Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Fee Rate Advisory #2 for Fiscal Year 2015




Press Releases





Fee Rate Advisory #2 for Fiscal Year 2015




When fiscal year 2015 starts on October 1, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission expects to be operating under a continuing resolution that will extend until December 11, 2014.  Accordingly, the fees paid under Section 31 of the Securities Exchange Act will remain at their current rate until 60 days after the enactment of a regular appropriation for the SEC.



The SEC is required to publish a revised fee rate 30 days after enactment of the new fiscal year appropriation and the new rate takes effect 60 days after the appropriation is enacted.  Until then, the Section 31 fee rate will remain at the current rate of $22.10 per million for securities transactions and the assessment on round turn transactions in security futures will remain at $0.0042 per transaction.



For questions on Section 31 fees, please contact the Office of Interpretation and Guidance in the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets at (202) 551-5777 or by e-mail at tradingandmarkets@sec.gov.



The Commission will issue further notices on its website as appropriate to keep the public informed of developments relating to the effective dates of the fee rates under Section 31. 










Monday, September 29, 2014

Jim Burns, Deputy Director of Trading and Markets, to Leave SEC




Press Releases





Jim Burns, Deputy Director of Trading and Markets, to Leave SEC




The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that James R. Burns, Deputy Director in the Division of Trading and Markets, will leave the agency in October.





Since 2012, Mr. Burns has overseen core regulatory functions within the division, including market supervision, analytics and research, derivatives policy and trading practices, and the chief counsel and enforcement liaison offices. 





“During his tenure at the Commission, Jim provided valuable leadership on important rulemaking and policy initiatives.  His unwavering commitment to the investing public and his commitment to promoting strong capital markets served the agency well,” said Chair Mary Jo White.





“Jim played an instrumental role in the Division of Trading and Markets’ work on numerous rulemakings, including adoption of the Volcker Rule and other key provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act,” said Stephen Luparello, Director, Division of Trading and Markets. “He also has led the division’s response to significant market events and the development of key equity and fixed income market analytical and policy initiatives.”





Mr. Burns said, “During a period of unprecedented regulatory change, it has been a tremendous privilege to work with incredibly talented and dedicated professionals throughout the agency who set the highest standards of dedication to the SEC’s mission of protecting investors and strengthening our capital markets.”  





Prior to joining the division, Mr. Burns served under Chairman Mary L. Schapiro as the agency’s Deputy Chief of Staff, where he advised on the development and execution of the SEC’s rulemaking and policy agenda.  He joined Chairman Schapiro’s staff as counsel in 2010, having first come to the SEC as counsel to Commissioner Kathleen Casey in 2008.  In these previous capacities, he worked on investment management and trading and markets regulatory and enforcement matters arising from the financial crisis.  Before joining the SEC, Mr. Burns was a securities lawyer in private practice, focusing on investment management regulatory and enforcement matters.  He previously served as a clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.





Mr. Burns received his J.D., cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center.  He holds masters and doctoral degrees from Oxford University, and graduated with an A.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard College.










Sunday, September 28, 2014

SEC Charges Two Florida-Based Attorneys for Roles in Offering Fraud by Transfer Agent




Press Releases





SEC Charges Two Florida-Based Attorneys for Roles in Offering Fraud by Transfer Agent




The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two Florida-based attorneys for their roles in an offering fraud conducted by a transfer agent that was the subject of an SEC enforcement action two months ago.



The SEC alleges that Jonathan P. Flom and James L. Schmidt II were designated to receive wire transfers of funds from investors who were solicited by cold callers using boiler room tactics to convince them their investments would yield high rates of return.  Wiring the money to a licensed attorney bolstered the appearance of safety in the investment opportunity and concealed from investors how the money was really being spent after Flom or Schmidt received the funds.  Flom and Schmidt merely kept 2 percent of the funds they received from investors and transferred the remaining amounts to Cecil Franklin Speight, who promptly used it for personal expenses or to make Ponzi-like payments instead of investing in the high-yield investments or discounted stock promised to investors.  The SEC charged Speight and his firm International Stock Transfer Inc. (IST) with fraud in July.



Flom and Schmidt were arrested earlier today in parallel criminal actions brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.



“Attorneys are critical gatekeepers in our securities markets, and Flom and Schmidt enabled a scheme to occur by using their legal credentials to add the appearance of legitimacy as they collected investor funds,” said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.  “We will continue to aggressively seek out and prosecute lawyers who abuse their positions of trust and serve as conduits to fraud in our markets.”



According to the SEC’s complaints filed in federal court in Brooklyn, Flom and Schmidt enabled Speight and IST to steal more than $3.3 million from at least 70 investors.  Approximately $2.7 million of scheme proceeds flowed through Schmidt’s account and more than $580,000 passed through an account controlled by Flom.  Cold callers told investors to wire their money to either Schmidt or Flom in order to purchase purported securities that included fake foreign bond certificates and stock certificates for a publicly-traded microcap company with no connection to IST. 



The SEC alleges that Schmidt and Flom knowingly participated with Speight in the sale of fraudulent securities.  Flom received e-mails from Speight that explicitly discussed the misappropriation of investor funds.  Schmidt collaborated with Speight to craft misleading responses to numerous investors who complained about the absence of promised coupon payments as well as the counterfeit appearance of the stock certificates they received and the inability to contact the cold callers who solicited them.



The SEC’s complaints charge Schmidt and Flom with violating the antifraud provisions of the securities laws, including Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 as well as Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. 



The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Sharon Binger, Adam Grace, Justin Alfano, John Lehmann, Elzbieta Wraga, and Jordan Baker.  The SEC’s litigation will be handled by Alexander Vasilescu, Mr. Alfano, and Mr. Lehmann.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.










Saturday, September 27, 2014

SEC Charges Software Company in Silicon Valley and Two Former Executives Behind Fraudulent Accounting Scheme




Press Releases





SEC Charges Software Company in Silicon Valley and Two Former Executives Behind Fraudulent Accounting Scheme




The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Silicon Valley-based software company and two former executives behind an accounting fraud in which timesheets were falsified to hit quarterly financial targets.





An SEC investigation found that company vice presidents Patrick Farrell and Sajeev Menon were atop a scheme at Saba Software in which managers based in the U.S. directed consultants in India to either falsely record time that they had not yet worked, or purposely fail to record hours worked during certain pay periods to conceal budget overruns from management and finance divisions.  The improper time-reporting practices enabled Saba Software to achieve its quarterly revenue and margin targets by improperly accelerating and misstating virtually all of its professional services revenue during a four-year period as well as a substantial portion of its license revenue.





Saba Software agreed to pay $1.75 million to settle the SEC’s charges, and Farrell and Menon agreed to settle the case as well.





Under the “clawback” provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, executives can be compelled to return to the company and its shareholders certain money they earned while their company was misleading investors.  In a separate order instituted today, the SEC required Saba Software’s CEO Babak “Bobby” Yazdani to reimburse the company $2.5 million in bonuses and stock profits that he received while the accounting fraud was occurring, even though he was not charged with misconduct. 





“CEOs and CFOs can be deprived of bonuses and stock profits if there is misconduct on their watch that requires a restatement by their employer,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “We will not hesitate to pursue clawbacks in appropriate cases.”





According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, Saba Software offers professional services often sold simultaneously with software products.  The professional services historically have accounted for about one-third of approximately $120 million in yearly revenues, and the company maintains a group of consultants within its subsidiary in India to help deliver professional services to its customers.  The SEC’s order finds that Saba Software’s timekeeping practices of “pre-booking” and “under-booking” hours worked by these consultants precluded the time records from serving as reliable evidence under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to recognize revenue in the manner that the company did.  Therefore, from Oct. 4, 2007 to Jan. 6, 2012, Saba Software cumulatively overstated its pre-tax earnings by approximately $70 million.





