FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Former Investment Banker and His College Friend Sentenced to 16 Months in Prison for Insider Trading Scheme
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on July 23, 2013, investment bank analyst Jauyo "Jason" Lee, 29, of Palo Alto, Calif., and his college friend Victor Chen, 29, of Sunnyvale, Calif., were sentenced to 16 months in prison for their roles in an insider trading scheme. The Honorable Richard Seeborg, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, also sentenced Lee and Chen to two years of supervised release following their incarceration and ordered that restitution and forfeiture be considered at a subsequent hearing. Chen paid $610,099 in forfeiture prior to sentencing. Lee and Chen both pleaded guilty on April 16, 2013, to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and one count of securities fraud.
The criminal charges filed by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California arose out of the same facts that were the subject of a civil action that the SEC filed against Lee and Chen on September 27, 2012. The SEC's complaint alleged that Lee, who worked in the San Francisco office of Leerink Swann LLC, gleaned sensitive, nonpublic information about two upcoming 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 Chen, his longtime college friend 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.
According to the SEC's complaint, 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 alleged 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.
As a result of their conduct, the SEC's complaint charged Lee and Chen with violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3 thereunder. The complaint sought disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and permanent injunctions against Lee and Chen. The SEC's case remains pending.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
PRESS BRIEFING ON THE 1230 REPORT ON PROGRESS IN AFGHANISTAN
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Presenter: Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia Pacific Security Affairs Dr. Peter Lavoy and Deputy to the Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Jarrett Blanc
July 30, 2013
Department of Defense Press Briefing on the July 2013 Section 1230 Report, "Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan" in the Pentagon Briefing Room
ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETER LAVOY: It's a pleasure to be here. It's a pleasure to talk about this report that is coming out today. And it's a pleasure to be here joined by my colleague, the deputy SRAP [Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan], Jarrett Blanc from State Department. The State Department's input to the 1230 report is very important, it's very critical, and they're a good partner on this effort, as well as on everything else.
Let me make a few introductory remarks and then get into questions that you might have about the report or about issues that have occurred subsequently in Afghanistan.
Going back, you'll recall that we undertook military operations in Afghanistan because the country was the base for terrorists who attacked the United States on 9/11. Let's not forget that. That's why we went there. And we've made tremendous progress.
And you know personally that we don't feel under the same kind of threat today in the United States and elsewhere in the world, many parts of the world, than we did over a decade ago. And it's because of the sacrifices we've made in and around Afghanistan to diminish that terrorist threat and the hard work of American men and women, our coalition partners, and Afghans and others in the region.
The progress we've made in Afghanistan really would have been practically unimaginable five years ago. In fact, I came to Washington about five years ago, and I couldn't imagine that we'd be in the situation we are today. And it really is a situation -- I think we're very near to achieving the objectives we set out at that time before.
Back then, five years ago, in 2008, it was questionable whether the government would survive. Elections were coming up in a year, in 2009. Would these elections occur? Would they be peaceful? Would you have a new representative government coming in? We're asking similar questions today about elections that will be occurring next year.
The ISAF surge over the past three years has put the Afghan government firmly in control of all of Afghanistan's major cities and provincial capitals and has driven the insurgency into the countryside. That wasn't the situation five years ago. So this document is a six-month snapshot, if you will, from October 2012 to March 2013 and documents the progress and, frankly, the challenges that we experience in that time period, but, again, I wanted to put that in brief historical perspective.
The tasks that we have today is to consolidate the gains that we've made, to support the ANSF, to pressure the remnants of Al Qaida, and to create sustainable security and stability, so that Afghanistan is never again used as a platform for international terrorists.
I'd like to highlight three themes that emerged from this report. First, the conflict in Afghanistan had shifted -- shifted during this time period, again, October '12 through March 2013, into a fundamentally new phase. It's a phase marked by the United States and its ISAF partners moving into a support role, moving away from the leading combat instrument in the country, changing our mission from counterinsurgency to one of supporting the Afghan army and the Afghan police from a train, advise and assist role. That's a fundamental shift.
And what we've seen since the cutoff of information in March 2013 is this year's fighting season in Afghanistan, the first fighting season where the ANSF were fully out in the lead throughout their country, providing security for Afghans. And they've done a good job.
And I'm happy to talk about the situation after the cutoff of information in this report if you'd like to get into that, too. But what you know now is that ISAF hardly conducts any combat missions anymore. Their operational role is primarily focused on that train, advise and assist, although we do remain -- we do continue to do some counterterrorism operations and force protection operations ourselves.
The second major trend or theme that emerged in this time period was the incredible improvement of the ANSF itself, the growth of professionalism and patriotism and a very capable Army and police force. These are developments that, again, were hard to imagine. People questioned whether they were achievable goals, and we set about developing these goals back in 2009. But I think that the evidence that we've identified -- and, again, what we've seen to date -- has proven that the ANSF, which basically went through a phase of growing, getting to an end strength of close to the authorized level of 352,000 forces combined army and police, now focusing on quality, demonstrating combat proficiency, and doing the other things that modern militaries do, that we're seeing them do this, but, again, in a way where they are proud of their work, the country is proud of their capability and their performance, they are increasingly patriotic, they're not animated by local ethnic or tribal allegiances, but really by a sense of the whole of Afghanistan. And they've -- the army, I think, has emerged into the strongest institution in the entire country.
The third trend is a -- really, the operational reflection of that second point, is that as they've gone out and taken on the lead for security in the country, they've performed very, very well. They've been tested. The Taliban have targeted the ANSF. The Taliban have tried to identify weaknesses of the ANSF. They've tried to intimidate the ANSF. They target, they overrun checkpoints, but -- and the vast majority of the cases, the army or the police get back to those checkpoints, retake the territory lost, and hold those positions.
Now, they've suffered a lot of casualties. Today, the ANSF probably suffers more than 30 to 1 ISAF casualties. So that's a significant change in that ratio of casualties over the last couple of years, as they've moved into the lead of security. Despite that, they are doing a very good job there. They're a very resilient force, and they're out there really providing the security of the population.
I'd like to identify three challenges that we see going forward and really focus on three key strategic questions and then turn it over to you for questions that you might have to Jarrett and myself. I think -- and the questions that really focus on this year, 2013, next year, 2014, and then, finally, 2015.
I think the biggest question this year -- and I think we already have the answer to this -- can the Afghan security forces actually provide for the security of their population? Here we have an unqualified yes. It's an affirmative answer. They are securing the cities and the villages in the country.
Now, to be honest, they have lost some territory in the rural areas, where they have limited reach, and the Taliban have retaken some areas, northern Helmand, in particular, but generally in the areas of priority, in the populated areas, they've really done a very, very good job. So that's the answer yes to that question.
The second issue in 2014 -- obviously, the key strategic event next year will be the presidential elections in April 2014. So the question for the Afghan security forces, will they be able to secure that election? And I think right now, it's a little early to tell, but my sense is that the answer will, indeed, be yes again.
Right now, the level of preparations for securing that election, not to mention the other issues that Jarrett can talk about in terms of electoral preparations, were farther ahead of where we this time before the 2009 elections.
The other issue is that the ANSF is really taking on this mission as a matter of pride and priority to secure these elections. And you have -- a final factor is you have -- I think in April 2014, you'll have about 425,000 security forces in country, the vast majority of them being ANSF, a small minority being ISAF, compared to about 250,000 that were in Afghanistan that were tasked with securing the 2009 elections. So you have a strength now to do this, as well as a focus and a level of preparation that you didn't have before. So going forward, I think -- I'd like to say that I think that strategic issue, the answer is likely to be yes.
And then the final issue -- and it's really one for that transition period of 2014 to 2015 -- is whether we can succeed in transitioning to a much smaller Western or coalition presence, U.S. presence and transition over to ANSF to really take on the sovereign responsibility for the country. And, again, it's early to see. I think there are a number of challenges. There are a number of risks to that. And those are ones that we're -- we're definitely focused on here in the department and elsewhere in the U.S. government.
So with that as a general orientation, I open it up to questions for us.
COLONEL STEVE WARREN: We'll start off with Bob Burns from Associated Press.
Q: Hello, thanks for doing this. Particularly thanks for doing it on the record. It's a good change from...
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Don't make me regret it, Bob. (Laughter.)
Q: On your point you made earlier about the improved or greater national allegiance of the ANSF, there's a section in the report that describes cease-fire deals that are being done on -- in some local areas between Afghan units and insurgent groups and other kinds of accommodations being made with the Taliban. You described -- the report describes this as a developing issue that requires monitoring. On the one hand, it says it's not a major problem, but it can have negative effects. It seems a bit of a wishy-washy approach to explaining what's going on there. Could you elaborate a bit more on -- is this a new development? And since March when this report cuts off, has it been happening more often, less often?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: I think it's not at all a new -- a new element. I mean, going back into Afghan history, there have always been, you know, vigorous fighting, then followed by peace arrangements, cease-fires, and then new -- hopefully new political understandings.
Even with ISAF forces, I think it's been actually more problematic at times, where we found out subsequently that some unit has cut some -- made some arrangement with local -- the local population, possibly including the Taliban. That's been problematic. We don't see that occurring as much today.
Look, the -- the Afghans are providing security for their own population. They need to get along with that population. They need to have an understanding with the population. They're not a foreign force. They're not a force liberating that population. They're protecting the population. So there needs to be understandings.
I think generally this is desirable. It depends on the specifics -- and I can't really get into those specifics now of particular cases, but I think on the whole, as we said in this, maybe it sounds wishy-washy, but as we said, it does deserve, you know, close attention, generally can be positive. If deals are cut for the wrong reasons, that could be negative.
And ultimately, stability and peace will be achieved in Afghanistan by these deals being cut, either from the center or, you know, in regions. So I don't really see this as a particularly problematic trend. And, frankly, it is a traditionally Afghanistan trend.
Q: Is it gaining momentum in more recent months?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah, I really can't tell you. I haven't -- I don't have the evidence of that. I mean, it's something that we're looking at and -- you know, the next time we're together, I'd be happy to follow up with you about that.
COL. WARREN: So we'll go to Tony next.
Q: A question on page two. You had this interesting sentence that beyond December '14, ANSF will still require substantial training, advising and assistance, including financial support to address ongoing shortcomings. It's never addressed again in the full report. What's the implication there for U.S. forces to -- the size of U.S. forces or the need for U.S. forces post-2014? As you know, there's been some debate about a zero option. This sort of knocks that -- knocks the legs out of that option, it seems, but I wanted to get your view.
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Okay, well, thanks for that question. Let me explain the information in there in that sentence and put it in perspective. As I mentioned very briefly, we've seen a really rapid, remarkable development of the Afghan national security forces. Initially, the focus was just simply trying to recruit and field a force of people with adequate literacy and training to do the job. We succeeded in that phase. Then the focus was improving the quality and the combat performance effectiveness of that force, and that's being proven this year.
The phase that we're really focused on now is the sustainability of the force. Will that force -- will there be some institutions, whether at the core level or the ministerial level, that makes sure that people get their paychecks, that -- you always the soldiers to get their paychecks on time -- to make sure that they're fed, to make sure that fuel contracts are developed. These are the kind of functional skills and capabilities that Afghans are still developing today.
And we envision that it will take a period of time before they can adequately fully have sovereign ownership of all those skill sets, including well beyond the 2014 date. That's why, as we've looked at a number of options that we've prepared in this building, in concert with our interagency partners for interagency consideration, these have taken into account the train, advise and assist functions, in addition to our own U.S. counterterrorism mission set going forward. But these would focus less on combat proficiency and really focus more on these functional skill developments at the -- at the core and then ministerial level. We envision that will take a period of time.
So you also asked about the zero option. In one of these cases have we developed an option that is zero. Now, if we don't get the permission of the Afghan government in the form of a bilateral security agreement, then we're not going to be able to continue this job of working with ANSF. And so then you end up with zero.
Q: Just -- to follow up, though, this does portend the use -- U.S. troops in some form, some form or number, staying beyond 2014 to help with these sometimes mundane, but vital functions?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: That's correct. And that is our intention.
Q: Thank you.
COL. WARREN: We'll go to Phil, and then in the back.
Q: Just a quick follow-up, before that, you said whether -- assessing whether the gains that have been made are sustainable, it doesn't just depend on whether there is a force, but it depends on the size or the structure of that force. Can you explain a bit about how the size and the structure, particularly the structure of that force, matters when assessing whether the gains of the war can be (OFF-MIC)
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah. Now, when you say that force, you're referring to ISAF or U.S. forces?
Q: (OFF-MIC)
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah, it will matter. But we're also looking at a moving target. The ANSF -- we're seeing for the first time their performance on the battlefield as the lead combat instrument, security instrument in the country. So our calculations on what will be required beyond 2014 will probably vary after the end of this fighting season than they -- compared to when we first thought about this issue a year ago or even before. So we're anticipating -- making anticipations on the requirements, on the needs of the Afghan national security forces, and these have changed over time, because you've been looking at a moving target. We have much more fidelity today than we had over a year ago, let's say.
As you know, the president has not made a decision on what that force will be. And the president's wanted to look -- wants to look at a number of factors that will take place this year currently and possibly going into the future and see how -- and particularly the key factor is the performance of the Afghan national security forces. So taking into account all of these factors, there will be a decision on what forces appropriate to the tasks at hand.
Q: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Raghubir Goyal from India Globe and Asia Today. My question is that things are not going very well in the region, especially in Afghanistan, according to Afghan people, because they have been suffering for the last 30-plus years civil wars, Taliban wars, Al Qaida wars, and so on. My question is that Afghanistan will be going elections next year, so will be India, or in India could be earlier, and also Pakistan -- now they had just elections and new prime minister.
My question is that, can you have stability and peace like they had in the '70s and a fruitful country of Afghanistan without the cooperation of Pakistan? Because the Taliban is still in Pakistan. Now they are fighting in Syria and other countries. What that's saying is -- and they are waiting when the U.S. and NATO forces leave Afghanistan and they will focus their fighting in Afghanistan, because what they're saying is they have not learned anything but to kill people and fight.
My question is here, what role do you think Pakistan will play and what role India will play in the region, sir?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: I think both Pakistan and India will play and ought to play very important, significant roles going forward in Afghanistan. Those countries and other immediate and nearby neighbors of Afghanistan are affected by the security conditions in Afghanistan. Borders, as you know, are very porous in this part of the world. They're affected by it, and they in turn affect security and political developments inside Afghanistan.
This is a very interdependent region, if you will, from that point of view. And what you have today is a growing sense, as you indicated, of insecurity throughout the region, in central Asia, even north of there, Russia and other places in China, but most acutely in Pakistan and India.
There's a fear in India that there will be what is called as a surplus terrorism. After there is some stability in Afghanistan, where will these terrorists go? Will they target India?
They have the exact same fears in Pakistan. Pakistan is now facing a very vibrant insurgency in its country. They're about 150,000 Pakistani military in western Pakistan fighting this insurgency. They're concerned that if there is further instability in Afghanistan, this could heighten the insurgency, be motivational or provide some safe haven for insurgents to come over into Pakistan.
So everyone in the region has these concerns. And I think -- and this is really something where my diplomatic colleagues are taking the lead -- is to try to harmonize the policies of each of the countries in the region to try to achieve a common end purpose, a common situation of peace and stability in Afghanistan and, more broadly, throughout the region. And there are challenges, but generally I think it's going well.
