Buy This Entire Record For
United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Glick
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
June 14, 2019
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
DANIEL H. GLICK and FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES INC., Defendants, and GLICK ACCOUNTING SERVICES INC., EDWARD H. FORTE, and DAVID B. SLAGTER, Relief Defendants.
Jeffrey A. Shank Michelle Muñoz Durk U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION'S MOTION FOR
ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST RELIEF DEFENDANT DAVID
VIRGINIA M. KENDALL.
respectfully moves for the entry of final judgment against
relief defendant David Slagter. In a nutshell, the SEC and
Slagter have reached a settlement that will require Slagter
to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars. Those funds - $362,
486, to be exact - will provide meaningful, much-needed
relief to injured investors.
proposed settlement also will bring this case to a close.
This Court has already entered judgment against all of the
other defendants and relief defendants.
support of this motion, the SEC states as follows:
1. The SEC filed this action on an emergency basis on March
23, 2017. The Complaint alleged that Daniel Glick perpetrated
a multi-million-dollar fraud against his clients, many of
whom were elderly. He took advantage of senior citizens who
entrusted him with their retirement savings.
2. The United States later charged Glick with wire fraud, and
he eventually pleaded guilty. Judge Gettleman ultimately
sentenced Glick to 151 months in prison, and ordered him to
pay more than $5.2 million in restitution. See United
States v. Glick, 17-cr-739 (N.D. Ill) (Dckt. No. 40)
(Judgment in a Criminal Case). This Court later entered
judgment against Glick and his companies, too. See
Dckt. Nos. 137 - 139.
3. The SEC also brought claims against David Slagter and
Edward Forte. The Complaint alleged that they were relief
defendants, meaning that they received the fruits of
Glick's fraud. “Collectively, Forte and Slagter
received more than $1.5 million from Glick. The money that
Forte and Slagter received is substantially traceable to the
funds that Glick received from investors.” See
Cplt., at ¶ 8; see also Id. at Count IV.
4. This Court entered a default judgment against Edward Forte
for his repeated failure to comply with this Court's
deadlines. The judgment against Forte totals $1, 044, 270.
See Dckt. No. 151.
5. The SEC has now reached a settlement with Slagter, the
last remaining party. The SEC respectfully submits the
Consent of Relief Defendant David Slagter (Ex. 1), as well as
the proposed final judgment (Ex. 2).
6. The proposed final judgment requires Slagter to pay $362,
486. Slagter will pay $336, 249 within 10 days, and will pay
the remaining $26, 237 within 360 days. The settlement amount
($362, 486) is equal to an inheritance that Slagter recently
received from a deceased relative. See 4/3/19 Tr.,
at 9-10; see also Dckt. No. 166 (discussing the
7. The proposed final judgment also includes a financial
waiver for Slagter, given his financial condition as
represented in sworn financial statements. Specifically, the
proposed final judgment provides that Slagter is liable for
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains in the amount of $611, 064,
and prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $107, 855,
for a total of $718, 919. But based on the representations
made by Slagter in sworn financial statements, payment of all
but $362, 486 is waived due to inability to pay.
8. The waiver depends on the truthfulness and accuracy of
Slagter's sworn financial statements. Slagter has agreed
that the SEC may petition the Court for an order requiring
him to pay the unpaid portion of the judgment (that is, $356,
433, which is $718, 919 minus $362, 486) if it learns that
his representations were fraudulent, misleading, inaccurate,
or incomplete in any material respect.
9. Slagter will pay the funds to the SEC, which will hold the
funds for the time being. The proposed final judgment
provides that the SEC may propose a plan to distribute the
funds to the victims, subject to the Court's approval.
See Proposed Final Judgment, at 4-5. SEC counsel
expect to confer with the victims and work with the SEC's
Office of Distributions to propose a ...