Businessman settles with SEC in fraud case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Sheridan businessman has reached a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission in a case alleging he bilked investors, engaged in illegal trading practices and misappropriated funds.

As part of the agreement, Lowell Hancher, 57, will be barred from association with any broker, dealer or investment adviser.

Earlier this year, Hancher also agreed to pay $3 million and never run a public company again but didn’t admit wrongdoing. In a court filing Wednesday, the SEC agreed to accept his offer.

The SEC accuses Hancher, as CEO of Westfield-based venture capital firm Commerce Street Venture Group Inc., of raising more than $1.8 million between 2005 and 2007 from at least 60 investors in connection with a fraudulent stock offering.

According to the recent filing, Hancher lied to investors about how their money would be invested and promised them returns of 50 percent, but he instead used the money to pay business and personal expenses.

Hancher also is accused of directing others to place 18 matched orders for more than 60,000 shares of LMWW Holdings Inc., between December 2007 and February 2008. Matching orders is an illegal practice that involves two investors buying and selling a security to each other to artificially bolster its share price.

Between September 2008 and January 2010, the SEC says Hancher convinced an Iowa-based company for which he was a director to give him and others $620,000 under the guise of taking the company private through a stock buyback. According to the SEC, he misappropriated most of the funds, created fake documents and lied to the company’s external auditor to cover up the scheme.

Hancher’s attorney, James Voyles, did not immediately return a call requesting comment.


  • Excuse me........
    Excuse me, but I think I missed seeing anything about the U S Attorney, grand jury, etc. Oh......must be a continuing story.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.