Case 2:20-cv-04654-GRB-AYS Document1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 1 of 13 PagelD #: 1 RICHARD R. BEST REGIONAL DIRECTOR Sanjay Wadhwa Vanessa De Simone Alexander M. Vasilescu John Lehmann ‘Attorneys for Plaintiff SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ‘New York Regional Office Brookfield Place 200 Vesey Street, Suite 400 New York, New York 10281-1022 (212) 336-0178 (Vasilescu) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, 20 Civ. «) -against- JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RAND HECKLER and RAND HECKLER, INC. Defendants. Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), for its Complaint against Defendants Rand Heckler (“Heckler”) and Rand Heckler, Inc. (“Heckler, Inc.”) (collectively, “Defendants”, alleges as follows: SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS 1 Heckler, then a securities broker, began soliciting hundreds of thousands of dollars in investments from an elderly investor (“Investor A”) and the investor's son by claiming to manage a successful hedge fund. Heckler instructed Investor A and his son to make the investments in the purported hedge fund by sending money to Heckler, Inc., an entity HecklerCase 2:20-cv-04654-GRB-AYS Document1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 2 of 13 PagelD #: 2 ‘owned and controlled. In fact, Heckler never managed a hedge fund and never otherwise invested the payments made by Investor A and his son to Heckler, Inc. Instead, Heckler misappropriated these funds to pay for his mortgage payments, car payments, a country club membership, and ‘numerous other personal expenses. 2. To conceal and sustain this fraudulent scheme, Defendants periodically provided Investor A and his son with fake account statements that purported to show investments made by Heckler, Inc. in stocks and other securities. Motivated in part by these statements, Investor A and his son continued to invest in Defendants’ sham hedge fund, transferring at least $755,000 to Heckler, Inc, between 2015 and 2020. 3. In June 2019, Heckler was barred by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) from associating with any FINRA-registered broker-dealer for failing to provide information to FINRA in connection with a complaint filed by a different investor. 4. In approximately January 2020, Investor A’s son became suspicious of Heckler after earning of his FINRA bat, and demanded a partial redemption of his father’s investment. 5. Unable to meet this redemption demand, Heckler solicited a new $100,000 investment from the wife of a former brokerage customer (“Investor B”), who had recently received a life insurance payment following her husband’s death. After falsely promising Investor B that this, investment would pay substantial dividends, Heckler persuaded Investor B to transfer $100,000 to a bank account that Investor B believed was associated with the dividend investment. In reality, the bank account belonged to Investor A, and the purpose of the transfer was so that Heckler could repay Investor A in a Ponziclike fashion, VIOLATIONS 6. By virtue of the foregoing conduct and as alleged further hercin, Defendants Heckler and Heckler, Inc. have violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15Case 2:20-cv-04654-GRB-AYS Document1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 3 of 13 PagelD #: 3 US.C. § 77q{a)]; Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 US.C. § 78)(6)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]; and Sections 206(1), 2062) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), 80b-6(2) and 80b- 6(4)] and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder [17 CER. § 275.206(4)-8}. 7. Unless Defendants ate restrained and enjoined, they will engage in the acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint or in acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business of similar type and object. NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT 8. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by Secutities Act Sections 20(b) and 20( [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(b) and 77¢(d)], Exchange Act Section 21(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(@)], and Advisers Act Sections 209(4) and 209(¢) [15 USC. §§ 80b-9(4) and 80b- 9) 9. ‘The Commission secks a final judgment: (a) permanently enjoining Defendants from violating the federal secutities laws and rules this Complaint alleges they have violated; (b) ordering Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains they received as a result of the violations alleged here and ‘o pay prejudgment interest thereon; (¢) ordering Defendants to pay civil money penalties pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(4) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(@)]}, Exchange Act Section 21 (d)(3) [15 US.C. § 78u(@)()], and Advisers Act Section 209(¢) [15 US.C. § 80b-9(¢)}; and (€) ordering any other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper. JURISDICTION AND VENUE, 10. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Securities Act Section 22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(@)}, Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa}, and Advisers Act Section 214 [15 USC. § 80b-14} 11. Defendants, directly and indirectly, have made use of the means or instrumentalitesCase 2:20-cv-04654-GRB-AYS Document1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 4 of 13 PagelD #: 4 of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged herein. 12, Venue lies in this District under Securities Act Section 22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77} Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa], and Advisers Act Section 214 [15 US.C. § 80b-14]. Defendant Heckler’ residence and Defendant Heckler, Inc’s principal place of business are in the Eastern District of New York, and certain of the acts, transactions, practices and courses of business alleged herein took place in the Bastern District of New York. Defendants solicited investments from an investor, Investor B, who resides in the Eastern District of New York. DEFENDANTS 13. Heckler, age 64, resides in Glen Cove, New York. From 1995 until April 2019, Heckler worked as a registered representative for various broker-dealers located in New York and Florida. Heckler was associated with a registered broker-dealer located in New York, New York (Brokerage Firm A”) from December 2013 until April 2019, when Brokerage Firm A closed. On June 14, 2019, Heckler was barred by FINRA from associating with any FINRA member firm for failing to respond to a FINRA request for documents and information made in connection with a customer complaint. Heckler is not currently registered with the Commission in any capacity. 14. Heckler, Ine. is a New York corporation organized and incorporated by Heckler in October 2009. Heckler is the Chief Executive Office of Heckler, Inc. and Heckler, Inc’s principal place of business is Heckler’s home in Glen Cove, New York. Heckler claimed to operate a hedge fund through Heckler, Ine. and used bank accounts in the name of Heckler, Ine. to receive, and then misappropriate for his personal use, investor funds. Heckler, Ine. has never been registered with the ‘Commission in any capacity.Case 2:20-cv-04654-GRB-AYS Document1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 5 of 13 PagelD #: 5 FACTS I. DEFENDANTS SOLICITED INVESTMENTS IN THEIR SHAM HEDGE FUND 15. Heckler, with and through Heckler, Inc., tricked Investor A and Investor A’s son into investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a sham hedge fund that Heckler purported to manage. 16. Prior to 2015, Heckler acted as the broker for certain investment accounts held by Investor A and Investor A’s charitable foundation at Brokerage Firm A. 17. In approximately 2015, Heckler told Investor A that he had begun managing a hedge fund, and encouraged Investor A to invest in this hedge fund, Among other things, Heckler claimed that the hedge fund offering was only available to friends and close associates, and that there wete 15 to 20 investors in the hedge fund. Heckler claimed that he made investment decisions for the fand, 18, Investor A agreed to invest in the hedge fund. Beginning in at least December 2015, Investor A began transferring money to Heckler, Inc. believing that this money would be invested in the hedge fund. 19. Over time, Heckler solicited additional investments in the purported hedge fund from Investor A. As Investor A’s health declined, and Investor A’s son took a larger role in ‘managing his father’s financial affairs, Heckler also solicited additional investments in the hedge fund from Investor A’s son, 20. In some cases, Heckler told Investor ’s son that the purpose of these additional investments was so that the hedge fund could build a position in a particular stock or other security, As with Investor A’s initial investment, Heckler instructed Investor A and Investor A’s son to make these additional investments by writing checks ot witing funds to Heckler, Inc. 21, Between at least December 2015 and January 2020, Investor A and Investor A’s sonCase 2:20-cv-04654-GRB-AYS Document1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 6 of 13 PagelD #: 6 transferred at least $755,000 to Heckler, Inc. for hedge fund investments. I. DEFENDANTS’ CLAIMS ABOUT THE HEDGE FUND WERE FALSE 22. As Defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing, Defendants’ claims about the purported hedge fund were false. In fact, the hedge fund never existed and Defendants never otherwise used the funds received from Investor A and Investor A’s son to make securities investments. 23. The funds sent to Heckler, Inc. by Investor A and Investor A’s son for hedge fund investments were deposited in bank accounts held by Heckler, Ine. and co-mingled with other assets, including Heckler’s personal assets. Since 2015, none of the funds in Heckler, Ine.’s bank accounts have been transferred to a broker-lealer so that they could be used to make legitimate securities investments, and Defendants never opened a brokerage account for Heckler, Ine. or any hedge fund associated with Heckler, Inc. 24. Instead, Heckler used Heckler Ines account as his personal piggybank and misappropriated Investor A’s money to cover his own expenses, which included mortgage, car and ‘credit card payments. Heckler also used the co-mingled funds for luxuries such as country club membership dues, spa visits and fine dining. Defendants never disclosed to Investor A or his son that Investor A’s investment funds were being used for Heckles’s personal expenses. Il. DEFENDANTS CONCEALED THEIR FRAUD 25. Defendants concealed and perpetuated their fraud by periodically sending Investor A and his son fake account statements that claimed to show Investor A’s investments in the hedge fand, 26. These account statements listed an account number and the purported total balance and market value of the account’s holdings. ‘The statements also listed the name, symbol, current price per share, and total value of each of the various stocks and other securities in which theCase 2:20-cv-04654-GRB-AYS Document1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 7 of 13 PagelD #: 7 Defendants’ hedge fund had supposedly invested, including Home Depot, Apple and Macy's. In. some cases, the names of the issuer on the statement were misspelled or otherwise misidentified (eg. “Chipolte”). 27. Additionally, Defendants periodically sent Investor and his son phony trade confirmation documents, which claimed to show details regarding particular trades made by the hedge fund. ‘These trade confirmations were labeled “Rand Heckler Inc, LP” (sic) or “Rand Heckler Inc,Lp Fund” (sic) and listed, among other things, the stock, price and date of the purported trades. 28. ‘These trade confirmations often included information that was inconsistent with actual stock market conditions and rules. For example, two confirmations purported to show purchases of Chipotle stock mace on May 28, 2018—even though that date was Memorial Day and the markets were closed. Similarly, another trade confirmation claimed that “Rand Heckler Inc, LP” had purchased 700 shares of Twitter stock on July 9, 2018 for $35.19 per share, even though the lowest trade price reported for Twitter that day was $42.08. 29. Defendants knew or wete reckless in not knowing that these account statements and, ttade confirmations were false and misleading because, in fact, no hedge fund existed and Defendants had not made the investments described on the account statements and trade confirmations. IV. HECKLER DEFRAUDED INVESTOR B TO PAY BACK INVESTOR A. 30. Defendants’ scheme began to unravel in early 2020 when Investor A’s son learned of Heckler’s FINRA bar and demanded a $100,000 redemption of his father’s interest in the hedge fand, 31. Heckler told Investor A’s son that, to mect the redemption request, he would sell shares in an exchange traded fund, SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”). In fact, Heckler raised funds to pay back Investor A and forestall the discovery of Defendants’ scheme by defrauding anotherCase 2:20-cv-04654-GRB-AYS Document1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 8 of 13 PagelD #: 8 investor, Investor B. 32. Heckler was acquainted with Investor B because, among other connections, Investor Bs late husband had been a customer of Heckler’s while Heckler was employed by Brokerage A. 33. Heckler was aware that Investor B had received a life insurance payment of approximately $100,000 as a result of her husband’s death in 2019. Heckler told Investor B that he ‘would invest the $100,000 for her and that, based on the investment, she would receive dividends of $600 per month. 34. On February 28, 2020, Heckler went with Investor B to her bank. At Hleckler’s direction, Investor B wired $100,000 from her bank account to a bank account held by Investor A. Heckler represented to Investor B that, by transferring this money, she was funding the dividend investment he had previously recommended. As Heckler knew or was reckless in not knowing, his representations to Investor B about the dividend investment and the bank transfer were false: Heckler never made a legitimate investment on behalf of Investor B and the true purpose of the bank transfer was so that Heckler could partially repay Investor A in a Ponzi-like fashion, 35. Subsequently, Heckler sent Investor A’s son a phony trade confirmation indicating that Defendants had sold GLD shares worth approximately $100,000 on February 28, 2020. 36. Since February 2020, Defendants have continued to intentionally or recklessly deceive Investor A, Investor A’s son and Investor B regarding the true disposition of the funds they entrusted to Defendants FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a) (Both Defendants) 37. ‘The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 36. 38. Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, in the offer or sale ofCase 2:20-cv-04654-GRB-AYS Document1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 9 of 13 PagelD #: 9 securities and by the use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or the mails, (1) knowingly or recklessly have employed one or more devices, schemes ot attifices to defraud, (2) knowingly, recklessly, or negligently have obtained money ot property by means of one or more untrue statements of a material fact or omissions of a material fact necessary in otdet to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they ‘were made, not misleading, and/or (3) knowingly, recklessly, or negligently have engaged in one or more transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser. 39. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants, directly ot indirectly, singly or in concert, have violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. § 774(@)}- SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF ‘Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder (Both Defendants) 40. ‘The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 36, 41. Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities and by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, oF the mals, or the facilities of a national securities exchange, knowingly or recklessly have (i) employed ‘one or mote devices, schemes, of attifices to defraud, (ii) made one or more untrue statements of a material fact ot omitted to state one or more material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, and/or (ii) engaged in one or more acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons. 9Case 2:20-cv-04654-GRB-AYS Document 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 10 of 13 PagelD #: 10 42. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, har jolated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78))] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 CER. § 240.10b-5] THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violations of Advisers Act Sections 206(1) and 206(2) (Both Defendants) 43. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 30, 35 and 36. 44, Atall relevant times, Defendants were investment advisers under Advisers Act Section 202(11) [15 USC. § 80b-2(11)) 45. Defendants, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly have: () knowingly or recklessly employed one or more devices, schemes, of artifices to defraud any client or prospective client, and/or (ii) knowingly, recklessly, or negligently engaged in one or more transactions, practices, and courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client. 46, By reason of the foregoing, Defendants, directly or indirectly, have violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Advisers Act Sections 206(1) and 206(2) [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1) and 80b-6(2)] FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ‘Violations of Advisers Act Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-8(a) Thereundet (Both Defendants) 47. The Commission te-alleges and incorporates by reference hete the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 30, 35 and 36, 48. Arall relevant times, Defendants were investment advisers under Advisers Act Section 202(11) [15 USC. § 80b-2(11)), to a pooled investment vehicle, as defined in Rule 206(4) 8(b) [17 CER. § 275.206(4)-8(b)] 10Case 2:20-cv-04654-GRB-AYS Document 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 11 of 13 PagelD #: 11 49. Defendants knowingly, recklessly, or negligently () made one or more untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state one or more material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, to any investor or prospective investor in the pooled investment vehicle, and/or Gi) engaged in one or mote acts, practices, or courses of business that were fraudulent, deceptive, ot manipulative, with respect to any investor or prospective investor in the pooled investment vehicle. 50. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants, directly or indirectly, have violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Advisers Act Section 206(4) [15 US.C. § 80b-6(4)] and Rule 206(4)-8(a)(2) thereunder [17 CER. § 275.2064)-8(a)(2)] PRAYER FOR RELIEF EREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter a Final L Permanently enjoining Heckler and his agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them from violating, directly of indirectly, S.C. § 774(@)], Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 § 78)()] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5], and Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), 80b-6(2) and 80b-6(4)] and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder [17 CER. § 275.206(4)-8]; n Permanently enjoining Heckler, Inc. and its agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons in active concert of participation with any of them from violating, directly or indirectly, Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q{a)}, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 US.C. § 78)(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 CER. § 240.10b-5], and Sections 206(1), 206(2) andCase 2:20-cv-04654-GRB-AYS Document1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 12 of 13 PagelD #: 12 206(4) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), 80b-6(2) and 80b-6(4)] and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder [17 CER. § 275.206(4)-8}; mL Ordering Defendants to disgorge all ill gotten gains they received, directly or indirectly, with pte-judgment interest thereon, as a result of the alleged violations; Vv. Ordering Defendants to pay civil monetary penalties under Securities Act Section 20(4) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(@)] and Exchange Act Section 21(4)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)@)] and Advisers Act Section 209(¢) [15 US.C. § 