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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT