ILNews

Hauke receiver files suit to recover $600k from Arizona investor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The receiver representing investors in the Ponzi scheme run by convicted money manager Keenan Hauke has sued to recover nearly $600,000 in improper payments made to an Arizona investment fund.

And he says he has a handful more investors to pursue.

Carmel attorney William Wendling Jr. filed suit in federal court in Indianapolis against Larcher Investments LP and one of its managers, David Larcher. Larcher is executive vice president of Vestar Development, a Phoenix-based real estate developer.

The lawsuit claims that Larcher deposited about $2 million into Hauke’s Fishers-based hedge fund, Samex Capital Partners LLC, 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.

But Samex had not been generating legitimate investment returns since a real estate investment had gone sour in April 2004. Instead, Hauke was paying off earlier investors with money he raised from later investors.

As a result, Wendling claims, Larcher received $593,040 that actually came out of the pockets of other investors.

“I want this to be crystal clear: the people we’re asking money back from did nothing wrong,” Wendling said. But, he added, “whatever profits they received were not really profits.”

Larcher did not return a phone call seeking comment on the lawsuit.

Wendling was appointed receiver of Samex Capital in June but could not proceed with his work until the conclusion of investigations by the Indiana Secretary of State’s Securities Division and the FBI.

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

Wendling said he is still compiling the list of investors that, like Larcher, received payments that were higher than the amounts they originally invested and any legitimate gains their money generated before Hauke’s fraud began.

He expects to have discussions with “a handful” of other investors and, if necessary, also file lawsuits against them. In all, Wendling estimated, there are likely $1 million to $2 million in excess payouts that could possibly be recovered.

Prior to the fraud investigation, 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 in IBJ.

This article original ran in the April 11, 2012, IBJ Daily. The Indianapolis Business Journal is a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT