Is His License Legitimate?
Asensio has repeatedly accused his targets of misleading investors. But disclosure is also an issue for brokers. As the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) explains to members:
You have a continuing obligation to update your Form U-4 [disclosure] promptly if any of the information changes or becomes inaccurate. This includes your home address or any of the questions involving customer complaints, criminal disclosure, regulatory disciplinary actions, civil judicial actions, terminations, or financial judgments. You promise to do this when you sign the Form U-4.
Since 1993, Asensio has also been required to make sworn disclosures on Form BD,
the official application for broker-dealer status. It, too, must be amended as
necessary to keep it current. Those who file are also warned that
"intentional misstatements may constitute criminal violations."
So what did Asensio disclose about the two verdicts against him discussed on other
pages of this site? Here is a chronology of events--from information
in public records.
______________________________________________________
A Tale of Two Verdicts
1988
Norman Murphy,
a customer of Asensio's at a Florida brokerage, files a complaint against him with NASD. Murphy also
sues Asensio and the brokerage in a Florida court.
1989
March 27:
Florida jury awards
$248,250 to Murphy for Asensio's "fraud and deceit."
April 3:
Judge John Fennelly issues order (below) requiring Asensio to pay Murphy. Notation on document says copy "furnished to Asensio,"
who apparently did not participate in case.
December 4:
Asensio files Form U-4 after
being contacted by NASD
about Murphy's complaint.
He describes the status of the dispute as "litigation,"
making no mention of the trial or
verdict.
__________________________________________________
Judge's Order Based on Jury Verdict (April 3, 1989).
This cause was tried to a jury on March 27, 1989, and testimony was presented by both the Plaintiff, NORMAN E. MURPHY, and Robert L. Kilbride.This Court, having heard and considered the testimony, including but not limited to Robert L. Kilbride’s clear statement that the Defendant admitted that the willful and intentional acts of the Defendant resulted in the Plaintiff’s loss, this Court specifically finds that the claimant has demonstrated to the court by clear and convincing evidence that the award is not excessive in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the verdict rendered in this action on March 27, 1989, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff, NORMAN E. MURPHY, recover from Defendant, MANUEL P. ASENSIO, the sum of Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($48,250.00) in compensatory damages and the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) in punitive damages for fraud and deceit, the total judgment being for the sum of Two Hundred Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($248,250.00) . . .
___________________________________________________
1990-92
Asensio's
complete NASD
disciplinary file contains no additional disclosures.
1993
Asensio files
Form BD to advance from broker to broker-dealer status.. When
asked if a court has ever found
he violated investment-related laws or
regulations, he answers no.
Form BD also
asks if he has any unpaid judgments
against him. Again, he says no.
1997
Asensio
asks Florida court for
an emergency stay to prevent
Murphy judgment from being
executed. Court denies
motion.
1998
Asensio succeeds in
having Murphy verdict set aside on a technicality--that the lawsuit had been
delivered by an unlicensed process server.
2002
March 28. In
another lawsuit, a South Carolina
jury unanimously rules that Asensio violated
the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities & Exchange Act.
April 11. Asensio files a post-trial motion asking court to change the
verdict from "judgment for plaintiffs" to
judgment for defendant.
2003
January 16. The court denies Asensio's motion.
The ruling by Judge David Norton says that the jury had adequate evidence
that Asensio made one or more false
statements and acted with an intent to defraud.
January 24. Asensio
updates his Form BD with regulators. Again he is asked whether a court has
ever found him in violation of investment-related laws or regulations.
Again he answers no (see footnote for link to document).
February 27. Asensio notifies South Carolina court that he will appeal.
___________________________________________________
Have an opinion about this? If so, click here to
share it with Eliot Spitzer (who licenses
Asensio in New York), the NASD and the SEC.
Note: To avoid large files,
schedules to Asensio's 1993 Form BD are posted separately from the
body
of the application.
Asensio's 2003 Form BD is also provided in two sections:
part one [1284 KB] and part two
[1102 KB]. Also available: the full text of Judge David Norton's
ruling on post-trial motions in the South Carolina lawsuit
[1044 KB].
Page Created 3/31/03