SEC Enforcement

The keystone of the practice at Schoeppl Law, P.A. is securities litigation with an emphasis on SEC regulatory defense in SEC examinations, SEC informal inquiries, SEC formal investigations, SEC enforcement actions in federal court, SEC enforcement actions in administrative proceedings, and SEC appellate litigation in federal circuit courts of appeal.  Over the course of the past two decades, Schoeppl Law, P.A. has represented clients in over 100 SEC proceedings and has resolved cases on behalf of clients at the informal inquiry stage with the SEC, the formal investigation stage with the SEC, the enforcement action stage with the SEC, and has litigated a multitude of SEC enforcement actions in federal court on behalf of clients at both the trial and appellate levels.   We have also represented numerous public companies and conducted internal investigations on their behalf to determine whether violations of the federal securities laws may have occurred.  We have represented clients in SEC proceedings ranging from public and private companies, registered investment advisers, registered broker-dealers, law firms, accounting firms, public relations firms, investor relations firms, hedge funds, to a retired Major General.  The quintessence of our practice during SEC investigations is rising to the challenge of convincing the SEC enforcement staff in appropriate cases to resolve an SEC investigation without any enforcement action against our clients.  We have accomplished this extremely difficult and complex task for certain clients through the deployment of a variety of proactive response mechanisms including, but not limited to, the preparation and submission of white papers on key factual and legal issues, voluntary remediation, changes to policies and procedures, termination of practices, retention of outside consultants and experts, internal reviews, internal investigations, restatements of financials, undertakings, removal of bad actors, and meeting with senior enforcement staff to discuss our views on issues and proposals for solutions without enforcement action by the staff.

The SEC Enforcement Practice Group at Schoeppl Law, P.A. is led by Carl F. Schoeppl, a former senior federal prosecutor with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Division of Enforcement, and prosecuted some of the most notable  securities fraud cases on behalf of the SEC in federal courts throughout the Southeastern United States at that time, including  SEC v. Chapnick,  [1993-1994 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 98,076 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 1994)(an insider trading and $33 million securities fraud case involving former officers of the failed Commonwealth Savings and Loan Association of Florida); and  SEC v. Bradt, [Current Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 98,624 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 1995)(a $27 million “Ponzi” scheme case involving the notorious con-man Thomas R. Mullens and the defunct Omni Capital Group, Ltd.).  Mr. Schoeppl also served as Ethics Counsel for the SEC’s Miami Office, and was responsible for rendering ethics opinions and legal advice on ethical issues to a staff of over fifty.  Prior to his tenure at the SEC, Mr. Schoeppl was a Special Assistant District Attorney in Atlanta, Georgia with responsibility over trying major felony criminal cases.   Mr. Schoeppl has  been appointed by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, upon the recommendation of the SEC,  as the Receiver for five different corporations in an SEC enforcement action styled SEC v. Schaefer, et al., Case No. 98-343-CIV-ORL-22A (M.D. Fla.)($3.5 million securities fraud/Ponzi scheme case involving the sale of promissory notes). Mr. Schoeppl has also been appointed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, upon the recommendation of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), as the Receiver for Transworld Enterprises, Inc. in an FTC enforcement action styled FTC v. Transworld Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 00-8126-CIV-GRAHAM (S.D. Fla.)($3 million nationwide franchise fraud case involving the sale of ATM business opportunities).  Mr. Schoeppl was appointed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, upon the recommendation of the SEC, to serve as the Receiver for U.S. Capital Funding, Inc. in a $48 million securities fraud case styled SEC v. First Capital Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 00-8445-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS (S.D. Fla.).  Mr. Schoeppl was appointed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, upon the recommendation of the FTC, as Temporary Receiver for America’s Shopping Network, Inc. (“ASN”), Consumer Services, Inc., Karen Zagami, Carianne Sica, Louis Gangi, HME, Inc., and John Epstein in an FTC enforcement action styled FTC v. America’s Shopping Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-80540-CIV-HURLEY (S.D. Fla.).  In ASN, the Defendants allegedly conducted a nationwide fraudulent work-at-home scheme. Mr. Schoeppl has also served as an expert witness for the SEC in SEC v. Web Hosting Headquarters Partnership, et al., Case No.: 00-4975-CIV-HIGHSMITH/GARBER (S.D. Fla.).   Mr. Schoeppl has substantial litigation experience at both the trial and appellate levels in SEC enforcement actions spanning over the course of three different decades.  Some of his notable reported decisions in SEC enforcement actions include, among others, the following: SEC v. Bradt, [Current Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 98,624 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 1995) (a $27 million “Ponzi” scheme case involving the notorious con-man Thomas R. Mullens and the defunct Omni Capital Group, Ltd.); SEC v. Chapnick, [1993-1994 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 98,076 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 1994) (an insider trading and $33 million securities fraud case involving former officers of the failed Commonwealth Savings and Loan Association of Florida); SEC v. Lauer, 445 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (S.D. Fla. 2006); SEC v. Lauer, No. 03-80612-CIV, 2006 WL 2462629 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2006); SEC v. Lauer, No. 03-80612-CIV, 2006 WL 2660752 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2006); SEC v. Solow, 554 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2008), aff’d, 308 Fed. Appx. 364 (11^th Cir. Jan. 21, 2009); SEC v. Solow, No. 06-81041 CIV, 2007 WL 1970806 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2007), aff’d, 308 Fed. Appx. 364 (11^th Cir. Jan. 21, 2009); SEC v. Solow, No. 06-81041 CIV, 2007 WL 917269 (S.D. Fla. March 23, 2007); SEC v. Universal Exp., Inc., No. 04 CIV 2322, 2009 WL 1835915 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2009); SEC v. Universal Exp., Inc., No. 04 CIV 2322, 2008 WL 1944803 (S.D.N.Y. April 30, 2008); SEC v. Video Without Boundaries, Inc., No. 08-61517-CV, 2010 WL 5790684 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2010); and SEC v. Yun,  327 F.3d 1263 (11^th Cir. 2003)(case dramatically changed the law of insider trading in the Eleventh Circuit by establishing the requirement that the SEC prove the existence of a tipper benefit in an insider trading case based upon the misappropriation theory of liability).