New Fraud Case Against Thomas Priore Priority Technology Holdings? (2024)

Exposed: Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation against Thomas Priore Priority Technology Holdings (2024)

The SEC claims that Thomas Priore’s company, ICP Asset Management LLC, defrauded four multibillion-dollar collateralized debt obligations, causing losses in the tens of millions of dollars. Thomas Priority Priority Technology Holdings unethically made tens of millions of dollars in earnings and advisory fees that were withheld from the public, all at the expense of their clients and investors.

Conditions of the agreement and payment penalties for Thomas Priore Priority Technology Holdings

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and ICP Asset Management, a New York-based financial advisory firm, along with Thomas C. Priore, the company’s founder and president, have reached a settlement over allegations of fraud about different collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that they handled. The SEC made the settlement public.

In June 2010, the SEC filed a lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan against ICP, Priore, and other related entities in an attempt to resolve the dispute. It has now been agreed upon by ICP, Priore, and the other corporations to pay over $23 million to fulfill the final verdict. 

The SEC’s allegations focused on deceptive practices and fraudulent activity that caused the CDOs to overpay for securities and suffer significant losses as a result. Furthermore, Priore and the companies connected to the ICP have been charged with unjustly receiving fees and profits for the advantage of the CDOs and their investors that have not been disclosed.

George S. Canellos, Deputy Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, says that investment advisors should always act in the best interests of their advising customers, even when working with sophisticated investors. Canellos emphasized this idea in a recent lecture. 

The settlement that Priore and ICP achieved makes it clear that the SEC will hold advisors responsible for any situations in which they prioritize their interests over those of their clients.

The terms of the settlement were approved by the court on September 6. The following will be taken into account in the decision:

• In addition to disgorgement expenses of $797,337 and prejudgment interest of $215,045, Priore is liable for a $487,618 penalty.

• ICP and its parent firm, Institutional Credit Partners LLC, are required to pay $3,709,028 in prejudgment interest in addition to a total of $13,916,005 in disgorgement. The court holds this obligation jointly and severally. Furthermore, ICP will be required to pay a penalty of $655,000.

• In addition to the $1,637,581 disgorgement payment, the defendant’s broker-dealer, ICP Securities LLC, has been ordered to pay a penalty of $1,939,474. $301,893 in prejudgment interest will be paid.

• Priore is no longer permitted to maintain any association with brokers, dealers, financial advisers, municipal securities dealers, or transfer agents as a result of his agreement to settle an administrative procedure. Furthermore, he is prohibited from participating in the offering of any penny stocks. He may, however, reapply for association or participation in the activity after five years have passed.

Furthermore, Priore and the ICP-affiliated entities consented to long-term injunctions that bar them from breaking any securities regulations. This was carried out without Priore or the ICP firms denying or reiterating the SEC’s allegations. 

These statutes include the Securities Act of 1933’s Section 17(a), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934’s Sections 10(b) and 15(c)(1)(A) and Rules 10b-3 and 10b-5, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940’s Sections 206(1), (2), (3), and (4) and Rules 204-2, 206(4)-7, and 206(4)-8.

Celeste A. Chase, Joseph Boryshansky, Joshua Pater, Susannah Dunn, and Kenneth Gottlieb were among the individuals involved in the New York Regional Office of the SEC’s inquiry. Leading the case was Joseph Boryshansky, with support from Joshua Pater, Susannah Dunn, Mark Germann, and Jack Kaufman.

Thomas Priore Priority Technology Holdings: An Introduction to the Owner of the Company

A major change in the company’s leadership was disclosed in December 2018 when it was revealed that Mr. Priore, the owner of Thomas Priore Priority Technology Holdings, will become Priority’s new CEO. Regular leadership changes could be a sign of organizational instability and lack of continuity, which could worry investors and employees.

Priority is presently recognized as a major player in the merchant acquisition business, but given its rapid growth, questions may arise about the company’s long-term sustainability and the strategies used to achieve this rapid expansion. Growing quickly could be viewed as a bad thing because it could cause important due diligence to be neglected.

Even though Thomas Priore founded ICP Capital, the company ultimately paid a substantial settlement after the Securities and Exchange Commission accused it of conducting fraudulent operations and making misleading promises. 

The individual’s past legal issues and regulatory agency actions create doubts about the moral and legal propriety of his previous business endeavors.

 Given that Mr. Priore spent eight years working at PaineWebber’s Fixed Income Sales and Trading department and rose through the ranks to become Vice President, it’s feasible that his prior employment could work against him in this election. 

Concerns concerning his professional behavior and processes may arise due to his association with an environment that presented numerous ethical and legal challenges to the finance industry during that time.

Not only does Mr. Priore have a bachelor’s degree from Harvard University and a business administration degree from Columbia University, but these credentials do not prove that he is an ethical leader. It’s possible that negative portrayals would suggest that he hasn’t been able to effectively translate his academic accomplishments into suitable commercial management.

Let me emphasize that these negative interpretations should be treated very cautiously because there is not much data to support them. Both positive and negative aspects of an individual’s or organization’s past are frequently present.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) settlement in the case of Thomas C. Priore and Priority Technology Holdings is a discreditable reflection of the commercial endeavors of these two firms. 

There are serious ethical and compliance issues throughout the company, as evidenced by the SEC’s allegations of fraud and deception, which led to large financial penalties and legal restrictions. 

It is crucial to consistently respect the highest ethical standards and prioritize the demands of clients, particularly in the financial services industry. This case demonstrates the significance of this. It calls into question Thomas Priore’s moral standing in the corporate sector as well as his leadership abilities given his association with these purportedly immoral business activities.