Consumer Protection

Oakland – Following more than two dozen undercover sting operations, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today sued Maurice Irving Glad and his 22 California Midas auto shops to stop a “massive bait- and-switch scam” in which customers were offered cheap brake specials and then charged hundreds of dollars more for unnecessary repairs.

The undercover operations revealed that over four years Glad’s Midas shops regularly advertised $79 to $99 brake specials to draw customers in and then charged another $110 to $130 for unnecessary brake rotor resurfacing services – and hundreds of dollars more for repairs that were not needed or never performed.

The suit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, seeks $222 million in civil penalties, costs and reimbursements to customers.

“These Midas shops were running a massive bait-and-switch scam, in which customers were lured in with the promise of cheap brake specials and then charged hundreds more for unnecessary repairs,” Brown said. “This investigation revealed a shady and deceptive operation that violated the trust of its customers.”

Brown’s lawsuit, filed jointly with Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff and Fresno County District Attorney Elizabeth A. Egan, involves 22 Midas shops in Campbell, Clovis, Concord, Dublin, Fremont, Fresno, Hayward, Manteca, Merced, Modesto, San Jose, San Leandro, Turlock and Walnut Creek.

The lawsuit follows a four-year California Bureau of Automotive Repair investigation into Glad and his Midas shops to monitor compliance with a 1989 Alameda County Superior Court injunction. The 1989 injunction prohibited Glad’s shops from performing unnecessary repairs, charging for services not performed, or using scare tactics to convince customers to purchase unnecessary parts and services.

Undercover agents, posing as customers, conducted approximately 30 sting operations at Midas shops owned by Glad. In total, there were more than 35 incidents in which shop managers, mechanics and employees made false or misleading statements to pressure customers to purchase unnecessary parts and services.

On average, the shops charged undercover agents almost $300 in unnecessary brake rotor resurfacings, brake drum repairs, brake adjustments, brake cleaning services and other services. For example:

• In May 2007, at a Dublin Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the car needed thicker, more expensive brake pads than what was advertised. This was despite the fact that the manufacturer listed the advertised brake pads as a direct replacement. The agent was also told that the car’s new rotors “could be saved” if they were resurfaced and was charged for the removal of all four wheels when only three wheels were removed for inspection. In total, the agent was charged almost $400.

• In June 2006, at a Clovis Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the front rotors needed to be resurfaced, a brake fluid flush was needed and the rear brakes required adjustment, when in fact, none of the repairs was necessary. The agent was charged over $275 for the unnecessary repairs, including the brake fluid flush that was never performed.

• In May 2006, at a Merced Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the rear brakes required replacement and adjustment when they did not, and that the rotors required resurfacing when they were new and not in need of any service. The agent was charged $320.

• In April 2006, at a Fresno Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the front rotors should be resurfaced because of “a safety issue” when the rotors were new and in good condition, had no scoring or hot spots, were within factory specifications and were not in need of resurfacing. The agent was charged over $230 for the unnecessary repairs.

• In October 2005, at another Modesto Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the struts were “completely blown” and “leaking a lot of oil,” that two of the rotors and brake pads needed to be replaced and that the other two rotors needed to be resurfaced at a cost of over $1,700. None of the repairs or services was necessary.

• In October 2005, at a Clovis Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the front rotors should be resurfaced and a transmission fluid flush should be performed when the rotors were new and within manufacturer’s specifications and the automatic transmission had just been flushed and refilled. The shop charged over $230 for the unnecessary repairs.

• In September 2005, at a Modesto Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the brakes needed to be adjusted and cleaned and a brake and cooling system flush was required, when in fact, none of the services was necessary. The agent was charged over $200 and the brake flush was never performed.

In July 2008, the California Bureau of Automotive Repair referred the case to Brown’s Office for prosecution. Alameda County District Attorney Orloff and Fresno County District Attorney Egan joined due to the large number of shops operating in their counties.

Brown, Orloff and Egan are suing Glad and his 22 Midas shops for:
• False and misleading advertising in violation of Business and Professions Code 17500;
• Unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code 17200; and
• Breaking the 1989 Alameda County Superior Court injunction in violation of Business and Professions Code 17535.5 and 17207.

If successful, the lawsuit would require these Midas shops to pay up to $222 million in penalties, costs and reimbursements to customers. This includes up to $1 million, or $2,500 per violation, for false and misleading advertising; up to $1 million, or $2,500 per violation, for unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices; and up to $220 million, or $12,000 per violation, for violating the 1989 injunction.

The lawsuit also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting these shops from:
• Coercing its customers into buying unnecessary motor vehicle repairs or services;
• Making or authorizing false and misleading statements; and
• Obtaining payment for repairs or services that were not performed or for retail products that were not provided.

Consumers who believe they have been ripped off by an auto repair facility can file a complaint with the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair online at: www.autorepair.ca.gov or by calling 1-800-952-5210.

The following Midas shops are named in today’s lawsuit:

• 1236 White Oaks Road, Campbell
• 704 Clovis Avenue, Clovis
• 2525 Monument Boulevard, Concord
• 6955 Village Parkway, Dublin
• 4045 Thornton Avenue, Fremont
• 3741 Washington Boulevard, Fremont
• 7340 N. Blackstone Avenue, Fresno
• 3937 N. Blackstone Avenue, Fresno
• 4304 W. Shaw Avenue, Fresno
• 1078 La Playa Drive, Hayward
• 24659 Mission Boulevard, Hayward
• 1412 W. Yosemite Avenue, Manteca
• 1420 V Street, Merced
• 338 McHenry Avenue, Modesto
• 3833 McHenry Avenue, Modesto
• 93 S. Capitol Avenue, San Jose
• 4224 Monterey Highway, San Jose
• 5287 Prospect Road, San Jose
• 2200 Stevens Creek Boulevard, San Jose
• 13745 E. 14th Street, San Leandro
• 2651 Geer Road, Turlock
• 2710 N. Main Street, Walnut Creek

Midas is one of the world’s largest providers of automotive services with more than 1,600 franchised and company-owned locations in the United States.

Today’s lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, is attached.

Pleasanton, Calif. – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today sued the City of Pleasanton to remove its “draconian and illegal” limit on new housing, a significant cause of traffic congestion, air pollution and urban sprawl in the East Bay and Tri-Valley area.

“Pleasanton’s draconian and illegal limit on new housing forces people to commute long distances, adding to the bumper-to-bumper traffic along 580 and 680 and increasing dangerous air pollution,” Brown said. “It’s time for Pleasanton to balance its housing and its jobs and take full advantage of its underutilized land and proximity to BART.”

Brown today filed a motion to intervene in Alameda County Superior Court that would force Pleasanton to lift its housing cap. The suit was initially filed by the nonprofit group Public Advocates on October 17, 2006.

In 1996, Pleasanton adopted Measure GG, which imposed a strict, permanent cap of 29,000 total housing units within the city. At the time, Pleasanton had 21,180 homes, apartments and condominiums. The cap, therefore, allowed fewer than 8,000 new housing units to be built within city limits, regardless of demand or state law requirements.

The City is now on the verge of adopting a General Plan update, which calls for the creation of 45,000 additional jobs by 2025, while retaining the 29,000 limit on housing. This, Brown contends, violates state law, which requires every California city to provide sufficient housing to accommodate its fair share of regional needs.
The State requires Pleasanton to provide 3,277 additional housing units between 2007 and 2014. The cap, however, allows for only 2,000 more to be built – and that does not account for additional housing which will likely be required after 2014.

In the past 10 years, job growth in Pleasanton has nearly doubled -- from 31,683 to more than 58,000. Yet, the number of new housing units has not kept pace with demand. This is despite the fact that there is ample land for development, including property adjacent to the Pleasanton BART station. Unless the city lifts its housing cap, this and other land near transit will most likely not be utilized for housing.

As a result of the cap, many workers have been unable to find affordable housing within Pleasanton. A 2005 Association of Bay Area Governments study found that 79 percent of Pleasanton’s 58,000 employees lived outside Pleasanton, and their commutes can take two hours per day or more.

Brown’s suit demands that Pleasanton’s housing cap be repealed – so that jobs and housing can increase in proportion with each other.

In his suit, Brown contends that:

• Pleasanton is violating state law by enforcing a housing cap that prevents the City from accommodating its fair share of the regional housing need, as required by state housing element law (Gov. Code §65583.).

• Pleasanton’s housing cap violates the state constitution, which prohibits cities from adopting ordinances that conflict with state law.

• Pleasanton’s general plan is internally inconsistent, in violation of California Government Code Section 65300.5. The City’s existing land use element contains the housing cap limit of 29,000 housing units, while its housing element recognizes that the cap must be addressed because it prevents the City from meeting its fair share of regional housing needs.

If Pleasanton continues to enforce its housing cap, the consequences for the region include:

• Increased traffic congestion and longer commute times. Interstate 580 has some of the longest commute times in the region, with evening eastbound commuters delayed 7,410 hours and morning westbound commuters delayed 5,120 hours in 2007.

• Urban sprawl. Communities outside of Pleasanton will continue to lose farmland and open space to accommodate Pleasanton’s workers. These communities will have to build more schools, fire and police stations to keep up with anticipated growth.

• Increased greenhouse gas emissions. More people will be commuting for longer periods and over greater distances. Pleasanton’s CO2 output was 1.388 million tons in 2008. When the City is projected to reach 105,000 jobs in 2025, it is estimated its CO2 output will increase to 1.940 million tons. The increase is the equivalent of adding 120,000 cars to the road every year.

• Increased dependence on foreign oil.

Transportation is the largest contributor to California’s greenhouse gas emissions. The California Air Resources Board estimates that transportation is currently responsible for 38 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Transportation accounts for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the Bay Area.

Brown has reached several agreements and settlements with local governments and businesses across California to help them reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Some of his actions include:

• A landmark settlement with San Bernardino County which established a greenhouse gas reduction plan that identifies sources of emissions and sets reduction targets.

• An agreement with Stockton requiring it to identify and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, permit construction of thousands of new residential units within its current city limits, develop a rapid transit bus system and require all new buildings to be energy efficient.

• An agreement with ConocoPhillips that offsets greenhouse gases attributable to an oil refinery expansion in Contra Costa County.

An agreement with the Port of Los Angeles that identifies and reduces greenhouse gas emissions generated from port operations.

Brown’s suit against the City of Pleasanton is attached.

San Francisco – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. won a lawsuit earlier this week that bars the nation’s third largest tax preparer -- Liberty Tax Service -- from deceptive advertising that “blurs the line” between tax refunds that are free and high-cost loans.

“Liberty Tax Service lured cash-strapped Californians into paying for high-cost loans, when they could obtain tax refunds free from the IRS just weeks later,” Brown said. “This ruling bars Liberty from deceptive advertising that blurs the line between IRS tax refunds and pricey loans.”

Liberty Tax Service’s print and television ads misled customers by promising 'Most Refunds in 24 Hours.” In reality, Liberty was selling refund anticipation loans, not a tax refund. Customers had to pay an upfront fee of about $30 plus interest, at a rate that could be as high as 395% annually. By contrast, tax refunds are available at no charge from the IRS and generally arrive anywhere from 8 days to 4 weeks after returns are filed.

In February 2007, Brown filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court against Liberty Tax Service as part of an effort to stop deceptive marketing associated with Refund Anticipation Loans. Brown reached settlements with Jackson Hewitt in 2007 and with H&R Block in 2009 over similar claims.

Monday’s ruling holds Liberty Tax Service responsible for its deceptive marketing, which also included print ads that failed to include disclaimers mandated by law and television ads that included those disclaimers, but so briefly and in such faint type that the Court said they were “plainly designed to be overlooked by consumers.”

According to the IRS, refund anticipation loans target low-income taxpayers, especially those who receive the Earned Income Tax Credit. Approximately 70% of Liberty Tax Service’s refund anticipation loan customers in 2006 and 2007 received this credit.

The ruling:

• Bars Liberty Tax Service from using false or misleading advertising to sell tax refund loans;
• Requires the company to review and monitor the ads run by its California franchisees;
• Requires the company to discipline franchisees that fail to receive approval of their ads from Liberty and report those franchisees to the Attorney General; and
• Requires the company to pay $1.16 million in civil penalties, $135,886 in restitution, and the Attorney General’s costs.

Two violations of the advertising provisions of the injunction by a single franchisee will result in a $15,000 fine; a third violation requires the termination of the franchisee.

The injunction also imposes limitations on Liberty’s ability to collect, on behalf of itself or others, money supposedly due from its customers for previous years’ tax refund loans.

The judgment requires Liberty Tax Service to inform these alleged debtors of supposed debts before the consumers takes any step that would commit them to having any amount of the alleged debt deducted or withheld even temporarily from their refund. This is a significant modification of Liberty Tax Service’s past collection practices.

Consumer advocates and policy makers, including the U.S. Taxpayer Advocate, have sharply criticized such practices for years.

San Diego - Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today forged a settlement with CVS Pharmacy requiring the company to make sure expired products are not sold in its stores and provide customers a $2 coupon if they identify products past their sell-by date.

The settlement also applies to Longs Drug Stores California, which CVS purchased in late 2008.

“CVS Pharmacy routinely sold expired baby formula, over-the-counter medication and dairy products long after the expiration date,” Brown said. “This agreement forces the company to give customers a $2 dollar coupon if they find expired products in CVS or Longs Drug Stores.”

In March 2008, Brown launched an investigation which revealed that CVS Stores in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties had regularly sold expired baby food, baby formula, over-the-counter medications and dairy products to consumers. Expired products found include:

• Gerber’s Vanilla Custard, 11 months expired, at a Huntington Beach store.
• Bright Beginnings Ultra Baby Formula 31.7 oz., 3 months expired, at a Fullerton store.
• Bonine for Kids (children’s motion sickness medication), 5 months expired, at a Buena Park store.
• Gerber Baby Food Oatmeal with Applesauce and Bananas, 2 months expired, at an El Cajon store.

The investigation also confirmed that five CVS Pharmacies had improperly discarded more than 500 documents and prescription bottles containing confidential medical information in dumpsters outside of its stores. This discarded information included patient names, addresses, birthdates and prescription medications.

In June 2008, Brown called on CVS Pharmacy to immediately end the sale of expired products and mishandling of confidential customer information across all CVS Pharmacy stores.

Brown today filed a civil suit and a stipulated judgment in San Diego County Superior Court.

The suit contends that CVS Pharmacy violated Business and Professions Code 17200 and Civil Code 1798.81, by misleading customers about CVS’ standards to insure that products would not be sold after the expiration of the “sell buy” or “best by” date and by failing to preserve the confidentiality of customers’ personal medical records. In entering into the settlement, CVS denied any wrong-doing.

The stipulated judgment resolves the suit and forces CVS to:
• Stop the sale of expired products in CVS Pharmacy and Longs Drug stores in California;
• Implement a first-of-its-kind coupon program whereby consumers who find an expired item on store shelves are entitled to a coupon worth $2.00 which can be used in any future purchase at a CVS Store in California for any product;
• Revise existing policies regarding the sale of expired products and require employees to check at least twice a month that sell-by dates have not passed on infant formula, baby food, eggs, dairy products and over-the-counter medications;
• Revise existing policies regarding the disposal of confidential waste so that they include proper shredding policies and require written certification that all records containing personal information have been properly disposed of;
• Review and revise these updated policies annually and provide employees with written training in these new policies;
• Provide the Attorney General’s Office with sworn statements certifying that it has complied with all aspects of the Judgment;
• Perform random audits in its California stores twice a year to make certain that expired products aren’t being sold and that confidential medical information is safeguarded and disposed of properly: if CVS fails to meet these new conditions, audits will continue until these new requirements are met for two consecutive years; and
• Designate a toll-free number for employees and customers to report expired products and each store must submit reports to its corporate headquarters regarding these incidents at least twice a month.
CVS will pay $975,000 in civil penalties, attorney fees and costs.

A copy of the complaint and stipulated judgment are attached.

Oakland -- Continuing his fight against scam artists who “prey on” vulnerable Californians, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today issued a directive forcing foreclosure consultants to register with his office and post a $100,000 bond by July 1, 2009.

Those who fail to do so will be in violation of state law, subject to criminal penalties of up to a year in jail and fines ranging from $1,000 to $25,000 per violation.

“California is awash with con artists who prey on vulnerable families facing foreclosure,” Brown said. “By forcing foreclosure consultants to submit detailed information to my office and post a $100,000 bond, this registry will help bring long-overdue transparency to this shadowy world.”

Up and down the state, scam artists pose as legitimate foreclosure consultants, promising homeowners they will prevent foreclosure. In reality, these scam artists charge huge up-front costs, but don’t provide an ounce of help.

Earlier this month, Brown’s office prosecuted a scam artist who provided hundreds of homeowners with forged bank documents and directed them to send their mortgage payments to accounts she had created, instead of the homeowners’ lender.

Additionally, Brown’s office has seen a significant increase in the number of complaints from homeowners regarding foreclosure consultants.

The registry unveiled today will provide Californians with information about potential consultants and recourse in the event that a consultant violates the law.

All foreclosure consultants operating in California must post a $100,000 bond and register with Brown’s office by July 1, 2009 and submit the following information:

• Name, address, and telephone number;
• All names, addresses, telephone numbers, websites, and e-mail addresses used or proposed to be
used in connection with their business;
• Copies of all advertising;
• Copies of each different contract the consultant will use with consumers; and
• A copy of its $100,000 bond.

Foreclosure consultants who provide proper information will receive a Certificate of Registration. Brown’s office, however, may refuse to issue, or revoke, a Certificate of Registration if the foreclosure consultant has made any misstatement in its registration form, has been convicted of fraud or misrepresentation, has been convicted of a violation of the state’s foreclosure consultant laws, California’s false advertising, unfair or deceptive practices laws or other laws dealing with mortgages.

If the company violates the law, a court may order restitution to victims out of proceeds from the $100,000 bond.

In order to obtain a Certificate of Registration by July 1, 2009, foreclosure consultants should send in their registration application and materials as soon as possible so they can be reviewed prior to July 1.

The registry was established through legislation sponsored by Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass, AB 180, which was signed into law last year.

A copy of the registration forms may be found at http://ag.ca.gov/register.php under the “Foreclosure Consultant Registry.”

After July 1, 2009, consumers can call the Attorney General’s office to determine whether the company they are considering dealing with has been issued a Certificate of Registration.

Tips for Homeowners

DON'T pay money to people who promise to work with your lender to modify your loan. It is unlawful for foreclosure consultants to collect money before (1) they give you a written contract describing the services they promise to provide and (2) they actually perform all the services described in the contract, such as negotiating new monthly payments or a new mortgage loan. However, an advance fee may be charged by an attorney, or by a real estate broker who has submitted the advance fee agreement to the Department of Real Estate, for review.

DO call your lender yourself. Your lender wants to hear from you, and will likely be much more willing to work directly with you than with a foreclosure consultant.

DON'T ignore letters from your lender. Consider contacting your lender yourself, many lenders are willing to work with homeowners who are behind on their payments.

DON'T transfer title or sell your house to a “foreclosure rescuer.” Fraudulent foreclosure consultants often promise that if homeowners transfer title, they may stay in the home as renters and buy their home back later. The foreclosure consultants claim that transfer is necessary so that someone with a better credit rating can obtain a new loan to prevent foreclosure. BEWARE! This is a common scheme so-called 'rescuers' use to evict homeowners and steal all or most of the home's equity.

DON'T pay your mortgage payments to someone other than your lender or loan servicer, even if he or she promises to pass the payment on. Fraudulent foreclosure consultants often keep the money for themselves.

DON'T sign any documents without reading them first. Many homeowners think that they are signing documents for a new loan to pay off the mortgage they are behind on. Later, they discover that they actually transferred ownership to the 'rescuer.'

DO contact housing counselors approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), who may be able to help you for free. For a referral to a housing counselor near you, contact HUD at 1-800-569-4287 (TTY: 1-800-877-8339) or www.hud.gov.

Brown’s Actions to Help Homeowners and Stop Loan Modification Fraud

Sued Countrywide For Predatory Lending And Secured $8.6 Billion Settlement. In October 2008, Brown announced an $8.68 billion settlement with Countrywide Home Loans, once the largest lender in the county, after the company deceived borrowers by misrepresenting loan terms, loan payment increases, and borrowers’ ability to afford loans.

Obtained Guilty Plea From Woman Who Operated Sophisticated Loan Scam. In May 2009, Brown obtained a guilty plea from Anna Santos, 22, who used forged documents to convince more than 100 desperate homeowners to hand over an average of $3,000 for non-existent loan modification services.

Shut Down “Foreclosure Freedom” And Announced Arrest Of Two Loan Modification Scam Artists. In March 2009, Brown shut down Foreclosure Freedom, a fraudulent loan modification company that continued to collect fees and mortgage payments from dozens of homeowners without ever providing loan modification services. The two scam artists were charged with 24 counts of grand theft and 25 counts of foreclosure consultant statute violations.

Broke Up “First Gov” And Sent Five Members To Prison. In November 2008, Brown shut down First Gov, a company that demanded $1,500 to $5,000 in up-front fees to modify loans it never renegotiated. In March 2009, five members of the ring were sentenced to a total of 18 years in prison.

Ended “Federal Land Grant” Foreclosure Rescue Scam. In May 2008, Brown ended a scam in which hundreds of homeowners were convinced to pay $10,000 to place their property in a land grant, a phony and worthless real estate document, and then convinced to sign over the deed to their home.

Shut Down Six Predatory Lending Companies. In March 2008, Brown shut down Lifetime Financial, Nations Mortgage, Greenleaf Lending, Virtual Escrow, Olympic Escrow and Direct Credit Solutions for promising homeowners unrealistically low mortgage payments and then switching them to loans that did not match the original agreement, many with hidden fees of up to $20,000. The three scam artists who operated the scheme have been sentenced to three years in prison.

Redding – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. last night filed 79 criminal charges against three men who “callously swindled” thousands of individuals, including many retirees who lost their life savings, in a $200 million Ponzi scheme.

The defendants -- James Stanley Koenig, 57, of Redding; Gary T. Armitage, 59, of Healdsburg; and Jeffery A. Guidi, 54, of Santa Rosa -- were arrested late last night and are now in custody. Bail has been set at $5 million each.

“These three men callously swindled thousands of individuals out of $200 million to bankroll their extravagant lifestyles,” Brown said. “They took investors money and used it to pay for an 80-acre castle estate, a Lear jet, luxury homes and fancy cars. The Ponzi scheme ultimately collapsed under its own weight, causing hardship to thousands, many of whom were retirees who lost their life savings.”

The charges, filed in Shasta County Superior Court, mark the culmination of a year-long investigation, which found that Koenig, Armitage and Guidi created a network of more than 55 business ventures over a period of 10 years to enrich themselves and keep their Ponzi scheme afloat.

Brown’s investigation revealed that in 1997, the three men began peddling construction and real estate projects across California. This included: “Quail Hollow,” a residential subdivision in Susanville; Lake College, a for-profit vocational school in Redding; Mountain House Golf Course near Tracy; a light industrial distribution center in Brentwood; and dozens of other so-called “investment opportunities.” Victims were promised that these were safe, secure, low risk investments with double digit returns, averaging 12 percent.

In recruiting their victims, Armitage organized “investment planning seminars,” many of which targeted retirees, in the Bay Area and throughout California. Based on advice from these seminars, Californians invested sums ranging from $50,000 to more than $1 million. Some turned over their entire retirement portfolios and savings accounts.

Many of the construction and real estate projects, however, were poorly managed and were not financially viable, resulting in huge losses. Some projects were left unfinished or ended up in foreclosure.

Rather than inform investors about the failures, Koenig, Armitage and Guidi sought to attract new investors, whose funds could be used to offset losses and pay returns to earlier investors. In doing so, the defendants withheld vital information that impacted investment decisions, including past business failures and Koenig’s 1986 federal fraud conviction.

With double-digit returns and no knowledge of the investment failures, most investors kept their money in place and many invested in new projects. This Ponzi scheme continued for more than 10 years.

Beginning in 2001, Koenig, Armitage and Guidi redirected investors’ millions into the purchase of more than 20 senior housing and residential care facilities. This included: Alterra Clare Ridge in Fresno; Sterling House in Bakersfield; Clare Bridge Cottage in Bakersfield; Seasons in Modesto, Northridge, and Vacaville; Oakdale Heights West in Redding; Oakdale Heights in Bakersfield, Fresno, San Leandro, Beverly Hills, Santa Clarita, Roseville, Laguna Beach, and La Mesa; Senior Oaks Senior Living in Redding; and other facilities in Pennsylvania, Oregon, Nevada, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Under this scheme, the defendants’ company would purchase an assisted living facility and sell it to one of their affiliate companies. The affiliate would then sell ownership shares in the property as an “investment opportunity” at an even higher price to new investors. Meanwhile, an additional affiliated company would manage the property to maximize revenue.

Revenues, however, were not reinvested into the facilities, but were pooled and used to pay interest to investors and keep investors at bay.

In April 2007, the Ponzi scheme began to collapse under a mountain of debt, and the defendants were unable to pay interest to investors. Nevertheless, they continued to solicit new investors in the vain hope that they could keep the operation alive, raising $23 million from 91 new investors.

The defendant’s businesses finally closed their doors in June 2008.

During the course of its investigation, Brown’s office identified more than 1,000 victims with losses totaling $200 million.

Over the 10 years, Koenig, Armitage and Guidi siphoned fees, revenues and profits from their business ventures for their personal benefit, using the funds to purchase an 80-acre castle estate, a Lear jet, luxury vehicles, lavish vacations and expensive wine and art.

Last night, the defendants were charged with selling securities by means of false statements or material omissions in violation of Corporations Code Section 25401/25540 and residential burglary in violation of Section 459 of the Penal Code:

• Koenig was charged with 40 counts of securities fraud and 37 counts of residential burglary.
• Armitage was charged with 42 counts of securities fraud and 37 counts of residential burglary.
• Guidi was charged with 39 counts of securities fraud and 33 counts of residential burglary.

If convicted on all counts, each could face more than 100 years in prison.

If you believe you have been a victim of this scheme, please contact the Attorney General’s office at 1-800-952-5225.

Copies of the arrest warrant and criminal complaint are available upon request.

San Diego—Continuing his fight to stop scams against homeowners, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today filed suit against two brothers who “ripped off homeowners” seeking help in reducing their property tax assessments.

The brothers billed tens of thousands of homeowners throughout California nearly $200 each for property tax reassessment services that were almost never performed and are available free of charge from local tax assessors.

“These scam-artists ripped off thousands of homeowners for property reassessment services readily available free of charge,” Attorney General Brown said. “This lawsuit seeks to end the deception and blocks these companies from continuing to scam homeowners.”

Brown’s suit, filed in San Diego County Superior Court against brothers Sean and Michael McConville and their businesses, “Property Tax Reassessment” and “Property Tax Adjustment Services,” seeks an end to the scam and at least $2.5 million in civil penalties. The suit contends that these companies:

• Made and continue to make untrue and misleading statements with the intent to induce consumers to purchase products and services in violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17500 and 17537.9;

• Distributed solicitations implying a government connection, approval or endorsement in violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17533.6;

• Distributed solicitations that appear to be billing statements in violation of California Civil Code Section 1716; and

• Engaged in unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

These Southern California-based companies targeted tens of thousands of Californians looking to lower their property taxes with mailers that read like government billing statements, featured official-looking logos and demanded hundreds of dollars in payments for reassessment and reassessment appeal services. The statements warned homeowners that if payments were not received by the “due date” they faced late fees or would have their file marked “non-responsive” or “ineligible for future tax reassessments.”

Brown contends that neither company adequately informed consumers that they were not a governmental entity, the solicitations were not a bill, purchase of the services was not required and services were available free of charge from county assessors.

Additionally, few, if any, of the property tax assessment services homeowners were billed for in 2008 were completed.

These companies continue to solicit California homeowners and have recently sent out mailers with due dates of May 26, 2009.

Last week, the Ventura District Attorney’s Office charged one of the brothers, Sean McConville, with 20 felony counts for criminal conduct stemming from his property tax reassessment operations.

To avoid becoming a victim, homeowners who believe their property value has declined and they are paying too much in property taxes should:

• Never pay money for something they did not ask for; and
• Avoid a middleman and instead contact a local county tax assessor’s office for a free property value reassessment.

Homeowners who believe they have been victimized by this or any other property tax scam should contact the Attorney General's Office at:

• http://ag.ca.gov/contact/complaint_form.php?cmplt=CL ;
• 1-800-952-5225; or
• P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244.

This lawsuit follows the property tax scam alert Brown issued on February 12, 2009. Since taking office Brown has made protecting homeowners a top priority. In the past three months alone, Brown has:
• Obtained a guilty plea from a woman who operated a sophisticated Los Angeles-based loan scam;
• Announced the arrest of two loan modification scam artists that operated a company called Foreclosure Freedom responsible for conning vulnerable homeowners out of thousands of dollars;
• Sent perpetrators of a San Bernardino-based foreclosure scam engineered by the First Gov company to prison;
• Issued a warning about scam artists using forged letterhead to con homeowners into paying for non-existent loan modification services.
• Stopped a massive statewide scheme that unfairly overcharged thousands of Californians for shoddy and home repair work; and

Today’s complaint is attached.

Los Angeles -- Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today obtained a court order preventing Los Angeles-based Total Call International, Inc. from charging “hidden and deceptive” fees for its pre-paid calling cards.

“Total Call International has raked in profits by advertising bargain basement prices then charging exorbitant fees when their cards were used.” Brown said. “Today’s agreement safeguards California’s consumers by forcing this company to fully disclose hidden and deceptive calling card fees.”

Total Call International advertised low per-minute base rates on its calling cards and then charged consumers steep, undisclosed add-on fees and surcharges when consumers used their cards, Brown said. This significantly reduced the amount of calling time available.

Brown and the California Public Utilities Commission launched an investigation and prepared a lawsuit contending that Total Call International violated a California law that specifically requires disclosure of pre-paid calling card fees, as well as California’s false advertising and unfair competition laws.

Brown and the utilities commission today filed a complaint and a stipulated judgment resolving the case. The stipulated judgment requires Total Call International to:

• Disclose all fees, add-ons, and surcharges in a clear and conspicuous manner and include those charges in the marketing of its per-minute rate.

• Maintain records and allow the Attorney General’s office to monitor its activities to determine if Total Call International is in compliance with the settlement and California Law.

• Pay civil penalties of $300,000.

During the course of the investigation, Total Call International agreed to stop charging a “real-time rate surcharges,” costing the company $1.5 million in profits. Total Call International did not admit any wrongdoing.

Calling cards, often sold at newsstands and grocery stores, are meant to be a convenient, affordable tool for users that make frequent international calls and may not have regular access to telephone service.

Calling card users should take the following steps to protect themselves:

1. Make sure you’re getting what you pay for- buy a card for a small denomination first to test out the service.
2. Check with family and friends to find out their experience with calling cards.
3. Ask the retailer if they stand behind the card if the telephone service is unsatisfactory. It’s important to remember that the store where the card is purchased from doesn’t control the quality of the service.
4. Remember that very low rates, particularly for international calls, may indicate poor customer service, or a sign that hidden fees and surcharges apply.
5. Always look for disclosures about surcharges, monthly fees, per-call access, in addition to advertised rate-per-minute.
6. Check the expiration date. Some cards expire after a certain amount of time.
7. Make sure the card comes in a sealed envelope or has a sticker covering the PIN. Otherwise, anyone who copies the PIN can use the phone time you’ve already paid for.

This is the second case that Brown has filed forcing the disclosure of fees. In 2007, Brown forced San Francisco-based Devine Communications, Inc. to disclose all hidden fees. Florida and New Jersey have also been actively prosecuting similar cases.

Today’s settlement, filed in San Francisco Superior Court is attached.

NEVADA COUNTY -Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced that the man behind an “elaborate real estate scam,' Thomas Hastert, pled guilty today to 59 felony counts of embezzlement, securities fraud, and selling unregistered securities.

“For three years, Hastert pulled off an elaborate real-estate scam, squeezing millions out of investors,” Brown said. “Hastert’s days of swindling are at an end, and he will spend the next 5 years in prison.”

Brown filed criminal charges against Hastert in the Nevada County Superior Court in February 2009 for embezzlement, securities fraud, selling unregistered securities, and filing false documents.

Hastert brokered over 270 hard-money loans in Nevada, Sacramento, Sutter, Butte, Placer, and Yolo Counties between September 2004 and September 2007 for real estate development projects. Hard-money loans typically provide high returns for private investors and are secured through collateral such as real estate.

Hastert secured $20 million from several investors, using the funds to broker hard-money loans to borrowers seeking to develop homes on real estate.

In the criminal complaint, Hastert is alleged to have:

- Misled investors. Hastert told investors that borrowers had excellent credit scores and were capable of repaying the loans. This proved to be untrue. Many borrowers had poor credit scores, did not make regular payments on the loans, and held properties that were in foreclosure.

- The loans that Hastert brokered were required by law to be placed into a special trust account overseen by a third-party escrow firm to ensure the project was being built. Hastert never did. Hastert used the money to pay his office expenses and other development projects. There was no oversight.

- Hastert told investors he would personally oversee the development of the land. In one instance, he was asked by investors to drive them to a particular property that was supposedly under development. Hastert could not locate the property.

- Set up fake investors, known as 'straw men,' to keep concerned investors at bay. Hastert filed documents with a county recorder's office saying that his secretary owned a majority interest in the investment, despite the fact that she had never invested a single dollar. If a legitimate investor tried to initiate foreclosure proceedings, Hastert would contend that the supposed majority owner opposed the action.

- Embezzled fees. Hastert was entitled to collect a 3% fee on loans he brokered. However, he took all his fees up-front as if the loan were fully funded. In fact, some loans never fully funded, and others took more than a year to fully fund.

Hastert will be formally sentenced on June 25 in Nevada County Superior Court. He is expected to receive 5 years in prison.