Q: Just a quick follow, sir, quickly, recently there have been very high-level visits to India (inaudible) Secretary Hagel recently and then Secretary Kerry and now recently Vice President Biden. And they were all talking about the security and U.S.-India relations, military-to-military, and so forth, and also, of course, Afghanistan. What do you think now there is a firing going on, on the India-Pakistan border, heavy fighting in the region of Kashmir? What do you think will escalate? Or what U.S. -- been talking to India when they were visiting or they're -- are they talking about these problems on the border?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Well, it's really for the countries in the region to manage their own relationships. These are the countries that are most directly affected. And the situation -- we view the situation in Kashmir as a bilateral situation for India and Pakistan to sort out.
And regrettably, there has been violence in -- along the line of control in Kashmir for many years, for many decades now, and that's very, very regrettable. But, again, we believe -- you mentioned earlier that, with the election of President Nawaz Sharif, there have been overtures made by the Pakistanis to the Indians and vice versa to try to normalize the situation economically and reach some kind of political understanding. And I know we in the U.S. government fully support those efforts.
COL. WARREN: Blue tie, state your name and organization?
Q: Dion Nissenbaum with the Wall Street Journal. One of the weakest links in the effort has been corruption, as you know. And the report goes into a fair amount of detail about corruption at the regional level by a corrupt network running out of Kabul International Airport. I imagine Shafafiyat and those efforts are winding down, how concerned are you that as the ISAF efforts winds up, that corruption could overwhelm the efforts to reform the ANSF? And are you seeing it increase as ISAF winds up its efforts?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Corruption is a critical concern. It has been -- it remains one. And it probably will be a concern going forward. There is some -- I'm not trying to justify it, but there historically has been level of influence-peddling, what we would call corruption, in this country. There are certain socially accepted standards that differ, obviously, from our standards.
But then there's clearly abusive corruption, very corrosive, toxic corruption that's taking place. And it is a priority. What's very heartening to us is that this is a priority for the Afghan ministerial leadership that we deal with. Secretary Hagel's counterparts are the minister of defense and the minister of interior. And in their conversations and other DOD officials with these individuals, they've identified anti-corruption as a priority for them.
They've changed out leaders. B.K. Mohammadi, the minister of defense, has made a really deliberate effort after he took over to change out leaders, to improve not only performance and the quality of forces under new leadership, but to root out corruption, which does have many negative consequences, if you allow it to fester.
COL. WARREN: Let's go to Thom Shanker, and then we'll finish with Gordon Lubold.
Q: (OFF-MIC) on March 31st, which is the fighting season hadn't really gotten underway. All of us in this room understand the tyranny of deadlines, don't get me wrong. But if your deadline were today, are there any trends, especially among the security forces, that you would capture in this report in light of the current fighting season?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah, I'd say -- I'd probably point to three trends, and I did allude to them. Number one, the security forces are out there doing the security job. This was kind of a question mark before this fighting season, because this is the first fighting season where the Afghan -- where the Afghan army and the police were actually in the lead. And they've acquitted themselves very, very well. As I mentioned, they've taken a lot of casualties. They've been tested by the insurgents, but they've done a good job standing up to those threats. So that's number one.
Number two -- and this is a challenge they're working through -- when they were partnered with American forces, they -- and ISAF forces -- they were partnered with the best military forces in the world. They were partnered with -- with units that had the best enabling support, whether it's mobility getting into a place, whether it's intelligence that gives you time-sensitive targeting on the threats, whether it's situational awareness, whether you know that there are other threats that could be emerging. And then after an engagement, how to get out of their mobility, to get out of there and medevac, getting people -- giving them that golden hour to get treatment. They're used to the state-of-the-art health care.
As we've pulled back and now Afghans are taking over not only lead for combat, they are now in the lead for getting their people around the country. They're in the lead for identifying -- you know, using their intelligence, analyzing their -- infusing and analyzing their intelligence, identifying targets, conducting the operations, designing the operations, and getting their people out of there.
So this has been a bit of an adjustment. I think generally it's been positive, but it's an adjustment away from U.S.-ISAF state-of-the-art standards in all these to something that's different in other cases. In many cases, they're finding local solutions that work just as well for their needs. They're finding local hospitals that they can take wounded soldiers to.
The third trend is also a bit of a challenge, but it's an anticipated and, frankly, a desirable challenge to have. It's the trend of the Afghans developing those functional capacities to provide for the logistical support of their troops, to provide for the human capital management, for managing the contracts and finances and budgeting and so forth. This is -- these are good problems to have.
Before, as I mentioned, we were concerned about fielding the force. Then we were concerned about the operational capacity and wherewithal of the force. Now we're concerned about these functional enabling attributes. This is a good problem. Again, as I said, our theme was we can really imagine having these challenges now. We thought we'd still be mired in some of those other challenges.
So going forward, I think the questions are, can the Afghan forces be able to sustain themselves at standards and with the kind of capacities that they can keep without being dependent on us?
COL. WARREN: So, last question from Gordon at Foreign Policy.
Q: Back to the 2014 question, the commitment of troops after 2014, as you know, there's a frustration that the administration hasn't articulated any number. And the zero option and all that aside, I'm curious -- you know, there's frustration from the Hill, from allies, from inside this building, why can't the administration say, "Here's our range," barring anything coming up, as you mentioned? Is there a point of diminishing returns in terms of holding out on this number and not just throwing it out there and saying, "This is what we're probably going to do at this point"? And also, are you confident that April will -- the elections will happen in April?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Well, it's hard to be confident about events that will happen months into the future. And I would just like to take your last question, make a point, and fully agree with the significance of that election. As you look forward, the -- another strategic risk, this -- this gentleman mentioned the neighborhood. I think that is a strategic risk. If the neighbors can't get along, that could undermine the security gains in Afghanistan.
The other strategic risk, if the political transition does not occur effectively, you could have a fragmentation of elite consensus in the country, political consensus, that could have reverberations in the military forces. It is a multi-ethnic, multi-tribal military force. And so to some extent, like military forces in every country in the world, the cohesion of the force is largely dependent on the political cohesion of the society. And the election could open up schisms that would be problematic, if the -- if the political transition doesn't take place well.
So now only do -- are we very hopeful that the election will take place and doing everything we can, particularly Jarrett and my colleagues over at State Department, who have the lead in the U.S. government for supporting the Afghans in that, to support them in this election, but it does have a very strong impact on the security forces.
And then you asked the other question on our presence in -- decision-making about our presence to Afghanistan post-2014. It's a critical issue. It's something that, you know, we get asked about by countries, leaders of countries all around the world. The U.S. does have a position of leadership. It's had a position of leadership in Afghanistan. It does today. And it's likely to have that position of leadership in the future.
We want to make sure that the decisions that -- that are reached are sound and based on full information in a very dynamic environment and something that, you know, Americans can know are the right decisions to provide for that continuing security in the region so that our interests are protected, so that the terrorist threat to the United States, which has diminished significantly in the last decade, will continue to diminish and will not reoccur in the future.
COL. WARREN: Thank you guys very much.
Presenter: Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia Pacific Security Affairs Dr. Peter Lavoy and Deputy to the Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Jarrett Blanc
July 30, 2013
Department of Defense Press Briefing on the July 2013 Section 1230 Report, "Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan" in the Pentagon Briefing Room
ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETER LAVOY: It's a pleasure to be here. It's a pleasure to talk about this report that is coming out today. And it's a pleasure to be here joined by my colleague, the deputy SRAP [Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan], Jarrett Blanc from State Department. The State Department's input to the 1230 report is very important, it's very critical, and they're a good partner on this effort, as well as on everything else.
Let me make a few introductory remarks and then get into questions that you might have about the report or about issues that have occurred subsequently in Afghanistan.
Going back, you'll recall that we undertook military operations in Afghanistan because the country was the base for terrorists who attacked the United States on 9/11. Let's not forget that. That's why we went there. And we've made tremendous progress.
And you know personally that we don't feel under the same kind of threat today in the United States and elsewhere in the world, many parts of the world, than we did over a decade ago. And it's because of the sacrifices we've made in and around Afghanistan to diminish that terrorist threat and the hard work of American men and women, our coalition partners, and Afghans and others in the region.
The progress we've made in Afghanistan really would have been practically unimaginable five years ago. In fact, I came to Washington about five years ago, and I couldn't imagine that we'd be in the situation we are today. And it really is a situation -- I think we're very near to achieving the objectives we set out at that time before.
Back then, five years ago, in 2008, it was questionable whether the government would survive. Elections were coming up in a year, in 2009. Would these elections occur? Would they be peaceful? Would you have a new representative government coming in? We're asking similar questions today about elections that will be occurring next year.
The ISAF surge over the past three years has put the Afghan government firmly in control of all of Afghanistan's major cities and provincial capitals and has driven the insurgency into the countryside. That wasn't the situation five years ago. So this document is a six-month snapshot, if you will, from October 2012 to March 2013 and documents the progress and, frankly, the challenges that we experience in that time period, but, again, I wanted to put that in brief historical perspective.
The tasks that we have today is to consolidate the gains that we've made, to support the ANSF, to pressure the remnants of Al Qaida, and to create sustainable security and stability, so that Afghanistan is never again used as a platform for international terrorists.
I'd like to highlight three themes that emerged from this report. First, the conflict in Afghanistan had shifted -- shifted during this time period, again, October '12 through March 2013, into a fundamentally new phase. It's a phase marked by the United States and its ISAF partners moving into a support role, moving away from the leading combat instrument in the country, changing our mission from counterinsurgency to one of supporting the Afghan army and the Afghan police from a train, advise and assist role. That's a fundamental shift.
And what we've seen since the cutoff of information in March 2013 is this year's fighting season in Afghanistan, the first fighting season where the ANSF were fully out in the lead throughout their country, providing security for Afghans. And they've done a good job.
And I'm happy to talk about the situation after the cutoff of information in this report if you'd like to get into that, too. But what you know now is that ISAF hardly conducts any combat missions anymore. Their operational role is primarily focused on that train, advise and assist, although we do remain -- we do continue to do some counterterrorism operations and force protection operations ourselves.
The second major trend or theme that emerged in this time period was the incredible improvement of the ANSF itself, the growth of professionalism and patriotism and a very capable Army and police force. These are developments that, again, were hard to imagine. People questioned whether they were achievable goals, and we set about developing these goals back in 2009. But I think that the evidence that we've identified -- and, again, what we've seen to date -- has proven that the ANSF, which basically went through a phase of growing, getting to an end strength of close to the authorized level of 352,000 forces combined army and police, now focusing on quality, demonstrating combat proficiency, and doing the other things that modern militaries do, that we're seeing them do this, but, again, in a way where they are proud of their work, the country is proud of their capability and their performance, they are increasingly patriotic, they're not animated by local ethnic or tribal allegiances, but really by a sense of the whole of Afghanistan. And they've -- the army, I think, has emerged into the strongest institution in the entire country.
The third trend is a -- really, the operational reflection of that second point, is that as they've gone out and taken on the lead for security in the country, they've performed very, very well. They've been tested. The Taliban have targeted the ANSF. The Taliban have tried to identify weaknesses of the ANSF. They've tried to intimidate the ANSF. They target, they overrun checkpoints, but -- and the vast majority of the cases, the army or the police get back to those checkpoints, retake the territory lost, and hold those positions.
Now, they've suffered a lot of casualties. Today, the ANSF probably suffers more than 30 to 1 ISAF casualties. So that's a significant change in that ratio of casualties over the last couple of years, as they've moved into the lead of security. Despite that, they are doing a very good job there. They're a very resilient force, and they're out there really providing the security of the population.
I'd like to identify three challenges that we see going forward and really focus on three key strategic questions and then turn it over to you for questions that you might have to Jarrett and myself. I think -- and the questions that really focus on this year, 2013, next year, 2014, and then, finally, 2015.
I think the biggest question this year -- and I think we already have the answer to this -- can the Afghan security forces actually provide for the security of their population? Here we have an unqualified yes. It's an affirmative answer. They are securing the cities and the villages in the country.
Now, to be honest, they have lost some territory in the rural areas, where they have limited reach, and the Taliban have retaken some areas, northern Helmand, in particular, but generally in the areas of priority, in the populated areas, they've really done a very, very good job. So that's the answer yes to that question.
The second issue in 2014 -- obviously, the key strategic event next year will be the presidential elections in April 2014. So the question for the Afghan security forces, will they be able to secure that election? And I think right now, it's a little early to tell, but my sense is that the answer will, indeed, be yes again.
Right now, the level of preparations for securing that election, not to mention the other issues that Jarrett can talk about in terms of electoral preparations, were farther ahead of where we this time before the 2009 elections.
The other issue is that the ANSF is really taking on this mission as a matter of pride and priority to secure these elections. And you have -- a final factor is you have -- I think in April 2014, you'll have about 425,000 security forces in country, the vast majority of them being ANSF, a small minority being ISAF, compared to about 250,000 that were in Afghanistan that were tasked with securing the 2009 elections. So you have a strength now to do this, as well as a focus and a level of preparation that you didn't have before. So going forward, I think -- I'd like to say that I think that strategic issue, the answer is likely to be yes.
And then the final issue -- and it's really one for that transition period of 2014 to 2015 -- is whether we can succeed in transitioning to a much smaller Western or coalition presence, U.S. presence and transition over to ANSF to really take on the sovereign responsibility for the country. And, again, it's early to see. I think there are a number of challenges. There are a number of risks to that. And those are ones that we're -- we're definitely focused on here in the department and elsewhere in the U.S. government.
So with that as a general orientation, I open it up to questions for us.
COLONEL STEVE WARREN: We'll start off with Bob Burns from Associated Press.
Q: Hello, thanks for doing this. Particularly thanks for doing it on the record. It's a good change from...
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Don't make me regret it, Bob. (Laughter.)
Q: On your point you made earlier about the improved or greater national allegiance of the ANSF, there's a section in the report that describes cease-fire deals that are being done on -- in some local areas between Afghan units and insurgent groups and other kinds of accommodations being made with the Taliban. You described -- the report describes this as a developing issue that requires monitoring. On the one hand, it says it's not a major problem, but it can have negative effects. It seems a bit of a wishy-washy approach to explaining what's going on there. Could you elaborate a bit more on -- is this a new development? And since March when this report cuts off, has it been happening more often, less often?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: I think it's not at all a new -- a new element. I mean, going back into Afghan history, there have always been, you know, vigorous fighting, then followed by peace arrangements, cease-fires, and then new -- hopefully new political understandings.
Even with ISAF forces, I think it's been actually more problematic at times, where we found out subsequently that some unit has cut some -- made some arrangement with local -- the local population, possibly including the Taliban. That's been problematic. We don't see that occurring as much today.
Look, the -- the Afghans are providing security for their own population. They need to get along with that population. They need to have an understanding with the population. They're not a foreign force. They're not a force liberating that population. They're protecting the population. So there needs to be understandings.
I think generally this is desirable. It depends on the specifics -- and I can't really get into those specifics now of particular cases, but I think on the whole, as we said in this, maybe it sounds wishy-washy, but as we said, it does deserve, you know, close attention, generally can be positive. If deals are cut for the wrong reasons, that could be negative.
And ultimately, stability and peace will be achieved in Afghanistan by these deals being cut, either from the center or, you know, in regions. So I don't really see this as a particularly problematic trend. And, frankly, it is a traditionally Afghanistan trend.
Q: Is it gaining momentum in more recent months?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah, I really can't tell you. I haven't -- I don't have the evidence of that. I mean, it's something that we're looking at and -- you know, the next time we're together, I'd be happy to follow up with you about that.
COL. WARREN: So we'll go to Tony next.
Q: A question on page two. You had this interesting sentence that beyond December '14, ANSF will still require substantial training, advising and assistance, including financial support to address ongoing shortcomings. It's never addressed again in the full report. What's the implication there for U.S. forces to -- the size of U.S. forces or the need for U.S. forces post-2014? As you know, there's been some debate about a zero option. This sort of knocks that -- knocks the legs out of that option, it seems, but I wanted to get your view.
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Okay, well, thanks for that question. Let me explain the information in there in that sentence and put it in perspective. As I mentioned very briefly, we've seen a really rapid, remarkable development of the Afghan national security forces. Initially, the focus was just simply trying to recruit and field a force of people with adequate literacy and training to do the job. We succeeded in that phase. Then the focus was improving the quality and the combat performance effectiveness of that force, and that's being proven this year.
The phase that we're really focused on now is the sustainability of the force. Will that force -- will there be some institutions, whether at the core level or the ministerial level, that makes sure that people get their paychecks, that -- you always the soldiers to get their paychecks on time -- to make sure that they're fed, to make sure that fuel contracts are developed. These are the kind of functional skills and capabilities that Afghans are still developing today.
And we envision that it will take a period of time before they can adequately fully have sovereign ownership of all those skill sets, including well beyond the 2014 date. That's why, as we've looked at a number of options that we've prepared in this building, in concert with our interagency partners for interagency consideration, these have taken into account the train, advise and assist functions, in addition to our own U.S. counterterrorism mission set going forward. But these would focus less on combat proficiency and really focus more on these functional skill developments at the -- at the core and then ministerial level. We envision that will take a period of time.
So you also asked about the zero option. In one of these cases have we developed an option that is zero. Now, if we don't get the permission of the Afghan government in the form of a bilateral security agreement, then we're not going to be able to continue this job of working with ANSF. And so then you end up with zero.
Q: Just -- to follow up, though, this does portend the use -- U.S. troops in some form, some form or number, staying beyond 2014 to help with these sometimes mundane, but vital functions?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: That's correct. And that is our intention.
Q: Thank you.
COL. WARREN: We'll go to Phil, and then in the back.
Q: Just a quick follow-up, before that, you said whether -- assessing whether the gains that have been made are sustainable, it doesn't just depend on whether there is a force, but it depends on the size or the structure of that force. Can you explain a bit about how the size and the structure, particularly the structure of that force, matters when assessing whether the gains of the war can be (OFF-MIC)
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah. Now, when you say that force, you're referring to ISAF or U.S. forces?
Q: (OFF-MIC)
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah, it will matter. But we're also looking at a moving target. The ANSF -- we're seeing for the first time their performance on the battlefield as the lead combat instrument, security instrument in the country. So our calculations on what will be required beyond 2014 will probably vary after the end of this fighting season than they -- compared to when we first thought about this issue a year ago or even before. So we're anticipating -- making anticipations on the requirements, on the needs of the Afghan national security forces, and these have changed over time, because you've been looking at a moving target. We have much more fidelity today than we had over a year ago, let's say.
As you know, the president has not made a decision on what that force will be. And the president's wanted to look -- wants to look at a number of factors that will take place this year currently and possibly going into the future and see how -- and particularly the key factor is the performance of the Afghan national security forces. So taking into account all of these factors, there will be a decision on what forces appropriate to the tasks at hand.
Q: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Raghubir Goyal from India Globe and Asia Today. My question is that things are not going very well in the region, especially in Afghanistan, according to Afghan people, because they have been suffering for the last 30-plus years civil wars, Taliban wars, Al Qaida wars, and so on. My question is that Afghanistan will be going elections next year, so will be India, or in India could be earlier, and also Pakistan -- now they had just elections and new prime minister.
My question is that, can you have stability and peace like they had in the '70s and a fruitful country of Afghanistan without the cooperation of Pakistan? Because the Taliban is still in Pakistan. Now they are fighting in Syria and other countries. What that's saying is -- and they are waiting when the U.S. and NATO forces leave Afghanistan and they will focus their fighting in Afghanistan, because what they're saying is they have not learned anything but to kill people and fight.
My question is here, what role do you think Pakistan will play and what role India will play in the region, sir?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: I think both Pakistan and India will play and ought to play very important, significant roles going forward in Afghanistan. Those countries and other immediate and nearby neighbors of Afghanistan are affected by the security conditions in Afghanistan. Borders, as you know, are very porous in this part of the world. They're affected by it, and they in turn affect security and political developments inside Afghanistan.
This is a very interdependent region, if you will, from that point of view. And what you have today is a growing sense, as you indicated, of insecurity throughout the region, in central Asia, even north of there, Russia and other places in China, but most acutely in Pakistan and India.
There's a fear in India that there will be what is called as a surplus terrorism. After there is some stability in Afghanistan, where will these terrorists go? Will they target India?
They have the exact same fears in Pakistan. Pakistan is now facing a very vibrant insurgency in its country. They're about 150,000 Pakistani military in western Pakistan fighting this insurgency. They're concerned that if there is further instability in Afghanistan, this could heighten the insurgency, be motivational or provide some safe haven for insurgents to come over into Pakistan.
So everyone in the region has these concerns. And I think -- and this is really something where my diplomatic colleagues are taking the lead -- is to try to harmonize the policies of each of the countries in the region to try to achieve a common end purpose, a common situation of peace and stability in Afghanistan and, more broadly, throughout the region. And there are challenges, but generally I think it's going well.
Q: Just a quick follow, sir, quickly, recently there have been very high-level visits to India (inaudible) Secretary Hagel recently and then Secretary Kerry and now recently Vice President Biden. And they were all talking about the security and U.S.-India relations, military-to-military, and so forth, and also, of course, Afghanistan. What do you think now there is a firing going on, on the India-Pakistan border, heavy fighting in the region of Kashmir? What do you think will escalate? Or what U.S. -- been talking to India when they were visiting or they're -- are they talking about these problems on the border?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Well, it's really for the countries in the region to manage their own relationships. These are the countries that are most directly affected. And the situation -- we view the situation in Kashmir as a bilateral situation for India and Pakistan to sort out.
And regrettably, there has been violence in -- along the line of control in Kashmir for many years, for many decades now, and that's very, very regrettable. But, again, we believe -- you mentioned earlier that, with the election of President Nawaz Sharif, there have been overtures made by the Pakistanis to the Indians and vice versa to try to normalize the situation economically and reach some kind of political understanding. And I know we in the U.S. government fully support those efforts.
COL. WARREN: Blue tie, state your name and organization?
Q: Dion Nissenbaum with the Wall Street Journal. One of the weakest links in the effort has been corruption, as you know. And the report goes into a fair amount of detail about corruption at the regional level by a corrupt network running out of Kabul International Airport. I imagine Shafafiyat and those efforts are winding down, how concerned are you that as the ISAF efforts winds up, that corruption could overwhelm the efforts to reform the ANSF? And are you seeing it increase as ISAF winds up its efforts?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Corruption is a critical concern. It has been -- it remains one. And it probably will be a concern going forward. There is some -- I'm not trying to justify it, but there historically has been level of influence-peddling, what we would call corruption, in this country. There are certain socially accepted standards that differ, obviously, from our standards.
But then there's clearly abusive corruption, very corrosive, toxic corruption that's taking place. And it is a priority. What's very heartening to us is that this is a priority for the Afghan ministerial leadership that we deal with. Secretary Hagel's counterparts are the minister of defense and the minister of interior. And in their conversations and other DOD officials with these individuals, they've identified anti-corruption as a priority for them.
They've changed out leaders. B.K. Mohammadi, the minister of defense, has made a really deliberate effort after he took over to change out leaders, to improve not only performance and the quality of forces under new leadership, but to root out corruption, which does have many negative consequences, if you allow it to fester.
COL. WARREN: Let's go to Thom Shanker, and then we'll finish with Gordon Lubold.
Q: (OFF-MIC) on March 31st, which is the fighting season hadn't really gotten underway. All of us in this room understand the tyranny of deadlines, don't get me wrong. But if your deadline were today, are there any trends, especially among the security forces, that you would capture in this report in light of the current fighting season?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah, I'd say -- I'd probably point to three trends, and I did allude to them. Number one, the security forces are out there doing the security job. This was kind of a question mark before this fighting season, because this is the first fighting season where the Afghan -- where the Afghan army and the police were actually in the lead. And they've acquitted themselves very, very well. As I mentioned, they've taken a lot of casualties. They've been tested by the insurgents, but they've done a good job standing up to those threats. So that's number one.
Number two -- and this is a challenge they're working through -- when they were partnered with American forces, they -- and ISAF forces -- they were partnered with the best military forces in the world. They were partnered with -- with units that had the best enabling support, whether it's mobility getting into a place, whether it's intelligence that gives you time-sensitive targeting on the threats, whether it's situational awareness, whether you know that there are other threats that could be emerging. And then after an engagement, how to get out of their mobility, to get out of there and medevac, getting people -- giving them that golden hour to get treatment. They're used to the state-of-the-art health care.
As we've pulled back and now Afghans are taking over not only lead for combat, they are now in the lead for getting their people around the country. They're in the lead for identifying -- you know, using their intelligence, analyzing their -- infusing and analyzing their intelligence, identifying targets, conducting the operations, designing the operations, and getting their people out of there.
So this has been a bit of an adjustment. I think generally it's been positive, but it's an adjustment away from U.S.-ISAF state-of-the-art standards in all these to something that's different in other cases. In many cases, they're finding local solutions that work just as well for their needs. They're finding local hospitals that they can take wounded soldiers to.
The third trend is also a bit of a challenge, but it's an anticipated and, frankly, a desirable challenge to have. It's the trend of the Afghans developing those functional capacities to provide for the logistical support of their troops, to provide for the human capital management, for managing the contracts and finances and budgeting and so forth. This is -- these are good problems to have.
Before, as I mentioned, we were concerned about fielding the force. Then we were concerned about the operational capacity and wherewithal of the force. Now we're concerned about these functional enabling attributes. This is a good problem. Again, as I said, our theme was we can really imagine having these challenges now. We thought we'd still be mired in some of those other challenges.
So going forward, I think the questions are, can the Afghan forces be able to sustain themselves at standards and with the kind of capacities that they can keep without being dependent on us?
COL. WARREN: So, last question from Gordon at Foreign Policy.
Q: Back to the 2014 question, the commitment of troops after 2014, as you know, there's a frustration that the administration hasn't articulated any number. And the zero option and all that aside, I'm curious -- you know, there's frustration from the Hill, from allies, from inside this building, why can't the administration say, "Here's our range," barring anything coming up, as you mentioned? Is there a point of diminishing returns in terms of holding out on this number and not just throwing it out there and saying, "This is what we're probably going to do at this point"? And also, are you confident that April will -- the elections will happen in April?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Well, it's hard to be confident about events that will happen months into the future. And I would just like to take your last question, make a point, and fully agree with the significance of that election. As you look forward, the -- another strategic risk, this -- this gentleman mentioned the neighborhood. I think that is a strategic risk. If the neighbors can't get along, that could undermine the security gains in Afghanistan.
The other strategic risk, if the political transition does not occur effectively, you could have a fragmentation of elite consensus in the country, political consensus, that could have reverberations in the military forces. It is a multi-ethnic, multi-tribal military force. And so to some extent, like military forces in every country in the world, the cohesion of the force is largely dependent on the political cohesion of the society. And the election could open up schisms that would be problematic, if the -- if the political transition doesn't take place well.
So now only do -- are we very hopeful that the election will take place and doing everything we can, particularly Jarrett and my colleagues over at State Department, who have the lead in the U.S. government for supporting the Afghans in that, to support them in this election, but it does have a very strong impact on the security forces.
And then you asked the other question on our presence in -- decision-making about our presence to Afghanistan post-2014. It's a critical issue. It's something that, you know, we get asked about by countries, leaders of countries all around the world. The U.S. does have a position of leadership. It's had a position of leadership in Afghanistan. It does today. And it's likely to have that position of leadership in the future.
We want to make sure that the decisions that -- that are reached are sound and based on full information in a very dynamic environment and something that, you know, Americans can know are the right decisions to provide for that continuing security in the region so that our interests are protected, so that the terrorist threat to the United States, which has diminished significantly in the last decade, will continue to diminish and will not reoccur in the future.
COL. WARREN: Thank you guys very much.
MARKETERS CHARGED BY FTC WITH DECEIVING BUSINESSES INTO PURCHASING CREDIT/DEBIT CARD PROCESSING FEES
FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC Charges Marketers with Deceiving Small Businesses into Buying Credit/Debit Card Processing Services and Equipment
The Federal Trade Commission has charged an operation that sells credit and debit card payment processing services to small businesses with violating federal law. The defendants allegedly made false and unsubstantiated claims and failed to disclose material facts to storefront businesses and sole proprietorships before they applied for services and equipment to process credit and debit card payments. The FTC seeks to halt the allegedly illegal practices and return money to victims.
The defendants are Merchant Services Direct LLC (MSD), also doing business as Sphyra Inc.; Boost Commerce Inc.; Generation Y Investments LLC; Kyle Lawson Dove; and Shane Patrick Hurley. The Washington State Attorney General’s Office has simultaneously filed an action against these defendants in the Superior Court for Spokane County, Washington.
According to the FTC’s complaint, as an “independent sales organization” (ISO), MSD sells to small local businesses the ability to accept credit and debit card payments. The businesses pay fees whenever their customers pay with a credit or debit card.
As alleged in the complaint, MSD sales agents typically call small businesses and lead them to believe they are associated with the businesses’ current card processor, Visa or MasterCard, or their bank. The sales agents allegedly promise substantial savings on credit and debit card processing. They specify a much lower rate than the businesses currently pay, and quote one fee, a fixed per-transaction cost, without mentioning all the other fees the businesses will have to pay. Merchants who ask if there are other fees allegedly are told there are none.
According to the FTC’s complaint, MSD agents also dupe customers into leasing new card processing terminals for two to four years, falsely claiming their current “swipe” terminals are outdated or incompatible with its services. Sometimes they even claim the terminals are free. Agents persuade merchants to sign fine-print, binding contracts on the spot by telling them the documents are merely applications – a ruse made easier, according to the FTC, by the fact that the contracts are labeled “applications.” Merchants are often falsely told they can cancel any time. Many victims discover their new lease obligation only after being billed, still owing the balance of their previous lease, which can be thousands of dollars.
Defendants also tout on various versions of their website “Guaranteed Lowest Rates,” claiming merchants could “save 30%” with “whole sale [sic] processing” or have “anywhere from 20% to 30% savings when switching to” MSD. In fact, according to the FTC, there are no wholesale rates, as third parties process card payments, not MSD. As alleged in the complaint, those who call MSD’s customer service department reach employees who either do not help them or say they will waive fees or provide refunds but don’t. Customers who were promised they could cancel the “applications” they signed with no penalty are charged substantial cancellation fees, according to the FTC’s complaint. Generally, only in response to complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau and state attorneys general have the defendants refunded money or waived fees.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. In addition to filing the lawsuit, the FTC has sought a court order immediately halting the unlawful practices along with an order freezing the defendants’ assets and appointing a receiver over the corporate defendants.
The FTC acknowledges the assistance of the Washington State Attorney General’s Office and the Better Business Bureau of Eastern Washington, North Idaho, and Montana.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.
FTC Charges Marketers with Deceiving Small Businesses into Buying Credit/Debit Card Processing Services and Equipment
The Federal Trade Commission has charged an operation that sells credit and debit card payment processing services to small businesses with violating federal law. The defendants allegedly made false and unsubstantiated claims and failed to disclose material facts to storefront businesses and sole proprietorships before they applied for services and equipment to process credit and debit card payments. The FTC seeks to halt the allegedly illegal practices and return money to victims.
The defendants are Merchant Services Direct LLC (MSD), also doing business as Sphyra Inc.; Boost Commerce Inc.; Generation Y Investments LLC; Kyle Lawson Dove; and Shane Patrick Hurley. The Washington State Attorney General’s Office has simultaneously filed an action against these defendants in the Superior Court for Spokane County, Washington.
According to the FTC’s complaint, as an “independent sales organization” (ISO), MSD sells to small local businesses the ability to accept credit and debit card payments. The businesses pay fees whenever their customers pay with a credit or debit card.
As alleged in the complaint, MSD sales agents typically call small businesses and lead them to believe they are associated with the businesses’ current card processor, Visa or MasterCard, or their bank. The sales agents allegedly promise substantial savings on credit and debit card processing. They specify a much lower rate than the businesses currently pay, and quote one fee, a fixed per-transaction cost, without mentioning all the other fees the businesses will have to pay. Merchants who ask if there are other fees allegedly are told there are none.
According to the FTC’s complaint, MSD agents also dupe customers into leasing new card processing terminals for two to four years, falsely claiming their current “swipe” terminals are outdated or incompatible with its services. Sometimes they even claim the terminals are free. Agents persuade merchants to sign fine-print, binding contracts on the spot by telling them the documents are merely applications – a ruse made easier, according to the FTC, by the fact that the contracts are labeled “applications.” Merchants are often falsely told they can cancel any time. Many victims discover their new lease obligation only after being billed, still owing the balance of their previous lease, which can be thousands of dollars.
Defendants also tout on various versions of their website “Guaranteed Lowest Rates,” claiming merchants could “save 30%” with “whole sale [sic] processing” or have “anywhere from 20% to 30% savings when switching to” MSD. In fact, according to the FTC, there are no wholesale rates, as third parties process card payments, not MSD. As alleged in the complaint, those who call MSD’s customer service department reach employees who either do not help them or say they will waive fees or provide refunds but don’t. Customers who were promised they could cancel the “applications” they signed with no penalty are charged substantial cancellation fees, according to the FTC’s complaint. Generally, only in response to complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau and state attorneys general have the defendants refunded money or waived fees.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. In addition to filing the lawsuit, the FTC has sought a court order immediately halting the unlawful practices along with an order freezing the defendants’ assets and appointing a receiver over the corporate defendants.
The FTC acknowledges the assistance of the Washington State Attorney General’s Office and the Better Business Bureau of Eastern Washington, North Idaho, and Montana.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.
RECENT U.S. NAVY PHOTOS FROM AFGHANISTAN
FROM: U.S. NAVY
U.S. Navy Seabees replace the tire on equipment on Camp Leatherneck in Helmand province, Afghanistan, July 18, 2013. The Seabees are assigned to the Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 15. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Daniel Garas
A U.S. Navy Seabee dumps dirt into the back of a truck along a fence line on Camp Leatherneck in Helmand province, Afghanistan, July 18, 2013. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Daniel Garas.
PENSION PLAN TRUSTEE AGREES TO RESTORE ASSET SHORTFALLS
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Trustee of defunct New York City garment companies’ pension plans settles US Labor Department suit alleging misuse of more than $4.2 million in plan assets
Colette Mordo agrees to restore asset shortfalls; is permanently barred as fiduciary
NEW YORK — The U.S. Department of Labor has obtained a consent judgment in federal court in which the trustee of two defined benefit pension plans admits to entering into $4,232,915 in alleged unlawful plan transactions between 2002 and 2010. Colette Mordo, trustee and fiduciary to the pension plans of the Manhattan-based Sadimara Knitwear Inc. and the Stallion Knits Ltd. pension plans also agrees to restore, up to that amount, any shortfall in assets owed to the plans' participants and beneficiaries.
The judgment resolves a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Mordo violated her fiduciary duties under ERISA. The lawsuit alleged that Mordo authorized the pension plans to make improper loans and transfers of plan assets over several years to multiple recipients, including members of the Mordo family and International Design Concepts LLC and Apparel Group International LLC, two companies in which Mordo had an ownership interest.
"If you've been entrusted with the assets of an employee benefit plan, it's illegal to enrich yourself or your family at the plan's expense," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security Phyllis C. Borzi. "That's not just common sense; it's the law, and the Labor Department will not hesitate to investigate and pursue appropriate legal remedies whenever fiduciaries fail to meet this standard."
The judgment removes Mordo from any and all fiduciary positions with respect to the plans and permanently bars her from serving as a fiduciary to any ERISA-covered plan. It also appoints David M. Lipkin of Metro Benefits Inc. as the independent fiduciary who will administer the plans, determine and pay out benefits to participants, and terminate the plans. The Labor Department is authorized to seek a contempt order should Mordo violate any terms of the judgment.
Sadimara Knitwear Inc. and Stallion Knits Ltd. were garment companies headquartered in Manhattan. The companies, which are no longer in operation, sponsored the plans to provide pension benefits to their employees.
Trustee of defunct New York City garment companies’ pension plans settles US Labor Department suit alleging misuse of more than $4.2 million in plan assets
Colette Mordo agrees to restore asset shortfalls; is permanently barred as fiduciary
NEW YORK — The U.S. Department of Labor has obtained a consent judgment in federal court in which the trustee of two defined benefit pension plans admits to entering into $4,232,915 in alleged unlawful plan transactions between 2002 and 2010. Colette Mordo, trustee and fiduciary to the pension plans of the Manhattan-based Sadimara Knitwear Inc. and the Stallion Knits Ltd. pension plans also agrees to restore, up to that amount, any shortfall in assets owed to the plans' participants and beneficiaries.
The judgment resolves a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Mordo violated her fiduciary duties under ERISA. The lawsuit alleged that Mordo authorized the pension plans to make improper loans and transfers of plan assets over several years to multiple recipients, including members of the Mordo family and International Design Concepts LLC and Apparel Group International LLC, two companies in which Mordo had an ownership interest.
"If you've been entrusted with the assets of an employee benefit plan, it's illegal to enrich yourself or your family at the plan's expense," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security Phyllis C. Borzi. "That's not just common sense; it's the law, and the Labor Department will not hesitate to investigate and pursue appropriate legal remedies whenever fiduciaries fail to meet this standard."
The judgment removes Mordo from any and all fiduciary positions with respect to the plans and permanently bars her from serving as a fiduciary to any ERISA-covered plan. It also appoints David M. Lipkin of Metro Benefits Inc. as the independent fiduciary who will administer the plans, determine and pay out benefits to participants, and terminate the plans. The Labor Department is authorized to seek a contempt order should Mordo violate any terms of the judgment.
Sadimara Knitwear Inc. and Stallion Knits Ltd. were garment companies headquartered in Manhattan. The companies, which are no longer in operation, sponsored the plans to provide pension benefits to their employees.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
READOUT: SECRETARY HAGEL'S MEETING WITH GREECE'S MINISTER OF DEFENSE AVRAMOPOULOS
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Readout of Secretary Hagel's Meeting with Greece's Minister of Defense Dimitris Avramopoulos
Pentagon Press Secretary George Little provided the following readout:
"Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel welcomed Greek Minister of Defense Dimitris Avramopoulos today to the Pentagon.
"Secretary Hagel thanked Minister Avramopoulos for Greece's continued hosting of U.S. forces at Naval Support Activity at Souda Bay. Souda Bay is a key enabler of U.S. strategic objectives in the region, the importance of which became apparent during Operation Unified Protector in Libya.
"Secretary Hagel praised Greece's contributions to regional security in the Balkans and expressed appreciation for Greece's support and cooperation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Secretary Hagel and Minister Avramopoulos discussed issues of mutual strategic importance in the Mediterranean, Middle East, and North Africa including Egypt and Syria. Minister Avramopoulos highlighted the partnership between the United States and Greece and pledged to maintain the strong relationship between the two allies.
"Secretary Hagel and Minister Avramopoulos agreed to continue joint military training, exchanges, and high level defense consultations, and committed to recognizing these activities through development of a U.S.-Greece Defense Cooperation Roadmap."
Readout of Secretary Hagel's Meeting with Greece's Minister of Defense Dimitris Avramopoulos
Pentagon Press Secretary George Little provided the following readout:
"Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel welcomed Greek Minister of Defense Dimitris Avramopoulos today to the Pentagon.
"Secretary Hagel thanked Minister Avramopoulos for Greece's continued hosting of U.S. forces at Naval Support Activity at Souda Bay. Souda Bay is a key enabler of U.S. strategic objectives in the region, the importance of which became apparent during Operation Unified Protector in Libya.
"Secretary Hagel praised Greece's contributions to regional security in the Balkans and expressed appreciation for Greece's support and cooperation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Secretary Hagel and Minister Avramopoulos discussed issues of mutual strategic importance in the Mediterranean, Middle East, and North Africa including Egypt and Syria. Minister Avramopoulos highlighted the partnership between the United States and Greece and pledged to maintain the strong relationship between the two allies.
"Secretary Hagel and Minister Avramopoulos agreed to continue joint military training, exchanges, and high level defense consultations, and committed to recognizing these activities through development of a U.S.-Greece Defense Cooperation Roadmap."
READOUT OF DEPUTY SECRETARY CARTER'S MEETING WITH JAPANESE PARLIAMENTARY SENIOR VICE MINISTER ETO
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Readout of Deputy Secretary Carter's Meeting with Japanese Parliamentary Senior Vice Minister Eto
Pentagon Press Secretary George Little provided the following readout:
Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter hosted Japanese Parliamentary Senior Vice Minister of Defense Akinori Eto today at the Pentagon.
Deputy Secretary Carter welcomed Parliamentary Senior Vice Minister Eto and expressed admiration for the strong work the United States and Japan have accomplished together in support of the bilateral Alliance. Deputy Secretary Carter emphasized the steadfast nature of the U.S. commitment to the Asia-Pacific rebalance, and noted the significant role of the U.S.-Japan Alliance in maintaining regional security and stability. The two leaders discussed the strategic environment and the possibility of a review of the 1997 U.S.-Japan Defense Guidelines in order to meet emerging opportunities and challenges. They agreed that strengthening cooperation with other regional partners, including the Republic of Korea, is an important element of promoting peace and stability.
Parliamentary Senior Vice Minister Eto updated Deputy Secretary Carter on the status of Japan's National Defense Program Guidelines, including the content of the interim report released on July 26. Deputy Secretary Carter and Parliamentary Senior Vice Minister Eto agreed to make steady progress on the realignment of U.S. Forces Japan, including the relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to Henoko and of U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam. They also discussed progress being made with respect to the Joint Strike Fighter program. The two leaders agreed to stay in close touch to build upon the strong bilateral relationship between their two countries.
Readout of Deputy Secretary Carter's Meeting with Japanese Parliamentary Senior Vice Minister Eto
Pentagon Press Secretary George Little provided the following readout:
Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter hosted Japanese Parliamentary Senior Vice Minister of Defense Akinori Eto today at the Pentagon.
Deputy Secretary Carter welcomed Parliamentary Senior Vice Minister Eto and expressed admiration for the strong work the United States and Japan have accomplished together in support of the bilateral Alliance. Deputy Secretary Carter emphasized the steadfast nature of the U.S. commitment to the Asia-Pacific rebalance, and noted the significant role of the U.S.-Japan Alliance in maintaining regional security and stability. The two leaders discussed the strategic environment and the possibility of a review of the 1997 U.S.-Japan Defense Guidelines in order to meet emerging opportunities and challenges. They agreed that strengthening cooperation with other regional partners, including the Republic of Korea, is an important element of promoting peace and stability.
Parliamentary Senior Vice Minister Eto updated Deputy Secretary Carter on the status of Japan's National Defense Program Guidelines, including the content of the interim report released on July 26. Deputy Secretary Carter and Parliamentary Senior Vice Minister Eto agreed to make steady progress on the realignment of U.S. Forces Japan, including the relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to Henoko and of U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam. They also discussed progress being made with respect to the Joint Strike Fighter program. The two leaders agreed to stay in close touch to build upon the strong bilateral relationship between their two countries.
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK CHAIRMAN HOCHBERG'S MESSAGE
FROM: U.S. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
Message from the Chairman,
Fred Hochberg
Let me begin by telling you how honored I am to have been reappointed by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate for another term as Chairman of the Export-Import Bank. After a strong, bipartisan vote, I look forward to working with the excellent team here at Ex-Im on behalf of American exporters, supporting jobs here at home through sales abroad. And I look forward to working with all of you.
As we continue our economic recovery, exports continue to play a key role. Over the past four years, Ex-Im Bank’s financing has supported nearly one million American jobs and helped thousands of small businesses expand their reach into international markets. The Bank also delivered more than $1 billion to the U.S. Treasury during this period at no cost to American taxpayers.
Moving forward, all of us at Ex-Im will continue to work with members of Congress, our Board and customers to ensure that America’s workers, small business owners, and exporters have access to the financing they need. We’ll work to ensure America’s exporters are able to compete on a level playing field and sell their products and services around the world.
Aside from the confirmation proceedings, it’s been an eventful three months here at Ex-Im. I would like to update you on our latest results.
Following fiscal year 2012’s record results, Ex-Im is on track for another productive year—thanks to America’s dynamic exporting community. Authorizations in our April-June quarter were $6 billion, for a total of $21.7billion for the year to date. More important, our financing supported 165,000 export-related American jobs so far this year in communities across the country. Our total exposure is nearly $110 billion.
The Bank’s year-to-date authorizations have declined relative to the same period last year from $23.8 billion to $21.7 billion, a promising trend that illustrates the renewed lending activity of commercial banks in the wake of the financial crisis. Our transportation authorizations, for instance, will be down overall as commercial banks re-enter commercial-aircraft financing, though our support for general aviation and helicopters has increased as we have diversified our portfolio. Mining, which has traditionally played a large role, will decrease as well due in large part to slower global demand for commodities. However, our authorizations for satellite and manufacturing deals are up this year. We’ve done more transactions this year than in FY 2012, but our ticket sizes are smaller. While commercial banks are stepping back into the breach, we’re still needed to do the tougher, more complicated deals.
And if you allow me to brag a little, we won three prestigious awards:
Trade Finance magazine named Ex-Im “Best Global Export Credit Agency” for the second time and, for the fourth consecutive time, “Best ECA in the Americas.” Besides that, Trade Finance recognized Ex-Im for our participation in six “Deals of the Year.”
Two weeks later, London’s Trade and Forfaiting Review named us “World’s Best Export Credit Agency” for our support for exports and innovative deals.
AirFinance Journal recognized Ex-Im for four 2012 aviation “Deal of the Year” awards – each of them financed by our innovative Bank-guaranteed bonds, one of our most successful innovations in recent years.
We’ve achieved these results without any significant increase in staff, instead creating new financial products to meet the unique needs of our exporters competing in today’s global economy. For example, our innovative Global Credit Express program for short-term working capital loans to small exporters continues to grow rapidly. We’re having great success with our capital markets initiative that issues large, long-term guaranteed bonds for export sales like commercial aircraft.
I was also pleased that President Obama recently nominated Ex-Im Bank Vice Chair Wanda Felton for a second term here. Among her accomplishments, she’s been a driving force behind our successful expansion of financing exports to Sub-Saharan Africa. We look forward to her timely confirmation by the Senate.
Sadly, Director Larry Walther left the Bank earlier this month after two years of outstanding service as a member of our Board of Directors. Larry is a seasoned pro in trade finance and promotion here and in his beloved Arkansas, where he returns for some well-earned relaxation.
None of these successes would have been possible without the creativity, hard work and dedication of Ex-Im staff – in support of our exporters who continue to sell world-class goods and services to buyers in over 150 countries. You are a great team, and I’m proud to work with you.
Sincerely,
Fred P. Hochberg
Message from the Chairman,
Fred Hochberg
Let me begin by telling you how honored I am to have been reappointed by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate for another term as Chairman of the Export-Import Bank. After a strong, bipartisan vote, I look forward to working with the excellent team here at Ex-Im on behalf of American exporters, supporting jobs here at home through sales abroad. And I look forward to working with all of you.
As we continue our economic recovery, exports continue to play a key role. Over the past four years, Ex-Im Bank’s financing has supported nearly one million American jobs and helped thousands of small businesses expand their reach into international markets. The Bank also delivered more than $1 billion to the U.S. Treasury during this period at no cost to American taxpayers.
Moving forward, all of us at Ex-Im will continue to work with members of Congress, our Board and customers to ensure that America’s workers, small business owners, and exporters have access to the financing they need. We’ll work to ensure America’s exporters are able to compete on a level playing field and sell their products and services around the world.
Aside from the confirmation proceedings, it’s been an eventful three months here at Ex-Im. I would like to update you on our latest results.
Following fiscal year 2012’s record results, Ex-Im is on track for another productive year—thanks to America’s dynamic exporting community. Authorizations in our April-June quarter were $6 billion, for a total of $21.7billion for the year to date. More important, our financing supported 165,000 export-related American jobs so far this year in communities across the country. Our total exposure is nearly $110 billion.
The Bank’s year-to-date authorizations have declined relative to the same period last year from $23.8 billion to $21.7 billion, a promising trend that illustrates the renewed lending activity of commercial banks in the wake of the financial crisis. Our transportation authorizations, for instance, will be down overall as commercial banks re-enter commercial-aircraft financing, though our support for general aviation and helicopters has increased as we have diversified our portfolio. Mining, which has traditionally played a large role, will decrease as well due in large part to slower global demand for commodities. However, our authorizations for satellite and manufacturing deals are up this year. We’ve done more transactions this year than in FY 2012, but our ticket sizes are smaller. While commercial banks are stepping back into the breach, we’re still needed to do the tougher, more complicated deals.
And if you allow me to brag a little, we won three prestigious awards:
Trade Finance magazine named Ex-Im “Best Global Export Credit Agency” for the second time and, for the fourth consecutive time, “Best ECA in the Americas.” Besides that, Trade Finance recognized Ex-Im for our participation in six “Deals of the Year.”
Two weeks later, London’s Trade and Forfaiting Review named us “World’s Best Export Credit Agency” for our support for exports and innovative deals.
AirFinance Journal recognized Ex-Im for four 2012 aviation “Deal of the Year” awards – each of them financed by our innovative Bank-guaranteed bonds, one of our most successful innovations in recent years.
We’ve achieved these results without any significant increase in staff, instead creating new financial products to meet the unique needs of our exporters competing in today’s global economy. For example, our innovative Global Credit Express program for short-term working capital loans to small exporters continues to grow rapidly. We’re having great success with our capital markets initiative that issues large, long-term guaranteed bonds for export sales like commercial aircraft.
I was also pleased that President Obama recently nominated Ex-Im Bank Vice Chair Wanda Felton for a second term here. Among her accomplishments, she’s been a driving force behind our successful expansion of financing exports to Sub-Saharan Africa. We look forward to her timely confirmation by the Senate.
Sadly, Director Larry Walther left the Bank earlier this month after two years of outstanding service as a member of our Board of Directors. Larry is a seasoned pro in trade finance and promotion here and in his beloved Arkansas, where he returns for some well-earned relaxation.
None of these successes would have been possible without the creativity, hard work and dedication of Ex-Im staff – in support of our exporters who continue to sell world-class goods and services to buyers in over 150 countries. You are a great team, and I’m proud to work with you.
Sincerely,
Fred P. Hochberg
FORMER SENIOR EXECUTIVE PLEADS GUILTY IN $400 MILLION SECURITIES FRAUD CASE
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Former Senior Executive of ArthroCare Corp. Pleads Guilty in $400 Million Securities Fraud Scheme
A former senior executive of ArthroCare Corp., a publicly traded medical device company based in Austin, Texas, pleaded guilty for his role in a scheme to defraud the company’s shareholders and members of the investing public by falsely inflating ArthroCare’s earnings, announced Acting Assistant Attorney Mythili Raman of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas. The plea was taken under seal on June 24, 2013, and unsealed late yesterday.
John Raffle, 45, of Austin, pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Lane in Austin to conspiracy to commit securities, mail and wire fraud and two false statements violations. Raffle was the senior vice president of Strategic Business Units at ArthroCare, overseeing all sales and marketing staff at the company. Raffle admitted that he and other co-conspirators falsely inflated ArthroCare’s sales and revenue through a series of end-of-quarter transactions involving ArthroCare’s distributors and that he and other co-conspirators caused ArthroCare to file a Form 10-K for 2007 and Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2008 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that materially misrepresented ArthroCare’s quarterly and annual sales, revenues, expenses and earnings. As part of his plea, Raffle agreed that his conduct and the conduct of his co-conspirators caused more than $400 million in losses to shareholders.
According to court documents, Raffle and others determined the type and amount of product to be shipped to distributors – notably ArthroCare’s largest distributor, DiscoCare Inc. – based on ArthroCare’s need to meet sales forecasts, rather than the distributors’ actual orders. Raffle and others then caused ArthroCare to “park” millions of dollars worth of ArthroCare’s medical devices at its distributors at the end of each relevant quarter. ArthroCare would then report these shipments as sales in its quarterly and annual filings at the time of the shipment, enabling the company to meet or exceed internal and external earnings forecasts.
According to the superseding information, DiscoCare agreed to accept shipment of approximately $37 million of product in exchange for substantial, upfront cash commissions, extended payment terms and the ability to return product, as well as other special conditions, allowing ArthroCare to falsely inflate its revenue by tens of millions of dollars. To conceal the fact that DiscoCare owed ArthroCare a substantial amount of money on the unused inventory, Raffle and others caused ArthroCare to acquire DiscoCare on Dec. 31, 2007.
According to court documents, between December 2005 and December 2008, ArthroCare’s shareholders held more than 25 million shares of ArthroCare stock. On July 21, 2008, after ArthroCare announced publicly that it would be restating its previously reported financial results from the third quarter 2006 through the first quarter 2008 to reflect the results of an internal investigation, the price of ArthroCare shares dropped from $40.03 to $23.21 per share. The drop in ArthroCare’s share price caused an immediate loss in shareholder value of more than $400 million.
Raffle faces a maximum prison sentence of five years in prison for each charge. A sentencing date has yet to be scheduled. Raffle’s co-defendant David Applegate pleaded guilty on May 9, 2013. ArthroCare’s Chief Executive Officer, Michael Baker, and Chief Financial Officer, Michael Gluk, were indicted as part of the same alleged securities fraud scheme on July 16, 2013. An indictment is merely a charge, and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
This case was investigated by the FBI’s Austin office. The case is being prosecuted by Deputy Chief Benjamin D. Singer and Trial Attorneys Henry P. Van Dyck and William Chang of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section. The Department recognizes the substantial assistance of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Former Senior Executive of ArthroCare Corp. Pleads Guilty in $400 Million Securities Fraud Scheme
A former senior executive of ArthroCare Corp., a publicly traded medical device company based in Austin, Texas, pleaded guilty for his role in a scheme to defraud the company’s shareholders and members of the investing public by falsely inflating ArthroCare’s earnings, announced Acting Assistant Attorney Mythili Raman of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas. The plea was taken under seal on June 24, 2013, and unsealed late yesterday.
John Raffle, 45, of Austin, pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Lane in Austin to conspiracy to commit securities, mail and wire fraud and two false statements violations. Raffle was the senior vice president of Strategic Business Units at ArthroCare, overseeing all sales and marketing staff at the company. Raffle admitted that he and other co-conspirators falsely inflated ArthroCare’s sales and revenue through a series of end-of-quarter transactions involving ArthroCare’s distributors and that he and other co-conspirators caused ArthroCare to file a Form 10-K for 2007 and Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2008 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that materially misrepresented ArthroCare’s quarterly and annual sales, revenues, expenses and earnings. As part of his plea, Raffle agreed that his conduct and the conduct of his co-conspirators caused more than $400 million in losses to shareholders.
According to court documents, Raffle and others determined the type and amount of product to be shipped to distributors – notably ArthroCare’s largest distributor, DiscoCare Inc. – based on ArthroCare’s need to meet sales forecasts, rather than the distributors’ actual orders. Raffle and others then caused ArthroCare to “park” millions of dollars worth of ArthroCare’s medical devices at its distributors at the end of each relevant quarter. ArthroCare would then report these shipments as sales in its quarterly and annual filings at the time of the shipment, enabling the company to meet or exceed internal and external earnings forecasts.
According to the superseding information, DiscoCare agreed to accept shipment of approximately $37 million of product in exchange for substantial, upfront cash commissions, extended payment terms and the ability to return product, as well as other special conditions, allowing ArthroCare to falsely inflate its revenue by tens of millions of dollars. To conceal the fact that DiscoCare owed ArthroCare a substantial amount of money on the unused inventory, Raffle and others caused ArthroCare to acquire DiscoCare on Dec. 31, 2007.
According to court documents, between December 2005 and December 2008, ArthroCare’s shareholders held more than 25 million shares of ArthroCare stock. On July 21, 2008, after ArthroCare announced publicly that it would be restating its previously reported financial results from the third quarter 2006 through the first quarter 2008 to reflect the results of an internal investigation, the price of ArthroCare shares dropped from $40.03 to $23.21 per share. The drop in ArthroCare’s share price caused an immediate loss in shareholder value of more than $400 million.
Raffle faces a maximum prison sentence of five years in prison for each charge. A sentencing date has yet to be scheduled. Raffle’s co-defendant David Applegate pleaded guilty on May 9, 2013. ArthroCare’s Chief Executive Officer, Michael Baker, and Chief Financial Officer, Michael Gluk, were indicted as part of the same alleged securities fraud scheme on July 16, 2013. An indictment is merely a charge, and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
This case was investigated by the FBI’s Austin office. The case is being prosecuted by Deputy Chief Benjamin D. Singer and Trial Attorneys Henry P. Van Dyck and William Chang of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section. The Department recognizes the substantial assistance of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
THE LITTLE ROVER BELOW
FROM: NASA
NASA's Mars Science Laboratory rover Curiosity appears as a bluish dot near the lower right corner of this enhanced-color view from the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. The rover's tracks are visible extending from the landing site, "Bradbury Landing," in the left half of the scene. Two bright, relatively blue spots surrounded by darker patches are where the Mars Science Laboratory spacecraft's landing jets cleared away reddish surface dust at the landing site. North is toward the top. For scale, the two parallel lines of the wheel tracks are about 10 feet (3 meters) apart. HiRISE shot this image on June 27, 2013, when Curiosity was at an outcrop called "Shaler" in the "Glenelg" area of Gale Crater. Subsequently the rover drove away from Glenelg toward the southwest. When HiRISE captured this view, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was rolled for an eastward-looking angle rather than straight downward. The afternoon sun illuminated the scene from the western sky, so the lighting was nearly behind the camera. Specifically, the angle from sun to orbiter to rover was just 5.47 degrees. This geometry hides shadows and reveals subtle color variations. The image is one product from HiRISE observation ESP_032436_1755. Other image products from this observation are available at http://www.uahirise.org/ESP_032436_1755 . HiRISE is one of six instruments on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. The University of Arizona, Tucson, operates HiRISE, which was built by Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Boulder, Colo. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars Science Laboratory projects for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Univ. of Arizona › Related release.
Monday, July 29, 2013
JOHN KERRY'S REMARKS WITH AMBASSADOR MARTIN INDYK ON ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATIONS
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Ambassador Martin Indyk
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Press Briefing Room
Washington, DC
July 29, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Good morning, everybody. Well, as you all know, it’s taken many hours and many trips to make possible the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. And the negotiators are now en route to Washington, even as we speak here. And I will have more to say about the journey to this moment and what our hopes are after our initial meetings conclude tomorrow.
This effort began with President Obama’s historic trip to Israel and Ramallah in March of this year. And without his commitment, without his conversations there, and without his engagement in this initiative, we would not be here today. The President charged me directly with the responsibility to explore fully the possibility of resuming talks. And in our meetings with President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu, he conveyed his expectations for this process.
Getting to this resumption has also taken the courageous leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. And I salute both of them for their willingness to make difficult decisions and to advocate within their own countries and with their own leadership teams – countries with the Palestinian territories.
I would also like to recognize the important contributions of senior negotiators on both sides, particularly Minister Tzipi Livni and Saeb Erekat, both of whom really stood up and stood strong in the face of very tough criticism at home and whose unwavering commitment made the launch of these talks possible. I look forward to beginning work with them tonight.
Going forward, it’s no secret that this is a difficult process. If it were easy, it would have happened a long time. It’s no secret, therefore, that many difficult choices lie ahead for the negotiators and for the leaders as we seek reasonable compromises on tough, complicated, emotional, and symbolic issues. I think reasonable compromises has to be a keystone of all of this effort. I know the negotiations are going to be tough, but I also know that the consequences of not trying could be worse.
To help the parties navigate the path to peace and to avoid its many pitfalls, we’ll be very fortunate to have on our team on a day-to-day basis, working with the parties wherever they are negotiating a seasoned American diplomat, Ambassador Martin Indyk, who has agreed to take on this critical task at this crucial time as the UN – U.S. – excuse me – U.S. Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations. Assisting Martin will be – as his deputy and as a senior advisor to me – will be Frank Lowenstein, who has been working with me on this process from the beginning.
In his memoir about the peace process, Ambassador Indyk quotes a poem by Samuel Coleridge that begins, “If men could learn from history, what lessons it would teach us!” Ambassador Indyk brings to this challenge his deep appreciation for the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And from his service under President Clinton, Secretary Christopher, and Secretary Albright, he brings a deep appreciation for the art of U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East. That experience has earned Ambassador Indyk the respect of both sides, and they know that he has made the cause of peace his life mission. He knows what has worked and he knows what hasn’t worked, and he knows how important it is to get this right.
Ambassador Indyk is realistic. He understands that Israeli-Palestinian peace will not come easily and it will not happen overnight. But he also understands that there is now a path forward and we must follow that path with urgency. He understands that to ensure that lives are not needlessly lost, we have to ensure that opportunities are not needlessly lost. And he shares my belief that if the leaders on both sides continue to show strong leadership and a willingness to make those tough choices and a willingness to reasonably compromise, then peace is possible.
So Martin, I’m grateful that you’ve agreed to take a leave from your post at the Brookings Institution to serve once again in this most important role. And I know that you are eager to get to work, as am I. Martin.
AMBASSADOR INDYK: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for that generous introduction and for vesting in me such important responsibilities. I am deeply honored to serve you and to serve President Obama in your noble endeavor to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace. The fact that later today Israeli and Palestinian negotiators will sit down in this building to resume final status negotiations after a three-year hiatus is testament to your extraordinary tireless efforts, backed by President Obama, to try to resolve this intractable conflict.
President Obama made the case so eloquently in his historic speech in Jerusalem in March of this year when he argued to an audience of young Israelis that, quote, “Peace is necessary, peace is just, and peace is possible.” And you, Mr. Secretary, have proven him right. You’ve shown that it can be done.
I couldn’t agree more with President Obama. It’s been my conviction for 40 years that peace is possible since I experienced the agony of the 1973 Yom Kippur War as a student in Jerusalem. In those dark days, I witnessed firsthand how one of your predecessors, Henry Kissinger, brokered a ceasefire that ended the war and paved the way for peace between Israel and Egypt.
Because of your confidence that it could be done, you took up the challenge when most people thought you were on a mission impossible. And backed by the President, you drove the effort with persistence, patience, and creativity. As a result, today, Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Mahmoud Abbas have made the tough decisions required to come back to the negotiating table.
I’m therefore deeply grateful to you and to President Obama for entrusting me with the mission of helping you take this breakthrough and turn it into a full-fledged Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. It is a daunting and humbling challenge, but one that I cannot desist from. I look forward with great excitement to working with you, President Abbas, and Prime Minister Netanyahu, and their teams, to do our best to achieve President Obama’s vision of two states living side-by-side in peace and security. I also look forward to working with the team that you are assembling, starting with Frank Lowenstein, who, as you said, has made such an important contribution to getting us to this point and who will be my partner in this endeavor.
Fifteen years ago my son, Jacob, who was 13 at the time, designed a screensaver for my computer. It consisted of a simple question that flashed across the screen constantly: Dad, is there peace in the Middle East yet? I guess you could say, Mr. Secretary, that he was one of the original skeptics. (Laughter.) But behind that skepticism was also a yearning. And for 15 years, I’ve only been able to answer him, “Not yet.” Perhaps, Mr. Secretary, through your efforts and our support, we may yet be able to tell Jake, and more importantly, all those young Israelis and Palestinians who yearn for a different, better tomorrow, that this time, we actually made it.
Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, all. We’ll see you later. Thank you.
Remarks With Ambassador Martin Indyk
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Press Briefing Room
Washington, DC
July 29, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Good morning, everybody. Well, as you all know, it’s taken many hours and many trips to make possible the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. And the negotiators are now en route to Washington, even as we speak here. And I will have more to say about the journey to this moment and what our hopes are after our initial meetings conclude tomorrow.
This effort began with President Obama’s historic trip to Israel and Ramallah in March of this year. And without his commitment, without his conversations there, and without his engagement in this initiative, we would not be here today. The President charged me directly with the responsibility to explore fully the possibility of resuming talks. And in our meetings with President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu, he conveyed his expectations for this process.
Getting to this resumption has also taken the courageous leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. And I salute both of them for their willingness to make difficult decisions and to advocate within their own countries and with their own leadership teams – countries with the Palestinian territories.
I would also like to recognize the important contributions of senior negotiators on both sides, particularly Minister Tzipi Livni and Saeb Erekat, both of whom really stood up and stood strong in the face of very tough criticism at home and whose unwavering commitment made the launch of these talks possible. I look forward to beginning work with them tonight.
Going forward, it’s no secret that this is a difficult process. If it were easy, it would have happened a long time. It’s no secret, therefore, that many difficult choices lie ahead for the negotiators and for the leaders as we seek reasonable compromises on tough, complicated, emotional, and symbolic issues. I think reasonable compromises has to be a keystone of all of this effort. I know the negotiations are going to be tough, but I also know that the consequences of not trying could be worse.
To help the parties navigate the path to peace and to avoid its many pitfalls, we’ll be very fortunate to have on our team on a day-to-day basis, working with the parties wherever they are negotiating a seasoned American diplomat, Ambassador Martin Indyk, who has agreed to take on this critical task at this crucial time as the UN – U.S. – excuse me – U.S. Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations. Assisting Martin will be – as his deputy and as a senior advisor to me – will be Frank Lowenstein, who has been working with me on this process from the beginning.
In his memoir about the peace process, Ambassador Indyk quotes a poem by Samuel Coleridge that begins, “If men could learn from history, what lessons it would teach us!” Ambassador Indyk brings to this challenge his deep appreciation for the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And from his service under President Clinton, Secretary Christopher, and Secretary Albright, he brings a deep appreciation for the art of U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East. That experience has earned Ambassador Indyk the respect of both sides, and they know that he has made the cause of peace his life mission. He knows what has worked and he knows what hasn’t worked, and he knows how important it is to get this right.
Ambassador Indyk is realistic. He understands that Israeli-Palestinian peace will not come easily and it will not happen overnight. But he also understands that there is now a path forward and we must follow that path with urgency. He understands that to ensure that lives are not needlessly lost, we have to ensure that opportunities are not needlessly lost. And he shares my belief that if the leaders on both sides continue to show strong leadership and a willingness to make those tough choices and a willingness to reasonably compromise, then peace is possible.
So Martin, I’m grateful that you’ve agreed to take a leave from your post at the Brookings Institution to serve once again in this most important role. And I know that you are eager to get to work, as am I. Martin.
AMBASSADOR INDYK: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for that generous introduction and for vesting in me such important responsibilities. I am deeply honored to serve you and to serve President Obama in your noble endeavor to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace. The fact that later today Israeli and Palestinian negotiators will sit down in this building to resume final status negotiations after a three-year hiatus is testament to your extraordinary tireless efforts, backed by President Obama, to try to resolve this intractable conflict.
President Obama made the case so eloquently in his historic speech in Jerusalem in March of this year when he argued to an audience of young Israelis that, quote, “Peace is necessary, peace is just, and peace is possible.” And you, Mr. Secretary, have proven him right. You’ve shown that it can be done.
I couldn’t agree more with President Obama. It’s been my conviction for 40 years that peace is possible since I experienced the agony of the 1973 Yom Kippur War as a student in Jerusalem. In those dark days, I witnessed firsthand how one of your predecessors, Henry Kissinger, brokered a ceasefire that ended the war and paved the way for peace between Israel and Egypt.
Because of your confidence that it could be done, you took up the challenge when most people thought you were on a mission impossible. And backed by the President, you drove the effort with persistence, patience, and creativity. As a result, today, Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Mahmoud Abbas have made the tough decisions required to come back to the negotiating table.
I’m therefore deeply grateful to you and to President Obama for entrusting me with the mission of helping you take this breakthrough and turn it into a full-fledged Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. It is a daunting and humbling challenge, but one that I cannot desist from. I look forward with great excitement to working with you, President Abbas, and Prime Minister Netanyahu, and their teams, to do our best to achieve President Obama’s vision of two states living side-by-side in peace and security. I also look forward to working with the team that you are assembling, starting with Frank Lowenstein, who, as you said, has made such an important contribution to getting us to this point and who will be my partner in this endeavor.
Fifteen years ago my son, Jacob, who was 13 at the time, designed a screensaver for my computer. It consisted of a simple question that flashed across the screen constantly: Dad, is there peace in the Middle East yet? I guess you could say, Mr. Secretary, that he was one of the original skeptics. (Laughter.) But behind that skepticism was also a yearning. And for 15 years, I’ve only been able to answer him, “Not yet.” Perhaps, Mr. Secretary, through your efforts and our support, we may yet be able to tell Jake, and more importantly, all those young Israelis and Palestinians who yearn for a different, better tomorrow, that this time, we actually made it.
Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, all. We’ll see you later. Thank you.
FDIC ENCOURAGES LENDERS TO WORK WITH STUDENT BORROWERS
FROM: FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Agencies Encourage Lenders to Work with Student Loan Borrowers
WASHINGTON — The federal bank regulatory agencies today issued a statement encouraging financial institutions to work constructively with private student loan borrowers experiencing financial difficulties. Prudent workout arrangements are consistent with safe and sound lending practices and are generally in the long-term best interest of both the financial institution and the borrower.
Student loan borrowers who are unemployed or underemployed may face hardship in making payments on their private student loan debts after separation from school or during periods of economic difficulty. Current interagency guidance permits prudent workout and modification programs for retail loans, including student loans, and provides that extensions, deferrals, renewals, and rewrites may be used to help borrowers overcome temporary financial difficulties. Institutions that have private student loan workout programs should provide borrowers with information that clearly explains the programs, including eligibility criteria and the process for requesting a modification.
The statement is being issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
Agencies Encourage Lenders to Work with Student Loan Borrowers
WASHINGTON — The federal bank regulatory agencies today issued a statement encouraging financial institutions to work constructively with private student loan borrowers experiencing financial difficulties. Prudent workout arrangements are consistent with safe and sound lending practices and are generally in the long-term best interest of both the financial institution and the borrower.
Student loan borrowers who are unemployed or underemployed may face hardship in making payments on their private student loan debts after separation from school or during periods of economic difficulty. Current interagency guidance permits prudent workout and modification programs for retail loans, including student loans, and provides that extensions, deferrals, renewals, and rewrites may be used to help borrowers overcome temporary financial difficulties. Institutions that have private student loan workout programs should provide borrowers with information that clearly explains the programs, including eligibility criteria and the process for requesting a modification.
The statement is being issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
THREE UBS EXECUTIVES SENTENCED TO PRISON
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Three Former UBS Executives Sentenced to Serve Time in Prison for Frauds Involving Contracts Related to the Investment of Municipal Bond Proceeds
Three former financial services executives were sentenced today in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for their participation in frauds related to bidding for contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds and other municipal finance contracts, the Department of Justice announced.
Peter Ghavami, Gary Heinz and Michael Welty, all former UBS AG executives, were convicted on Aug. 31, 2012, after a five-week trial for their roles in the frauds. They were sentenced today by U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood. Ghavami was sentenced to serve 18 months in prison and to pay a $1 million criminal fine; Heinz was sentenced to serve 27 months in prison and to pay a $400,000 criminal fine; and Welty was sentenced to serve 16 months in prison and to pay a $300,000 criminal fine.
“For years, these executives corrupted the competitive bidding process and defrauded municipalities across the country for important public works projects,” said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program. “The division will continue to prosecute those who subvert and corrupt competitive markets for personal profit.”
According to evidence presented at trial, while employed at UBS, Ghavami, Heinz and Welty participated in multiple fraud conspiracies and schemes with various financial institutions and with a broker, at various time periods from as early as March 2001 until at least November 2006. These financial institutions, or providers, offered a type of contract – known as an investment agreement – to state, county and local governments and agencies, and not-for-profit entities, 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. Public entities typically hire a broker to assist them in investing their money and to conduct a competitive bidding process to determine the winning provider.
At trial, the Department of Justice showed that while acting as providers, Ghavami, Heinz and Welty conspired with other providers and with a broker to corrupt the bidding process for more than a dozen investment agreements in order to increase the number and profitability of the agreements awarded to UBS. At other times, while acting as brokers, Ghavami, Heinz, Welty and their co-conspirators arranged for UBS to receive kickbacks in exchange for manipulating the bidding process and steering investment agreements to certain providers. Ghavami, Heinz and Welty deprived the municipalities of competitive interest rates for the investment of tax-exempt bond proceeds that were to be used by municipalities to refinance outstanding debt and 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 and the U.S. Treasury millions of dolla rs.
During the trial, the government presented specific evidence relating to 26 corrupted bids, including 76 recorded conversations made by the co-conspirator financial institutions. Among the issuers and not-for-profit entities whose agreements or contracts were subject to the defendants’ schemes were the commonwealth of Massachusetts, the New Mexico Educational Assistance Foundation, the Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation of Rhode Island, the Hospital Authority of Forsyth County, Ga., and the RWJ Health Care Corp. at Hamilton in New Jersey.
“The charges against these individuals outline a deceptive scheme to subvert competition in the marketplace. Those who engage in this type of criminal activity not only stand to defraud public entities, but erode the public’s trust in the competitive bidding process,” said George Venizelos, Acting Director in Charge of the FBI in New York. “The sentences announced today remind the public that the FBI will continue to work with the Antitrust Division to ensure the integrity of competitive bidding in public finance.”
“Those who manipulate the competitive bidding system to benefit themselves will be held accountable for their criminal activity,” said Richard Weber, Chief, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI). “The defendants conspired with others to corrupt the bidding process for more than a dozen investment agreements in order to increase the profitability of the agreements awarded to UBS. Quite simply, they enriched themselves at the expense of the towns and cities that needed the money for important public works projects such as building and repairing schools, hospitals and roads. IRS-CI is committed to using our financial expertise to uncover this kind of corruption.”
Ghavami was found guilty on two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of substantive wire fraud. Heinz was found guilty on three counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and two counts of substantive wire fraud. Welty was found guilty on three counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
A total of 20 individuals have been charged as a result of the department’s ongoing municipal bonds investigation, and 19 have been convicted or pleaded guilty. Another individual awaits trial. Additionally, one company, Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill Insurance Services Inc. has pleaded guilty.
The sentences announced today resulted from an ongoing investigation conducted by the Antitrust Division’s New York and Chicago Offices, 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 charges were brought in connection with the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. The task force was established 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 nearly 10,000 financial fraud cases against nearly 15,000 defendants including more than 2,900 mortgage fraud defendants.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Three Former UBS Executives Sentenced to Serve Time in Prison for Frauds Involving Contracts Related to the Investment of Municipal Bond Proceeds
Three former financial services executives were sentenced today in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for their participation in frauds related to bidding for contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds and other municipal finance contracts, the Department of Justice announced.
Peter Ghavami, Gary Heinz and Michael Welty, all former UBS AG executives, were convicted on Aug. 31, 2012, after a five-week trial for their roles in the frauds. They were sentenced today by U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood. Ghavami was sentenced to serve 18 months in prison and to pay a $1 million criminal fine; Heinz was sentenced to serve 27 months in prison and to pay a $400,000 criminal fine; and Welty was sentenced to serve 16 months in prison and to pay a $300,000 criminal fine.
“For years, these executives corrupted the competitive bidding process and defrauded municipalities across the country for important public works projects,” said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program. “The division will continue to prosecute those who subvert and corrupt competitive markets for personal profit.”
According to evidence presented at trial, while employed at UBS, Ghavami, Heinz and Welty participated in multiple fraud conspiracies and schemes with various financial institutions and with a broker, at various time periods from as early as March 2001 until at least November 2006. These financial institutions, or providers, offered a type of contract – known as an investment agreement – to state, county and local governments and agencies, and not-for-profit entities, 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. Public entities typically hire a broker to assist them in investing their money and to conduct a competitive bidding process to determine the winning provider.
At trial, the Department of Justice showed that while acting as providers, Ghavami, Heinz and Welty conspired with other providers and with a broker to corrupt the bidding process for more than a dozen investment agreements in order to increase the number and profitability of the agreements awarded to UBS. At other times, while acting as brokers, Ghavami, Heinz, Welty and their co-conspirators arranged for UBS to receive kickbacks in exchange for manipulating the bidding process and steering investment agreements to certain providers. Ghavami, Heinz and Welty deprived the municipalities of competitive interest rates for the investment of tax-exempt bond proceeds that were to be used by municipalities to refinance outstanding debt and 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 and the U.S. Treasury millions of dolla rs.
