Tag: Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

  • TelexFree A No-Show At Alabama Hearing; Litigation Involving Firm Piles Up

    newtelexfreelogoUPDATED 12:25 P.M. EDT U.S.A. Immersed in litigation on at least 10 fronts in the United States while also confronting licensing challenges and asset freezes, TelexFree did not appear last month at a hearing it requested to consider its telecom application before the Alabama Public Service Commission.

    As things stand, the company is not authorized to operate in the state. The May 13 hearing began, according to a transcript published June 4, with an administrative law judge polling the room for appearances on behalf of the state and TelexFree. Two officials from the Commission entered appearances.

    “Let the record reflect that no one has appeared on behalf of the applicant,” noted Administrative Law Judge Scott Morris.

    The Commission then noted a TelexFree matter before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. In April, the staff of the Minnesota PUC asked the state to deny the firm the authority to operate, amid allegations it had provided “false and misleading information” during the application process.

    Morris, according to the Alabama transcript, then noted that “unless [TelexFree] requests rescheduling and pays the court reporter fees for not appearing, this application will not go forward. It will be dismissed.”

    TelexFree initially was scheduled to appear at an Alabama hearing on April 10, but asked for the session to be postponed “for a month” owing to unspecified “scheduling conflicts.”  One of those scheduling conflicts now appears to have been the logistics associated with filing for bankruptcy in Nevada less than a month after TelexFree assured Alabama regulators it had the financial wherewithal to operate in the state.

    The Commission accommodated TelexFree by rescheduling the April 10 hearing for May 13, but TelexFree did not show.

    TelexFree’s Alabama application asserted that TelexFree LLC had a “parent company” known as “TelexFree Group Inc.” Where it is based is unclear. A provision of the TelexFree LLC “Operating Agreement” included in the Alabama application purported to permit TelexFree LLC “[t]o lend money upon terms acceptable to the Managers to any person or entity, and to enter into contracts and agreements which are not arms-length if they are consistent with the best interests of the Company.”

    On April 13, TelexFree declared bankruptcy. The Massachusetts Securities Division (MSD) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed fraud allegations shortly thereafter. MSD described TelexFree as a combined pyramid- and Ponzi fraud that had gathered more than $1.2 billion.

    Less than a month earlier, on March 20, TelexFree filed for its license in Alabama, saying it had 2013 net income of more than $36.4 million and that its “current financials Show considerable net worth.” The document described “Joe Craft” as holding the “Official Title” of “CFO” of TelexFree LLC.

    As the PP Blog reported on April 21 (italics added):

    Page 15 [of the Alabama application] includes an oath recorded March 5, 2014, before a Massachusetts notary public. The oath bears the name and signature of Jim Merrill, who is listed as “President” of TelexFree LLC. The oath attests that the information in the Alabama document — an “Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide interexchange telecommunications services in Alabama” — is true to the best of Merrill’s knowledge and belief.

    The document appears accidentally to have identified Merrill as a woman, given that the certification line actually reads “the statements made herein are true to the best of her [emphasis added by PP Blog] knowledge and belief. Merrill appears not to have noticed when signing the document.

    Despite the sworn oath of Merrill that Craft was the “Official” TelexFree “CFO” on March 5, 2014, however, TelexFree’s board appears not to have named Craft CFO until sometime after 8:11 p.m. on April 13, 2014, the same day TelexFree and related entities filed for bankruptcy in Nevada.

    According to TelexFree’s bankruptcy filing, “Joe H. Craft” of “Joe H. Craft, CPA” was present at the meeting, which was called to order by Carlos Wanzeler.

    During the meeting, the board and other attendees, including CPA Craft, “considered the Company’s liabilities, the strategic alternatives available to it, and the impact of each of the foregoing on the Company’s businesses,” according to the bankruptcy filing.

    During the meeting, the board decided to file for bankruptcy. It then was resolved that “Joe H. Craft” would become one of TelexFree’s “authorized persons.” After this resolution, it then was resolved that “the Authorized Persons be, and they hereby are, authorized and directed to employ the accounting firm of Joe H. Craft, CPA to provide Joe H. Craft to serve as Chief Financial Officer of the Company while the Chapter 11 case is pending and to assist the Company in carrying out its duties under the Bankruptcy Code.”

