310-396-7714|info@HelmerFriedman.com
FacebookYouTubeBlue Sky LinkedInInstagramMastodonRedditTumblrSubstack Notes

Discrimination is the unfair treatment of a person or group based on their race, gender, sexuality, etc., or the ability to see the difference between things or people.

CFO Sues Solar Company, Alleges Financial Improprieties, Fraud, Misuse of EB-5 Foreign Investment Funds, Discrimination Against Non-Chinese Employees

June 24, 2015 –The former Chief Financial Officer of SolarMax Technology, Inc. – a renewable energy conglomerate located in Riverside, CA – has filed a lawsuit against the company and several of its directors and executive management team, including CEO David Hsu, Executive Vice President Ching Liu, and CFO Simon Yuan. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC585952). Among other things, plaintiff Michael McCaffrey alleges that he was fired for exposing fraud and financial improprieties in connection with approximately $60 million in capital SolarMax has raised from foreign nationals through the federal EB-5 Immigration and Visa Program (colloquially known as the “Visa for Sale” program). The EB-5 program provides wealthy foreign nationals (and their immediate families) with a two-year fast track to permanent U.S. residency in return for investing $1,000,000 or, in some cases, $500,000 in domestic businesses. The filing was announced today by Gregory D. Helmer, of the Los Angeles law firm of Helmer Friedman LLP.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. McCaffrey discovered that SolarMax, by engaging in a series of Enron-like “round trip” transactions with sham middleman entities, reported approximately $50,000,000 in phantom revenue on its 2011 and 2012 audited financial statements. In an effort to create a false impression of stronger financial performance and, thus, to attract investment capital, the suit alleges that SolarMax disseminated these artificially inflated figures to EB-5 investors (mostly in Taiwan and China) and others. Mr. McCaffrey also alleges that the inflated revenue figures were presented to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) – part of U.S. Homeland Security – which regulates the EB-5 program.

“Most people do not realize that there is a program by which foreign citizens can literally purchase Green Cards if they have enough money and invest it in a qualifying business,” said Mr. Helmer. The program is notorious for potential abuse and exploitation. The USCIS and the SEC have cautioned potential investors “about fraudulent investment scams that exploit the Immigrant Investor Program, also known as EB-5.”

The program is notorious for potential abuse and exploitation. The USCIS and the SEC have cautioned potential investors “about fraudulent investment scams that exploit the Immigrant Investor Program, also known as EB-5.”

The lawsuit further alleges that Mr. McCaffrey exposed a series of other unlawful activities at SolarMax, including efforts to defraud the Social Security Administration by placing non-employee friends and relatives on the company’s payroll for the sole purpose of permitting them to earn Social Security credits. He further alleges that there existed a pattern of favoritism for the many employees of Chinese descent, and that he – and other employees who were not of Chinese descent – were subjected to unfair treatment and discrimination.

Commenting on the lawsuit, Mr. Helmer said, “Mr. McCaffrey, in his role as the CFO, was simply trying to ensure that SolarMax complied with the same set of rules and operated on the same playing field as all other law-abiding companies. Instead, he was fired after discovering a pattern of improprieties and trying to protect himself – and the company – by insisting that they be discontinued.”

For more information, please contact Gregory D. Helmer or Courtney Abrams at (310) 396-7714.

McCaffrey v. SolarMax Technology, Inc. Complaint

McCaffrey v. SolarMax Technology, Inc. Press Release

2018-04-12T13:45:54-08:00June 24th, 2015|fraud, Front Page News, national origin discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination|Comments Off on CFO Sues Solar Company, Alleges Financial Improprieties, Fraud, Misuse of EB-5 Foreign Investment Funds, Discrimination Against Non-Chinese Employees
Read More

Court of Appeal Rules That Fannie Mae’s Arbitration Agreement Is Unlawful

Helmer Friedman LLP, announced today that the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, has held that Fannie Mae’s arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable and unenforceable. In this lawsuit, Los Angeles-based Helmer  Friedman LLP and Washington, D.C-based co-counsel Bernabei & Wachtel, PLLC, represent Cecelia Carter with respect to her claims of wrongful termination, race discrimination and retaliation. See Carter v. Fannie Mae, No. 30-2013-00647896-CU-WT-CJC (Orange County Sup. Ct., filed May 3, 2013). According to the Complaint, Ms. Carter reported her concern that several Fannie Mae REO Foreclosure Specialists in the Irvine, California office had allegedly solicited illegal kickbacks from brokers in exchange for assigning Fannie Mae REO listings to those brokers. Shortly after, Fannie Mae initiated an investigation into Ms. Carter’s performance and then, on May 4, 2011, terminated her without explanation. On March 26, 2013, a federal grand jury charged Armando Granillo, one of the REO Foreclosure Specialists from the Irvine office, with three counts of “honest services” wire fraud for allegedly soliciting kickbacks from a real estate broker in Tucson, Arizona, in exchange for providing him with foreclosed properties to sell on behalf of Fannie Mae. On August 4, 2014, Mr. Granillo was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison for his role in the kickback scheme. For more information about Mr. Granillo’s conviction, see http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-fannie-kickbacks-sentencing-20140804-story.html

After Ms. Carter filed her Complaint, Fannie Mae moved to compel arbitration. The Superior Court denied Fannie Mae’s motion, holding that defendant failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that Ms. Carter and Fannie Mae entered into an arbitration agreement. The Superior Court found that, although the Offer Letter referenced the arbitration policy, Fannie Mae did not include the arbitration agreement with its Offer Letter and did not tell her where to find it; Fannie Mae then revoked the Offer letter; and Fannie Mae’s subsequent offer of employment did not contain or reference an arbitration provision. Fannie Mae appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision on other grounds, holding that Fannie Mae’s arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because it was inherently one-sided in that it exempted the types of claims likely to be filed by Fannie Mae, but included the types of claims likely to be filed by the employee. See Carter v. Fannie Mae, No. G049112, 2014 WL 4212622 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Aug. 26, 2014). The arbitration agreement covered “all” claims an employee might make involving a legally protected right relating directly or indirectly to the employee’s employment, but exempted “any claim made in connection with workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment compensation benefits, or under any of Fannie Mae’s employee welfare benefits, ERISA, or pension plans, or to any claim of unfair competition, disclosure of trade secrets, or breach of trust or fiduciary duty.” During oral argument, Fannie Mae’s counsel emphasized the aspects of the agreement it claimed were beneficial to the employee. However, the Court of Appeal held that “

[i]t makes no difference that, arguably, the dispute resolution policy isn’t entirely one-sided” and found that the allegedly positive aspects of the agreement do not “save the agreement as a whole when it contains other provisions that have been clearly held to be unconscionable in the case law.”

“We are very pleased that the Court of Appeal rejected Fannie Mae’s attempt to force Ms. Carter into arbitration,” commented Ms. Loveless. “For years, employers have attempted to destroy one of our Country’s greatest institution – the jury trial – by forcing employees and consumers into secret tribunals that favor large corporations over individuals. The founders of our Country enshrined the right to a jury trial in our Constitution and corporations should not be allowed to take that right away.” The Court of Appeal’s decision may also significantly affect the ability of other Fannie Mae employees to bring their claims in court, rather than be forced into arbitration.

For a PDF copy of the Court of Appeal decision, click here.

For additional information or to report unlawful conduct on the part of Fannie Mae, contact:

Andrew H. Friedman

2022-06-08T10:23:02-08:00September 3rd, 2014|Andrew Friedman, Case Update, discrimination, Front Page News, race discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Court of Appeal Rules That Fannie Mae’s Arbitration Agreement Is Unlawful
Read More

Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel – Helmer Friedman LLP’s Discrimination Lawsuit Chivas USA

2018-04-12T13:45:59-08:00July 23rd, 2013|discrimination, Front Page News, race discrimination, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel – Helmer Friedman LLP’s Discrimination Lawsuit Chivas USA
Read More

Former Youth Coaches Accuse Chivas USA of Discrimination

Greg Helmer, Helmer Friedman LLP, discusses discrimination lawsuit filed against Chivas USA on NBC News.

(more…)

2018-04-12T13:45:59-08:00May 29th, 2013|Front Page News, race discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Former Youth Coaches Accuse Chivas USA of Discrimination
Read More

Coaches Sue Chivas USA Professional Soccer Organization

Coaches Sue Major Soccer League

May 29, 2013 – Coaches Sue Chivas USA Professional Soccer Organization, Allege Discrimination Against Non-Latinos. Two former members of the coaching staff of Chivas USA have filed a lawsuit against the Major League Soccer organization, saying they were fired “because they were neither Mexican nor Latino.” The filing was announced today by Gregory D. Helmer, of the Los Angeles law firm of Helmer Friedman, LLP, who represents the two coaches. Daniel Calichman and Theothoros Chronopoulos, both of whom were former professional soccer players and members of the U.S. National Team before being hired by Chivas USA, are suing in Los Angeles Superior Court. The men, described in the complaint as “Caucasian, non-Latino Americans,” allege discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination by Chivas USA based on national origin, ethnicity and race.

2024-05-31T06:43:52-08:00May 29th, 2013|national origin discrimination, race discrimination|Comments Off on Coaches Sue Chivas USA Professional Soccer Organization
Read More

Lawsuit Against Hospital for Violating Fair Employment Rights Class Action Certification Denial Reversed by Appellate Court

PRESS RELEASE May 31, 2005

Job Applicants Required to Divulge Reproductive Dysfunctions, Infertility, Pregnancy, Venereal Disease, Still Born Births, and Miscarriages in Order to Get a Job.

The Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal recently reversed the trials courts’ denial of class action certification in the case of Grace Fontana v. St. Joseph Hospital of Orange, (Superior Court Case No. 03CC02559), arising out of the Hospital’s policy and practice of requiring each and every job applicant to reveal personal and intimate details about their private lives in order to receive employment. 

After offering employment to job applicants, the Hospital required individuals to answer questions such as whether the applicant had ever had:

  1. venereal disease;
  2. taken birth control pills;
  3. problems with infertility;
  4. children with birth defects;
  5. stillborn children;
  6. fetuses/unborn children with birth defects;
  7. miscarriages;
  8. problems with pregnancies;
  9. problems with menstrual periods;
  10. problems with urination;
  11. seen a counselor, psychiatrist or psychologist and
  12. cancer of any kind.”

The Appellate Court ruled: “Recognizing plaintiff’s theory that many questions … are not related to any job at the hospital, and there is no business necessity to ask these questions, it is somewhat difficult to understand why a class cannot be certified, at least for the purpose of establishing whether or not there is class wide liability entitling the class to injunctive relief.”

Ms. Fontana’s attorney, Gregory D. Helmer, of HELMER · FRIEDMAN LLP, stated: "For years, the hospital forced thousands of applicants to answer these horribly invasive questions in order to get a job. Now, these individuals may have an efficient way to correct the harm that has been done to them."

Commenting on the decision, Ms. Fontana’s attorney, V. James DeSimone of SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN, LLP stated: “This is an important victory. This decision vindicates the right to a class action for California workers when an employer violates California’s Fair and Employment and Housing Act. The Appeal’s Court was
correctly persuaded by the excellent oral advocacy by attorney Michael Morrison.”

2018-04-12T13:46:01-08:00May 31st, 2005|discrimination, employment law, fair employment rights|Comments Off on Lawsuit Against Hospital for Violating Fair Employment Rights Class Action Certification Denial Reversed by Appellate Court
Read More
Toggle Sliding Bar Area
Go to Top