During the trial, the government presented specific evidence relating to 26 corrupted bids, including 76 recorded conversations made by the co-conspirator financial institutions. Among the issuers and not-for-profit entities whose agreements or contracts were subject to the defendants’ schemes were the commonwealth of Massachusetts, the New Mexico Educational Assistance Foundation, the Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation of Rhode Island, the Hospital Authority of Forsyth County, Ga., and the RWJ Health Care Corp. at Hamilton in New Jersey.
“The charges against these individuals outline a deceptive scheme to subvert competition in the marketplace. Those who engage in this type of criminal activity not only stand to defraud public entities, but erode the public’s trust in the competitive bidding process,” said George Venizelos, Acting Director in Charge of the FBI in New York. “The sentences announced today remind the public that the FBI will continue to work with the Antitrust Division to ensure the integrity of competitive bidding in public finance.”
“Those who manipulate the competitive bidding system to benefit themselves will be held accountable for their criminal activity,” said Richard Weber, Chief, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI). “The defendants conspired with others to corrupt the bidding process for more than a dozen investment agreements in order to increase the profitability of the agreements awarded to UBS. Quite simply, they enriched themselves at the expense of the towns and cities that needed the money for important public works projects such as building and repairing schools, hospitals and roads. IRS-CI is committed to using our financial expertise to uncover this kind of corruption.”
Ghavami was found guilty on two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of substantive wire fraud. Heinz was found guilty on three counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and two counts of substantive wire fraud. Welty was found guilty on three counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
A total of 20 individuals have been charged as a result of the department’s ongoing municipal bonds investigation, and 19 have been convicted or pleaded guilty. Another individual awaits trial. Additionally, one company, Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill Insurance Services Inc. has pleaded guilty.
The sentences announced today resulted from an ongoing investigation conducted by the Antitrust Division’s New York and Chicago Offices, 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 charges were brought in connection with the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. The task force was established 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 nearly 10,000 financial fraud cases against nearly 15,000 defendants including more than 2,900 mortgage fraud defendants.
DECLINE OF THE POLLINATORS
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Bee Faithful? Plant-Pollinator Relationships Compromised When Bee Species Decline
Remove even one bumblebee species from an ecosystem and the effect is swift and clear: Pollination is less effective, and plants produce significantly fewer seeds.
This according to research published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that focuses on the interactions between bumblebees and larkspur wildflowers in Colorado's Rocky Mountains.
The findings show that reduced competition among pollinators disrupts floral fidelity, or specialization, among the remaining bees in the system, leading to less successful plant reproduction.
"We found that these wildflowers produce one-third fewer seeds in the absence of just one bumblebee species," says Emory University ecologist Berry Brosi, who led the study.
"That's alarming and suggests that global declines in pollinators could have a bigger effect on flowering plants and food crops than was previously realized."
The National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the research; the paper was co-authored by ecologist Heather Briggs of the University of California-Santa Cruz.
"This study shows that the loss of a single bee species can harm pollination and reproduction of all flowering plant species in an ecosystem," says Alan Tessier, program director in NSF's Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research.
"What's equally impressive is the demonstration of the mechanisms--that the loss of a single species changes the foraging behavior of all the remaining bee species."
About 90 percent of plants need animals, mostly insects, to transfer pollen between them so they can fertilize and reproduce.
Bees are by far the most important pollinators worldwide and have co-evolved with the floral resources they need for nutrition.
During the past decade, however, scientists have reported dramatic declines in populations of some bee species.
Some studies have indicated that plants can tolerate losing most pollinator species in an ecosystem as long as other pollinators remain to take up the slack. Those studies, however, were based on theoretical computer modeling.
Brosi and Briggs were curious about whether this theoretical resilience would hold up in real-life scenarios.
The team conducted field experiments to learn how the removal of a single pollinator species would affect the plant-pollinator relationship.
"Most pollinators visit several plant species over their lifetimes, but often will display what we call floral fidelity over shorter time periods," Brosi says.
"They'll tend to focus on one plant while it's in bloom, then a few weeks later move on to the next species in bloom. You might think of them as serial monogamists."
Floral fidelity clearly benefits plants, because a pollinator visit will only lead to plant reproduction when the pollinator is carrying pollen from the same plant species.
"When bees are 'promiscuous,' visiting plants of more than one species during a single foraging session, they are much less effective as pollinators," Briggs says.
The researchers conducted their experiments at the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory near Crested Butte, Colo.
Located at 9,500 feet, the facility's subalpine meadows are too high for honeybees, but they are buzzing during the summer months with bumblebees.
The experiments focused on the interactions of the insects with larkspurs, dark purple wildflowers that are visited by 10 of the 11 bumblebee species there.
The researchers studied a series of 20-meter-square wildflower plots, evaluating each one in both a control state, left in its natural condition, and in a manipulated state, in which nets were used to remove the bumblebees of just one species.
The researchers then observed bumblebee behavior in both the control plots and the manipulated plots.
"We'd literally follow around the bumblebees as they foraged," Briggs says. "It's challenging because the bees can fly pretty fast."
Sometimes the researchers could only record between five and 10 movements, while in other cases they could follow the bees to 100 or more flowers.
"When we caught bees to remove target species from the system, or to swab their bodies for pollen, we released them unharmed," Brosi says.
No researchers were harmed either, he adds. "Stings were very uncommon during the experiments. Bumblebees are quite gentle on the whole."
Across the steps of the pollination process, from patterns of bumblebee visits to plants, to picking up pollen, to seed production, the researchers saw a cascading effect of removing one bee species.
While about 78 percent of the bumblebees in the control groups were faithful to a single species of flower, only 66 percent of the bumblebees in the manipulated groups showed such floral fidelity.
The reduced fidelity in manipulated plots meant that bees in those groups carried more types of pollen than those in the control groups.
The changes had direct implications for plant reproduction: Larkspurs produced about one-third fewer seeds when one of the bumblebee species was removed, compared to larkspurs in the control groups.
"The small change in the level of competition made the remaining bees more likely to 'cheat' on the larkspur," Briggs says.
While previous research has shown how competition drives specialization within a species, the bumblebee study is one of the first to link this mechanism to the broader functioning of an ecosystem.
"Our work shows why biodiversity may be key to the conservation of an entire ecosystem," Brosi says.
"It has the potential to open a whole new set of studies into the implications of interspecies interactions."
-NSF-
Bee Faithful? Plant-Pollinator Relationships Compromised When Bee Species Decline
Remove even one bumblebee species from an ecosystem and the effect is swift and clear: Pollination is less effective, and plants produce significantly fewer seeds.
This according to research published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that focuses on the interactions between bumblebees and larkspur wildflowers in Colorado's Rocky Mountains.
The findings show that reduced competition among pollinators disrupts floral fidelity, or specialization, among the remaining bees in the system, leading to less successful plant reproduction.
"We found that these wildflowers produce one-third fewer seeds in the absence of just one bumblebee species," says Emory University ecologist Berry Brosi, who led the study.
"That's alarming and suggests that global declines in pollinators could have a bigger effect on flowering plants and food crops than was previously realized."
The National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the research; the paper was co-authored by ecologist Heather Briggs of the University of California-Santa Cruz.
"This study shows that the loss of a single bee species can harm pollination and reproduction of all flowering plant species in an ecosystem," says Alan Tessier, program director in NSF's Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research.
"What's equally impressive is the demonstration of the mechanisms--that the loss of a single species changes the foraging behavior of all the remaining bee species."
About 90 percent of plants need animals, mostly insects, to transfer pollen between them so they can fertilize and reproduce.
Bees are by far the most important pollinators worldwide and have co-evolved with the floral resources they need for nutrition.
During the past decade, however, scientists have reported dramatic declines in populations of some bee species.
Some studies have indicated that plants can tolerate losing most pollinator species in an ecosystem as long as other pollinators remain to take up the slack. Those studies, however, were based on theoretical computer modeling.
Brosi and Briggs were curious about whether this theoretical resilience would hold up in real-life scenarios.
The team conducted field experiments to learn how the removal of a single pollinator species would affect the plant-pollinator relationship.
"Most pollinators visit several plant species over their lifetimes, but often will display what we call floral fidelity over shorter time periods," Brosi says.
"They'll tend to focus on one plant while it's in bloom, then a few weeks later move on to the next species in bloom. You might think of them as serial monogamists."
Floral fidelity clearly benefits plants, because a pollinator visit will only lead to plant reproduction when the pollinator is carrying pollen from the same plant species.
"When bees are 'promiscuous,' visiting plants of more than one species during a single foraging session, they are much less effective as pollinators," Briggs says.
The researchers conducted their experiments at the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory near Crested Butte, Colo.
Located at 9,500 feet, the facility's subalpine meadows are too high for honeybees, but they are buzzing during the summer months with bumblebees.
The experiments focused on the interactions of the insects with larkspurs, dark purple wildflowers that are visited by 10 of the 11 bumblebee species there.
The researchers studied a series of 20-meter-square wildflower plots, evaluating each one in both a control state, left in its natural condition, and in a manipulated state, in which nets were used to remove the bumblebees of just one species.
The researchers then observed bumblebee behavior in both the control plots and the manipulated plots.
"We'd literally follow around the bumblebees as they foraged," Briggs says. "It's challenging because the bees can fly pretty fast."
Sometimes the researchers could only record between five and 10 movements, while in other cases they could follow the bees to 100 or more flowers.
"When we caught bees to remove target species from the system, or to swab their bodies for pollen, we released them unharmed," Brosi says.
No researchers were harmed either, he adds. "Stings were very uncommon during the experiments. Bumblebees are quite gentle on the whole."
Across the steps of the pollination process, from patterns of bumblebee visits to plants, to picking up pollen, to seed production, the researchers saw a cascading effect of removing one bee species.
While about 78 percent of the bumblebees in the control groups were faithful to a single species of flower, only 66 percent of the bumblebees in the manipulated groups showed such floral fidelity.
The reduced fidelity in manipulated plots meant that bees in those groups carried more types of pollen than those in the control groups.
The changes had direct implications for plant reproduction: Larkspurs produced about one-third fewer seeds when one of the bumblebee species was removed, compared to larkspurs in the control groups.
"The small change in the level of competition made the remaining bees more likely to 'cheat' on the larkspur," Briggs says.
While previous research has shown how competition drives specialization within a species, the bumblebee study is one of the first to link this mechanism to the broader functioning of an ecosystem.
"Our work shows why biodiversity may be key to the conservation of an entire ecosystem," Brosi says.
"It has the potential to open a whole new set of studies into the implications of interspecies interactions."
-NSF-
Sunday, July 28, 2013
CDC WARNS THAT HPV VACCINE IS UNDERUTILIZED IN GIRLS AGED 13-17
FROM: CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL
HPV vaccine: Safe, effective, and grossly underutilized
In a press conference held today, top officials from CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics announced that HPV vaccination rates in girls aged 13-17 years failed to increase between 2011 and 2012, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Three-dose coverage actually declined slightly from 2011 to 2012.
The article in CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) drew on data from the 2012 National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen).
Among girls unvaccinated for HPV, 84 percent had a healthcare visit where they received another vaccine (such as one aimed at meningitis or pertussis) but not HPV vaccine. If HPV vaccine had been administered, vaccination coverage for ≥1 dose could be nearly 93 percent rather than 54 percent.
"Progress increasing HPV vaccination has stalled, risking the health of the next generation.," said CDC Director Tom Frieden M.D., M.P.H. "Doctors need to step up their efforts by talking to parents about the importance of HPV vaccine just as they do other vaccines and ensure its given at every opportunity."
According to CDC, for each year the 3-dose HPV vaccine series coverage remains near the current level of 33 perccent instead of achieving the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80 percent coverage, an additional 4,400 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer and 1,400 cervical cancer-attributable deaths will occur in the future.
The 2012 NIS-Teen data show that not receiving a healthcare provider's recommendation for HPV vaccine was one of the five main reasons parents reported for not vaccinating daughters. Healthcare providers are urged to give a strong recommendation for HPV vaccination for boys and girls aged 11 or 12 years.
The other responses parents provided indicate gaps in understanding about the vaccine, including why vaccination is recommended at ages 11 or 12.
"Parents need reassurance that HPV vaccine is recommended at 11 or 12 because it should be given well in advance of any sexual activity," said Dr. Frieden. "We don't wait for exposure to occur before we vaccinate with any other routinely recommended vaccine."
Parents also reported safety concerns as a reason for not vaccinating. In the seven years of post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring and evaluation conducted independently by federal agencies and vaccine manufacturers, no serious safety concerns have been identified. According to today's MMWR article, reports of adverse events after HPV vaccination to the Vaccine
Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) have steadily decreased from 2008 to 2012 and the numbers of serious adverse events reported has also declined since 2009.
Approximately 79 million Americans are currently infected with HPV. About 14 million people become newly infected each year. HPV is so common that nearly all sexually-active men and women will get at least one type of HPV at some point in their lives.
Parents and caregivers are encouraged to ask about vaccination every time they take children for a healthcare visit. If a preteen boy or girl (aged 11 or 12 years) has not started the HPV vaccine series, make an appointment to get him or her vaccinated. Teens who haven't started or finished the 3-dose series should do so—it's not too late for them to receive HPV vaccine.
For many, it's easier than ever to get the HPV vaccine. Because of the Affordable Care Act, most private health insurance plans must cover the HPV vaccine at no out-of-pocket cost, meaning no co-pay or deductible. Visit https://www.healthcare.gov/what-are-my-preventive-care-benefits/#part=3External Web Site Icon for more information.
CDC officials urge healthcare providers to increase the consistency and strength of how they recommend HPV vaccine, especially when patients are 11 or 12 years old. Reviewing vaccination status at every healthcare encounter and taking advantage of every visit, including acute care visits, can increase HPV vaccine coverage in the United States.
HPV vaccine is an anti-cancer vaccine. Preteen and teens are relying on the adults in their lives to help protect them.
National and state vaccination coverage data for adolescent immunization will be released late August 2013 in the MMWR and will include HPV vaccine coverage for both girls and boys.
HPV vaccine: Safe, effective, and grossly underutilized
In a press conference held today, top officials from CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics announced that HPV vaccination rates in girls aged 13-17 years failed to increase between 2011 and 2012, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Three-dose coverage actually declined slightly from 2011 to 2012.
The article in CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) drew on data from the 2012 National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen).
Among girls unvaccinated for HPV, 84 percent had a healthcare visit where they received another vaccine (such as one aimed at meningitis or pertussis) but not HPV vaccine. If HPV vaccine had been administered, vaccination coverage for ≥1 dose could be nearly 93 percent rather than 54 percent.
"Progress increasing HPV vaccination has stalled, risking the health of the next generation.," said CDC Director Tom Frieden M.D., M.P.H. "Doctors need to step up their efforts by talking to parents about the importance of HPV vaccine just as they do other vaccines and ensure its given at every opportunity."
According to CDC, for each year the 3-dose HPV vaccine series coverage remains near the current level of 33 perccent instead of achieving the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80 percent coverage, an additional 4,400 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer and 1,400 cervical cancer-attributable deaths will occur in the future.
The 2012 NIS-Teen data show that not receiving a healthcare provider's recommendation for HPV vaccine was one of the five main reasons parents reported for not vaccinating daughters. Healthcare providers are urged to give a strong recommendation for HPV vaccination for boys and girls aged 11 or 12 years.
The other responses parents provided indicate gaps in understanding about the vaccine, including why vaccination is recommended at ages 11 or 12.
"Parents need reassurance that HPV vaccine is recommended at 11 or 12 because it should be given well in advance of any sexual activity," said Dr. Frieden. "We don't wait for exposure to occur before we vaccinate with any other routinely recommended vaccine."
Parents also reported safety concerns as a reason for not vaccinating. In the seven years of post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring and evaluation conducted independently by federal agencies and vaccine manufacturers, no serious safety concerns have been identified. According to today's MMWR article, reports of adverse events after HPV vaccination to the Vaccine
Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) have steadily decreased from 2008 to 2012 and the numbers of serious adverse events reported has also declined since 2009.
Approximately 79 million Americans are currently infected with HPV. About 14 million people become newly infected each year. HPV is so common that nearly all sexually-active men and women will get at least one type of HPV at some point in their lives.
Parents and caregivers are encouraged to ask about vaccination every time they take children for a healthcare visit. If a preteen boy or girl (aged 11 or 12 years) has not started the HPV vaccine series, make an appointment to get him or her vaccinated. Teens who haven't started or finished the 3-dose series should do so—it's not too late for them to receive HPV vaccine.
For many, it's easier than ever to get the HPV vaccine. Because of the Affordable Care Act, most private health insurance plans must cover the HPV vaccine at no out-of-pocket cost, meaning no co-pay or deductible. Visit https://www.healthcare.gov/what-are-my-preventive-care-benefits/#part=3External Web Site Icon for more information.
CDC officials urge healthcare providers to increase the consistency and strength of how they recommend HPV vaccine, especially when patients are 11 or 12 years old. Reviewing vaccination status at every healthcare encounter and taking advantage of every visit, including acute care visits, can increase HPV vaccine coverage in the United States.
HPV vaccine is an anti-cancer vaccine. Preteen and teens are relying on the adults in their lives to help protect them.
National and state vaccination coverage data for adolescent immunization will be released late August 2013 in the MMWR and will include HPV vaccine coverage for both girls and boys.
LABOR DEPARTMENT SAYS 85% OF FULL-TIME PRIVATE INDUSTRY WORKERS COVERED BY EMPLOYER-PROVIDED MEDICAL CARE
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employer-provided medical care was available to 85 percent of full-time private industry workers in the United States in March 2013, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. By contrast, only 24 percent of part-time workers had medical care benefits available. Access, or availability, also varied by employment size: 57 percent for all workers in small establishments (those with fewer than 100 employees), compared with 85 percent in medium and large establishments (those with 100 employees or more).
Retirement benefits followed a similar pattern as medical care benefits. In private industry, 74 percent of full-time workers had access to a retirement plan, significantly higher than 37 percent of part-time workers. Retirement benefits were available to 49 percent of workers in small establishments and 82 percent of workers in medium and large establishments. A worker with access to a medical or retirement plan is defined as having an employer-provided plan available for use, regardless of the workers’ decision to enroll or participate in the plan. (See charts 1 and 2.)
Paid sick leave benefits were also more commonly offered to full-time workers and those in medium and large establishments in private industry. Plans were offered to 74 percent of full-time workers and 24 percent of part-time workers. Similarly, 51 percent of workers in small establishments and 72 percent in medium and large establishments had access to a paid sick leave benefit. (See charts 1 and 2 and table 6.)
These data are from the National Compensation Survey (NCS), which provides comprehensive measures of compensation cost trends and incidence and provisions of employee benefit plans.Additional findings include:
* In private industry, 64 percent of employees had access to retirement benefits, significantly less than the 89 percent of state and local government employees with access. Additionally, only 49 percent of private industry employees actually participated in a retirement plan (had current coverage), significantly less than the 85 percent participation rate of state and local government employees. (See table 1.)
* Full-time workers in state and local government had greater access to employer-provided benefits than private industry workers. For example, retirement and medical care benefits were offered to 99 percent of state and local government workers while only 74 percent of full-time employees in private industry had access to retirement benefits and 85 percent to medical care coverage. (See tables 1 and 2.)
* For private industry employees in the lowest 10 percent of average earnings, employers paid 71 percent of the single coverage medical plan premium. For employees in the highest 10 percent of average earnings, the employer share of the premium was 81 percent. For family coverage, the
employer share of the premium was 56 percent for employees in the lowest 10 percent of arnings, significantly less than the 73 percent for employees in the highest 10 percent of earnings. (See tables 3 and 4).
* Access and participation in life insurance benefits varied significantly for full-time and part-time workers. In private industry, 72 percent of full-time workers had access to life insurance benefits. For state and local government workers, 90 percent of full-time workers had access. In contrast, only 14 percent of part-time workers in private industry and 23 percent of state and local government workers had access. Most workers who had access participated in life insurance benefits. (See table 5.)
* Paid holidays were available to 97 percent of management, business, and financial employees in private industry. In contrast, only 53 percent of service employees in private industry were provided paid holidays. (See table 6.)
More information can be obtained by calling (202) 691-6199, sending e-mail to NCSinfo@bls.gov, or by visiting the BLS Internet site, http://www.bls.gov/ebs/home.htm.
NOTE
More information will be published in early fall, including March 2013 data for civilian, private industry, and state and local government workers on the incidence and provisions of health care benefits,
retirement benefits, life insurance, short-term and long-term disability benefits, paid holidays and vacations, and other selected benefits. For the latest benefit publications, see: http://www.bls.gov/ebs.
In addition, new editions of Beyond the Numbers: Pay and Benefits (http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/) will be published featuring the latest benefits data. Beyond the Numbers: Pay and Benefits, brings together employee benefits information from various National Compensation Survey publications into one convenient and easy-to-read format.
Employer-provided medical care was available to 85 percent of full-time private industry workers in the United States in March 2013, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. By contrast, only 24 percent of part-time workers had medical care benefits available. Access, or availability, also varied by employment size: 57 percent for all workers in small establishments (those with fewer than 100 employees), compared with 85 percent in medium and large establishments (those with 100 employees or more).
Retirement benefits followed a similar pattern as medical care benefits. In private industry, 74 percent of full-time workers had access to a retirement plan, significantly higher than 37 percent of part-time workers. Retirement benefits were available to 49 percent of workers in small establishments and 82 percent of workers in medium and large establishments. A worker with access to a medical or retirement plan is defined as having an employer-provided plan available for use, regardless of the workers’ decision to enroll or participate in the plan. (See charts 1 and 2.)
Paid sick leave benefits were also more commonly offered to full-time workers and those in medium and large establishments in private industry. Plans were offered to 74 percent of full-time workers and 24 percent of part-time workers. Similarly, 51 percent of workers in small establishments and 72 percent in medium and large establishments had access to a paid sick leave benefit. (See charts 1 and 2 and table 6.)
These data are from the National Compensation Survey (NCS), which provides comprehensive measures of compensation cost trends and incidence and provisions of employee benefit plans.Additional findings include:
* In private industry, 64 percent of employees had access to retirement benefits, significantly less than the 89 percent of state and local government employees with access. Additionally, only 49 percent of private industry employees actually participated in a retirement plan (had current coverage), significantly less than the 85 percent participation rate of state and local government employees. (See table 1.)
* Full-time workers in state and local government had greater access to employer-provided benefits than private industry workers. For example, retirement and medical care benefits were offered to 99 percent of state and local government workers while only 74 percent of full-time employees in private industry had access to retirement benefits and 85 percent to medical care coverage. (See tables 1 and 2.)
* For private industry employees in the lowest 10 percent of average earnings, employers paid 71 percent of the single coverage medical plan premium. For employees in the highest 10 percent of average earnings, the employer share of the premium was 81 percent. For family coverage, the
employer share of the premium was 56 percent for employees in the lowest 10 percent of arnings, significantly less than the 73 percent for employees in the highest 10 percent of earnings. (See tables 3 and 4).
* Access and participation in life insurance benefits varied significantly for full-time and part-time workers. In private industry, 72 percent of full-time workers had access to life insurance benefits. For state and local government workers, 90 percent of full-time workers had access. In contrast, only 14 percent of part-time workers in private industry and 23 percent of state and local government workers had access. Most workers who had access participated in life insurance benefits. (See table 5.)
* Paid holidays were available to 97 percent of management, business, and financial employees in private industry. In contrast, only 53 percent of service employees in private industry were provided paid holidays. (See table 6.)
More information can be obtained by calling (202) 691-6199, sending e-mail to NCSinfo@bls.gov, or by visiting the BLS Internet site, http://www.bls.gov/ebs/home.htm.
NOTE
More information will be published in early fall, including March 2013 data for civilian, private industry, and state and local government workers on the incidence and provisions of health care benefits,
retirement benefits, life insurance, short-term and long-term disability benefits, paid holidays and vacations, and other selected benefits. For the latest benefit publications, see: http://www.bls.gov/ebs.
In addition, new editions of Beyond the Numbers: Pay and Benefits (http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/) will be published featuring the latest benefits data. Beyond the Numbers: Pay and Benefits, brings together employee benefits information from various National Compensation Survey publications into one convenient and easy-to-read format.
CHINA INTELLIGENT LIGHTING AND OTHERS ARE CHARGED WITH FRAUD BY SEC
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Files Fraud Charges Against China Intelligent Lighting and Electronics, Inc.; NIVS Intellimedia Technology Group, Inc.; and Their Sibling CEOs
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that the Commission filed fraud and other related charges against China Intelligent Lighting and Electronics, Inc. (CIL); NIVS IntelliMedia Technology Group, Inc. (NIV); and their respective CEOs, Xuemei Li and, her brother, Tianfu Li. CIL reports that it is a lighting company, and NIV reports that it is a consumer electronic company. Both are located in China.
The Commission alleges that CIL, NIV, and their CEOs engaged in fraudulent schemes to raise and divert offering proceeds, and then attempted to hide the diversions by lying to auditors and making false and materially misleading filings with the Commission. CIL and NIV are U.S. issuers that raised approximately $7.7 million and $21.5 million, respectively, in public registered offerings in the U.S. capital markets in 2010. Thereafter, Xuemei Li, and Tianfu Li diverted those offering proceeds from CIL and NIV contrary to the stated uses of proceeds set forth in the offering documents. Specifically, on June 24, 2010, $7.7 million in offering proceeds was deposited into CIL’s Hong Kong bank account. The next day, Xuemei Li transferred approximately $6.8 million, or almost 90%, to a company that has no disclosed relation to CIL, but continued to tell CIL’s auditor that the funds remained in the account. Similarly, on April 26, 2010, $21.5 million in offering proceeds was deposited in NIV’s Hong Kong bank account. Even though almost all of the money was transferred out of the Hong Kong bank account by May 5, 2010, NIV and Tianfu Li told the company’s auditor that the funds continued to be held in the account.
In addition to lying to auditors to mask the diversions, CIL, NIV, and their respective CEOs also falsified bank and accounting records to reflect inflated cash balances, and filed false and misleading quarterly reports on Forms 10-Q with the SEC that contained inflated cash balances. In addition, the defendants filed registration statements signed by the Lis that misled investors about how the offering proceeds would be used.
In its complaint, the Commission alleges that the Defendants violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5. The Commission further alleges that Xuemei Li and Tianfu Li lied to the auditors and aided and abetted the companies’ violations of the reporting, recordkeeping, and internal controls provisions of the securities laws, including Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2) (B), and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 13a-14, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2. The Commission seeks permanent injunctive relief to prevent future violations of the federal securities laws, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, officer and director bars, and any other appropriate relief.
The Commission also announced today the entry of an order instituting administrative proceedings to determine whether the registration of each class of securities of CIL and NIV should be revoked for failure to make required periodic filings with the Commission.
SEC Files Fraud Charges Against China Intelligent Lighting and Electronics, Inc.; NIVS Intellimedia Technology Group, Inc.; and Their Sibling CEOs
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that the Commission filed fraud and other related charges against China Intelligent Lighting and Electronics, Inc. (CIL); NIVS IntelliMedia Technology Group, Inc. (NIV); and their respective CEOs, Xuemei Li and, her brother, Tianfu Li. CIL reports that it is a lighting company, and NIV reports that it is a consumer electronic company. Both are located in China.
The Commission alleges that CIL, NIV, and their CEOs engaged in fraudulent schemes to raise and divert offering proceeds, and then attempted to hide the diversions by lying to auditors and making false and materially misleading filings with the Commission. CIL and NIV are U.S. issuers that raised approximately $7.7 million and $21.5 million, respectively, in public registered offerings in the U.S. capital markets in 2010. Thereafter, Xuemei Li, and Tianfu Li diverted those offering proceeds from CIL and NIV contrary to the stated uses of proceeds set forth in the offering documents. Specifically, on June 24, 2010, $7.7 million in offering proceeds was deposited into CIL’s Hong Kong bank account. The next day, Xuemei Li transferred approximately $6.8 million, or almost 90%, to a company that has no disclosed relation to CIL, but continued to tell CIL’s auditor that the funds remained in the account. Similarly, on April 26, 2010, $21.5 million in offering proceeds was deposited in NIV’s Hong Kong bank account. Even though almost all of the money was transferred out of the Hong Kong bank account by May 5, 2010, NIV and Tianfu Li told the company’s auditor that the funds continued to be held in the account.
In addition to lying to auditors to mask the diversions, CIL, NIV, and their respective CEOs also falsified bank and accounting records to reflect inflated cash balances, and filed false and misleading quarterly reports on Forms 10-Q with the SEC that contained inflated cash balances. In addition, the defendants filed registration statements signed by the Lis that misled investors about how the offering proceeds would be used.
In its complaint, the Commission alleges that the Defendants violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5. The Commission further alleges that Xuemei Li and Tianfu Li lied to the auditors and aided and abetted the companies’ violations of the reporting, recordkeeping, and internal controls provisions of the securities laws, including Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2) (B), and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 13a-14, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2. The Commission seeks permanent injunctive relief to prevent future violations of the federal securities laws, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, officer and director bars, and any other appropriate relief.
The Commission also announced today the entry of an order instituting administrative proceedings to determine whether the registration of each class of securities of CIL and NIV should be revoked for failure to make required periodic filings with the Commission.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
READOUT: SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL'S CALL WITH EGYPTIAN DEFENSE MINISTER AL-SISI
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Readout of Secretary Hagel's Call with Egyptian Defense Minister al-Sisi
Pentagon Press Secretary George Little issued the following readout:
"This afternoon Secretary Hagel spoke by phone with Egyptian Defense Minister al-Sisi to express deep concern about the security situation and recent violence in Egypt, and to encourage that restraint be exercised during this difficult period. The United States believes that the current transition needs to be marked by inclusivity, that Egyptian authorities should avoid politicized arrests and detentions, and take steps to prevent further bloodshed and loss of life. It is in the short and long term interests of the Egyptian people to renew their path toward democratic transition, and to emphasize tolerance across the political spectrum."
Readout of Secretary Hagel's Call with Egyptian Defense Minister al-Sisi
Pentagon Press Secretary George Little issued the following readout:
"This afternoon Secretary Hagel spoke by phone with Egyptian Defense Minister al-Sisi to express deep concern about the security situation and recent violence in Egypt, and to encourage that restraint be exercised during this difficult period. The United States believes that the current transition needs to be marked by inclusivity, that Egyptian authorities should avoid politicized arrests and detentions, and take steps to prevent further bloodshed and loss of life. It is in the short and long term interests of the Egyptian people to renew their path toward democratic transition, and to emphasize tolerance across the political spectrum."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)