accepted accounting practices and compliance procedures, and either knew or should have known that Hauke was stealing from Samex and was operating a Ponzi scheme,” Wendling said in the suit.

David DeWitt, the firm's top executive, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Hauke pleaded guilty to fraud in December and was sentenced to 10 years in prison in March. He also was ordered to make restitution of $7.1 million, the amount the court determined he swindled from 67 investors.

In the suit, though, Wendling estimates the losses at $10 million. He is seeking to recover all investor losses attributed to DeWitt & Shrader’s negligence, according to the suit.

The complaint against DeWitt & Shrader follows a separate suit Wendling filed in April on behalf of investors.

He sued Larcher Investments LP and one of its managers, David Larcher, in federal court in Indianapolis. Larcher is executive vice president of Vestar Development, a Phoenix-based real estate developer.

The lawsuit claims Larcher deposited about $2 million into Samex through a series of payments and reinvested profits in 2002, 2004 and 2005.

Then, in 2008, Hauke wired Larcher nearly $2.6 million, describing the extra money as a gain on Larcher’s investments. Wendling claims the money Larcher received actually came out of the pockets of other investors.

The case is pending in federal court.

Before his guilty plea, Hauke was a high-profile wealth manager who made regular appearances on CNBC, Fox Business Network, Bloomberg Television and Bloomberg Radio. He also wrote an investing column for IBJ.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT