1 L.E, Q~ ~i 9?A15 ~ ~:



Similar documents
How To Get A Court Order To Stop A Fraudster From Selling Securities In Idaho

INTRODUCTION. 1. The State of Maine and Securities Administrator (hereinafter collectively

Case 2:13-cv DS Document 1 Filed 08/08/13 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BUREAU OF SECURITIES 153 Halsey Street P.O. Box Newark, New Jersey (973)

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BUREAU OF SECURITIES P.O. Box Halsey St.. 6t1 Floor Newark, New Jersey (973) IN THE MATTER OF:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. Defendants.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 SEATTLE DIVISION

Case 2:13-cv XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2013 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

and Cease and Desist Order ( Order ), and makes the

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SECURITIES COMMISSIONER OF MARYLAND

Case 3:11-cv P Document 1 Filed 06/10/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH OFFICE OF FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE SERVICES

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH OFFICE OF FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE SERVICES

Case 3:15-cv D Document 1 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

He was registered with the Bureau as an agent of

-- - ~ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CARIBOU ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT. relating to the creation of a intrastate investment market for

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH OFFICE OF FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE SERVICES

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SECURITIES COMMISSIONER OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Case 0:11-cv XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2011 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Case No

Chapter 21 Credit Services Organizations Act

4:10-cv TLW Date Filed 03/18/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12

~)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

1 Case No. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff,

Case 8:13-cv SDM-AEP Document 1 Filed 04/05/13 Page 1 of 19 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SECURITIES COMMISSIONER OF MARYLAND * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1. This case involves widespread fraudulent conduct orchestrated by Shkreli from at

Case No. CV Plaintiff, the State ofidaho, Department of Finance ("Department"), and Defendant, Bart

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SECURITIES COMMISSIONER OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SECURITIES COMMISSIONER OF MARYLAND

Code of Ethics Effective June 1, 2015

Case 2:09-cv SRB Document 1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 1 of 18

BEFORE THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. S-03424A THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Plaintiff, v. Civil File No. 2:13-cv Defendant.

State of California - Department of Corporations

Nebraska Loan Broker Act Chapter 45, Article 1, Section f to

Definitions. (1) "Advertisement" means any written, electronic, or printed communication or any communication by means of recorded

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, RESTITUTION, COSTS AND CIVIL PENALTIES

MRSI International, Inc.; Michael C. Rabanne - S CO01 - Consent Order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SECURITIES COMMISSIONER OF MARYLAND. PARIS G. MILLS * Case No ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION COMPLAINT

Case 4:15-cv A Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Fraud - Trading Commodity Futures

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mike Watson Investments was purportedly formed to conduct real estate seminars. Its principal

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SECURITIES COMMISSIONER OF MARYLAND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

STATE OF MISSOURI OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT j~~e~_1atten, CLERK FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 6(flY Deputy Clerk ATLANTA DIVISION.

FORM MLOE-1. State of Maryland Office of the Attorney General Securities Division

Case 0:13-cv WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2013 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE MARYLAND SECURITIES COMMISSIONER * * * * * * * * * * * * * CONSENT ORDER

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission"), for its Complaint against PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Before the COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION. ) ) In the matter of: ) CFTC Docket No )

w PRO?ES, CLERK CW\RLES ION, SC

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

BEFORE THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SECURITIES COMMISSIONER OF SOUTH CAROLINA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON TO: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS SECURITIES DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STATEMENT OF CHARGES TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Law Related to Fraud. Civil Justice System Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc.

COMPLAINT. Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission"), for its Complaint against SUMMARY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SECURITIES COMMISSIONER OF MARYLAND CONSENT ORDER

JOINT CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOLUB CAPITAL BDC, INC. GOLUB CAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION GC ADVISORS LLC

~'

Case 4:11-cv Document 1 Filed 09/13/11 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1

Case 3:10-cv K Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 1 of 11 PageID 1

Securities Regulation - Statutes Quinn - Fall 2004

Anna M. Lascurain Deputy Attorney General

PERMANENT ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS SECURITIES DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION

June 10, Legislative Amendments to the Indiana Code Relating to First Lien Mortgage Act (the Act )

STATE OF MISSOURI OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE

SECURITIES SUPPLEMENT

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 7

Public Act No

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SECURITIES COMMISSIONER OF MARYLAND

SUMMARY ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Market Timing Schemes

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA CASE No../}nAMA QJ VI.SIIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant.

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED,

STATE OF MAINE BUREAU OF BANKING SECURITIES DIVISION. SUMMARY ORDER TO Michael L. Hancock ALLEGATIONS, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SECURITIES COMMISSIONER OF MARYLAND

CODE OF ETHICS FOR POINT CAPITAL, INC. STATEMENT OF GENERAL FIDUCIARY

In an ever changing business and social environment it has become increasingly

Transcription:

09:51;53 p.m. 10-19-2015 1 /12 `L JOHN 1. HOFFMAN ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY Division of Law 124 Halsey St., S~' Floor Newark, New Jersey 071 O1 Attorney for Plaintiff 1 L.E, Q~ ~i 9?A15 ~ ~: =S'`. ~TN4tYlA5:M:, MOORE; J.S.C, By: Emanuel Asmar (ID # 006702005) Deputy Attorney General SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CHANCERY DIVISION: GENERAL EQUITY ESSEX COUNTY DOCKET NO. ESX-C-S9-11 JOHN J. HOFFMAN, Acting Attorney General of New larsey, on behalf of LAURA H. POSHER, Chicf of the New Jersey Bureau of Securities, Civil Action Plaintiff, ~ ORDER v. MICHAEL WILLIAM KWASNIK, ESQ., individually and as Managing Partner of Kwasnik, Rodeo, Kanowitz &Buckley, P.C., WILLIAM KWASNIK, individually and as Chief Executive officer of Liberty State Financial Holdings Corp. and President of Liberty State Benefits of Pennsylvania, Inc.; JOSEPI-r ANTHONY SCHIFANO, individually; DANIEL FRANCIS MCCORRY, Individually, WILLIAM P. LEONARD, individually and as secretary and treasurer of Capital Conservation Associates, Inc., et al. Defendants.

09:52;00 p.m. 10-19-2015 2 /12 THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by,lohn J. I~o' fman, Acting Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, on behalf, of Laura H. Posner, Chief of the New Jersey Bureau of Securities, for an Order granting summary judgment against 'Defendant Joseph Schifano, and for an Order granting final judgment by default against Defendants Michael William Kwasnik ("Michael Kwasnik") and Daniel McCorry; and the Court having considered the papers submitted in support of the motion and any papers submitted in opposition; in addition to oral argument, if any; And for good cause otherwise shown; the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. From approximately December 200$ to approximately to March 2010, Liberty State Benefits of Pennsylvania, Inc. ("LSBPA") offered three (3) year notes purporting to pay a 12% annual return ("LSBPA Notes") for sale to investors. 2. The LSBPA Notes were offered for sale through the use of a Private Placement Memorandum. 3. The LSBPA Notes are securities under the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law (1997), N.J.S.A. 49:3-47 et seg:, ("Securities Law"}. 4. The LSBPA Notes were required to be, but were not, registered with the New Jersey Sureau of Securities ("Bureau"). S. The LSBPA Notes were not federally covered securities that would otherwise ba exempt from registration under N.J.S.A. 49:3-60.1, 6. The LSBPA Notes were not exempt from registration under the Securities Law. 7. Michael Kwasnik, Joseph Schifano and Daniel McCorry, acting individually and in concert with each other, offered and sold the LSBPA Notes to investors.

09:52:09 p. m. 10-19-2015 3/12 8. The LSBPA Notes were offered and sold to at least seventy-three (73) investors. 9, Many of the investors included elderly investors and trusts for which Michael Kwasnik, who was formerly an attorney, served as trustee. 10. Daniel McCorry and Joseph Schifano offered and sold the LSBPA Notes to their financial advisory clients and those with whom they otherwise had pre-existing relationships. 11. Michael Kwasnik, on his own and/or together with Joseph Schifano and/or Daniel McCorry, offered and sold the LSBPA Notes to investors, including clients wha sought his legal services. 12. Michael Kwasnik sold and/or substantially participated in the offer and sale of the LSBPA Nntes to at least seventy-three (73) investors. 13. Joseph Schifano and Daniel McCorry sold and/or substantially participated in the offer and sale of the LSBPA Notes to at least twenty-three (23) investors. 14. Michael Kwasnik, Joseph Schifano and Daniel McCorry actad as "agents" as defined by N.J.5.A. 49:3-~9(b), in connection with the offer and sale of the LSBPA Notes to investors. 1 S. Michael Kwasnik, Joseph Schifano and Daniel McCorry were not registered with the Bureau as "agants" as defined by N.J.S,A. 49:3-49(b), to offer or sell the LSBPA Notes to, from, or within New Jersey, nor were they exempt from registration. 16, Michael Kwasnik, Joseph Schifano and Daniel McCony violated N.1.S.A. 49:3-56(a} {acting as an unregistered agent) and N.J.S.A. 49:3-60 (selling unregistered securities) by offering and selling the LSBPA Notes ta, from, or within New Jersey without being registered as "agents" of Liberty State Benefits of Pennsylvania, Inc. 3

09:52:22 p.m. 10-19-2015 4 /12 17. Michael Kwasnik, in connection with the offer and sale of securities, employed a device, scheme or artifice to defraud in violation of N.J.S.A. 49:3-52(a) by, among other things: a. causing investor funds to be used in a Ponzi scheme whereby new investor funds were used to pay existing investors; b, causing investor funds to be used or transferred in a manner contrary to disclosures to investors; and c. making materially false statements and omissions to investors, including i. Failing to disclose to investors that the LSBPA Notes were not registered or that they were required to be registered with the Bureau, in violation of the Securities Law; ii. Failing to disclose to investors that Michael Kwasnik, Joseph Schifano and Daniel McCorry were not registered with the Bureau to sell securities, in violation of the Securities Law; iii. Failing to disclose to investors that their investment funds would be used to, among other thins, make monthly interest payments to existing investors and other purposes contrary to what was disclosed to investors; and iv. Misrepresenting, falsely stating ar failing to disclose the true nature and risk of the LSBPA Note investment by telling investors that: a. their investment in the LSBPA Notes was a good and sound investment; b. they would not lose their investment principal; 4

09:52:31 p. m, 10-19-2015 5/12 c, their investment funds woald be safe and not bs at risk; d, their investment would be collaterized and secured by [ife insurance policies; e. their investment funds would be used to purchase life insurance policies, life settlements and/ar beneficial interests of life insurance policies owned by irrevocable life insurance trusts; f. their investment in the LSBPA Notes would be set up like an IRA; ~. their monthly payments would be guaranteed; and h. their then-existing investments were not doing well and that the LSBPA Notes were a better investment. 18. Michael Kwasnik, Joseph Schifano and Daniel McCorry, in connection with the offer and sale of the securities, made untrue statements of material facts and/ar omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading in violation of N.J.S.A. 49:3-52(b) by, among other things: a. Failing to disclose to investors that the LSBPA Notes were not registered or that they were required to be registered with the Bureau, in violation of the Securities Law; b. Failing to disclose Joseph Schifano's and Daniel McCorry's past negative regulatory, including that they were enjoined from violating the Securities Law; G

09:52:39 p. m. 10-19-2015 6/12 c. Failing to disclose to investors that Michael Kwnsnik, Joseph Schifana and Daniel McCorry were not registered with the Bureau to sell securities, in violation of the Securities Law; d. Failing to disclose to investors that their investment funds would be used to, among other things, make monthly interest payments to existing investors and other purposes contrary to what was disclosed to investors; and e. Misrepresenting, falsely stating or failing to disclose the true nature and risk of the LSBPA Note investment by telling investors that: i. their investment in the LSBPA Nates was a good and sound investment; ii. they would not lose their investment principal; iii, their investment funds would be safe and not be at risk; iv. their investment would be collaterized and secured by life insurance policies; v. their investment funds would be used to purchase life insurance policies, life settlements and/or beneficial interests of life insurance policies owned by inevacable life insurance trusts; vi. their investment in the LSBPA Nates would be set up like an IRA; vii. their monthly payments would be guaranteed; and viii. their then-existing investments were not doing well and that the LSBPA Notes were a better investment.

09:52:48 p. m. 10-19-2015 7/12 19. Joseph Schifano and Daniel McCorry's practice or course of business of using false statements, material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the of#'er and sale of the securities, operated as a fraud or deceit upon investors in violation of N.J.S,A. 49:3-52(c). 20. Michael Kwasnik's practice ar course of business of using false statements, material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the offer and sale of the securities, and otherwise directing investor funds to be used for purposes not disclosed to them, operated as a fraud or deceit upon investors in violation of N.J.S.A. 49:3-52(c). 21. Michael Kwasnik, Joseph Schifano and Daniel McCorry engaged in the acts and practices alleged in the First Amended Verified Complaint. 22. The acts and practices of Michael Kwasnik, Joseph Schifano and Daniel McCorry constitute violations of the Securities Law. 23. For each violation of the Securities Law, Michael Kwasnik, Joseph Schifano and Daniel McGarry should be assessed a penalty of $10,000 for the first violation and $20,000 for each subsequent violation under N.J.S.A, 49:3-70. ]. DefendAnts committed S49 total violations, as follows: a. Michael Kwasnik committed 365 violations of N.J.S.A. 49:3-52(a), N.J.S.A. 49:3-52(b), N.J.S.A. 49:3-52(c), N.J.S.A. 49:3-56(a), and N.1.S.A. 493-60 in connection with seventy-three (73) securities transactions; b. Joseph Schifano committed ninety-two (92) violations of N.J.S.A. 49:3-52(b), N.3.S.A. 49:3-52(c), N.J.S.A. 49:3-56(a) and N.J.S.A. 49:3-fi0 in connection with twenty-three (23) securities transactions; and c. Daniel McCorry committed ninety-two (92} violations of N.J.S.A. 49:3-52(b), 7

09:52.58 p. m. 10-19-2015 8/12 N.1.S.A. 49:3-52(c), N.J.S.A. 49:3-56(a), and N.J.S.A. 49:3-60 in connection with twenty-three (23}securities transactions. THEREFORE, IT IS on this ~97tt day of ~, 2015 ORDERED THAT: 24. Final judgment by default is granted to Plaintiff as to Count I of the First Amended Verified Complaint against Michael Kwasnik, who is found to have employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud an violation afn.j.s.a. 49:3-52(a); 25. Finai judgment by default is granted to Plaintiff as to Count II of the First Amended Verified Complaint against Michael Kwasnik and Daniel McCorry, who are found to have made untrue statements of material facts and/or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading in violation of N.J.S.A. 49:3-52(b); 26. Summary judgment is granted to Plaintiff as to Coant II of the First Amended Verified Complaint against Joseph Schifano, who is found to have made untrue statements of material facts and/or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading in violation ofn.j.s.a. 49:3-52(b); 27. Final judgment by default is granted to Plaintiff as to Count III of the First Amended Verified Complaint against Michael Kwasnik and Daniel McCorry, who are foand to have engaged in an act or practice which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person in violation ofn.j.s.a. 49:3-52(c); 28. Summary judgment is granted to Plaintiff as to Count TII of the First Amended Verified Complaint against Joseph SchifAno, who is found to have engaged in an act or practice which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person in violation of N.J.S.A. 49:3-52(c); 8

09:53:10 p. m. 10-19-2015 9112 29. Final judgment by default is granted to Plaintiff as to Count IV of the First Amended Verified Complaint against Michael Kwasnik and Daniel McCorry, who are found to have acted as agents without registration in violation ofn.j.s.a. 49:3-56(a); 30. Summary judgment is granted to Plaintiff as to Count IV of the first Amended Verified Complaint against Joseph Schifano, who is found to have acted as an agent without registration in violation ofn.j.s.a. 49:3-56(a); 31. Final judgment by default is granted to Plaintiff as to Caunt VII of the First Amended Verified Complaint against Michael Kwasnik and Daniel McGarry, who are found to have sold unregistered securities in violation of N.J.S.A. 49:3-60; 32. Summary judgment is granted to Plaintiff as to Gaunt VII of the First Amended Verified Complaint against Joseph Schifano, who is found to have sold unregistered securities In violation of N.J.S,A. 49:3-6Q; 33. Michael Kwasnik is assessed a civil monetary penalty in the amount of-~s~i- "~~"'-~ "-~ b~s,~4~,~ ~o~~bo $fr;~~s;rmrt:~} for violating the Securities Law in accordance with N.J.S.A. 49:3-70.1; 34. Joseph Schifano is assessed a civil monetary penalty in the amount of 2U~ c900 ~;989:@8j for violating the Securities Law in accordance with N.J.S.A. 49:3-70.1; 35. Daniel McCorry is assessed a civil mo~e~ta_ry p~n~alty in the amount of 10 )for violating the Securities Law in accordance with N.J.S.A. 49:3-70.1; 36. Michael Kwasnik, Joseph Schifana and Daniel McCorry are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff for restitution in the amount of Eight Million Six Hundred and Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Hour Dollars and Forty-Eight cents ($8,60'7,604.48) for lasses incurred by individuals who invested in LSBPA Notes; 37. Final judgment is entered against Michael Kwasnik in the amount ofi ^~~~~~ "'~~"~~ ; ~ 3