    Another resolution resolved that “Joe H. Craft be, and he hereby is, elected to serve as Chief Financial Officer of the Company.”

    On April 15, the SEC accused TelexFree, Merrill, Wanzeler and Craft civilly of fraud. Merrill and Wanzeler later were charged criminally with wire-fraud conspiracy. Interim TelexFree CEO Stuart MacMillan said he fired Wanzeler on April 17 and asked Merrill and Craft to resign.

    Page 19 of the 99-page Alabama filing showed an image of a March 8, 2014, document from the office of Alabama Secretary of State Jim Bennett. The document noted that the name TelexFree LLC was “reserved as available” in the state.

    “This name reservation is for the exclusive use of BWFC Processing Center, LLC, 825 East Main St, Boonville, IN 47601 for a period of one year beginning March 08, 2014 and expiring March 08, 2015,” the document reads in part.

    The East Main Street address is the address of both Craft’s accounting firm and the address of BWFC Processing Center LLC, a company listed in New Hampshire as a payment processor. A company with the same name operates in Nevada and provides registered-agent services.

    The SEC said in a complaint that Craft was hired as TelexFree’s accountant in April 2012 and “was sometimes held out as the company’s CFO.”

    Craft is accused of preparing “materially false and misleading” TelexFree financial statements.

    His work for TelexFree “was fraudulent and deceptive, because TelexFree was a Ponzi and pyramid scheme that was destined to collapse, thereby preventing it from making the payments promised to investors,” the SEC alleged.

    The PUCs of Nevada and Hawaii have booted TelexFree, with licensing issues unsettled in Minnesota, Alabama and other states.

    TelexFree is facing civil actions by the SEC and MSD, litigation in bankruptcy court, criminal prosecutions against Merrill and Wanzeler, a criminal grand-jury investigation in Massachusetts, forfeiture actions and at least four prospective class-action lawsuits.

    The firm says on its website that it “has suspended all business activity.”

  • TelexFree Faces Prospect Of Regulatory Probe In Oregon; [UPDATE: Judge To Appoint Bankruptcy Trustee, WSJ Reports]

    Redactions by PP Blog.
    Redactions by PP Blog.

    UPDATED 5:06 P.M. EDT U.S.A. See Comments thread below for breaking news that the judge overseeing the TelexFree bankruptcy case in Massachusetts will appoint a trustee. First reported by the Wall Street Journal. Original story on separate TelexFree matter in Oregon is below . . .

    ** ______________________________ **

    The staff of the Oregon Public Utilities Commission has recommended that the agency open an investigation into TelexFree, citing the MLM “program’s” bankruptcy filing, civil actions against it by the Massachusetts Securities Division and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the criminal charges against alleged TelexFree co-owners James Merrill and Carlos Wanzeler.

    Should TelexFree not respond appropriately in Oregon, the PUC staff said, the commission should strip it of its telecom license.

    TelexFree faces similar regulatory encounters in Nevada and Minnesota.  On May 23 in Minnesota, the state Department of Commerce added to its TelexFree file by pointing the Public Utilities Commission to a May 20 Boston Globe story with a headline of “TelexFree co-owner to stay in custody until trial.”

    It was a story about a U.S. Magistrate Judge’s decision not to grant Merrill bail. The Globe story notes Wanzeler is considered a fugitive by the U.S. Department of Justice.

    TelexFree’s licensing in Alabama also is at risk, and there could be trouble brewing in other states even as TelexFree continues to pursue Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

    In addition, TelexFree faces multiple prospective class-action lawsuits, including at least two that allege violations of the federal racketeering statute. A report in Peruvian media last week suggests that racketeering at TelexFree cut both ways.

    With U.S.-based litigants asserting TelexFree was a racketeering enterprise, La Republica in Peru published a report that suggested a TelexFree promoter in the country  was kidnapped by fellow members last week and ordered to go to a bank to withdraw funds to make them whole. The extortion plan reportedly failed.

    TelexFree has asserted in bankruptcy-court filings that its future business prospects involving VOIP and app products are exciting. A U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee argued that TelexFree was advancing a “rabbit hole” narrative and expecting the judiciary to follow it.

    From the Oregon filing by the PUC staff (italics added):

    The allegations facing the Company raise serious issues as to whether or not the Company should be permitted to retain its certificate of authority. Staff has been unable to reach anyone from the Company to obtain further information. Staff stated in its communications that the Company may request that the Commission cancel its certificate under the current circumstances. It is unlikely that any services will be offered in Oregon as the Company’s assets are frozen, it is in bankruptcy proceedings, and its offices are the target of federal government activity. Nevertheless, cancelling the Company’s certificate to provide services in Oregon would foreclose the possibility.

    TelexFree asserts on its website that it has “suspended all business activity.”

  • BULLETIN: TelexFree’s Telecom License At Risk In Minnesota; Department Of Commerce Asks PUC To Deny Embattled MLM Firm Authority To Operate

    Part of a letter from the Minnesota Department of Commerce to the state Public Utilities Commission.
    Screen shot: Part of a letter from the Minnesota Department of Commerce to the state Public Utilities Commission.

    BULLETIN:  The Minnesota Department of Commerce has asked the state Public Utilities Commission to deny TelexFree’s authorization to provide long-distance service in the state.

    Minnesota regulators now are questioning whether TelexFree financial and background information submitted to the state to gain telecom authority was accurate. The PUC granted the authority on April 18, after the Department of Commerce recommended approval of the application.

    But a Department of Commerce letter and attachment to the PUC dated yesterday asks the agency to mothball TelexFree “until it demonstrates that the information provided in its application is accurate.”

    The move comes on the heels of TelexFree’s April 13 bankruptcy filing in Nevada and fraud charges filed against the firm on April 15 by the Massachusetts Securities Division and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

    In the letter and attachment from the Department of Commerce, the agency asked the PUC to question whether TelexFree was in any financial position to provide service in Minnesota and whether “any other factors” exisited that could be relevant in determining its suitability to operate in the state.

    Among the considerations in granting a telecom license is “the extent to which the applicant has had any civil, criminal, or administrative action taken against it in connection with the applicant’s provision of telecommunications services,” the Department advised the PUC.

    “A certificate to provide local facilities-based service must not be granted unless the applicant establishes that it has the financial, technical, and managerial capability to provide the services described in its petition consistent with the public interest,” the Department said.

    In asking the PUC to deny TelexFree’s authority, the Department pointed to an April 18 email from “TELEX FREE’s former [telecom-registration] representative, Joseph Isaacs.”

    The Isaacs’ email, the Department said, “indicates that TELEXFREE provided false and misleading information to the Department in its application for certification to provide long distance service.”

    From the Department’s assertions to the PUC (italics added):

    The allegedly misleading information provided in TELEX FREE’s application relate to the basic filing requirements of Minn. Rules pts. 7812.0300, subpt. 2 (E, F, and N): civil and administrative action pending, financial statements, and information relating to the technical, managerial and financial capabilities of TELEX FREE in support of its application for certification. The allegedly misleading information in the TELEX FREE’s application relate to the decision criteria in Minn. Rules pt. 7812.0300, subpt. 2 (C, D, and H).

    If the Department had known this information, it would not have recommended approval of the application for certification to provide long distance service, without further investigation.

    TelexFree operates as an MLM. Some of its members now are asking a federal bankruptcy judge to “bail out” the “program.”

    Beyond that, the U.S. Trustee for the region in which TelexFree filed its bankruptcy petition (Nevada) said in court filings that “[t]here is compelling evidence of fraud, dishonesty and gross mismanagement of the affairs of the TelexFree debtor entities, TelexFree, LLC, TelexFree, Inc. and TelexFree Financial, Inc.”

    TelexFree LLC was the entity granted authority to operate in Minnesota on April 18.

    Tracy Hope Davis, the trustee, also alleged there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that “criminal conduct” occurred at TelexFree.

    Challenges to its authority to provide telecom services could affect TelexFree’s ability to persuade a bankruptcy judge that it could continue as a going concern. Litigation against TelexFree is occurring at both the state and federal levels, and the firm also might face the prospect of class-action lawsuits from its distributors.

    The Massachusetts Securities Division alleged on April 15 that information provided investigators in that state did not agree with information provided the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission.

    In Nevada, meanwhile, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto has posted a notice to intervene in TelexFree-related matters before that state’s Public Utilities Commission.

    Records in Nevada show that TelexFree’s pending telecom application in the state potentially could be denied for failure to advertise its application in newspapers as required by the state.

    Although ads did appear in two newspapers, they did not appear as required in three others, records show.