U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 22826 / September 27, 2013
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Frank Dappah and Yatalie Capital Management, et al., Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00546 (W.D.N.C.)
SEC Charges Charlotte Investment Advisors with Excessive Fee Scheme
On September 27, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed an action in federal court in the Western District of North Carolina, charging Frank Dappah of Charlotte, NC, and his firm, Yatalie Capital Management (a/k/a Yatalie Capital Management Co, Creato Funds L.P., a/k/a Yatalie Capital, Inc., a/k/a Creato Funds, L.P., a/k/a Yatalie Capital Management Co.), a sole proprietorship, with violations of the federal securities laws for charging grossly excessive fees to their advisory clients without authorization or notice and other violations. The Commission's complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and an asset freeze against the defendants.
The Commission's complaint alleges that Dappah and his firm took from the clients fees far in excess of what they were entitled to under the client advisory agreements. The complaint alleges that between March 2012 and July 2013, Dappah took advisory fees of nearly $75,000 on assets under management averaging around $205,000. One client, according to the complaint, lost $9,200 in unauthorized fees to Dappah in less than a year on investments of around $23,000.
The complaint also alleges that the defendants improperly registered Yatalie Capital Management with the Commission as an investment adviser, that they made multiple materially false statements in Yatalie Capital Management's Forms ADV, on the firm's website and elsewhere, and that the defendants failed to maintain client advisory agreements.
The complaint alleges that Dappah and Yatalie Capital Management violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. It further alleges that while acting as investment advisors, the defendants violated Sections 206(1) and Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"), the antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act, and Sections 203A, 204, and 207 the Advisers Act and Rules 204-2 and 206(4)-1 thereunder.
The defendants have entered into a consent with the Commission agreeing to the entry by the Court of the relief requested in the complaint.