9736482146 EssexChancery 09.53.22 p. m. 10-19-2015 10/12 ~ ~Z~z$7, day, y ~,constituting Eight Million Six Hundred and Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Four Dollars and Forty-Eight cents ($8,607,604.48) in restitution pursuant to N.J.S.A. 49:3-69(a) and $ 3650, ~ ~ ~ :~~J u~ ~ t r o w nn.~ nn.i ~ u"ct'vl~'1919ctc~ic1'~0i38~~~^~y9~t&h~~ 38. Final judgment is entered against Joseph Schifano in the amount of ~T~~~~~~^~ ~'~ ~* ~9 ~27,C~oy.yp ), constihiting Eight Million Six Hundred aad Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Four Dollars and Forty-Eight cents ($8,607,604.48) in restitution pursuant to N.J.S.A. 49:3-69(a) and ears ~ qzd~~ (~`l$~~6:66j as a civil monetary penalty pursuant to N.J.S.A. 49:3-70.1; 39. Final judgment is entered against Daniel McCorry in the amount of ~T~~na~~~ -.. ~'y ~-Z7 ~by~y~ 4,4F.}; constituting Eight Million Six Hundred and Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Four Dollars and Forty-Eight cents ($8,60'1,604.48) in restitution pursuant to~n.j.s.a. 493-69(a) and ~A lars Zo aoa (~9~) as a civil monetary penalty pursuant to N..I.S.A. 49:3-70.1; 40. Payment of the final judgment amounts shall be made by attorney trus# fund account check, certified check or other guaranteed funds, made payable to the "State of New Jersey, Bureau of Securities" and delivered to the attention of the Bureau Chief, at the following address; Buraau of Securities, 153 Halsey Street, 6th Floor, Newark, New Jersey 07102; 41. Any restitution payments made by Joseph Schifano, Michael Kwasnik, and/or Daniel McCorry in the instant state court matter that are received by the Bureau shall be subject to and distributed in accordance with the January 9, 2015 "Final Judgment and Consent Order as to Defendants Liberty State Financial Holdings Corp, and Liberty State Benefits of Pennsylvania, Inc." ("January 4, 2015 Consent Order"). Accordingly, any restitution payments made by Jaseph Schifano, Michael Kwasnik, and/or Daniel McCony in~ the 10

09:53.37 p.m. 10-19-2015 11 /12 t' instant state court matter far the benefit of any person identified as an investor on exhibit A of the January 9, 201 S Consent Order shall be paid to the assignee of any such an investor, including the New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection ("the Client Protection Fund"). 42. Defendants 3oseph Schifano, Michael Kwasnik, and Daniel McCorry, individually and by ar through any corporation, business entity, agent, employee, broker, partner, officer, director, attorney, stockholder and/or any other person who is directly or indirectly under their control or direction, are permanently restrained and enjoined from directly or indirectly violating the Securities Law and, specifically, from: a, violating the Securities Law, including its antifraud provisions, N.J.S.A. 49:3-52(a) (d); b. engaging in the securities business in New Jersey in any capacity including, but net limited to, an agent as defined in N.J.S.A. 49:3-49(b), a broker-dealer as defined in N.J.S.A. 49:3-49(c), an investment adviser as defined in N.7.S.A. 49:3-49(g), and an investment adviser representative as defined in N.J.S.A. 48:3-49(s); c. issuing, offering far sale or selling, offering to purchase or purchasing, distributing, promoting, advertising, soliciting, negotiating, advancing the sale of and/or promoting securities, or advising regarding the sale of any securities, in any manner to, from or within New Jersey; d, en~a~ing in the conduct described in the First Amended Verified Complaint; e. acting as an officer and/or director of an issuer, or from supervising employees of an issuer ox controlling any issuer that offers and/or sells any security; f, applying to the Bureau to be abroker-dealer, an agent, investment adviser, ar investment adviser representative as defined by the Securities Law;

09;53:48 p. m, 10-19-2015 12112 r g. recommending the purchase and/or sale of any investment including, promissory notes; h. raising any capital in any farm For any: (i) issuer; (ii) managing member of any issuer; and (iii} general partner or other controlling person ar entity, o any issuer; i. mttnaging or exercising control over investmecats and assets for any: (i) issuer; (ii) managing member of any issuer; and {iii} general partner or other control person or entity, of any issuer; and j, engaging in any investor relations And/or communications for or on behalf of any: (i) issuer; (ii) managing member of any issuer; and (iii) gencral partner of any issuer. 43. Pliff's counsel shall serve a copy of this Order upon all parties or their counsel within days ofplainti~fls counsel's receipti of same. This motion was: ~ opposed _ unopposed. 12