SEC ACCUSES MAN OF RUNNING ILLEGITIMATE CREDIT UNION

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SEC Charges Purported Credit Union and Its Principal with Offering Fraud
On Nov. 8, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Stanley B. McDuffie, a resident of Denver, Colorado, and his entity, Jilapuhn, Inc., d/b/a Her Majesty's Credit Union (HMCU), in connection with a fraudulent and unregistered offering through which McDuffie and HMCU sold more than $532,000 in alleged certificates of deposits (CDs) to investors.

In its complaint, the Commission alleges that from 2008 to 2012, McDuffie and HMCU lured investors to purchase the CDs through the HMCU website and a branch office in the U.S. Virgin Islands. McDuffie and HMCU held out HMCU as a secure, legitimate, regulated credit union, promised to pay above-market interest rates, and assured investors that their deposits were insured by Lloyd's of London or the U.S. Virgin Islands' government. In reality, HMCU was an unregulated, illegitimate credit union that never held share insurance covering investor deposits, and McDuffie and HMCU misappropriated investors' funds.

The Commission alleges that McDuffie and HMCU violated Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and, alternatively, that pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, McDuffie is liable as a control person for HMCU's violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Commission appreciates the assistance of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, Division of Securities, in this matter.

FORMER SILICON VALLEY EXECUTIVE SETTLES SEC CHARGES STEMMING FROM HEDGE FUND INSIDER TRADING CASE

Photo Credit:  Wikimedia Commons

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Former Silicon Valley Executive to Pay $1.75 Million to Settle Insider Trading Charges
On October 24, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged a former senior executive at a Silicon Valley technology company for illegally tipping convicted hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam with nonpublic information that allowed the Galleon hedge funds to make nearly $1 million in illicit profits.

The SEC alleges that Kris Chellam tipped Rajaratnam in December 2006 with confidential details from internal company reports indicating that Xilinx Inc. would fall short of revenue projections it had previously made publicly. The tip enabled Rajaratnam to engage in short selling of Xilinx stock to illicitly benefit the Galleon funds. Chellam tipped Rajaratnam, who was a close friend, at a time when Chellam had his own substantial investment in Galleon funds and was in discussions with Rajaratnam about prospective employment at Galleon. Chellam was hired at Galleon in May 2007.

Chellam, who lives in Saratoga, Calif., has agreed to pay more than $1.75 million to settle the SEC's charges. The settlement is subject to court approval.

According to the SEC's complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan, Xilinx announced in October 2006 the financial results for the second quarter of its 2007 fiscal year. Xilinx also provided guidance for the third quarter by projecting revenues of approximately $476 million to $490 million. Xilinx said it would update this revenue guidance on Dec. 7, 2006.

The SEC alleges that in the weeks leading up to Xilinx's December 7 update, Chellam received multiple reports indicating that the company's third quarter business results were not going to be as positive as projected in October. Chellam learned on November 21 that the top end of the projected revenue range was being lowered from $490 million to $470 million. He attended a December 4 confidential executive staff meeting where the bottom end of the revenue projection was lowered from $476 million to $455 million. On December 5, Chellam telephoned Rajaratnam and tipped him about Xilinx's worse-than-expected performance. Just minutes after the call, Galleon hedge funds controlled by Rajaratnam sold short Xilinx stock, eventually selling short more than 650,000 shares over the course of that day and the following day.

According to the SEC's complaint, the Galleon hedge funds reaped approximately $978,684 in illegal profits after the December 7 announcement by covering the substantial short position that Rajaratnam had accumulated based on Chellam's tip. Chellam had more than $1 million invested in one of the Galleon hedge funds in which Rajaratnam placed these trades. In May 2007, Chellam became the co-managing partner of the Galleon Special Opportunities Fund, a venture capital fund that focused on investments in late-stage technology companies. Chellam continued to work at Galleon until April 2009 and continued to obtain confidential information about Xilinx's financial performance and pass it along to Galleon colleagues. Chellam earned approximately $675,000 in total compensation during his employment at Galleon.

The SEC's complaint charges Chellam with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. The proposed final judgment orders Chellam to pay $675,000 in disgorgement, $106,383.05 in prejudgment interest, and a $978,684 penalty. Chellam also would be barred for a period of five years from serving as an officer or director of a public company, and permanently enjoined from future violations of these provisions of the federal securities laws. Chellam neither admits nor denies the charges.

The SEC has now charged 32 defendants in its Galleon-related enforcement actions, which have exposed widespread and repeated insider trading at numerous hedge funds and by other traders, investment professionals, and corporate insiders throughout the country. The alleged insider trading has occurred in the securities of more than 15 companies for illicit profits totaling approximately $93 million.

FORMER DELOITTE AND TOUCHE LLP PARTNER PLEADS GUILTY TO CRIMINAL SECURITIES FRAUD

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Former Deloitte Partner Sentenced to 21 Months for Insider Trading
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on October 26, 2012, the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois sentenced Thomas P. Flanagan to 21 months of incarceration followed by supervised release of 12 months and ordered Flanagan to pay a $100,000 penalty. Flanagan, a former Deloitte and Touche LLP partner, pleaded guilty to one count of criminal securities fraud for engaging in insider trading after he obtained material, nonpublic information about several Deloitte clients. Flanagan, 65, of Chicago, used that information himself and shared it with a relative to make illegal trading profits. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois filed criminal charges against Flanagan on July 11, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The criminal charges arose out of the same facts that were the subject of a civil action that the SEC filed against Flanagan and his son, Patrick T. Flanagan, on August 4, 2010. The SEC's complaint alleged that Thomas Flanagan, a certified public accountant, worked at Deloitte for 38 years and rose to the level of Vice Chairman of Clients and Markets. The complaint alleged that Flanagan traded on nine occasions between 2005 and 2008 in the securities of multiple Deloitte clients and a company acquired by a Deloitte client while in possession of nonpublic information that he learned through his duties as a Deloitte partner. The information had not yet been disclosed to the public and concerned material, market-moving events such as earnings results, earnings guidance, and acquisitions. Thomas Flanagan's illegal trading resulted in profits of over $430,000. On four occasions, Thomas Flanagan relayed the nonpublic information to his son Patrick Flanagan who then traded based on that information. Patrick Flanagan realized profits of more than $57,000.

The SEC also instituted related administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings on August 4, 2010, finding that Flanagan violated the SEC's auditor independence rules on 71 occasions between 2003 and 2008 by trading in the securities of nine Deloitte audit clients. The SEC's settled administrative order found that during the time Flanagan owned or controlled these securities, Deloitte issued audit reports to the nine audit clients in which it stated that the financial statements contained in the reports had been audited by an independent auditor. However, due to Flanagan's ownership of the audit clients' securities, Deloitte was not independent. The companies then filed with the SEC annual reports and proxy statements which included the audit reports containing these false statements. As a result, the SEC's administrative order found that Flanagan caused and willfully aided and abetted Deloitte's violations of the SEC's auditor independence rules under Regulation S-X and also caused and willfully aided and abetted the companies' violations of the reporting and proxy provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

As alleged in the SEC's complaint, Thomas Flanagan concealed his trades in the securities of Deloitte's clients and circumvented Deloitte's independence controls. According to the SEC's complaint, he failed to report the prohibited trades to Deloitte, lied to Deloitte about his compliance with its independence policies, and provided false information to Deloitte's personal income tax preparers about the identity of the companies whose securities he traded.

As a result of their conduct, the SEC's complaint charged Thomas and Patrick Flanagan with violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3. The SEC's administrative action found that Thomas Flanagan caused and willfully aided and abetted Deloitte's violations of Rule 2-02(b)(1) of Regulation S-X, and caused and willfully aided and abetted the clients' violations of Sections 13(a) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 13a-1, 13a-13, and 14a-3 thereunder. Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations in the complaint and the findings in the administrative order, Thomas Flanagan consented to the entry of an order of permanent injunction, to pay disgorgement with prejudgment interest and civil penalties totaling $1,051,042, and to a denial of the privilege of appearing or practicing before the SEC as an accountant. Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations in the complaint, Patrick Flanagan consented to the entry of an order of permanent injunction and to pay disgorgement with prejudgment interest and a civil penalty totaling $123,270.

INSURANCE EXECUTIVE CHARGED WITH INSIDER TRADING

Photo:  NYSE.  Credit:  Wikimedia Commons

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SEC Charges Denver-Based Insurance Executive With Insider Trading
On October 26, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged an insurance company CEO with insider trading based on confidential information he obtained in advance of a private investment firm acquiring a significant stake in a Denver-based oil and gas company.

The SEC alleges that Michael Van Gilder learned from a Delta Petroleum Corporation insider that Beverly Hills-based Tracinda – which has previously owned large portions of companies such as MGM Resorts International, General Motors, and Ford Motor Company – was planning to acquire a 35 percent stake in Delta Petroleum for $684 million. Van Gilder subsequently purchased Delta Petroleum stock and highly speculative options contracts. He tipped several others, encouraging them to do the same, including a pair of relatives via an e-mail with the subject line "Xmas present." After Tracinda's investment was publicly announced, Delta Petroleum's stock price shot up by almost 20 percent. Van Gilder and his tippees made more than $161,000 in illegal trading profits.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado today announced a parallel criminal action against Van Gilder.

According to the SEC's complaint filed in federal court in Denver, Van Gilder is the CEO of Van Gilder Insurance Company. He obtained the confidential information about Tracinda's proposed investment and loaded up on Delta Petroleum stock and options in November and December 2007. He then tipped his broker, a co-worker, and relatives.

The SEC alleges that a mere two minutes after speaking to his source at Delta Petroleum on December 22, Van Gilder e-mailed two relatives with the "Xmas present" subject line and stated, "my present (just kidding) is that I can't stress enough the opportunity right now to buy Delta Petroleum." That same day, Van Gilder contacted his broker and arranged to purchase more Delta stock and options for himself. Following the public announcement, Van Gilder reaped approximately $109,000 in illegal profits and his broker, co-worker, and a relative made approximately $52,000.

The SEC's complaint charges Van Gilder with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and seeks a final judgment ordering him to disgorge his and his tippees' ill-gotten gains and pay prejudgment interest and a financial penalty, and permanently enjoining him from future violations of these provisions of the federal securities laws.

SEC CHARGES FORMER J.CREW EXECUTIVE WITH INSIDER TRADING

Photo:  Slot Machines.  Credit:  Wikimedia Commons.

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it filed an insider trading civil action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Frank A. LoBue, a former Director of Store Operations at J.Crew Group, Inc. (J.Crew). The complaint alleges that LoBue used material, nonpublic information about sales and expenses of the company’s stores to purchase J.Crew common stock in advance of earnings announcements in May and August 2009.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that in the course of his employment LoBue regularly received nonpublic information about J.Crew’s "Stores" component, which comprised approximately 70% of the company’s sales. In April and May 2009, LoBue received several reports containing information about J.Crew’s expenses, payroll costs, and store sales results for the company’s fiscal first quarter ended May 2, 2009. The reports showed results that were better than expected. The complaint further alleges that LoBue breached duties he owed to the company and its shareholders by using the information to purchase 2,300 shares of J.Crew stock in advance of the company’s May 28, 2009 quarterly earnings release. The market reacted positively to the release, with J.Crew’s stock closing up 26.4% from its prior close.

The complaint also alleges that in July and August 2009 LoBue continued to receive the reports on J.Crew stores, including stores’ sales figures, and that the information showed that the company was experiencing an improving sales trend. The complaint alleges that LoBue again breached his duties by using this information to purchase another 11,680 shares of J.Crew stock ahead of the company’s August 27, 2009 second quarter earnings release. The day following the release, J.Crew stock closed up 6.01% from its prior close. LoBue’s aggregate illicit profits from trading alleged in the complaint were at least $60,735.60. J.Crew terminated LoBue’s employment in February 2010.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, LoBue has consented to the entry of a proposed final judgment permanently enjoining him from violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; ordering him to pay disgorgement of $60,735.60, plus prejudgment interest thereon of $6,749.33; and imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $60,735.60. The proposed settlement is subject to the approval of the District Court.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

SEC CHARGES FORMER PRESIDENT OF CARTER'S INC., WITH ENGAGING IN FINANCIAL FRAUD

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

On October 18, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Joseph Pacifico, a former President of Carter’s, Inc., the Atlanta-based marketer of children’s clothing, for engaging in financial fraud at Carter’s. The SEC alleges that Pacifico’s misconduct caused Carter’s to materially misstate its net income and expenses in several financial reporting periods between 2004 and 2009.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleges that between 2004 and 2009, Carter’s Executive Vice President of Sales, Joseph Elles, who reported to Pacifico, fraudulently manipulated the amount of discounts that Carter’s granted to its largest wholesale customer in order to induce that customer—itself a large national department store—to purchase greater quantities of Carter’s clothing for resale. Elles then concealed his conduct by persuading the customer to defer subtracting the discounts from payments until later periods and creating and signing false documents misrepresenting the timing and amount of those discounts to Carter’s accounting personnel.

After Pacifico discovered Elles’s scheme, the complaint alleges that Pacifico signed a false certification to Carter’s accounting personnel that understated the amount discounts that Carter’s owed to the customer. The complained also alleges that Pacifico signed false internal forms that also misstated that discounts to be paid to the customer related to sales in 2009 when, in fact, the discounts related to prior financial periods. After conducting its own internal investigation, Carter’s was required to issue restated financial results for the affected periods.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Pacifico violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and Rules 10b-5(b) and 13b2-1 thereunder, and aided and abetted Carter’s violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(b),12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11 and 13a-13 thereunder. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctive relief, financial penalties, and an officer and director bar against Pacifico.

FORMER EXECUTIVES GO TO PRISON FOR INVOLVEMENT IN INVESTMENT BOND CONSPIRACY

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Thursday, October 18, 2012

Three Former Financial Services Executives Sentenced to Serve Time in Prison for Roles in Conspiracies Involving Investment Contracts for the Proceeds of Municipal Bonds

WASHINGTON – Three former financial services executives were sentenced today in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, for their participation in conspiracies related to bidding for contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds and other municipal finance contracts, the Department of Justice announced. The three former executives were convicted after a three week trial on May 11, 2012.

Dominick P. Carollo, Steven E. Goldberg and Peter S. Grimm, all former executives of General Electric Co. (GE) affiliates, were sentenced by District Court Judge Harold Baer Jr. for their roles in the conspiracies. Carollo was sentenced to serve 36 months in prison and to pay a $50,000 criminal fine. Goldberg was sentenced to serve 48 months in prison and to pay a $90,000 criminal fine. Grimm was sentenced to serve 36 months in prison and to pay a $50,000 criminal fine.

"By manipulating the competitive bidding process, the conspirators cheated cities and towns out of money for important public works projects," said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program. "The division and its law enforcement partners remain committed to rooting out such corruption."

According to evidence presented at trial, while employed at GE affiliates, Carollo, Goldberg and Grimm participated in separate fraud conspiracies with various financial institutions and insurance companies and their representatives from as early as 1999 until 2006. These institutions and companies, or "providers," offered a type of contract, known as an investment agreement, to state, county and local governments and agencies throughout the United States. The public entities were seeking to invest money from a variety of sources, primarily the proceeds of municipal bonds that they had issued to raise money for, among other things, public projects. Goldberg also participated in the conspiracies while employed at Financial Security Assurance Capital Management Services LLC.

At trial, the Department of Justice asserted that Carollo, Goldberg, Grimm and their co-conspirators corrupted the bidding process for dozens of investment agreements to increase the number and profitability of investment agreements awarded to the provider companies where they were employed. Carollo, Goldberg and Grimm deprived the municipalities of competitive interest rates for the investment of tax-exempt bond proceeds that were to be used by municipalities for various public works projects, such as for building or repairing schools, hospitals and roads. Evidence at trial established that they cost municipalities around the country millions of dollars.

"Today’s sentencing of Carollo, Goldberg and Grimm for their involvement manipulating a competitive bidding process of public contracts is the final step in a case that demonstrates the FBI’s commitment to investigate and prosecute those who illegally influence the financial markets for their own profit," said Mary E. Galligan, Acting Assistant Special Agent Charge of the FBI in New York. "The co-conspirators scheme over many years deprived municipalities across the country of competitive interest rates on bonds, a yield that most cities would say they greatly need. The FBI will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to enforce the laws that protect our financial markets."

"The sentences handed down today send a clear message that crime motivated by outright greed will land you in jail," said Richard Weber, Chief, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI). "Quite simply, the defendants stole money from taxpayers and conspired to manipulate the competitive bidding system to benefit themselves instead of the towns and cities that needed this money for important public works projects. IRS Criminal Investigation is committed to working with our law enforcement partners to uncover this kind of corruption and secure justice for American taxpayers."

Carollo was found guilty on two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and defraud the United States, Goldberg was found guilty on four counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and defraud the United States and Grimm was found guilty on three counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and defraud the United States.

A total of 20 individuals have been charged as a result of the department’s ongoing municipal bonds investigation. Including today’s convictions, a total of 19 individuals have been convicted or pleaded guilty, and one awaits trial. Additionally, one company has pleaded guilty.

The sentences announced today resulted from an ongoing investigation conducted by the Antitrust Division’s New York Office, the FBI and the IRS-CI. The division is coordinating its investigation with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Today’s convictions are part of efforts underway by President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF) which was created in November 2009 to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. Attorneys’ offices and state and local partners, it’s the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud. Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions and other organizations. Over the past three fiscal years, the Justice Department has filed more than 10,000 financial fraud cases against nearly 15,000 defendants including more than 2,700 mortgage fraud defendants. For more information on the task force, visit www.stopfraud.gov .

HONG KONG-BASED FIRM SETTLES INSIDER TRADING CASE BY PAYING OVER $14 MILLION

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C., Oct. 18, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that a Hong Kong-based firm charged with insider trading in July has agreed to settle the case by paying more than $14 million, which is double the amount of its alleged illicit profits. The proposed settlement is subject to the approval of Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The SEC filed an emergency action against Well Advantate to freeze its assets less than 24 hours after the firm placed an order to liquidate its entire position in Nexen Inc. The SEC alleged that Well Advantage had stockpiled shares of Nexen stock based on confidential information that China-based CNOOC Ltd. was about to announce an acquisition of Nexen. Well Advantage sold those shares for more than $7 million in illicit profits immediately after the deal was publicly announced. Well Advantage is controlled by prominent Hong Kong businessman Zhang Zhi Rong, who also controls another company that has a "strategic cooperation agreement" with CNOOC.

"If approved by the court, Well Advantage has agreed to give up all of its ill-gotten profits from these trades and pay a substantial penalty on top of that," said Sanjay Wadhwa, Deputy Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division's Market Abuse Unit and Associate Director of the New York Regional Office. "The speedy resolution of this case shows the serious consequences that await traders who engage in insider trading."

Well Advantage has agreed to the entry of a final judgment requiring payment of $7,122,633.52 in illegal profits made from trading Nexen stock, and payment of a $7,122,633.52 penalty. The proposed judgment also enjoins Well Advantage from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. Well Advantage neither admits nor denies the charges.

The SEC's investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by Michael P. Holland, Simona Suh, Charles D. Riely, and Joseph G. Sansone — members of the SEC's Market Abuse Unit in New York - and Elzbieta Wraga and Aaron Arnzen of the New York Regional Office.

The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority(FINRA

REPORT ON BROKER-DEALER HANDLING OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND POTENTIAL MISUSE

New York Stock Exchange.  Photo:  U.S. Government.

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC, Sept. 27, 2012 –The Securities and Exchange Commission today issued a staff report intended to help broker-dealers safeguard confidential information from misuse, such as insider trading. The report by the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) describes strengths and weaknesses identified in examinations into how broker-dealers keep material nonpublic information from being misused.

This report should help broker-dealers assess the effectiveness of their controls over sensitive information," said OCIE Director Carlo di Florio. "The report illustrates the types of conflicts of interest that may arise between a broker-dealer’s obligations to clients that provide confidential information for business purposes and the potential misuse of such information for insider trading or other improper ends. It also describes various methods that broker-dealers use to identify and effectively manage such conflicts, including information barriers that limit the flow of sensitive information."

Conflicts of interest and other issues of concern raised by the report include:
A significant amount of informal, undocumented interaction occurred between groups that have material nonpublic information and internal and external groups with sales and trading responsibilities that might profit from the misuse of such material nonpublic information
At some broker-dealers, a senior executive might have access to material nonpublic information from one business unit while overseeing a different unit that could potentially profit from misuse of that information, with few if any restrictions or monitoring to prevent such misuse
Some broker-dealers did not have risk controls to address certain business units that possess material nonpublic information such as sales, trading or research personnel who receive confidential information for business purposes; institutional and retail customers or asset management affiliates with access to material nonpublic information, or firm personnel who receive information through business activities outside of investment banking, such as participation in bankruptcy committees or through employees serving on the boards of directors of public companies.
The report also highlights effective practices that examiners observed at some broker-dealers, such as:
Broker-dealers sometimes adopted processes that differentiate between types of material nonpublic information based on the nature of the information or where it originated. In some cases, broker-dealers create tailored "exception" reports that take into account the different characteristics of the information
Some broker-dealers expanded reviews for potential misuse of confidential information to include trading in credit default swaps, equity or total return swaps, loans, components of pooled securities such as unit investment trusts and exchange traded funds, warrants, and bond options
Broker-dealers often considered electronic sources of confidential information and instituted monitoring to identify which employees had accessed the information
Broker-dealers often monitored access rights for key cards and computer networks to confirm that only authorized personnel had access to sensitive areas.
The types of issues identified in this report may be helpful to firms as they review their conflict of interest risk management programs. In particular, in any review of information barriers control programs, broker-dealers should be alert to changes in business practices and available compliance tools.

CONVICTED FELON FRAUDSTER CHARGED WITH STEERING RETIREES TO FRAUDULENT INVESTMENT SCHEMES

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SEC Charges Unlicensed Financial Advisor James S. Quay for Defrauding Investors in Atlanta Area

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged an Atlanta-based unlicensed financial advisor with a history of steering retirees into fraudulent investment schemes with defrauding two elderly women he convinced to invest with him directly.

The SEC alleges that James S. Quay (Quay) and his brother Jeffrey A. Quay facilitated a scheme in which the women invested $560,000 with the understanding that they were investing in a covered-call equities trading program. The Quays created a sham limited partnership called Trinity Charitable Solutions (TCS) to purportedly operate the program. However, TCS never became a legal entity, and instead the Quays merely deposited the investors’ money in a Scottrade account and personally misused at least $180,000 to afford mortgage payments, lavish restaurant meals, and membership at a massage spa.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Quay concealed from these two women and other investors that he is a convicted felon and disbarred attorney. Previously, Quay steered investors toward fraudulent investment opportunities from which he received $1.4 million in illicit sales commissions. For instance, Quay was an active sales agent and recruiter for a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme conducted by a Georgia attorney and a scheme involving an unregistered covered-call equities trading program. He has used various aliases and fake names including Jim Quay, Stephen Quay, and Stephen Jameson.

The SEC alleges that Quay would often host free dinner seminars that target retirees in order to gain their trust. Quay would then encourage the attendees to schedule private consultations with him to discuss their financial situation in greater detail. Attendees would receive a biography that detailed Quay’s educational background and professional designations. The follow-up consultations would often take place at Quay’s personal office, where his legal diplomas, bar certification, and other professional licenses and certifications were displayed on the wall. While he would regularly tout his academic background and legal expertise, he typically would not disclose to investors his criminal background, disbarment, and loss of professional designations and licenses.

Quay agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by consenting to the entry of a final judgment by the court providing permanent injunctive relief under Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The proposed final judgment orders Quay to pay disgorgement of $1,403,638.62 plus prejudgment interest of $179,118.78 and a penalty of $450,000. Quay agreed to be permanently barred from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization. Quay also agreed to a penny stock bar and to be barred from appearing or practicing before the SEC as an attorney or an accountant. The settlement, in which Quay neither admits nor denies the allegations, is subject to court approval. The SEC’s litigation against Jeffrey Quay remains pending.

ALLEGED PONZI SCHEME TARGETED SENIORS

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SEC Brings Charges in $42 Million Offering Fraud Targeting Seniors

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against Bradley A. Holcom, of Welches, Oregon, and Jose L. Pinedo, of San Diego, California, in connection with a fraudulent scheme that sold $42 million of promissory notes to more than 150 investors located across the United States, many of whom are senior citizens.

According to the complaint against Holcom, he lured investors by offering them guaranteed monthly interest payments on purportedly safe deals. He promised that their funds would be used to finance the development of specific pieces of real estate, and that each investment would be fully secured. In reality, the investments were unsecured, and the same piece of underlying property was often pledged as purported collateral on numerous investors’ promissory notes.

In addition to his misrepresentations, the complaint alleges that Holcom was also running a classic Ponzi scheme. While Holcom used some of the investors’ money to develop real estate, he also relied on those funds to make interest and principal payments on promissory notes as they came due. Holcom also used investor funds for personal use and on unrelated business ventures. By 2008, as the real estate market declined, Holcom’s scheme collapsed. Investors lost principal in excess of $25 million.

The Commission also alleges that Pinedo, who served as Holcom’s bookkeeper and as an officer or manager of Holcom’s numerous corporate entities, routinely signed promissory notes and other false and misleading documents that were sent to investors.

The Commission alleges that Holcom violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission is seeking a permanent injunction, disgorgement plus pre- and post-judgment interest, and civil penalties against Holcom. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint against him, Pinedo has agreed to settle the matter, and consented to a final judgment enjoining him from violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act.

TRADING SECURITIES IN THE "DARK POOL"

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., Oct. 3, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Boston-based dark pool operator eBX LLC with failing to protect the confidential trading information of its subscribers and failing to disclose to all subscribers that it allowed an outside firm to use their confidential trading information.

According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, eBX operates the alternative trading system LeveL ATS, which it calls a "dark pool" trading program. Dark pools do not display quotations to the public, meaning that investors who subscribe to a dark pool have access to potential trade opportunities that other investors using public markets do not. eBX inaccurately informed its subscribers that their flow of orders to buy or sell securities would be kept confidential and not shared outside of LeveL. eBX instead allowed an outside technology firm to use information about LeveL subscribers’ unexecuted orders for its own business purposes. The outside firm’s separate order routing business therefore received an information advantage over other LeveL subscribers because it was able to use its knowledge of their orders to make routing decisions for its own customers’ orders and increase its execution rate. eBX had insufficient safeguards and procedures to protect subscribers’ confidential trading information.

eBX agreed to pay an $800,000 penalty to settle the charges.

"Dark pools are dark for a reason: buyers and sellers expect confidentiality of their trading information," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. "Many eBX subscribers didn’t get the benefit of that bargain – they were unaware that another order routing system was given exclusive access to trading information that it used for its own benefit."

According to the SEC’s order, eBX and the outside firm it hired to run LeveL signed a subscription agreement in February 2008, after which the outside firm’s separate order routing business began to use certain LeveL subscribers’ confidential trading data. In November 2008, eBX signed a new agreement with the outside firm that allowed its order routing business to remember and use all LeveL subscribers’ unexecuted order information. As a result of the agreements, the outside firm’s order routing business began to fill far more of its orders than other LeveL users did. Its order router also knew how other eBX subscribers’ orders in LeveL were priced and could use that information to determine whether to route orders to LeveL or another venue based on where it knew it might get a better price for its own customers’ orders.

According to the SEC’s order, eBX failed to disclose in required SEC filings that it allowed LeveL subscribers’ unexecuted order information to be shared outside of LeveL.

In addition to the $800,000 penalty, eBX was censured and ordered to cease and desist from committing or causing further violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws regulating alternative trading systems.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Mark Gera, James Goldman, Kathleen Shields, and Dawn Edick in the SEC’s Boston Regional Office. Mr. Gera led the related examination with assistance from Paul D’Amico and Rhonda Wilson under the supervision of Associate Regional Director Lucile Corkery.

SEC SHARES TIPS ON SELECTING A FINANCIAL PROFESSIONAL

Credit:  U.S. Marshals Service 

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Investor Bulletin: Top Tips for Selecting a Financial Professional

Choosing a financial professional-whether a stockbroker, a financial planner, or an investment adviser-is an important decision. Consider the tips below as you make your choice. Also the third page of this document has a list of questions you can ask a financial professional whose services you are considering.

Tip 1. Do your homework and ask questions.

A lot of the information you’ll need to make a choice will be in the documents the financial professional can provide you about opening an account or starting a relationship. You should read them carefully. If you don’t understand something, ask questions until you do. It’s your money and you should feel comfortable asking about it.

Tip 2. Find out whether the products and services available are right for you.

Financial professionals offer a range of financial and investment services such as:
Financial planning
Ongoing money management
Advice on choosing securities
Tax and retirement planning
Insurance advice
Just like a grocery store offers more products than a convenience store, some financial professionals offer a wide range of products or services, while others offer a more limited selection. Think about what you might need, and ask about what would be available to you. For example, do you want or need:

Access to a broad range of securities, such as stocks, options and bonds, or will you mostly want a few types such as mutual funds, exchange traded funds, or insurance products?
A one-time review or financial plan?
To do your own research, but use the financial professional to make your trades or to provide a second opinion occasionally?
A recommendation each time you think about changing or making an investment?
Ongoing investment management, with the financial professional getting your permission before any purchase or sale is made?
Ongoing investment management, where the financial professional decides what purchases or sales are made, and you are told about it afterwards?
Tip 3. Understand how you’ll pay for services and products, and how your financial professional gets paid as well.

Many firms offer more than one type of account. You may be able to pay for services differently depending on the type of account you choose. For example, you might pay:
An hourly fee for advisory services;
A flat fee, such as $500 per year, for an annual portfolio review or $2,000 for a financial plan;
A commission on the securities bought or sold, such as $12 per trade;
A fee (sometimes called a "load") based on the amount you invest in a mutual fund or variable annuity
A "mark-up" when you buy "house" products (such as bonds that the broker holds in inventory), or a "mark-down" when you sell them
Depending on what services you want, one type of account may cost you less than another. Ask about what alternatives make sense for you.
And remember: even if you don’t pay the financial professional directly, such as through an annual fee, that person is still getting paid. For example, someone else may be paying the financial professional for selling specific products. However, those payments may be built into the costs you ultimately pay, such as the expenses associated with buying or holding a financial product.

While some of these fees may seem small, it is important to keep in mind that they can add up, and in the end take away from the profits you otherwise could be making from your investments.

Tip 4. Ask about the financial professional’s experience and credentials.

Financial professionals hold different licenses. For example, financial professionals who are broker-dealers must take an exam to hold a license, while state regulators often require investment advisers to hold certain licenses. Financial professionals also have a wide range of educational and professional backgrounds. They may also have certain designations after their names, which are titles given by industry groups that themselves are not regulated or subject to standards other than their own. If a financial professional has an industry designation, like "CFA," you can look up what it stands for at the "Understanding Investment Professional Designations" page on FINRA’s website at www.finra.org. Don’t accept a professional designation as a badge of knowledge without knowing what it means.

Tip 5. Ask the financial professional if he or she has had a disciplinary history with a government regulator or had customer complaints.
Even if a close friend or relative has recommended a financial professional, you should check the person’s background for signs of any potential problems, such as a disciplinary history by a regulator or customer complaints. The SEC, FINRA, and state securities regulators keep records on the disciplinary history of many of the financial professionals they regulate.
Check the background of your financial professional to learn more or to help confirm what he or she has told you:
For financial professionals who are brokers: you can find background information on the person and his/her firm at FINRA’s BrokerCheck website.
For financial professionals who are investment advisers registered with the SEC: you can find background information on the person and his/her firm at the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure database.
State securities regulators also have background information on brokers as well as certain investment advisers. You can find your state regulator at www.nasaa.org.

Investor Checklist
Some Key Questions for Hiring a Financial Professional

Expectations of the RelationshipHow often should I expect to hear from you?
How often will you review my account or make recommendations to me?
If my investments aren’t doing well, will you call me and recommend something else?
If I invest with you, how can I keep track of how well my investments are doing?
Experience and BackgroundWhat experience do you have, especially with people like me? What percentage of your time would you estimate that you spend on people with situations and goals that are similar to mine?
What education have you had that relates to your work?
What professional licenses do you hold?
Are you registered with the SEC, a state securities regulator, or FINRA?
How long have you done this type of work?
Have you ever been disciplined by a regulator? If yes, what was the problem and how was it resolved?
Have you had customer complaints? If yes, how many, what were they about, and how were they resolved?
ProductsWhat type of products do you offer?
How many different products do you offer?
Do you offer "house" products? If so, what types of products are they, and do you receive any incentives for selling these products, or for maintaining them in a customer’s account? What kind of incentives are they?
Payments and FeesGiven my situation and what I’m looking for, what is the [best / most cost effective] way for me to pay for financial services? Why?
What are the fees that I will pay for products and services?
How and when will I see the fees I pay?
Which of those fees will I pay directly (such as a commission on a stock trade) and which are taken directly from the products I own (such as some mutual fund expenses)
How do you get paid?
If I invested $1000 with you today, approximately how much would you get paid during the following year, based on my investment?
Does someone else (such as a fund company) pay you for offering or selling these products or services?

SEC CHARGES FORMER INVESTMENT BANK ANALYST WITH TIPPING COLLEGE FRIEND ABOUT IMPENDING MERGERS

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C., Sept. 27, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a former analyst at a Boston-based investment bank with illegally tipping a close friend with confidential information about clients involved in impending mergers and acquisitions.

The SEC alleges that Jauyo "Jason" Lee, who worked in the San Francisco office of Leerink Swann LLC, gleaned sensitive nonpublic information about the deals from unsuspecting co-workers involved with those clients and by reviewing various internal documents about the transactions, which involved medical device companies. Lee tipped his longtime college friend Victor Chen of Sunnyvale, Calif., with the confidential information, and Chen traded heavily on the basis of the nonpublic details that Lee had a duty to protect. Chen made more than $600,000 in illicit profits, which was a 237 percent return on his initial investment. Bank records reveal a pattern of large cash withdrawals by Lee followed by large cash deposits by Chen, who then used the money for the insider trading.

"Lee worked in an industry where safeguarding nonpublic information is essential, yet he exploited his access to confidential merger and acquisition details to give his friend an unfair trading advantage," said Merri Jo Gillette, Director of the SEC’s Chicago Regional Office.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Lee was first privy to information about Leerink’s client Syneron Medical Ltd., which was negotiating an acquisition of Candela Corporation in 2009. He later learned that Leerink’s client Somanetics Corporation was in the process of being acquired by Covidien plc. in 2010. As Lee collected nonpublic details about each of the deals, he communicated with Chen repeatedly and exchanged dozens of phone calls and text messages. Some of the calls took place from Lee’s office telephone at Leerink. Lee had a duty to preserve the confidentiality of the information that he received in the course of his employment at Leerink.

The SEC alleges that in the days leading up to the public announcements of each of these deals, Chen made sizeable purchases of stock and call options in Candela and Somanetics and made unusual trades in the securities of each of these acquisition targets. Chen had never previously bought securities in these companies, yet he suddenly spent a significant portion of his available cash to buy the Candela and Somanetics securities. Chen proceeded to sell most of his Candela and Somanetics holdings once public announcements were made about the transactions. Because Chen made some of his trades in his sister Jennifer Chen’s account, the SEC’s complaint also names her as a relief defendant for the purposes of recovering the illegal profits in her account.

The SEC alleges that Lee and Chen violated Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3 thereunder. The SEC is seeking disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, financial penalties, and permanent injunctions against Lee and Chen.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted in the Chicago Regional Office by Kara M. Washington and John E. Kustusch and supervised by Peter Chan and Steven L. Klawans. The litigation is being handled by Steven C. Seeger. The SEC thanks the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) Office of Fraud Detection and Market Intelligence as well as the Options Regulatory Surveillance Authority for their assistance in this matter.

SEC CHARGES GOLDMAN, SACHS & COMPANY WITH "PAY TO PLAY" POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C., Sept. 27, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Goldman, Sachs & Co. and one of its former investment bankers with "pay-to-play" violations involving undisclosed campaign contributions to then-Massachusetts state treasurer Timothy P. Cahill while he was a candidate for governor.

Pay-to-play schemes involve campaign contributions or other payments made in an attempt to influence the awarding of lucrative public contracts for securities underwriting business. This marks the first SEC enforcement action for pay-to-play violations involving "in-kind" non-cash contributions to a political campaign.

According to the SEC’s order against Goldman Sachs, Neil M.M. Morrison was a vice president in the firm’s Boston office and solicited underwriting business from the Massachusetts treasurer’s office beginning in July 2008. Morrison also was substantially engaged in working on Cahill’s political campaigns from November 2008 to October 2010. Morrison at times conducted campaign activities from the Goldman Sachs office during work hours and using the firm’s phones and e-mail. Morrison’s use of Goldman Sachs work time and resources for campaign activities constituted valuable in-kind campaign contributions to Cahill that were attributable to Goldman Sachs and disqualified the firm from engaging in municipal underwriting business with certain Massachusetts municipal issuers for two years after the contributions. Nevertheless, Goldman Sachs subsequently participated in 30 prohibited underwritings with Massachusetts issuers and earned more than $7.5 million in underwriting fees.

While the SEC’s case against Morrison continues, Goldman Sachs agreed to settle the charges by paying $7,558,942 in disgorgement, $670,033 in prejudgment interest, and a $3.75 million penalty, which is the largest ever imposed by the SEC for Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) pay-to-play violations. The SEC coordinated this enforcement action with a related action filed by the Massachusetts Attorney General against Goldman Sachs.

"The pay-to-play rules are clear: municipal finance professionals that use their firm’s resources to campaign on behalf of political candidates compromise themselves and the firms that employ them," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

Elaine C. Greenberg, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit, added, "Fighting efforts to improperly influence the underwriting selection process is one of the unit’s top priorities. These practices result in undisclosed conflicts of interest and undermine public confidence in the integrity of the municipal securities market."

According to the SEC’s orders against Morrison and Goldman Sachs, among the campaign activities that Morrison engaged in for Cahill were fundraising, drafting speeches, communicating with reporters, approving personnel decisions, and interviewing at least one possible running mate. Morrison at times referenced his campaign work while soliciting underwriting business in an apparent attempt to curry favor during the selection process. Morrison sent e-mails to a deputy treasurer in Cahill’s office making the following statements while discussing the selection of underwriters:
"The boss [Cahill] mentioned to me this morning that he spoke to [the Assistant Treasurer] and that it is looking good for us [Goldman Sachs] on the build America bond deal."
"From my standpoint as an advisor/consultant/friend I am saying, PLEASE don’t give these [underwriter] slots away willy-nilly. You are in the fight of your lives and need to reward loyalty and encourage friendship. If people aren’t willing to be creative with their support then they shouldn’t expect business. This has to be a political decision."
"We have discussed the Build American Bond transaction and how important it is to me. You have been great keeping me up to speed. This is my number 1 priority and most important ask. Having Goldman as the lead and getting 50% of the economics would be such a home run for me."
According to the SEC’s orders, in addition to his direct campaign work for Cahill, Morrison made an indirect cash contribution to Cahill by giving cash to a friend who then wrote a check to the Cahill campaign. Morrison’s campaign work and his indirect financial contribution created a conflict of interest that was not disclosed by Goldman Sachs in the relevant municipal securities offerings in violation of pay-to-play rules. Morrison himself acknowledged the existence of this conflict in an e-mail to a campaign official, saying, "I am staying in banking and don’t want a story that says that I am helping Cahill, who is giving me banking business. If that came out, I’m sure I wouldn’t get any more business."

According to the SEC’s orders against Goldman Sachs and Morrison, Goldman Sachs terminated Morrison in December 2010.

The SEC’s order against Goldman Sachs found that the firm violated Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act and MSRB Rule G-37(b), which prohibits firms from underwriting offerings for municipal issuers within two years after any contribution to an official of such issuer. The SEC’s order found that Goldman Sachs did not disclose any of the contributions on MSRB Forms G-37, and did not make or keep records of the contributions in violation of MSRB Rules G-37(e), G-8 and G-9. The order found that Goldman Sachs did not take steps to ensure that the attributed contributions or campaign work or the conflicts of interest raised by them were disclosed in the bond offering documents, in violation of MSRB Rule G-17, which requires broker-dealers to deal fairly and not engage in any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice. The order found that Goldman Sachs failed to effectively supervise Morrison in violation of MSRB Rule G-27.

Goldman Sachs consented to the SEC’s order without admitting or denying the findings. In addition to paying disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and the penalty, Goldman Sachs agreed to be censured and to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of the provisions referenced in the order.

In its order against Morrison, the SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Morrison violated MSRB Rule G-37(d) by making a secret, undisclosed cash campaign contribution to Cahill, that he violated MSRB Rule G-37(c) by soliciting campaign contributions for Cahill, and that he violated MSRB Rule G-17 by failing to disclose conflicts of interest to the purchasers of municipal securities. The Division of Enforcement further alleges that Morrison caused Goldman Sachs to violate Rule G-8, Rule G-9, Rule G-37(b) and Rule G-37(e).

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by members of the Enforcement Division's Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit including Senior Enforcement Counsel Louis A. Randazzo and Assistant Director LeeAnn Ghazil Gaunt, and supervised by Unit Chief Elaine C. Greenberg and Deputy Chief Mark Zehner. Richard Harper of the SEC’s Boston Regional Office will lead the litigation against Morrison.

ICP, FOUNDER, SETTLE CDO FRAUD CASE FOR $23 MILLION

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C., Sept. 7, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that New York-based investment advisory firm ICP Asset Management and its founder and president Thomas C. Priore have agreed to settle the agency’s charges that they defrauded several collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) they managed.

ICP, Priore, and related entities have agreed to pay more than $23 million to settle the case the the SEC filed in federal court in Manhattan. The SEC alleged they engaged in fraudulent practices and misrepresentations that caused the CDOs to overpay for securities and lose millions of
dollars. Priore and the ICP companies also improperly obtained fees and undisclosed profits at the expense of the CDOs and their investors.

"The settlement with Priore and ICP sends a clear message that investment advisers must always act in the best interests of their advisory clients, even if those clients are sophisticated investors," said George S. Canellos, Deputy Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. "When advisers put their own interests ahead of their clients’ interests, the SEC will seek to hold them accountable."

The court approved the settlement terms on September 6. The final judgment orders Priore to pay disgorgement of $797,337, prejudgment interest of $215,045, and a penalty of $487,618. ICP and its holding company Institutional Credit Partners LLC are required, on a joint and several basis, to pay disgorgement of $13,916,005 and prejudgment interest of $3,709,028. ICP also must pay a penalty of $650,000. An affiliated broker-dealer ICP Securities LLC is ordered to pay disgorgement of $1,637,581, prejudgment interest of $301,893, and a penalty of $1,939,474. Priore also agreed to settle an administrative proceeding against him and be barred from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, or transfer agent, and from participating in any offering of a penny stock. He has a right to reapply for association or participation after a period of five years.

Priore and the ICP companies also consented, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, to permanent injunctions enjoining them from future violations of the securities laws that they were alleged to have violated, which include Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 15(c)(1)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-3 and 10b-5, and Sections 206(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rules 204-2, 206(4)-7 and 206(4)-8.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Celeste A. Chase, Joseph Boryshansky, Joshua Pater, Susannah Dunn, and Kenneth Gottlieb of the New York Regional Office. Joseph Boryshansky led the litigation with assistance from Jack Kaufman, Mark Germann, Joshua Pater, and Susannah Dunn.

TYCO INTERNATIONAL LTD. CHARGED BY SEC WITH MAKING ILLICIT PAYMENTS TO FOREIGN OFFICIALS

Credit:  U.S. Marshals Service

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C., Sept. 24, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Tyco International Ltd. with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) when subsidiaries arranged illicit payments to foreign officials in more than a dozen countries.

The SEC alleges that subsidiaries of the Swiss-based global manufacturer perpetuated schemes that typically involved payments of fake "commissions" or the use of third-party agents to funnel money improperly to obtain lucrative contracts. Overall, Tyco reaped illicit benefits amounting to more than $10.5 million as a result of the paid to win business.

Tyco, whose securities are publicly traded in the U.S., agreed to pay more than $26 million to settle the SEC’s charges and resolve a criminal matter announced today by the U.S. Department of Justice.

"Tyco’s subsidiaries operating in Asia and the Middle East saw illicit payment schemes as a typical way of doing business in some countries, and the company illicitly reaped substantial financial benefits as a result," said Scott W. Friestad, Associate Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

The SEC alleges that Tyco subsidiaries operated 12 different illicit payment schemes around the world starting before 2006 and continuing until 2009. The most profitable scheme occurred in Germany, where agents of a Tyco subsidiary paid third parties to secure contracts or avoid penalties or fines in several countries. These payments were falsely recorded as "commissions" in Tyco’s books and records when they were in fact bribes to pay off government customers. Tyco’s benefit as a result of these illicit payments was more than $4.6 million.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Tyco’s subsidiary in China signed a contract with the Chinese Ministry of Public Security for $770,000 but reportedly paid approximately $3,700 to the "site project team" of a state-owned corporation to be able to obtain the contract. This amount was improperly recorded as a commission. Tyco’s subsidiary in France recorded payments to individuals from 2005 to 2009 for "business introduction services." However, one of the individuals receiving payments was a security officer at a government-owned mining company in Mauritania, and many of the earlier payments were deposited in the official’s personal bank account in France. In Thailand, Tyco’s subsidiary had a contract to install a CCTV system in the Thai Parliament House in 2006, and paid more than $50,000 to a Thai entity that acted as a consultant. The invoice for the payment refers to "renovation work," but Tyco is unable to ascertain what, if any, work was actually done.

The SEC alleges that another scheme occurred in Turkey, where Tyco’s subsidiary retained a New York City-based sales agent who made illicit payments involving the sale of microwave equipment in September 2006 to an entity controlled by the Turkish government. Employees at Tyco’s subsidiary were well aware that the agent was paying foreign government customers to obtain orders. One internal e-mail stated, "Hell, everyone knows you have to bribe somebody to do business in Turkey. Nevertheless, I’ll play it dumb if [the sales agent] should call." The benefit obtained by Tyco as a result of the September 2006 deal was $44,513.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Tyco’s books and records were misstated as a result of the misconduct, and Tyco failed to devise and maintain internal controls sufficient to detect the violations. The complaint also alleges that the payments by the sales agent to Turkish government officials violated the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA.

In arriving at the settlement, the Commission considered Tyco’s extensive efforts to identify and remediate its wrongdoing. Tyco conducted a global review and internal investigation for potential FCPA violations and voluntarily disclosed its findings to the SEC while implementing significant, broad-spectrum remedial measures. Tyco consented to a proposed final judgment that orders the company to pay $10,564,992 in disgorgement and $2,566,517 in prejudgment interest. Tyco also agreed to be permanently enjoined from violating Section 13(b)(2)(A), Section 13(b)(2)(B), and Section 30A(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In the parallel criminal proceedings, the Justice Department entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Tyco in which the company will pay a penalty of approximately $13.68 million.

The SEC’s case was investigated by David Frohlich, Stephen E. Jones, Matthew B. Greiner, and Brent S. Mitchell. The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Fraud Section in this matter.

SEC CHARGES OREGON-BASED HEDGE FUND MANAGER WITH RUNNING $37 MILLION PONZI SCHEME

Photo: Oregon's Mt. Hood Territory. Credit: Wikimedia.

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed fraud charges against a Portland, Oregon-based investment adviser who perpetrated a long-running Ponzi scheme that raised over $37 million from more than 100 investors in the Pacific Northwest and across the country.

The SEC alleges that Yusaf Jawed used false marketing materials that boasted double-digit returns to lure people to invest their money into several hedge funds he managed. He then improperly redirected their money into accounts he personally controlled. As part of the scheme, Jawed created phony assets, sent bogus account statements to investors, and manufactured a sham buyout of the funds to make investors think their hedge fund interests would soon be redeemed. Jawed misused investor money to pay off earlier investors, pay his own expenses and travel, and create the overall illusion of success and achievement to impress investors.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Portland, Jawed managed a number of hedge funds through at least two companies he controlled: Grifphon Asset Management LLC and Grifphon Holdings LLC. Jawed’s marketing materials claimed that the Grifphon funds earned double-digit returns year after year even as the S&P 500 Index declined. For certain funds, Jawed also falsely claimed they would invest in publicly-traded securities and that their assets were maintained at reputable financial institutions.

The SEC alleges that Jawed instead invested very little of the more than $37 million that he raised from investors. For one fund, 70 percent of the money raised was either paid in redemptions to investors in other funds, paid to finders, or merely transferred to accounts belonging to Grifphon Asset Management or other entities that Jawed controlled. Jawed concealed the fraud by telling Grifphon’s bookkeepers that the money transfers represented purchases of offshore bonds – though in reality the purported investment was a sham entity supposedly managed by Jawed’s unemployed aunt who lives in Bangladesh.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Jawed further deceived investors as the funds were collapsing by telling them that independent third parties were buying the Grifphon funds’ alleged assets at a premium. In truth, the so-called third-parties were sham entities originally formed by Grifphon and Jawed containing no assets, no income, and no ability to pay for the funds’ alleged assets.

The SEC’s complaint against Jawed additionally charges Robert P. Custis, an attorney who Jawed hired to assist him in the fraud. Custis sent false and misleading statements to investors about the status of the purported purchase of the Grifphon funds’ assets. Custis consistently misrepresented that this purchase was imminent and would result in investors’ investments being repaid at a profit.

By engaging in the above conduct, Jawed, GAM, and Grifphon Holdings violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. By engaging in the above conduct, Custis violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and aided and abetted violations of Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The Commission seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement and prejudgment interest, civil penalty, and other relief as appropriate against them.

The SEC filed separate complaints against two others connected to Jawed’s scheme. Those complaints allege that Jacques Nichols – a Portland-based attorney – falsely claimed to investors that an independent third party would pay tens of millions of dollars to buy the hedge funds’ alleged assets at a premium, and that Jawed’s associate, Lyman Bruhn, of Vancouver, Wash., ran a separate Ponzi scheme and induced investments through false claims he was investing in "blue chip" stocks.

Without admitting or denying the allegations, Nichols, Bruhn, and two entities Bruhn controlled (Pearl Asset Management, LLC and Sasquatch Capital Management, LLC) agreed to settle the SEC’s charges. Along with other relief, Bruhn consented to the entry of permanent injunctions against violations of the Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. Along with other relief, Nichols consented to the entry of a permanent injunction against violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and aiding and abetting violations of Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The SEC’s litigation continues against Jawed, the two Grifphon entities, and Custis.

SEC ALLEGES BROKER COMMITTED INSIDER TRADING IN BURGER KING STOCK

 

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., Sept. 20, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today obtained an emergency court order to freeze the assets of a stockbroker who used nonpublic information from a customer and engaged in insider trading ahead of Burger King’s announcement that it was being acquired by a New York private equity firm.

Photo Credit: U.S. Marshals Service

The SEC alleges that Waldyr Da Silva Prado Neto, a citizen of Brazil who was working for Wells Fargo in Miami, learned about the impending acquisition from a brokerage customer who invested at least $50 million in a fund managed by private equity firm 3G Capital Partners Ltd. and used to acquire Burger King in 2010. Prado misused the confidential information to illegally trade in Burger King stock for $175,000 in illicit profits, and he tipped others living in Brazil and elsewhere who also traded on the nonpublic information.

The SEC obtained the asset freeze in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The agency took the emergency action to prevent Prado from transferring his assets outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Prado recently abandoned his most current job at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, put his Miami home up for sale, and began transferring all of his assets out of the country.

"Prado’s e-mails and other communications may have been sent from Brazil and may have been in Portuguese, but our commitment to prosecute illegal insider trading in U.S. markets knows no geographic or language barrier," said Sanjay Wadhwa, Deputy Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit and Associate Director of the New York Regional Office.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Prado’s insider trading in Burger King stock occurred from May 17 to Sept. 1, 2010. At the time, Prado was the representative on the account used by the customer to transfer his investment to 3G Capital. The customer had been with Prado for more than 10 years and often shared his confidential financial information with the understanding that it was to remain confidential. Prado had repeated contact with the customer by phone and e-mail as well as in person in Brazil during the time period that Prado traded Burger King securities.

The SEC alleges that Prado began his illegal trading while on a business trip to Brazil, during which he sent an e-mail to a friend that – translated from Portuguese – read, "I’m in Brazil with information that cannot be sent by email. You can’t miss it…." Prado later told his friend on a phone call that night that he heard 3G Capital was going to take Burger King private. The friend, a hedge fund manager in Miami, warned Prado that he should not trade on this information and should not encourage any of his customers to trade either.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Prado went on to tip at least four of his customers who eventually traded in Burger King stock based on nonpublic information about the impending acquisition. For example, just minutes after Prado sent the May 17 e-mail to his friend in Miami, he sent an e-mail to one of those customers which, again translated from Portuguese, read, " … if you are around call me at the hotel … I have some info…You have to hear this." A 10-minute phone conversation followed, and the customer purchased out-of-the-money Burger King call options during the next two days. In August 2010 Prado was on another business trip to Brazil, the same customer sent Prado an e-mail which translated to, "[i]s the sandwich deal going to happen?" Prado replied, "Vai sim," which means, "Yes it’s going to happen." He continued, "[e]verything is 100% under control. I was embarrassed to ask about timing. The last ‘vol’ got in the way." Following these e-mails, the customer – identified as Tippee A in the SEC’s complaint – made additional purchases in Burger King call options. The customer’s total insider trading profits amounted to more than $1.68 million.

The SEC’s complaint against Prado seeks a permanent injunction from violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3 thereunder, disgorgement with prejudgment interest and monetary penalties.

The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by Megan Bergstrom, David Brown, and Diana Tani in Los Angeles, and Charles D. Riely in New York, who are members of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit. The investigation was supervised by Unit Chief Daniel M. Hawke and Deputy Chief Sanjay Wadhwa. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Comissão de Valores Mobliliários (Securities and Exchange Commission of Brazil), Options Regulatory Surveillance Authority, and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).