This case was last updated from PACER on 11/06/2021 at 07:17:19 (UTC).

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Muntin

Case Summary

On November 5, 2021, United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“the SEC” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Daniel J. Hayes, attorney at SEC’s Chicago Regional Office, filed a civil enforcement action against Steven F. Muntin (“Mutin” or “Defendant”) seeking injunctive relief, payment of civil penalties, and disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains along with prejudgment interest for the alleged misappropriation by Defendant. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan with Judges Judith E. Levy and Jonathan J.C. Grey presiding.

 

In the complaint Plaintiff alleged that, “Between January 2016 and February 2020, Defendant Steven F. Muntin misappropriated over $305,000 from one of his elderly, investment advisory clients (“Client A”) and overcharged this client at least $9,000 in assets under management (“AUM”) fees. During the relevant time period, Muntin worked as an investment adviser representative at an SEC-registered investment adviser (“Adviser A”) located in Flint, Michigan. Muntin also managed certain investments for his advisory clients, including Client A, outside of Adviser A, through his company, Executive Asset Management, Inc., which had previously been registered as an investment adviser with the state of Michigan, and before that, with the SEC.”

 

Plaintiff further alleged that, “Starting in 2016, Muntin began soliciting Client A to write checks to Executive Asset Management for purported investments in securities. Muntin told Client A that he would invest Client A’s money in securities. From March 2016 to February 2020, Client A wrote checks totaling $305,750 to Executive Asset Management for investment in securities. However, Muntin did not invest any of the money, and, shortly after receiving each of the checks, spent all of Client A’s money for his own benefit, including for payments towards Muntin’s real estate taxes, health insurance, boat loan, car loan, and credit card bills.”

 

Plaintiff also alleged that, “From at least January 2016 through February 2020, Muntin also overcharged Client A at least $9,000 in AUM fees that exceeded the amounts Client A owed him based on the advisory fee schedule set forth in Client A’s advisory agreement with Executive Asset Management.”

 

There are three claims for relief laid down by Plaintiff. The first claim deals with the alleged violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)]. The second claim deals with the alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]. The third claim deals with the alleged violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1) and 80b-6(2)].

 

In its prayer for relief Plaintiff has requested the court to permanently restrain and enjoin Defendant from directly or indirectly violating Sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act. Plaintiff also requested the court to order Defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains and/or unjust enrichment received directly or indirectly, with pre-judgment interest thereon, as a result of the alleged violations, pursuant to Exchange Act Sections 21(d)(5) and 21(d)(7), and to order Defendant to pay civil penalties along with such other relief as the court deems appropriate.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    5:21-CV-12607

  • Filing Date:

    11/05/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Finance - Security/Commodity/Exchange

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Judith E. Levy

Referral Judge

Jonathan J.C. Grey

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Defendant

Steven F Muntin

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Daniel J. Hayes

Attorney at U.S. Securities & Exhange Commission

175 West Jackson Blvd, Ste 1450

Chicago, IL 60604

 

Court Documents

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT filed by United States Securities and Exchange Commission against Steven F Muntin with Jury Demand. Plaintiff requests summons issued. No Fee Required - US Government. County of 1st Plaintiff: USA - County Where Action Arose: Genesee - County of 1st Defendant: Livingston. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Hayes, Daniel) (Entered: 11/05/2021)

#2

(#2) SUMMONS Issued for *Steven F Muntin* (DPer) (Entered: 11/05/2021)

#3

(#3) NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel J. Hayes on behalf of United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (Hayes, Daniel) (Entered: 11/05/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/05/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel J. Hayes on behalf of United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (Hayes, Daniel) (Entered: 11/05/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) SUMMONS Issued for *Steven F Muntin* (DPer) (Entered: 11/05/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2021
  • DocketA United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at #http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (DPer) (Entered: 11/05/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT filed by United States Securities and Exchange Commission against Steven F Muntin with Jury Demand. Plaintiff requests summons issued. No Fee Required - US Government. County of 1st Plaintiff: USA - County Where Action Arose: Genesee - County of 1st Defendant: Livingston. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Hayes, Daniel) (Entered: 11/05/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer Daniel J. Hayes