Valentine

Valentine v. Concert Global CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 27, 2022H043237California7,171 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

Valentine is the sole owner and president of VCAM.2 Casilio and Leitch worked for VCAM for several years. In September 2011, Casilio and Leitch left their employment and formed CLI as a limited liability company, which entered into an agreement with Concert, under which Concert would serve as Casilio, Leitch, and CLI’s SEC registered investment advisory firm.3 Casilio and Leitch thereafter informed their VCAM clients that they had left the company. Beginning in September 2012, several of these VCAM clients filed complaints

1 We have carefully reviewed the record in its entirety; we include only those portions of the arbitration and trial court proceedings, and evidence elicited therein, relevant to the issues raised on appeal. 2 Valentine stipulated that Valentine Wealth Management would be jointly and severally liable for any judgment on the cross-complaint against Valentine Capital Asset Management, Inc. Although Valentine and VCAM jointly noticed this appeal, only Valentine filed an appellant’s opening brief, in which he indicates that VCAM is “not actively participating [in] this appeal.” 3 For sake of clarity, we refer to Valentine and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.