According to the SEC’s order, Farrell and Menon were responsible for ensuring that the professional services group within Saba Software met financial targets set by senior management.  Farrell was aware of situations where consultants planned to pre-book hours in order to achieve their quarterly revenue targets yet he failed to stop the practice.  In other instances when they had overrun their budgets, he directed consultants to “eat” the hours or back them out of the timesheet database.  Menon directed consultants reporting to him to book time to the timesheet database at quarter-end even though those hours would not be worked until the following quarter.  In other instances, he advised them to avoid inputting in the timekeeping system non-billable hours that they had worked.





The SEC’s order further finds that internal accounting controls at Saba Software were ineffective to counter-balance the revenue and margin targets set by senior management.  This problem was particularly acute in Saba Software’s India-based consulting group, which was referred to throughout the consulting organization as a “black box.”  This characterization reflected the fact that U.S. and European managers approving time records of India-based consultants for revenue recognition purposes had little visibility into who was performing what work and when.





“Saba Software used off-shore operations to cut costs, but also cut corners on its internal controls over financial reporting,” said Jina L. Choi, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office.  “Weak internal controls create greater opportunity for accounting fraud, and investors are left holding the bag.”





Saba Software consented to the entry of an order finding that it violated the anti-fraud, books and records, and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws.  In addition to the $1.75 million financial penalty, Saba Software agreed to pay further penalties if it has not filed restatements of its earnings during those periods by later this year, and revocation of the registration for its securities if it doesn’t file those restatements by early next year.  Without admitting or denying the findings in the order, Saba Software also agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing future violations of these provisions of the securities laws.





Farrell and Menon each consented to the entry of an order finding that they violated the anti-fraud provisions and caused Saba Software’s violations.  The order also finds that they falsified books and records and circumvented the company’s internal controls.  Farrell agreed to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $35,017 and a penalty of $50,000, and Menon agreed to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $19,621 and a penalty of $50,000.  Without admitting or denying the findings, they each agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing future violations of these provisions the securities laws.





Yazdani consented to reimburse Saba Software for $2,570,596 in bonuses, incentive compensation, and stock sale profits that he received following the regulatory filings that the company is now required to restate.  He neither admitted nor denied the findings against the company in the order.





The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, is being conducted by Mike Foley, Rebecca Lubens, and Erin Schneider of the San Francisco Regional Office.








Friday, September 26, 2014

Wells Fargo Advisors Admits Failing to Maintain Controls and Producing Altered Document, Agrees to Pay $5 Million Penalty




Press Releases





Wells Fargo Advisors Admits Failing to Maintain Controls and Producing Altered Document, Agrees to Pay $5 Million Penalty




The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Wells Fargo Advisors LLC with failing to maintain adequate controls to prevent one of its employees from insider trading based on a customer’s nonpublic information.  The SEC also charged Wells Fargo for unreasonably delaying its production of documents during the SEC’s investigation and providing an altered internal document related to a compliance review of the broker’s trading.





Wells Fargo, which admits wrongdoing, has agreed to pay a $5 million penalty to settle the SEC’s charges, which are the first-ever against a broker-dealer for failing to protect a customer’s material nonpublic information.





According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, Wells Fargo highlighted in internal documents the risk of its personnel misusing confidential information obtained from retail customers and clients.  The risk manifested itself when a Wells Fargo broker learned confidentially from his customer that Burger King was being acquired by a New York-based private equity firm.  The broker then traded on that nonpublic information ahead of the public announcement.  The SEC charged the broker with insider trading and obtained an asset freeze to prevent him from transferring illicit profits outside the U.S.





The SEC’s order finds that multiple groups responsible for compliance or supervision within Wells Fargo received indications that the broker was misusing customer information.  However, these groups lacked coordination or any assigned responsibilities, and they ultimately failed to act on these indications.  Federal law requires broker-dealers and investment advisers to establish, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures to prevent such misuse of material nonpublic information.





“When investors entrust private information to their stockbrokers or investment advisers, they have the right to expect that it will not be exploited,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division.  “In this case – our first against a broker-dealer for failing to protect the nonpublic information conveyed by its customers – Wells Fargo failed to implement procedures to prevent misuse of such information.”





The SEC’s order also finds that when SEC investigators sought all documents related to the firm’s compliance reviews of the broker’s trading, Wells Fargo’s document production omitted documents related to the broker’s trading in Burger King stock.  Six months after SEC investigators initially requested documents, Wells Fargo produced the Burger King-related review without any explanation as to why it was not produced in the first place.  Furthermore, Wells Fargo failed to provide an accurate record of the review because one of the documents had been altered to include additional language before it was produced to the SEC.   





“Wells Fargo unreasonably delayed producing documents to the SEC’s staff and altered a previously requested compliance document after the SEC charged a former Wells Fargo employee with insider trading,” said Daniel M. Hawke, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit.  “The firm’s actions improperly delayed our investigation, and the production of an altered document interfered with our search for the truth.”





The SEC’s order finds that Wells Fargo violated Section 15(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 204A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, which require broker-dealers and investments advisers to establish, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material nonpublic information.  Wells Fargo Advisors also violated Sections 17(a) and 17(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17a-4(j) as well as Section 204(a) of the Advisers Act, which require broker-dealers and investment advisers to promptly produce accurate books and records to the SEC.  Wells Fargo admitted the findings and acknowledged its violation of the federal securities laws.  In addition to the $5 million penalty, the firm agreed to retain an independent consultant to review its policies and procedures.  The SEC’s order censures Wells Fargo and requires the firm to cease and desist from committing or causing these violations.





The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Megan Bergstrom and David S. Brown of the Market Abuse Unit.  The case was supervised by Mr. Hawke and Robert A. Cohen, Co-Deputy Chief of the Market Abuse Unit, and Diana Tani, an Assistant Director in the unit.








Thursday, September 25, 2014

SEC Charges Arizona-Based Software Company for Inadequate Internal Accounting Controls Over Its Financial Reporting




Press Releases





SEC Charges Arizona-Based Software Company for Inadequate Internal Accounting Controls Over Its Financial Reporting




The Securities and Exchange Commission today sanctioned a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based software company for having inadequate internal accounting controls over its financial reporting, which resulted in misstated revenues in public filings.





An SEC investigation found that JDA Software Group Inc. failed to properly recognize and report revenue from certain software license agreements it sold to customers because its internal accounting controls failed to consider information needed for determining a critical component of revenue recognition for software companies.  If companies are unable to demonstrate this component – known as vendor specific objective evidence of fair value (VSOE) – when determining the fair value of certain services related to a software license agreement, then they cannot immediately recognize the entire revenue from that agreement.  With proper internal controls that appropriately considered VSOE, JDA would have recognized revenue from certain sales ratably over the term of a services agreement.





JDA agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying a $750,000 penalty.





“Companies must have adequate internal accounting controls designed to comply with their financial reporting obligations to the public,” said Michael Maloney, Chief Accountant of the SEC’s Enforcement Division.  “VSOE is a critically important component in determining the timing in which software companies recognize revenue, and JDA’s internal accounting controls surrounding VSOE were inadequate in various ways.”





According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, JDA’s internal accounting controls surrounding VSOE were inadequate in several ways.  For example, JDA lacked adequate revenue recognition policies and procedures and failed to identify all service-related contracts needed for VSOE testing to determine the fair value of certain services.  Moreover, JDA did not have sufficient internal accounting controls to determine whether a software license agreement and related services contract were linked to each other.  As a result of these internal control failures, some of JDA’s financial statements for 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 were materially misstated.  JDA restated those financial statements in August 2012, reporting that it had overstated its revenue for fiscal year 2010 by 4 percent and overstated EBITDA by approximately 18 percent.  In connection with the restatement, JDA identified control deficiencies that constituted a previously undisclosed material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting related to revenue recognition.





The SEC’s order finds that JDA violated the reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws, namely Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13.  In agreeing to settle the charges without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, JDA consented to the SEC’s order imposing a $750,000 penalty and requiring the company to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations or any future violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13.





The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Noel Gittens and William Scarborough and supervised by Antonia Chion and Ricky Sachar.








Wednesday, September 24, 2014

SEC Charges Purported Health Food Company and CEO with Issuing False Press Releases in Microcap Fraud




Press Releases





SEC Charges Purported Health Food Company and CEO with Issuing False Press Releases in Microcap Fraud




The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Florida-based penny stock company and its CEO with defrauding investors by issuing false and misleading press releases proclaiming large sales and fantastic revenue projections while the purported health food company actually was a failing enterprise.  



The SEC alleges that Heathrow Natural Food & Beverage Inc. touted sales of natural health food products that the company had not even manufactured as well as non-existent distribution agreements with major retail chains.  Meanwhile, its CEO Michael S. Pagnano was prompting the illegal, unregistered distribution of billions of shares of company stock to several people or entities, including himself.  Pagnano profited by more than $150,000 by selling 877 million of his shares into the market as the false press releases were stimulating public demand for Heathrow stock.  Pagano also is charged with insider trading because he sold his shares while in possession of material nonpublic information about the falsehood of the press releases.



“Heathrow misled investors by peppering the market with remarkable press releases portraying the sky as the limit for worldwide distribution of huge volumes of its products while about the only thing the company was manufacturing was its sales projections out of thin air,” said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.  “CEOs of microcap issuers will be held accountable when they spread misinformation in the marketplace.”



The SEC separately charged New Jersey-based transfer agent Registrar and Transfer Company (R&T) and its CEO Thomas L. Montrone with violating the registration provisions of the federal securities laws and failing to supervise firm employees who enabled Heathrow’s unregistered distribution of billions of purportedly unrestricted shares of its stock.  An SEC examination of the firm revealed that R&T repeatedly failed to detect and address blatant red flags in connection with more than 54 share issuance requests from Pagnano, including the fact that none of them were accompanied by legal opinions pertaining to the shares to be issued.  In every instance, the shareholder for whom the issuance was requested was not the shareholder covered by the attached opinion letter.  R&T issued more than a billion shares to Pagnano directly in spite of the firm’s own written policy against honoring requests by company officers to issue unrestricted shares to themselves.  R&T even made special accommodations so the firm could keep track of Heathrow’s unusually large and frequent issuance requests, which totaled 5.6 billion shares in 27 months.



R&T agreed to settle the charges and pay disgorgement of $24,265.86 plus prejudgment interest of $3,401.78 and a penalty of $100,000.  Without admitting or denying the findings in the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, R&T agreed to engage an independent consultant and comply with certain undertakings while Montrone agreed to pay a $25,000 penalty and be suspended for 12 months from serving in a supervisory capacity with a transfer agent.



“R&T’s employees were trained to do little more than check boxes on a form, and for a period of more than two years they basically rubber-stamped Pagnano’s repeated unlawful requests to issue stock,” said Michael Paley, Co-Chair of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Microcap Fraud Task Force.  “Transfer agents serve a pivotal function in the issuance of securities and their employees must be prepared to catch frauds, not enable them.  As we continue our crackdown against those who play central or supporting roles in a microcap scheme, transfer agents must ensure they have appropriate systems in place to detect flagrant red flags and prevent law violations like the ones that occurred with Heathrow.”



The SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Heathrow and Pagnano charges them with committing violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(a) and (b) as well as violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.



The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Michael Paley and Katherine Bromberg in the New York Regional Office, and the litigation against Heathrow and Pagnano will be led by Jack Kaufman.  The SEC’s examination of R&T was conducted by Steven Vitulano, Kenneth Liebl, Paul Eberhard, and Hitan Patel in the New York office’s broker-dealer inspection program.










Tuesday, September 23, 2014

SEC Charges Barclays Capital with Systemic Compliance Failures After Acquiring Lehman’s Advisory Business




Press Releases





SEC Charges Barclays Capital with Systemic Compliance Failures After Acquiring Lehman’s Advisory Business




The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Barclays Capital Inc. with failing to maintain an adequate internal compliance system to ensure the firm did not run afoul of any federal securities laws after its wealth management business in the U.S. acquired the advisory business of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. 



Investment advisers are required to adopt and implement written compliance policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Investment Advisers Act and its rules.  An SEC examination and subsequent investigation found that Barclays failed to enhance its compliance infrastructure to integrate and support the acquisition and rapid growth of the advisory business from Lehman.  The deficiencies in its compliance systems contributed to other securities law violations by Barclays.



To settle the SEC’s case, Barclays agreed to pay a $15 million penalty and to undertake remedial measures, including engaging an independent compliance consultant to conduct an internal review.



“When a firm acquires an advisory business, it must devote the attention and resources necessary to build a robust compliance system,” said Julie M. Riewe, Co-Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit.  “Barclays failed to establish this critical compliance foundation when it acquired Lehman’s advisory business, and as a result subjected its clients to a host of improper practices and inadequate disclosures.”



According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, Barclays failed to adopt and implement written policies and procedures and maintain certain required books and records to prevent the other violations.  For instance, Barclays executed more than 1,500 principal transactions with its advisory client accounts without making the required written disclosures or obtaining client consent.  Barclays also earned revenues and charged commissions and fees that were inconsistent with its disclosures for 2,785 advisory client accounts.  Barclays also violated custody provisions of the Advisers Act, and underreported its assets under management by $754 million when it amended its Form ADV on March 31, 2011.  The violations resulted in overcharges and client losses of approximately $472,000 and additional revenue to Barclays of more than $3.1 million.  Barclays has since reimbursed or credited its affected clients approximately $3.8 million including interest. 



The SEC’s order finds that Barclays violated Sections 204(a), 206(2), 206(3), 206(4), and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Advisers Act Rules 204-2, 206(4)-2 and 206(4)-7.  In addition to the $15 million penalty, Barclays agreed to retain an independent compliance consultant to internally address the violations.  Without admitting or denying the findings, Barclays agreed to be censured and must cease and desist from committing or causing any further such violations. 



The SEC’s investigation was conducted by the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit and supervised by Valerie A. Szczepanik, and an examination of Barclays that led to the investigation was conducted by members of the New York Regional Office’s investment adviser and broker-dealer examination staff.    










Monday, September 22, 2014

SEC Announces Arrival of New Administrative Law Judge




Press Releases





SEC Announces Arrival of New Administrative Law Judge




The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Jason S. Patil begins work at the agency this week as an Administrative Law Judge.



Earlier this summer, the SEC announced the hiring of Administrative Law Judge James E. Grimes and three law clerks who along with Mr. Patil nearly double the staff of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, which received more than 200 assignments to conduct public hearings and issued 34 Initial Decisions in fiscal year 2013.



Mr. Patil assumes his new role on September 22.  He began his legal career at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked from 1998 to mid-2012.  He started as an attorney in the Executive Office for Immigration Review, assisting administrative law judges in cases involving asylum, detention, and other matters.  He became a trial attorney in 2002 and spent more than 10 years litigating civil cases, including litigation involving the anthrax letter attacks and the World Trade Center disaster site.  In August 2012, he was seconded for two years to the Multinational Force in Egypt, where he provided legal advice on its operations in the Sinai and supervised criminal investigations and contract matters.



A member of the U.S. Navy Reserve, Mr. Patil was the lead interrogator for a Joint Operations Task Force in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2007 and received the Bronze Star Medal in 2008 for his leadership and interrogator acumen.  He served at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad from January 2010 to February 2011 overseeing U.S. efforts to improve governance and rule of law in Iraq.



Mr. Patil received his Bachelor of Arts degree with distinction in political science in 1995 from Stanford University and was captain of the Stanford Debate Society.  He graduated with honors from the University of Chicago Law School in 1998 and received his L.L.M, also with distinction, from Georgetown University Law Center in 2009.



Administrative law judges are independent judicial officers who rule on allegations of securities law violations in administrative proceedings instituted by the Commission.  They conduct public hearings, issue initial decisions, and have authority to impose a broad range of sanctions, including ordering disgorgement, civil penalties, censures, cease-and-desist orders, and the suspension or revocation of registrations of securities and certain financial professionals and firms, including brokers, dealers, investment companies and investment advisers, municipal securities dealers and municipal advisors, transfer agents, and nationally recognized statistical rating organizations.  










Sunday, September 21, 2014

SEC Charges IT Employee at Law Firm With Insider Trading Ahead of Merger Announcements




Press Releases





SEC Charges IT Employee at Law Firm With Insider Trading Ahead of Merger Announcements




The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged an employee in an international law firm’s IT department with insider trading ahead of several mergers and acquisitions involving firm clients being advised on the deals.





The SEC alleges that Dimitry Braverman, a senior information technology professional at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, had access to nonpublic information in the firm’s client-related databases and garnered more than $300,000 in illicit profits by trading in advance of merger announcements.  Braverman began by insider trading in accounts in his own name, but shifted course when a lawyer at his firm was charged by the SEC and criminal authorities in an entirely separate insider trading scheme.  After immediately liquidating the remaining securities that he had purchased on the basis of nonpublic information, Braverman waited about 18 months and then continued his insider trading in a brokerage account held in the name of a relative living in Russia.  His concealment efforts failed, however, when SEC investigators were able to dissect a suspicious pattern of trades and trace them back to Braverman.





“Insider trading by employees of law firms and other professional organizations is an important enforcement focus for us,” said Daniel M. Hawke, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit.  “We’ve enhanced our detection capabilities and we’re refining our investigative approaches to enable us to more easily identify those who abuse their positions of trust and confidence.”





In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York today announced criminal charges against Braverman.





According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan, Braverman began his scheme in 2010 by using nonpublic information to trade the stock or stock options in one of the companies involved in an upcoming merger or acquisition.  He typically sold his stock or exercised his options shortly after the deals were made public.  In advance of two deals, Braverman tipped his brother, who consequently made approximately $1,800 in profits.





The SEC alleges that Braverman conducted insider trading in four companies prior to the separate insider trading charges against the Wilson Sonsini lawyer in 2011, and four more companies after he opened a brokerage account in late 2012 in the name of Vitaly Pupynin, a relative who that summer had visited Braverman’s home in San Mateo, Calif., during a trip to the U.S. from Russia.  The e-mail address associated with the account was same one that Braverman had used twice before to open other brokerage accounts.  However, Braverman later created a new e-mail address using Pupynin’s first name and changed the e-mail address associated with the brokerage account to that address instead.  After Pupynin left the U.S. in October 2012, Braverman used the account to continue insider trading and profiting on the basis of material nonpublic information that he obtained.  Braverman continued his insider trading through 2013.





“Believing he could conceal his trades by hiding them in a relative’s account, Braverman abused Wilson Sonsini’s trust by repeatedly using confidential information about the law firm’s clients to reap insider trading profits,” said Joseph G. Sansone, Co-Deputy Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit.  “SEC staff methodically identified the trades and traced a trail of evidence back to Braverman, who must now face the consequences of his actions.”            





The SEC’s complaint charges Braverman with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 as well as Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14e-3.  Pupynin is named as a relief defendant in the SEC’s complaint for the purposes of recovering Braverman’s ill-gotten gains in the trading account held in Pupynin’s name.





The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by Charu A. Chandrasekhar and John Rymas of the Market Abuse Unit and Jordan Baker and Thomas P. Smith Jr. of the New York Regional Office.  The case has been supervised by Mr. Hawke and Mr. Sansone, and the litigation will be led by Preethi Krishnamurthy and Ms. Chandrasekhar.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and Options Regulatory Surveillance Authority.








Saturday, September 20, 2014

Jupiter Ponzi scheme investors get update at town hall meeting

Jim Sallah of Sallah Astarita & Cox, LLC is the court appointed receiver of a number of entities who are accused of being part of a $70 million Ponzi scheme. At a town hall meeting Jim spoke to investors to explain the receivership process, and the work that has been done so far.



The Palm Beach Post has a video interview with Jim, explaining the process, and a lengthy article praising Jim, Sallah Astarita & Cox, and the rest of the receiver's team for the work done thus far.



Jupiter Ponzi scheme investors get update at town hall meeting

SEC Charges Eight for Roles in Widespread Pump-and-Dump Scheme Involving California-Based Microcap Company




Press Releases





SEC Charges Eight for Roles in Widespread Pump-and-Dump Scheme Involving California-Based Microcap Company




The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a ring of eight individuals for their roles in an alleged pump-and-dump scheme involving a penny stock company based in California that has repeatedly changed its name and purported line of business over the past several years.





The SEC alleges that the scheme was orchestrated by Izak Zirk de Maison, who was named Izak Zirk Engelbrecht before taking the surname of his wife Angelique de Maison.  Both de Maisons are charged by the SEC in the case along with others enlisted to buy, sell, or promote stock in the company now called Gepco Ltd.  Zirk de Maison installed some of these associates as officers and directors of Gepco while he secretly ran the company behind the scenes.  Collectively, they amassed large blocks of shares of Gepco common stock while the de Maisons manipulated the market to create the appearance of genuine investor demand, allowing an associate to sell his stock at inflated prices to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in illicit profits.





In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio and the Cleveland Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation today announced criminal charges against Zirk de Maison. 





The SEC has obtained an emergency court order to freeze the assets of the de Maisons and others who profited illegally through the alleged scheme.





“Microcap fraud is a scourge on our markets, and we are aggressively pursuing scurrilous penny stock schemers who make their living by preying upon innocent investors,” said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.





According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Zirk de Maison has secretly controlled the shell company now known as Gepco since its incorporation in 2008 under a different name.  During the next five years, he caused the company to enter into a number of reverse mergers and its reported business evolved from equipment leasing to prepaid stored value cards related to electronic devices until the company eventually became known as WikiFamilies and claimed to own and operate a social media website.  The company name changed to Gepco in 2013, and after a failed attempt to merge it into a private mixed martial arts company, de Maison created his own private company purportedly in the high-end diamond business and merged Gepco into it.





“Zirk de Maison concocted an array of reverse mergers and company name changes on his way to gaining control of the vast majority of Gepco stock in order to conduct a multi-faceted manipulation scheme,” said Amelia A. Cottrell, an Associate Director in the SEC’s New York Regional Office.  “To help avoid the pitfalls of microcap fraud, it’s important to check the histories of companies and determine their legitimacy before deciding whether to invest in them.”





The SEC alleges that the de Maisons, who reside in Redlands, Calif., brought at least six others into the fold to coordinate various components of the scheme.  They each are charged in the SEC’s complaint:






  • Jason Cope of Gates Mills, Ohio, is a longtime associate of Zirk de Maison and has a past record of securities fraud with a court judgment against him in a previous SEC enforcement action.  On Cope’s behalf, Louis Mastromatteo of Bay Village, Ohio, allegedly dumped more than 2.5 million shares of Gepco stock through a nominee into the public market for hundreds of thousands of dollars in illicit profits that were kicked back to Cope.


  • Trish Malone, who lives in Santee, Calif., serves as Gepco’s president, CFO, and secretary.  She allegedly used Gepco to issue stock to Zirk de Maison and others so that they could conduct two unregistered and illegal distributions of the securities.


  • Peter Voutsas, who lives in Santa Monica, Calif., and owns a jewelry store in Beverly Hills, serves as Gepco’s CEO and chief investment officer even though Zirk de Maison runs the company behind the scenes.  Along with Angelique de Maison, Voutsas allegedly made a materially misleading statement about Gepco to the public while the de Maisons manipulated the market for Gepco’s stock.


  • Ronald Loshin of San Anselmo, Calif., served as Gepco’s chief creative officer and allegedly failed to make required regulatory filings to report his transactions in Gepco stock as an insider.  Furthermore, Loshin enabled de Maison to deceptively hide his own trading by allowing him to use a brokerage account held in Loshin’s name.


  • Kieran Kuhn of Port Washington, N.Y., allegedly promoted Gepco stock through his firm Small Cap Resource Corp. and inflated the stock value to help the scheme succeed.  He then conducted one of the unregistered and illegal distributions of Gepco-related securities for Zirk de Maison’s benefit. 





According to the SEC’s complaint, Zirk de Maison exchanged e-mails and text messages with many of his co-conspirators as they openly discussed coordinating their promotional activities and manipulative trading in Gepco’s stock in order to create a false impression of market activity.  They stood to earn exponentially more illicit profits given that they continue to beneficially own tens of millions of shares of Gepco stock, so the SEC today suspended trading in Gepco securities in order to prevent any further manipulation or dumping of the stock.





The SEC’s complaint, which additionally charges several companies connected to the scheme, alleges violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 9 and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  The complaint seeks a permanent injunction and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains along with prejudgment interest, financial penalties, and penny stock bars.  The SEC also seeks officer-and-director bars against the de Maisons and Malone.





The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by John O. Enright, James E. Burt IV, Thomas Feretic, and Leslie Kazon.  The case was supervised by Amelia A. Cottrell, and the litigation will be led by Howard Fischer and Mr. Enright.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio, the Cleveland Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.








Friday, September 19, 2014

SEC Charges Brooklyn Man for Facilitating Insider Trading Scheme Via Post-It Notes at Grand Central Terminal




Press Releases





SEC Charges Brooklyn Man for Facilitating Insider Trading Scheme Via Post-It Notes at Grand Central Terminal




The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Brooklyn man with facilitating a $5.6 million insider trading scheme that typically involved the passing of illegal tips via napkins or post-it notes at Grand Central Terminal.





Earlier this year, the SEC charged a stockbroker and a law firm managing clerk with insider trading and alleged they were connected by a mutual friend who served as a “middleman” in an effort to keep the two unlinked.  In a separate complaint filed today in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the SEC identifies Frank Tamayo as that middleman.  The SEC alleges that Tamayo received material nonpublic information from Steven Metro about 13 impending corporate deals involving clients of the law firm where Metro worked.  Tamayo then tipped his stockbroker Vladimir Eydelman, who used the confidential information to illegally trade for himself and for Tamayo and other customers.  Tamayo allocated a portion of his ill-gotten profits for eventual payback to Metro for the inside information.





“As the middleman, Tamayo was the firewall between Metro and Eydelman.  Metro had the information, Eydelman did the trading, and Tamayo kept them apart,” said Robert Cohen, Co-Deputy Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit.  “But they were wrong in believing that this would stop the SEC from detecting their scheme.”





In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey today announced criminal charges against Tamayo.  The U.S. Attorney previously brought criminal actions against Metro and Eydelman.  Those criminal cases and the SEC’s civil case against Metro and Eydelman are pending.





According to the SEC’s complaint against Tamayo, the scheme was deliberately structured to avoid detection, enabling Eydelman and Tamayo to profit without connecting the trades to an insider source and also allowing Metro to share in the trading proceeds.  For a five-year period, Metro repeatedly accessed confidential information in his law firm’s computer systems and met with Tamayo at bars and coffee shops in New York City to provide tips about firm clients ready to participate in a corporate transaction.  Tamayo typically would then connect with Eydelman near the clock at the information booth at Grand Central, where he would show him a post-it note or napkin on which Tamayo wrote the stock ticker symbol of the company to be acquired.  Tamayo then chewed up and sometimes even ate the post-it note or napkin to destroy evidence of the tip.  Tamayo also conveyed to Eydelman the approximate transaction price and timing of the deal.  After Eydelman returned to his office and gathered research about the target company, he would e-mail Tamayo supposed thoughts about why buying the stock made sense.  Their intent was to create a paper trail of e-mails to make it appear they were making their trading decisions based on research and analysis rather than inside information.





The SEC’s complaint charges Tamayo with violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and 14e-3 as well as Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.





The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Jason Burt and Carolyn Welshhans in the Market Abuse Unit with assistance from John Rymas, Mathew Wong, Daniel Koster, and Leigh Barrett.  The case was supervised by Daniel M. Hawke, Chief of the Market Abuse Unit, and Mr. Cohen.  The SEC’s litigation will be led by Stephan Schlegelmilch and Bridget Fitzpatrick.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and Options Regulatory Surveillance Authority.








Thursday, September 18, 2014

SEC Charges N.Y.-Based High Frequency Trading Firm With Violating Net Capital Rule For Broker-Dealers




Press Releases





SEC Charges N.Y.-Based High Frequency Trading Firm With Violating Net Capital Rule For Broker-Dealers




The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a New York-based high frequency trading firm with violating the net capital rule that requires all broker-dealers to maintain minimum levels of net liquid assets or net capital.  The firm’s former chief operating officer is charged with causing the extensive violations.





An SEC investigation found that Latour Trading LLC operated without maintaining its required minimum net capital on 19 of 24 reporting dates during a two-year period, and the firm missed the mark by large amounts ranging from $2 million to $28 million.  During this period, Latour’s trading at times accounted for as much as 9 percent of the trading volume in equity securities for the entire U.S. market.  





To settle the SEC’s charges, Latour agreed to pay a $16 million penalty, the largest ever for violations of the net capital rule.  The previous high was $400,000 in an enforcement action in 2004.  Nicolas Niquet, Latour’s chief operating officer when the series of violations began, agreed to pay a $150,000 penalty to settle the charges against him.





“This record sanction reflects the seriousness of Latour’s violations of the net capital rule, which is a critical broker-dealer financial responsibility requirement,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “We also will aggressively pursue executives who cause the violations.”





According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, a crucial step for a broker-dealer when calculating its net capital is to take percentage deductions referred to as “haircuts” from the firm’s proprietary securities and other positions.  The purpose of these haircut deductions as prescribed in the net capital rule is to account for the market risk inherent in a firm’s positions and create a buffer of liquidity to protect against other risks associated with the securities business.  A failure to calculate proper haircuts can inflate a broker-dealer’s net capital.





The SEC’s order finds that Latour repeatedly miscalculated its net capital amounts in 2010 and 2011 by failing to make proper haircut deductions from the market value of its proprietary securities positions and other positions.  Latour incorrectly used hypothetical positions that the firm did not actually hold to create hedges and capitalize qualified stock baskets.  Latour also used inaccurate index composition data for certain international exchange-traded funds that the firm traded.  Latour’s combined use of hypothetical positions and inaccurate index composition data resulted in haircuts that were generally far too low when calculating the firm’s net capital.  Latour also failed to calculate minimum capital charges on all of its futures positions, and excluded some positions from taking any haircut at all due to a computer programming error.  Niquet designed the processing code that facilitated Latour’s haircut calculations and caused its net capital violations.





According to the SEC’s order, Latour’s net capital violations also resulted in violations of the books and records and financial reporting provisions of the federal securities laws. 





The SEC’s order finds that Latour violated Sections 15(c)(3) and 17(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 15c3-1, 17a-3(a)(11), 17a-4(f), and 17a-5(a).  The order finds that Niquet caused Latour’s violations of Sections 15(c)(3) and 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rules 15c3-1, 17a-3(a)(11), and 17a-5(a).  The order censures Latour.  Without admitting or denying the findings, Latour and Niquet agreed to pay the financial penalties as well as cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of the securities laws.





The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by Leslie Kazon, Alexander Vasilescu, Osman Nawaz, and Christopher Mele.  The examination of the firm that led to the investigation was conducted by Ashok Ginde, Tamara Heller, Ilan Felix, Ronald Sukhu, and Jennifer Grumbrecht.  The Enforcement Division collaborated with the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets as well as Ms. Heller, Mr. Ginde, and Michael Fioribello of the National Exam Program.










Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Former Hedge Fund Manager in Bay Area Charged With Taking Excess Management Fees to Make Lavish Purchases




Press Releases





Former Hedge Fund Manager in Bay Area Charged With Taking Excess Management Fees to Make Lavish Purchases




The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against a former hedge fund manager accused of fraudulently taking excess management fees from the accounts of fund clients and using their money to remodel his multi-million dollar home and buy a Porsche. 





An SEC Enforcement Division investigation found that Sean C. Cooper improperly withdrew more than $320,000 from a hedge fund he managed for San Francisco-based investment advisory firm WestEnd Capital Management LLC.  While WestEnd disclosed to clients the withdrawal of annual management fees of 1.5 percent of each investor’s capital account balance, Cooper actually withdrew amounts that far exceeded that percentage.  He then transferred the money to personal bank accounts so he could spend it freely.  Cooper’s misconduct occurred for a two-year period until he ceased misappropriating fund assets when the SEC began an examination of WestEnd in April 2012.





WestEnd, which expelled Cooper and reimbursed the hedge fund once it became aware of his scheme, is being charged separately by the SEC for failing to effectively supervise him.  The firm agreed to pay a $150,000 penalty to settle the SEC’s charges.





“Cooper betrayed the hedge fund’s investors by lining his own pockets with fund assets that he had not earned,” said Marshall S. Sprung, Co-Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit.  “His fraud went undetected because WestEnd had no internal controls to limit Cooper’s ability to withdraw excessive amounts from the fund.”





According to the SEC’s order instituting a litigated administrative proceeding against Cooper, he began indiscriminately withdrawing money from the hedge fund – WestEnd Partners L.P. – in March 2010.  Cooper mischaracterized the withdrawals as management fees in the fund’s books and records, but they bore no relation to the actual amount of fees that WestEnd had earned.  The SEC Enforcement Division alleges that, in reality, Cooper simply was using the hedge fund as his own private bank.  He had sole authority to transfer money out of the fund, and there were no controls in place at the firm to prevent him from making improper withdrawals.  Once he routed the money into his personal accounts, Cooper purchased a $187,000 Porsche amid other lavish spending.





The SEC Enforcement Division alleges that Cooper, a resident of New Orleans, willfully violated Sections 206(1), 206(2), 206(4), and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8.  Cooper is charged with aiding, abetting and causing WestEnd’s violations of Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-7. 





According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding against WestEnd, Cooper operated the hedge fund with little to no supervision from others at WestEnd, and he had sole discretion to calculate and wire out money that he claimed the fund owed to WestEnd.  Besides its failure to adopt any policies or procedures that imposed the necessary internal controls, WestEnd also failed to maintain several required books and records relating to its finances, including the management fees it collected from the fund.    





WestEnd consented to the entry of the order finding that it violated Sections 204, 206(4), and 207 of the Advisers Act and Rules 204-2(a)(1), (2), (6), and (7) and 206(4)-7.  The order also finds that WestEnd failed to reasonably supervise Cooper within the meaning of Section 203(e)(6) of the Advisers Act.  In addition to the financial penalty, WestEnd agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing future violations of these provisions without admitting or denying the findings.  The settlement also requires the firm to retain a compliance consultant.





The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Eric Brooks and Erin E. Schneider of the Asset Management Unit in the San Francisco Regional Office.  The SEC’s litigation against Cooper will be led by Sheila O’Callaghan and Mr. Brooks.  The SEC examination that led to the investigation was conducted by Ed Haddad, John Chee, Karah To, and Arturo Hurtado of the San Francisco office’s investment adviser/investment company examination program.








Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Tennessee-Based Animal Feed Company Agrees to Pay $18 Million to Settle Accounting Fraud Case




Press Releases





Tennessee-Based Animal Feed Company Agrees to Pay $18 Million to Settle Accounting Fraud Case




The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that a Tennessee-based animal feed company has agreed to pay back $18 million in illicit profits from an accounting fraud that resulted in an SEC enforcement action earlier this year.





AgFeed Industries, which is currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, was charged by the SEC in March along with top company executives for repeatedly reporting fake revenues from the company’s China operations in order to meet financial targets and prop up AgFeed’s stock price.  The company obtained illicit gains in stock offerings to investors at the inflated prices resulting from the accounting scheme.  The SEC also alleged that U.S. managers learned of the accounting fraud, but failed to take adequate steps to investigate and disclose it to investors. 





The $18 million to be paid by AgFeed to settle the SEC’s case will be distributed to victims of the company’s fraud.  Details of the settlement were presented to the bankruptcy court in Delaware earlier today, and the settlement is subject to court approval by the bankruptcy court as well as the district court in Tennessee where the case was filed.





The SEC’s case continues against five former company executives and a former audit committee chair.





“This settlement holds AgFeed accountable for its accounting fraud and deprives the company of ill-gotten gains,” said Julie Lutz, Director of the SEC’s Denver Regional Office.  “This provides the most expedient and effective way to provide a substantial recovery to victims of AgFeed’s fraud while the company remains in bankruptcy.”





Under the proposed settlement, AgFeed also agrees to the entry of a permanent injunction enjoining it from the antifraud, periodic reporting, and recordkeeping and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws.  AgFeed neither admits nor denies the charges in the settlement.





The SEC’s investigation has been conducted by Michael Cates, Donna Walker, and Ian Karpel of the Denver Regional Office.  The court litigation is being led by Gregory Kasper and Nancy Ferguson while the bankruptcy aspects of the case are being handled by Alistaire Bambach, Patricia Schrage, and Neal Jacobson of the New York Regional Office.








Sunday, September 14, 2014

SEC Announces Creation of New Office Within its Division of Economic and Risk Analysis




Press Releases





SEC Announces Creation of New Office Within its Division of Economic and Risk Analysis




The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the creation of a new office within the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) that will coordinate efforts to provide data-driven risk assessment tools and models to support a wide range of SEC activities. 



Since its creation in 2009, DERA has collaborated with market experts throughout the SEC to develop risk assessment tools.  One example, the Aberrational Performance Inquiry, launched in 2009 to proactively identify atypical hedge fund performance, led to eight enforcement actions and is one of the tools used by the Division of Enforcement to assess private funds.  Similarly, DERA developed a broker-dealer risk assessment tool that helps SEC examiners allocate resources by assessing a broker-dealer’s comparative riskiness relative to its peer group.  It also is working closely with the Enforcement Division’s Financial Reporting and Audit Task Force and the Division of Corporation Finance on developing a tool to assist in identifying financial reporting irregularities that may indicate financial fraud and help assess corporate issuer risk.    



“The Office of Risk Assessment will build on the existing expertise of DERA’s staff, which includes economists, accountants, analysts, and attorneys, to provide sophisticated assessments of market risks.  The establishment of this new office reflects the Commission’s ongoing focus on deploying data-driven analytics to assist in routing scarce resources to areas of the greatest risks to the market,” said DERA Deputy Director Scott W. Bauguess, who oversees the division’s risk assessment activities.



Initial staffing of the new Office of Risk Assessment will be drawn from across DERA and the division will seek a new assistant director to head the office.  The office will continue to develop and use predictive analytics to support supervisory, surveillance, and investigative programs involving corporate issuers, broker-dealers, investment advisers, exchanges, and trading platforms.  In addition, the office will support the SEC’s ongoing work related to the Financial Stability Oversight Council.










Saturday, September 13, 2014

SEC Charges Minneapolis-Based Hedge Fund Manager With Bilking Investors and Portfolio Pumping




Press Releases





SEC Charges Minneapolis-Based Hedge Fund Manager With Bilking Investors and Portfolio Pumping




The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Minneapolis-based hedge fund manager, his investment advisory firm, and an accomplice with bilking investors in two hedge funds out of more than $1 million under the guise of research expenses and fees. 





The SEC alleges that as the management fees earned by Archer Advisors LLC were shrinking due to the funds’ worsening performance, the firm’s owner Steven R. Markusen and an employee Jay C. Cope implemented a scheme to enrich themselves at the expense of investors in the funds.  Markusen routinely caused the funds to reimburse Archer for fake research expenses, and he eventually routed much of that money to his personal checking account and spent it on country club dues, boarding school tuition, and a Lexus among other luxury items.  Furthermore, Markusen devised a way to essentially charge fund investors twice for the same fake research expenses.  First, he billed the funds directly by falsely claiming that Archer had paid Cope to conduct “research” for the funds.  Second, he and Cope improperly diverted soft dollars from the hedge funds to Cope for the same purported “research” under the additional pretense that Cope was an independent consultant.  Soft dollars were supposed to be used to buy third-party investment research that benefited the funds.  Cope conducted no third-party research as an Archer officer whose main duties were placing trades and helping Markusen find new investors.





The SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Minneapolis also charges Markusen and Cope with conducting a separate scheme to manipulate the stock price of the funds’ largest holding in order to inflate the monthly returns reported to investors and conceal the true extent of the funds’ mounting investment losses.





“Markusen and his firm had an obligation to manage investor money in the hedge funds fairly and honestly.  Instead, he and Cope exploited their control of the funds to engage in long-running schemes to misappropriate fund assets and artificially pump up the value of the poorly-performing funds,” said Robert J. Burson, Associate Director of the SEC’s Chicago Regional Office. 





According to the SEC’s complaint, the scheme enabled Markusen to secretly pay Cope’s salary with fund soft dollars rather than out of Archer’s coffers.  Markusen and Cope disguised Cope’s $10,000 monthly salary payments as research fees because under the governing documents of the hedge funds they managed and SEC rules, Archer employees could not draw a salary from fund assets or receive fund soft dollars for non-research assistance.  The SEC alleges that Markusen and Cope traded excessively in the funds’ brokerage accounts in order to generate enough soft dollars to pay Cope’s monthly salary at Archer.  They misrepresented Cope’s relationship with Archer to the brokerage firms that administered the funds’ soft dollars, and created false and misleading monthly “research” invoices for the amount of Cope’s salary.  Markusen and Cope sent the invoices each month to the funds’ brokerage firms, who in turn paid fund soft dollars directly to Cope for the purported research expenses.  Markusen would then receive a $1,000 monthly kickback from Cope.





According to the SEC’s complaint, Markusen and Cope carried out their portfolio pumping scheme by manipulating the price of the thinly-traded stock of CyberOptics Corp. (CYBE), which comprised over 75 percent of the funds’ portfolios and was by far the largest holding.  Knowing that Archer’s trading as CYBE’s largest shareholder could materially impact the market price, Markusen and Cope “marked the close” in CYBE on the last trading day of the month at least 28 times.  In doing so, they sought to improperly drive up CYBE’s closing price by placing multiple buy orders often seconds before the market closed to artificially pump up the value of the funds’ portfolios, which were valued as of the close of trading on the month’s last trading day.  Those valuations were used to calculate the funds’ monthly returns that Archer reported to investors as well as Archer’s monthly management fee, which was a fixed percentage of each portfolio’s value.  The higher CYBE closing price at the end of each month enabled Markusen to inflate the funds’ performance and extract more lucrative management fees.





The SEC’s complaint charges Archer, Markusen, and Cope with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and certain reporting provisions.





The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Nicholas Eichenseer, Luz Aguilar, and Paul Montoya of the Chicago Regional Office with assistance from Kevin Vincent and Lorraine Ricci of the office’s examination program.  The SEC’s litigation will be led by John Birkenheier.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.








Friday, September 12, 2014

SEC Announces Charges Against Corporate Insiders for Violating Laws Requiring Prompt Reporting of Transactions and Holdings




Press Releases





SEC Announces Charges Against Corporate Insiders for Violating Laws Requiring Prompt Reporting of Transactions and Holdings




The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against 28 officers, directors, or major shareholders for violating federal securities laws requiring them to promptly report information about their holdings and transactions in company stock.  Six publicly-traded companies were charged for contributing to filing failures by insiders or failing to report their insiders’ filing delinquencies.





The charges stem from an SEC enforcement initiative focusing on two types of ownership reports that give investors the opportunity to evaluate whether the holdings and transactions of company insiders could be indicative of the company’s future prospects.  Form 4 is a report that corporate officers, directors, and certain beneficial owners of more than 10 percent of a registered class of a company’s stock must use to report their transactions in company stock within two business days.  Schedule 13D and 13G are reports that beneficial owners of more than 5 percent of a registered class of a company’s stock must use to report holdings or intentions with respect to the company.  SEC enforcement staff used quantitative data sources and ranking algorithms to identify these insiders as repeatedly filing late.  Some filings were delayed by weeks, months, or even years. 





A total of 33 of the 34 individuals and companies named in the SEC’s orders agreed to settle the charges and pay financial penalties totaling $2.6 million.





“Using quantitative analytics, we identified individuals and companies with especially high rates of filing deficiencies, and we are bringing these actions together to send a clear message about the importance of these filing provisions,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “Officers, directors, major shareholders, and issuers should all take note: inadvertence is no defense to filing violations, and we will vigorously police these sorts of violations through streamlined actions.”





Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office, added, “The reporting requirements in the federal securities laws are not mere suggestions, they are legal obligations that must be obeyed.  Those who fail to do so run the risk of facing an SEC enforcement action.”





These reporting requirements under Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and under Section 13(d) or (g) of the Exchange Act apply irrespective of profits or a person’s reasons for acquiring holdings or engaging in transactions.  The failure to timely file a required beneficial ownership report, even if inadvertent, constitutes a violation of these rules.





The SEC’s orders named 13 individuals who were officers or directors of public companies:






  • Ligang Wang, vice president of China Shen Zhou Mining & Resources, is alleged by the SEC’s Division of Enforcement to have failed to file – on time or at all – reports of his sales of more than 165,000 shares of company stock with a market value of more than $1 million. The Division of Enforcement will litigate the charges against him in an administrative proceeding before an administrative law judge.


  • Paul D. Arling, CEO and chairman of the board of directors of Universal Electronics Inc., agreed to pay a $60,375 penalty.


  • Paul C. Cronson, a director of eMagin Corporation, agreed to pay a $47,250 penalty.


  • Bradley S. Forsyth, CFO and chief accounting officer of Willis Lease Finance Corporation, agreed to pay a $25,000 penalty.


  • Stephen Gans, a director and beneficial owner of Digital Ally Inc., agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty.


  • Sidney C. Hooper, CFO and principal accounting officer of Sutron Corporation, agreed to pay a $34,125 penalty.


  • Edgar W. Levin, a director of Dorman Products Inc., agreed to pay a $46,300 penalty.


  • Raul S. McQuivey, CEO, chairman of the board of directors, and a beneficial owner of Sutron Corporation, agreed to pay a $60,000 penalty.


  • Donald A. Nunemaker, president of Willis Lease Finance Corporation, agreed to pay a $25,000 penalty.


  • Thomas C. Nord, general counsel and senior vice president of Willis Lease Finance Corporation, agreed to pay a $78,500 penalty.


  • Alan M. Schnaid, principal accounting officer and corporate controller of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, agreed to pay a $25,000 penalty.


  • Justin Tang, a director of ChinaCast Education Corporation, agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty.


  • Charles F. Willis IV, CEO, chairman of the board of directors, and a beneficial owner of Willis Lease Finance Corporation, agreed to pay a $75,000 penalty.





The SEC’s orders named five individuals who were beneficial owners of publicly-traded companies:






  • Stephen Adams, a beneficial owner of Solar Senior Capital Ltd. shares, agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty.


  • Thomas J. Edelman, a beneficial owner of BioFuel Energy Corporation shares, agreed to pay a $64,125 penalty.


  • Neil Gagnon, a beneficial owner of General Finance Corporation and NTS Inc. shares, agreed to pay a $75,000 penalty.


  • Peter R. Kellogg, a beneficial owner of Mercer International Inc., TRC Companies Inc., Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., and MFC Industrial Ltd. shares, agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty.


  • Gregory M. Shepard, a beneficial owner of Donegal Group Inc.’s Class A common stock, agreed to pay an $80,000 penalty.





The SEC’s orders named 10 investment firms in connection with beneficial ownership of publicly-traded companies:








The SEC’s orders named six publicly-traded companies for contributing to filing failures by insiders or failing to report their insiders’ filing delinquencies:








The SEC’s investigations were conducted out of the New York Regional Office and led by Wendy B. Tepperman, Christina M. McGill, and Joshua R. Geller with assistance from Kristin M. Pauley and Debbie Chan.  The Enforcement Division worked in close collaboration with Michael P. Fioribello of the SEC’s National Exam Program and Anne M. Krauskopf and Nicholas P. Panos in the agency’s Division of Corporation Finance.  Jack Kaufman will lead the SEC Enforcement Division’s litigation against Wang.  The cases have been supervised by Sanjay Wadhwa.








Thursday, September 11, 2014

SEC Charges Bank Holding Company in Delaware with Improper Accounting and Disclosure of Past Due Loans




Press Releases





SEC Charges Bank Holding Company in Delaware with Improper Accounting and Disclosure of Past Due Loans




The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced accounting and disclosure fraud charges against a Delaware-based bank holding company for failing to report the true volume of its loans at least 90 days past due as they substantially increased in number during the financial crisis.



An SEC investigation found that as the real estate market declined in 2009 and 2010 and its construction loans began to mature without repayment or completion of the underlying project, Wilmington Trust Company did not renew, extend, or take other appropriate action for 90 days or more on a material amount of its matured loans.  Instead of fully and accurately disclosing the amount of these accruing loans as required by accounting guidance, Wilmington Trust improperly excluded the matured loans from its public financial reporting. 



Wilmington Trust, which was acquired by M&T Bank in May 2011, has agreed to pay $18.5 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest to settle the SEC’s charges. 



“Improper application of accounting principles by Wilmington Trust had the effect of misleading investors about a key credit quality metric during a time of significant upheaval and financial distress for the bank,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “Investors must know when banking institutions are unable to recover on material amounts of outstanding loans, which means those institutions must carefully adhere to relevant accounting rules.”



Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office, added, “By failing to fully disclose the actual volume of accruing loans past due 90 days or more, Wilmington Trust prevented investors from learning the full scope of the troubles in its commercial real estate loan portfolio.”



According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, Wilmington Trust omitted from its disclosures in the third and fourth quarters of 2009 approximately $338.9 million and $330.2 million, respectively, in matured loans 90 days or more past due.  Instead, it disclosed just $38.7 million in such loans for the third quarter and only $30.6 million in its annual report following the fourth quarter.  Wilmington Trust also materially misreported this category of loans in the first and second quarters of 2010.  Furthermore, Wilmington Trust failed to accurately disclose during the second half of 2009 the amount of non-accruing loans in its portfolio, and materially understated its loan loss provision and allowance for loan losses during this same period.



Wilmington Trust consented to the entry of the order finding that it violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 as well as the reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws.  In addition to the monetary sanctions, Wilmington Trust agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of these provisions.



The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by Margaret Spillane, James Addison, and Michael Osnato of the New York Regional Office.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U. S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Reserve, and Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.










Wednesday, September 10, 2014

SEC Announces Fraud Charges Against Biotech Company and Former Executive Who Failed to Report Insider Stock Sales




Press Releases





SEC Announces Fraud Charges Against Biotech Company and Former Executive Who Failed to Report Insider Stock Sales




The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Massachusetts-based biotech company and its former CEO with defrauding investors by failing to report his sales of company stock.





The federal securities laws require certain corporate executives to report their transactions in the company’s stock in order to give investors the opportunity to evaluate whether the purchases and sales by an insider could be indicative of the prospects of the company.  An SEC investigation found that after Gary H. Rabin became CEO, CFO, and chairman of Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) in 2010, he repeatedly failed to report his sales of company stock for the next few years.  Subsequently, ACT’s annual reports and proxy statements during that period were inaccurate because they failed to report that Rabin was not complying with his obligation to disclose his substantial sales of ACT stock.





ACT and Rabin agreed to settle the SEC’s charges.





“It’s not merely a technical lapse when executives fail to report their transactions in company stock, because investors are consequently denied important and timely information about how an insider is potentially viewing the company’s future prospects,” said Michele Wein Layne, Director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office.  “Instead of reporting his numerous company stock sales within two days as typically required, Rabin waited more than two years and compromised Advanced Cell Technology’s financial reporting obligations.”





According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and underlying SEC rules require officers and directors of a company with a registered class of equity securities to file reports of their securities holdings and transactions.  The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and additional SEC regulations accelerated the reporting deadline for most insider transactions to two business days and mandated that all reports be filed electronically with the SEC to facilitate rapid dissemination to the public.





The SEC’s order finds that Rabin’s sales would have been viewed by a reasonable investor as significantly altering the total mix of available information about ACT given his executive position as well as the size and frequency of his sales of the company’s stock.  However, it wasn’t until May 2013 that Rabin eventually reported his 27 sales of $1.5 million worth of ACT stock from 2010 to 2012.  ACT and Rabin violated the anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws by failing to file reports of these transactions and holdings in a timely and accurate manner.  Rabin signed and ACT filed annual reports and proxy statements during this period that were false and misleading due to Rabin’s missing Section 16(a) reports.





Rabin, who lives in Santa Monica, Calif., and left the company earlier this year, agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying a $175,000 penalty.  ACT agreed to pay a $375,000 penalty and retain an independent consultant to conduct a review of its Section 16(a) reporting and compliance procedures.  They neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings while consenting to orders that charge ACT with violations of Sections 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 13(a) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act as well as Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 14a-9, and charge Rabin with violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act and Sections 14(a) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act as well as Rules 14a 9 and 16a-3.  Rabin also is charged with causing ACT’s violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a) as well as Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1.





The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Leslie A. Hakala and C. Dabney O’Riordan in the Los Angeles office.








Tuesday, September 09, 2014

SEC Charges Offshore Business and Two Individuals Behind Scheme to Conceal Ownership of Microcap Stocks




Press Releases





SEC Charges Offshore Business and Two Individuals Behind Scheme to Conceal Ownership of Microcap Stocks




The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two individuals managing an offshore business intended to help clients evade U.S. securities laws with concealing the ownership of certain microcap stocks as part of a larger money laundering scheme alleged by criminal authorities.





Under the federal securities laws, beneficial owners of more than 5 percent of certain stocks are required to report their acquisition and ownership of those stocks to the SEC and the investing public.  The SEC alleges that Belize residents Robert Bandfield and Andrew Godfrey through a company called IPC Corporate Services have helped clients who own significant amounts of thinly-traded microcap stocks avoid these reporting requirements.  They created associated companies through which the clients could hide their ownership and spread the shares so that none of them contained more than 5 percent of the stock of any particular microcap issuer.  They stressed to their clients the importance of staying below the 5 percent reporting threshold for each associated entity.  However, because Bandfield and IPC owned the associated entities used in this arrangement, they assumed beneficial ownership of all the clients’ shares of these microcap stocks.  Therefore, IPC and Bandfield were themselves required to report their beneficial ownership of more than 5 percent in each stock. 





In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York today announced criminal charges against Bandfield and Godfrey for violations of other federal laws extending beyond the SEC’s purview.





“The federal securities laws provide investors the right to know when an individual or entity owns and controls more than 5 percent of a stock because purchases or sales by that major shareholder can have the potential to sway the stock price in one direction or another,” said Michael Paley, Co-Chair of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Microcap Fraud Task Force.  “Bandfield with Godfrey’s assistance designed an offshore system to deliberately keep the rest of the market from knowing that someone owned significant amounts of particular stocks.  In microcap stock schemes like these that extend even beyond securities laws violations, we will continue to work with criminal authorities to bring wrongdoers to justice for the full extent of their crimes.”





The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related SEC rules require beneficial owners of more than 5 percent of a class of stock of certain companies to file Schedule 13D or 13G.  The SEC’s complaint charges IPC and Bandfield with repeated failures to make these filings, thus violating Section 13 of the Exchange Act and Rule 13d-1.  Godfrey is charged with aiding and abetting those violations.  The SEC’s complaint seeks monetary relief and permanent injunctions against IPC, Bandfield, and Godfrey.





The SEC’s investigation is continuing.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service, and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.