Asensio Exposed!                                                     
       Warning: may contain loud, rattling skeletons


  Asensio Makes Threat in Effort to Shut Us Down!

 NASD Boots Asensio's Brokerage  (click for details)
 Both Now Expelled from Securities Industry
Welcome to Asensio.CoN    Asensio.CoN Part Two  (7/06)                       

   12/28/07  Revised & Updated Asensio FAQ
  03/18/06  The Elgindy Files (new items 2/07/06; 3/19/06; 3/22/06; 07/14/06; 12/18/07)                              
 05/05/04  Appeals Court Upholds Fraud Verdict Against Asensio
   04/04/04  Asensio Charged Again
 01/11/04  Bill Wexler Update
12/24/03  How Asensio Duped Regulators                                                                            

Site Updates
He Tries to Silence Us
RIP Integral Securities
Asensio.CoN Website
Asensio.Con Part 2
"Barred" from Industry
NASD:Unfit to Regulate
Unfit to Regulate Pt 2
NASD Plot Thickens
Is NASD Corrupt?
Is NASD Corrupt Pt 2
How He Duped NASD
1989 Fraud Verdict
2002 Fraud Verdict
Hedge Fund Flack
Hedge Fund Flack Pt 2
Asensio FAQ
Asensio FAQ #2
Who Writes the Script?
Review of Sold Short
His Clients
Long/Short Strategy
Asensio Under Oath
Dissing the Courts
Who is Bill Wexler?
Who is Bill Wexler Pt 2
Bill Wexler Update
His Doctored Record
Reading Room
Contact Regulators
Reader Comments
New Link Bar
New Link Bar 2


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 

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.

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) . . .


Asensio's complete NASD disciplinary file contains no additional disclosures. 

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.



Asensio asks Florida court for an emergency stay to prevent Murphy judgment from being executed.  Court denies motion.

Asensio succeeds in having Murphy verdict set aside on a technicality--that the lawsuit had been delivered by an unlicensed process server.

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. 

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