80b-9(@)}; and 12Case 2:20-cv-04654-GRB-AYS Document 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 13 of 13 PagelD #: 13 VI. Granting any other and further relief this Court may deem just and proper. Dated: New York, New York September 30, 2020 /s/ Richard R. Bi RICHARD R. BEST REGIONAL DIRECTOR Sanjay Wadhwa Vanessa De Simone Alexander M. Vasilescu John Lehmana ‘Attorneys for Plaintiff SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION New York Regional Office Brookfield Place 200 Vesey Street, Suite 400 New York, New York 10281-1022 (212) 336-0178 (Vasilescu) VasilescuA@sec.gov 13sis ae no PS? 2:20-0V-04654-GRB-AYS Document Filed0e/30/20 Page 1 of 2 PagelD #: 14 ‘The 844 cl coer het nd he fran conned cn neste replice ror spleen ik ling and seve flags othr pps ested hy ep povided by local rule of cou. Tis fom, approved by the Judicial Confeenes of te fated States in September 1974 Is eg for Bi os ofthe Clark of Cour forte Psp of initiating the evil docket shes” AEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF TS FOR T@) PLAINTIFFS Securiies and Exchange Commission () County of Residence of Fist Listed Painsit U.S. Plain (EXCEPT IN US PLAINTIFF CASES) (©). Attorneys Frm Nome Adres and Telephone Muber Richard R. Bost, 200 Vesey St, NY, NY 10281 (212-396-0178) ‘Alexander Vasilescu, 200 Vesey St. NY, NY 10281 (212-336-0178) John Lehman, 200 Vesey St. NY, NY 10281 (212-336-9124), DEFENDANTS Rand Heckler and Rand Heckler, Inc. County of Residence of Fist Listed Defendant _Nassau wus PLamsTirE Cases ONLY) INLAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USETHE LOCATION OF Nove Automeys new Michael Finkelstein, Ese Finkelstein & Fei, BC 65856 Old County Ra. Garden City, NY 11530 (516-561-5431) TE. BASIS OF JURISDICTION Pan moni: ony]: CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES fczon 17m om orp Pamir 1 US.coveunes 213 Fedo ee era we Oey an nee IV, NATURE OF SUIT pasm amonamy femme oR RETREAT] SRRTETOE TT Wiacateans™™ |o woute'taus o'andebe one Te ions — [3 wocanarn ae — eS Soe Sammars Vz ORIGIN (Pc an in Ons Bon On) 21 Orginal 3.2 Removed from 9 3° Remanded from 74 Reinstated or FS Transferred from 0 6 Multidistrict POkng 7? Saree Aes Rae Resi bc SEUSS: Sri gta BUS EY PAS) THEE RE BABES TEU RE BE Bb (1), 2) (4), ete VI. CAUSE OF ACTION ition by SEC 1 siege secures fraud by Defendants in connection with purported hedge fund OT CIIECK IFTHISIS A CEASS ACTION DEMANDS x Vil. REQUESTED IN only demanded complain COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, ER.CV-P, JURY DEMAND: Yee O1No VIII. RELATED CASES) IF ANY vermin’ upge NIA pockeT Nummer N/A 09730/2020 Jsi Richard R. BestCase 2:20-cv-04g5GRRRUGA TION AE ARBITRAR ONRHIGIBUTY of 2 PagelD #: 15 toca Aiea: BO Seve acne een eon oe eke ts Un on eestor Sexes SES ‘Scsiveof mere and cots ae gb or compu soteaien Tae amet of sana reed a belo he Stenson cote es Cae i Bible for Acitaton DISCLOSURE STATEMENT - FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE 7.1 Identity any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more or its stocks: NIA RELATED CASE STATEMENT (Section Vill on the Front of this Form) Plsse lial cores hat are arguably related pursuant to Division of Business Rule $02. in Secon Vion he font ofthis form, Rl 0.9. (a) proves that ci casa erat” te another civ eave for purposos ofthis gus when, bocause fhe sry ef fac and gal ssues or Docauo the casos ase From be sare aston rovers 8 Subeantal saving of ual rescueas Ilo ecu rom assigning bath casos fo the sare jugo ans mana judg. Rule 6.3.1 ()provdos that" A cl cso shal not be oemec restate anator cv ease meal because the caileace. (A) voles dartcal loa ates or 8) nvaes the same pas Rao 50.3.1 (c) futher prones thet ‘Presumptvey oe power oa uago to dtemine ofetwise pusuat fo parapraah (cv cases shal ol be deemed tbe eld” unless bat cases ae il penang betas te NY-E DIVISION OF BUSINESS RULE 50.1(4)(2) 4.) Is the civil action being filed in the Eastern District removed from a New York State Court located in Nassau or Suffolk County? O Yes = [No 2.) Ifyou answered “no” above: 4) Did the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereot, occur in Nassau or Suffolk County? Yes CG No ») Did the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in the Eastern District? Yes No 6) Ifthis is a Fair Debt Collection Practice Act ease, specify the County in which the offending communication was received: Ityour answer to question 2 (b) is *No," does the defendant (or a majority of the defendants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau or Suffolk County, 3, in_an interpleader action, does the claimant (or a majority of the claimants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau or Suffolk County? es. ‘No (Note: A corporation shail be considered a resident of the County in which it has the most significant contacts). BAR ADMISSION | am currently admitted in the Eastern District of New York and currently a member in good standing ofthe bar ofthis court. Q Yes O w ‘Are you currently the subject of any disciplinary action (s) in this or any other state or federal court? oOo Yes (ifyes, please explain [1 No | certify the accuracy of all information provided above. Signature: _/s/ Richard R. Best