FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Charges 36 Firms for Fraudulent Municipal Bond Offerings
Cases Are First Against Underwriters in Muni-Bond Disclosure Initiative
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2015-125
Washington D.C., June 18, 2015 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced enforcement actions against 36 municipal underwriting firms for violations in municipal bond offerings. The cases are the first brought against underwriters under the Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation (MCDC) Initiative, a voluntary self-reporting program targeting material misstatements and omissions in municipal bond offering documents.
The Enforcement Division initiative announced in March 2014, offered favorable settlement terms to municipal bond underwriters and issuers who self-reported securities law violations. The first issuer charged under the initiative settled with the SEC in July 2014.
“The MCDC initiative has already resulted in significant improvements to the municipal securities market, including heightened awareness of issuers’ disclosure obligations and enhanced disclosure policies and procedures,” said SEC Chair Mary Jo White. “This ongoing enforcement initiative will continue to bring lasting changes to the municipal securities markets for the benefit of investors.”
In today’s actions, the SEC alleged that between 2010 and 2014 the 36 firms violated federal securities laws by selling municipal bonds using offering documents that contained materially false statements or omissions about the bond issuers’ compliance with continuing disclosure obligations. The underwriting firms also allegedly failed to conduct adequate due diligence to identify the misstatements and omissions before offering and selling the bonds to their customers.
“The MCDC initiative highlights the importance of continuing disclosure in the municipal bond market and due diligence in the underwriting process,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division. “The initiative has brought much needed attention to these issues and has already improved the behavior of participants in the $3.7 trillion municipal bond market.”
Continuing disclosure provides municipal bond investors with information, including annual financial reports, on an ongoing basis. The SEC’s 2012 Municipal Market Report identified issuers’ failure to comply with their continuing disclosure obligations as a major challenge for investors seeking information about their municipal bond holdings.
“The settlements announced today reflect these underwriters’ cooperation in self-reporting their own misconduct and agreeing to improve their procedures going forward,” said LeeAnn Ghazil Gaunt, Chief of the Enforcement Division’s Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit. “Because these 36 firms underwrite a substantial portion of the country’s municipal bonds each year, we expect a large number of bondholders will benefit from the resulting improvements in due diligence and disclosure.”
The 36 firms, which did not admit or deny the findings, agreed to cease and desist from such violations in the future. Under the terms of the MCDC initiative, they will pay civil penalties based on the number and size of the fraudulent offerings identified, up to a cap based on the size of the firm. The maximum penalty imposed is $500,000. In addition, each firm agreed to retain an independent consultant to review its policies and procedures on due diligence for municipal securities underwriting.
The MCDC initiative, which is continuing, is being coordinated by Kevin Guerrero of the Enforcement Division’s Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit. The cases announced today were investigated by members of the unit, including Michael J. Adler, Eric A. Celauro, Joseph O. Chimienti, Kevin Currid, Susan E. Curtin, Peter J. Diskin, Keshia Ellis, Brian D. Fagel, Sally J. Hewitt, Jason A. Howard, Brian P. Knight, Robbie L. Mayer, Heidi Mitza, Cary S. Robnett, Ivonia K. Slade, Steven Varholik, Jonathan Wilcox, Monique C. Winkler, and Deputy Unit Chief Mark R. Zehner, with assistance from Ferdose al-Taie, Peter Moores, and Jeremiah Roberts.
* * *
Link to the SEC’s orders and penalty amounts:
• The Baker Group, LP – $250,000
• B.C. Ziegler and Company – $250,000
• Benchmark Securities, LLC – $100,000
• Bernardi Securities, Inc. – $100,000
• BMO Capital Markets GKST Inc. – $250,000
• BNY Mellon Capital Markets, LLC – $120,000
• BOSC, Inc. – $250,000
• Central States Capital Markets, LLC – $60,000
• Citigroup Global Markets Inc. – $500,000
• City Securities Corporation – $250,000
• Davenport & Company LLC – $80,000
• Dougherty & Co. LLC – $250,000
• First National Capital Markets, Inc. – $100,000
• George K. Baum & Company – $250,000
• Goldman, Sachs & Co. – $500,000
• Hutchinson, Shockey, Erley & Co. – $220,000
• J.P. Morgan Securities LLC – $500,000
• L.J. Hart and Company – $100,000
• Loop Capital Markets, LLC – $60,000
• Martin Nelson & Co., Inc. – $100,000
• Merchant Capital, L.L.C. – $100,000
• Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated – $500,000
• Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC – $500,000
• The Northern Trust Company – $60,000
• Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. – $400,000
• Piper Jaffray & Co. – $500,000
• Raymond James & Associates, Inc. – $500,000
• RBC Capital Markets, LLC – $500,000
• Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated – $500,000
• Siebert Brandford Shank & Co., LLC – $240,000
• Smith Hayes Financial Services Corporation – $40,000
• Stephens Inc. – $400,000
• Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc. – $80,000
• Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. – $500,000
• Wells Nelson & Associates, LLC – $100,000
• William Blair & Co., L.L.C. – $80,000
Showing posts with label OMISSIONS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OMISSIONS. Show all posts
Friday, June 19, 2015
Thursday, December 19, 2013
SEC CHARGES TWO COMPANIES WITH FRAUDULENT OFFER AND SALE OF SECURITIES IN ENERGY VENTURES
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Charges Texas Oil and Gas Promoters for Securities Fraud
On December 12, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Leon Ali Parvizian and his two companies, Arcturus Corporation and Aschere Energy LLC, with the fraudulent offer and sale of securities in the form of interests in oil and gas joint ventures. The Commission also charged promoters Alfredo Gonzalez, AMG Energy, LLC , Robert Balunas, and R. Thomas & Co., LLC with violations of the securities offering and broker-dealer registration provisions of the federal securities laws.
Filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the Commission's complaint alleges that the Parvizian, through Arcturus and Aschere, raised nearly $22 million from at least 380 investors between 2007 and December 2011.The complaint alleges that Parvizian prepared and disseminated to prospective investors offering materials that included material misrepresentations and omissions regarding, among other things, material litigation involving Arcturus and Aschere. According to the complaint, Parvizian, Arcturus and Aschere systematically, and without disclosure to investors, used the offering proceeds to pay the costs of defending and settling the litigation. The complaint further alleges that, among other things, Parvizian prematurely called for completion funds on at least two projects before he had finished drilling and testing the wells because he had already spent the offering proceeds for non-JV related expenses, including legal fees. According to the complaint, Parvizian, Arcturus, and Aschere spent only $7.9 million, or 36 percent, of the money raised to drill oil and gas wells.
The complaint also alleges that the defendants offered and sold the joint venture interests in unregistered securities offerings that were not exempt from the registration requirements of the federal securities laws. In addition, the complaint alleges that Parvizian, Gonzalez, AMG, Balunas, and R. Thomas & Co. acted as unregistered broker-dealers. According to the complaint, Parvizian, Gonzalez, Balunas, AMG Energy, and R. Thomas received transaction-based compensation in the form of sales commissions based upon a percentage of the amount of investor funds raised.
The complaint alleges that Parvizian, Arcturus, and Aschere violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act")and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and that Parvizian also violated Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. Gonzalez, AMG, Balunas, and R. Thomas are charged with violating Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and with Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. The Commission is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against each of the defendants.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Ronda Blair, Ty Martinez, and Barbara Gunn of SEC's Fort Worth Regional Office. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the Texas State Securities Board.
SEC Charges Texas Oil and Gas Promoters for Securities Fraud
On December 12, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Leon Ali Parvizian and his two companies, Arcturus Corporation and Aschere Energy LLC, with the fraudulent offer and sale of securities in the form of interests in oil and gas joint ventures. The Commission also charged promoters Alfredo Gonzalez, AMG Energy, LLC , Robert Balunas, and R. Thomas & Co., LLC with violations of the securities offering and broker-dealer registration provisions of the federal securities laws.
Filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the Commission's complaint alleges that the Parvizian, through Arcturus and Aschere, raised nearly $22 million from at least 380 investors between 2007 and December 2011.The complaint alleges that Parvizian prepared and disseminated to prospective investors offering materials that included material misrepresentations and omissions regarding, among other things, material litigation involving Arcturus and Aschere. According to the complaint, Parvizian, Arcturus and Aschere systematically, and without disclosure to investors, used the offering proceeds to pay the costs of defending and settling the litigation. The complaint further alleges that, among other things, Parvizian prematurely called for completion funds on at least two projects before he had finished drilling and testing the wells because he had already spent the offering proceeds for non-JV related expenses, including legal fees. According to the complaint, Parvizian, Arcturus, and Aschere spent only $7.9 million, or 36 percent, of the money raised to drill oil and gas wells.
The complaint also alleges that the defendants offered and sold the joint venture interests in unregistered securities offerings that were not exempt from the registration requirements of the federal securities laws. In addition, the complaint alleges that Parvizian, Gonzalez, AMG, Balunas, and R. Thomas & Co. acted as unregistered broker-dealers. According to the complaint, Parvizian, Gonzalez, Balunas, AMG Energy, and R. Thomas received transaction-based compensation in the form of sales commissions based upon a percentage of the amount of investor funds raised.
The complaint alleges that Parvizian, Arcturus, and Aschere violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act")and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and that Parvizian also violated Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. Gonzalez, AMG, Balunas, and R. Thomas are charged with violating Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and with Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. The Commission is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against each of the defendants.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Ronda Blair, Ty Martinez, and Barbara Gunn of SEC's Fort Worth Regional Office. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the Texas State Securities Board.
Friday, September 27, 2013
SEC CHARGES 10 BROKERS IN $125 MILLION INVESTMENT SCHEME
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against 10 former brokers at an Albany, N.Y.-based firm at the center of a $125 million investment scheme for which the co-owners have received jail sentences.
The SEC filed an emergency action in 2010 to halt the scheme at McGinn Smith & Co. and freeze the assets of the firm and its owners Timothy M. McGinn and David L. Smith, who were later charged criminally by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York and found guilty.
The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that 10 brokers who recommended the unregistered investment products involved in the scheme made material misrepresentations and omissions to their customers. The registered representatives ignored red flags that should have led them to conduct more due diligence into the securities they were recommending to their customers.
“As securities professionals, these brokers had an important duty to determine whether the securities they recommended to customers were suitable, especially when red flags were apparent. These registered representatives performed inadequate due diligence and failed to fulfill their duties,” said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.
The SEC’s order names 10 former McGinn Smith brokers in the administrative proceeding:
Donald J. Anthony, Jr. of Loudonville, N.Y.
Frank H. Chiappone of Clifton Park, NY.
Richard D. Feldmann of Delmar, N.Y.
William P. Gamello of Rexford, N.Y.
Andrew G. Guzzetti of Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
William F. Lex of Phoenixville, Pa.
Thomas E. Livingston of Slingerlands, N.Y.
Brian T. Mayer of Princeton, N.J.
Philip S. Rabinovich of Roslyn, N.Y.
Ryan C. Rogers of East Northport, N.Y.
According to the SEC’s order, the scheme victimized approximately 750 investors and led to $80 million in investor losses. Guzzetti was the managing director of McGinn Smith’s private client group from 2004 to 2009, and he supervised brokers who recommended the firm’s offerings. The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that despite his knowledge of serious red flags, Guzzetti failed to take any action to investigate the offerings and instead encouraged the brokers to sell the notes to McGinn Smith customers.
The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that the other nine brokers charged in the administrative proceeding should have conducted a searching inquiry prior to recommending the products to their customers. The brokers continued to sell McGinn Smith notes even after being told that customers placed in some of the firm’s offerings could only be redeemed if a replacement customer was found. This was contrary to the offering documents. In January 2008, the brokers learned that four earlier offerings that raised almost $90 million had defaulted, yet they failed to conduct any inquiry into subsequent offerings and continued to recommend McGinn Smith notes.
The SEC’s order alleges that the misconduct of Anthony, Chiappone, Feldmann, Gamello, Lex, Livingston, Mayer, Rabinovich, and Rogers resulted in violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The order alleges that Guzzetti failed to reasonably supervise the nine brokers, giving rise to liability under Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, incorporating by reference Section 15(b)(4).
The SEC’s civil case continues against the firm as well as McGinn and Smith, who were sentenced to 15 and 10 years imprisonment respectively in the criminal case.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by David Stoelting, Kevin P. McGrath, Lara Shalov Mehraban, Haimavathi V. Marlier, Joshua Newville, Kerri Palen, Michael Paley, and Roseann Daniello of the New York office. Mr. Stoelting, Ms. Marlier and Michael Birnbaum will lead the Enforcement Division’s litigation.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against 10 former brokers at an Albany, N.Y.-based firm at the center of a $125 million investment scheme for which the co-owners have received jail sentences.
The SEC filed an emergency action in 2010 to halt the scheme at McGinn Smith & Co. and freeze the assets of the firm and its owners Timothy M. McGinn and David L. Smith, who were later charged criminally by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York and found guilty.
The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that 10 brokers who recommended the unregistered investment products involved in the scheme made material misrepresentations and omissions to their customers. The registered representatives ignored red flags that should have led them to conduct more due diligence into the securities they were recommending to their customers.
“As securities professionals, these brokers had an important duty to determine whether the securities they recommended to customers were suitable, especially when red flags were apparent. These registered representatives performed inadequate due diligence and failed to fulfill their duties,” said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.
The SEC’s order names 10 former McGinn Smith brokers in the administrative proceeding:
Donald J. Anthony, Jr. of Loudonville, N.Y.
Frank H. Chiappone of Clifton Park, NY.
Richard D. Feldmann of Delmar, N.Y.
William P. Gamello of Rexford, N.Y.
Andrew G. Guzzetti of Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
William F. Lex of Phoenixville, Pa.
Thomas E. Livingston of Slingerlands, N.Y.
Brian T. Mayer of Princeton, N.J.
Philip S. Rabinovich of Roslyn, N.Y.
Ryan C. Rogers of East Northport, N.Y.
According to the SEC’s order, the scheme victimized approximately 750 investors and led to $80 million in investor losses. Guzzetti was the managing director of McGinn Smith’s private client group from 2004 to 2009, and he supervised brokers who recommended the firm’s offerings. The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that despite his knowledge of serious red flags, Guzzetti failed to take any action to investigate the offerings and instead encouraged the brokers to sell the notes to McGinn Smith customers.
The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that the other nine brokers charged in the administrative proceeding should have conducted a searching inquiry prior to recommending the products to their customers. The brokers continued to sell McGinn Smith notes even after being told that customers placed in some of the firm’s offerings could only be redeemed if a replacement customer was found. This was contrary to the offering documents. In January 2008, the brokers learned that four earlier offerings that raised almost $90 million had defaulted, yet they failed to conduct any inquiry into subsequent offerings and continued to recommend McGinn Smith notes.
The SEC’s order alleges that the misconduct of Anthony, Chiappone, Feldmann, Gamello, Lex, Livingston, Mayer, Rabinovich, and Rogers resulted in violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The order alleges that Guzzetti failed to reasonably supervise the nine brokers, giving rise to liability under Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, incorporating by reference Section 15(b)(4).
The SEC’s civil case continues against the firm as well as McGinn and Smith, who were sentenced to 15 and 10 years imprisonment respectively in the criminal case.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by David Stoelting, Kevin P. McGrath, Lara Shalov Mehraban, Haimavathi V. Marlier, Joshua Newville, Kerri Palen, Michael Paley, and Roseann Daniello of the New York office. Mr. Stoelting, Ms. Marlier and Michael Birnbaum will lead the Enforcement Division’s litigation.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
SEC CHARGES INVESTMENT ADVISER IN ALGORITHMIC TRADING ABILITY CASE
FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Charges North Carolina-Based Investment Adviser for Misleading Fund Board About Algorithmic Trading Ability
08/21/2013 10:43 AM EDT
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against a North Carolina-based investment adviser and its former owner for misleading an investment fund’s board of directors about the firm’s ability to conduct algorithmic currency trading so they would approve the firm’s contract to manage the fund.
The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Chariot Advisors LLC and Elliott L. Shifman misled the fund’s board about the nature, extent, and quality of services that the firm could provide as he touted the competitive benefits of algorithmic trading in two presentations before the board. Contrary to what Shifman told the directors, Chariot Advisors did not devise or otherwise possess any algorithms capable of engaging in the currency trading that Shifman was describing. After the fund was launched, Chariot Advisors did not use an algorithm model to perform the fund’s currency trading as represented to the board, but instead hired an individual trader who was allowed to use discretion on trade selection and execution. The misconduct by Shifman and Chariot Advisors caused misrepresentations and omissions in the Chariot fund’s registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC and viewed by investors.
The case arises out of an initiative by the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit to focus on the “15(c) process” – a reference to Section 15(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 that requires a registered fund’s board to annually evaluate the fund’s advisory agreements. Advisers must provide the board with the truthful information necessary to make that evaluation. Other enforcement actions taken against misconduct in the investment contract renewal process and fee arrangements include cases against Morgan Stanley Investment Management, a sub-adviser to the Malaysia Fund, and two mutual fund trusts affiliated with the Northern Lights Variable Trust fund complex.
“It is critical that investment advisers provide truthful information to the directors of the registered funds they advise,” said Julie M. Riewe, Co-Chief of SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. “Both boards and advisers have fiduciary duties that must be fulfilled to ensure that a fund’s investors are not harmed.”
According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings, the false claims by Chariot and Shifman defrauded the Chariot Absolute Return Currency Portfolio, a fund that was formerly within the Northern Lights Variable Trust fund complex. In December 2008 and again in May 2009, Shifman misrepresented to the Chariot fund’s board that his firm would implement the fund’s investment strategy by using a portion of the fund’s assets to engage in algorithmic currency trading. Chariot fund’s initial investment objective was to achieve absolute positive returns in all market cycles by investing approximately 80 percent of the fund’s assets under management in short-term fixed income securities, and using the remaining 20 percent of the assets under management to engage in algorithmic currency trading.
According to the SEC’s order, Chariot Advisors did not have an algorithm capable of conducting such currency trading. The ability to conduct currency trading was particularly significant for the Chariot fund’s performance, because in the absence of an operating history the directors focused instead on Chariot Advisors’ reliance on models when the board evaluated the advisory contract. Even though Shifman believed that the fund’s currency trading needed to achieve a 25 to 30 percent return to succeed, Shifman never disclosed to the board that Chariot Advisors had no algorithm or model capable of achieving such a return.
According to the SEC’s order, because Chariot Advisors possessed no algorithm, currency trading for the fund was under the control of an individual trader who was not using an algorithm for at least the first two months after the fund’s launch. Shifman had interviewed the trader prior to her hiring and knew that she used a technical analysis, rules-based approach for trading that combined market indicators with her own intuition. The trader traded currencies for the fund until Sept. 30, 2009 when she was terminated due to poor trading performance. Subsequently, Chariot employed a third party who utilized an algorithm to conduct currency trading on behalf of the Chariot fund.
The SEC’s order alleges that the misconduct by Chariot and Shifman, who lives in the Raleigh area, resulted in violations of Sections 15(c) and 34(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8. A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determine whether the allegations contained in the order are true and whether any remedial sanctions are appropriate.
The SEC’s investigation was led by Stephen E. Donahue and John G. Westrick of the Asset Management Unit and Atlanta Regional Office as well as Micheal D. Watson of the Atlanta office. Pat Huddleston and Shawn Murnahan will lead the Enforcement Division’s litigation. John Sherrick and Timothy J. Barker of the Atlanta Regional Office conducted the related examination that led to the investigation.
SEC Charges North Carolina-Based Investment Adviser for Misleading Fund Board About Algorithmic Trading Ability
08/21/2013 10:43 AM EDT
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against a North Carolina-based investment adviser and its former owner for misleading an investment fund’s board of directors about the firm’s ability to conduct algorithmic currency trading so they would approve the firm’s contract to manage the fund.
The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Chariot Advisors LLC and Elliott L. Shifman misled the fund’s board about the nature, extent, and quality of services that the firm could provide as he touted the competitive benefits of algorithmic trading in two presentations before the board. Contrary to what Shifman told the directors, Chariot Advisors did not devise or otherwise possess any algorithms capable of engaging in the currency trading that Shifman was describing. After the fund was launched, Chariot Advisors did not use an algorithm model to perform the fund’s currency trading as represented to the board, but instead hired an individual trader who was allowed to use discretion on trade selection and execution. The misconduct by Shifman and Chariot Advisors caused misrepresentations and omissions in the Chariot fund’s registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC and viewed by investors.
The case arises out of an initiative by the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit to focus on the “15(c) process” – a reference to Section 15(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 that requires a registered fund’s board to annually evaluate the fund’s advisory agreements. Advisers must provide the board with the truthful information necessary to make that evaluation. Other enforcement actions taken against misconduct in the investment contract renewal process and fee arrangements include cases against Morgan Stanley Investment Management, a sub-adviser to the Malaysia Fund, and two mutual fund trusts affiliated with the Northern Lights Variable Trust fund complex.
“It is critical that investment advisers provide truthful information to the directors of the registered funds they advise,” said Julie M. Riewe, Co-Chief of SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. “Both boards and advisers have fiduciary duties that must be fulfilled to ensure that a fund’s investors are not harmed.”
According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings, the false claims by Chariot and Shifman defrauded the Chariot Absolute Return Currency Portfolio, a fund that was formerly within the Northern Lights Variable Trust fund complex. In December 2008 and again in May 2009, Shifman misrepresented to the Chariot fund’s board that his firm would implement the fund’s investment strategy by using a portion of the fund’s assets to engage in algorithmic currency trading. Chariot fund’s initial investment objective was to achieve absolute positive returns in all market cycles by investing approximately 80 percent of the fund’s assets under management in short-term fixed income securities, and using the remaining 20 percent of the assets under management to engage in algorithmic currency trading.
According to the SEC’s order, Chariot Advisors did not have an algorithm capable of conducting such currency trading. The ability to conduct currency trading was particularly significant for the Chariot fund’s performance, because in the absence of an operating history the directors focused instead on Chariot Advisors’ reliance on models when the board evaluated the advisory contract. Even though Shifman believed that the fund’s currency trading needed to achieve a 25 to 30 percent return to succeed, Shifman never disclosed to the board that Chariot Advisors had no algorithm or model capable of achieving such a return.
According to the SEC’s order, because Chariot Advisors possessed no algorithm, currency trading for the fund was under the control of an individual trader who was not using an algorithm for at least the first two months after the fund’s launch. Shifman had interviewed the trader prior to her hiring and knew that she used a technical analysis, rules-based approach for trading that combined market indicators with her own intuition. The trader traded currencies for the fund until Sept. 30, 2009 when she was terminated due to poor trading performance. Subsequently, Chariot employed a third party who utilized an algorithm to conduct currency trading on behalf of the Chariot fund.
The SEC’s order alleges that the misconduct by Chariot and Shifman, who lives in the Raleigh area, resulted in violations of Sections 15(c) and 34(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8. A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determine whether the allegations contained in the order are true and whether any remedial sanctions are appropriate.
The SEC’s investigation was led by Stephen E. Donahue and John G. Westrick of the Asset Management Unit and Atlanta Regional Office as well as Micheal D. Watson of the Atlanta office. Pat Huddleston and Shawn Murnahan will lead the Enforcement Division’s litigation. John Sherrick and Timothy J. Barker of the Atlanta Regional Office conducted the related examination that led to the investigation.
Monday, August 12, 2013
SEC CHARGES ENTITIES OF BANK OF AMERICA WITH MAKING MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS IN SALE OF RMBS SECURITIES
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Charges Bank of America Entities with Material Misrepresentations and Omissions in Connection with an RMBS Offering
On August 6, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) filed a civil injunctive action against Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc. (“BOAMS”), and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. f/k/a Banc of America Securities LLC (“BAS”) (collectively the “Bank of America Entities”). The Commission alleges that the Bank of America Entities made material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities known as BOAMS 2008-A. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Bank of America Entities failed to disclose the disproportionate concentration of wholesale loans (72% by unpaid principal balance) underlying BOAMS 2008-A as compared to prior BOAMS offerings. The complaint also alleges that the Bank of America Entities failed to disclose known risks associated with the high concentration of wholesale loans in BOAMS 2008-A including higher likelihood that the loans would be subject to material underwriting errors, become severely delinquent, fail early in the life of the loan, or prepay. The complaint further alleges that the Bank of America entities violated Regulation S-K and subpart Regulation AB of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) by failing to disclose the material characteristics of the pool of loans underlying BOAMS 2008-A. The complaint also alleges that the Bank of America Entities made material misrepresentations and omissions in its public filings and in the loan tapes it provided to investors and rating agencies that the loans in BOAMS 2008-A complied with BANA’s underwriting standards when a material amount did not. Finally, the complaint alleges that BOAMS and BAS violated Section 5(b)(1) of the Securities Act by failing to file with the Commission certain loan tapes that it provided only to select investors.
The Commission’s complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, charges the Bank of America Entities with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that that each violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act. The complaint also alleges that BAS and BOAMS violated Section 5(b)(1) of the Securities Act. The complaint seeks against each of the Bank of America Entities a permanent injunction, disgorgement with prejudgment interest and civil monetary penalties pursuant Section 20(d) of the Securities Act.
The Commission would like to thank the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina for its substantial assistance in this matter.
SEC Charges Bank of America Entities with Material Misrepresentations and Omissions in Connection with an RMBS Offering
On August 6, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) filed a civil injunctive action against Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc. (“BOAMS”), and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. f/k/a Banc of America Securities LLC (“BAS”) (collectively the “Bank of America Entities”). The Commission alleges that the Bank of America Entities made material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities known as BOAMS 2008-A. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Bank of America Entities failed to disclose the disproportionate concentration of wholesale loans (72% by unpaid principal balance) underlying BOAMS 2008-A as compared to prior BOAMS offerings. The complaint also alleges that the Bank of America Entities failed to disclose known risks associated with the high concentration of wholesale loans in BOAMS 2008-A including higher likelihood that the loans would be subject to material underwriting errors, become severely delinquent, fail early in the life of the loan, or prepay. The complaint further alleges that the Bank of America entities violated Regulation S-K and subpart Regulation AB of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) by failing to disclose the material characteristics of the pool of loans underlying BOAMS 2008-A. The complaint also alleges that the Bank of America Entities made material misrepresentations and omissions in its public filings and in the loan tapes it provided to investors and rating agencies that the loans in BOAMS 2008-A complied with BANA’s underwriting standards when a material amount did not. Finally, the complaint alleges that BOAMS and BAS violated Section 5(b)(1) of the Securities Act by failing to file with the Commission certain loan tapes that it provided only to select investors.
The Commission’s complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, charges the Bank of America Entities with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that that each violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act. The complaint also alleges that BAS and BOAMS violated Section 5(b)(1) of the Securities Act. The complaint seeks against each of the Bank of America Entities a permanent injunction, disgorgement with prejudgment interest and civil monetary penalties pursuant Section 20(d) of the Securities Act.
The Commission would like to thank the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina for its substantial assistance in this matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)