Articles Posted in SEC Enforcement

SEC Acts to Put into Effect Provision of JOBS Act that Allows General Advertising and Solicitation in Securities Offerings

Published on: September 4, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Last week, the SEC proposed rules that would get rid of the ban against general advertising and solicitation of certain securities offerings under Rule 144A and Rule 506 of Regulation D of the Securities Act. The rules are mandated under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act.

Currently, companies that want to raise money through securities sales have to depend on an exemption from registration or register the offering with the SEC. The majority of the SEC’s exemptions from registration, including Rule 506, don’t allow companies to take part in general solicitation/advertising related to the securities offering.

However, the newly enacted JOBS Act mandates that the Commission take away the general advertising/solicitation prohibitions on securities offerings related to Rule 506. Section 201(a)(1) of the JOBS Act even directs the SEC to amend Rule 506 to allow general solicitation/advertising as long as the buyers of the securities are investors that are accredited. It also says that the rules shall make sure the issuer exercises reasonable steps to confirm that the buyers are accredited investors and that it is up to the Commission to determine what these methods would be.

The SEC Penalties Act of 2012 Would Create Tough Financial Punishments for Securities Fraud

Published on: July 29, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act of 2012, is bipartisan legislation that seeks to enhance the Commission’s power to clamp down on violations of securities law while raising the statutory ceilings on civil monetary penalties by tying a penalty’s size to the degree of harm wrought and amount of investor losses sustained. This bill is S. 3416 and is also known as the SEC Penalties Act. It was introduced by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Jack Reed (D-RI).

Currently, the SEC is only allowed to fine individuals that violate securities laws no more than $150,000/offense. Institutions can be penalized up to $725,000 maximum. If a case goes to federal court, the Commission has sometimes been able to determine a penalty according to the gross amount of gains that were ill-gotten.

The bill raises the cap per securities law violation offense to $10 million for entities and $1 million for individuals. If how much was made because of the misconduct and the penalty are linked, the Commission could up the penalty times three. Penalties could also be tripled for a recidivist that has had a securities fraud conviction or was the target of administrative relief by the SEC in the last 5 years. The Commission could assess in-house penalties for even cases not heard in federal court.

Several Claims in Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Ex-IndyMac Bancorp Executives Are Dismissed by Federal Judge

Published on: May 30, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, federal judge Manuel Real threw out five of the seven securities claims made by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its fraud lawsuit against ex-IndyMac Bancorp chief executive Michael Perry and former finance chief Scott Keys. The Commission is accusing the two men of covering up the now failed California mortgage lender’s deteriorating liquidity position and capital in 2008. Real’s bench ruling dilutes the SEC’s lawsuit against the two men.

The Commission contends that Keys and Perry misled investors while trying to raise capital and preparing to sell $100 million in new stock before July 2008, which is when thrift regulators closed IndyMac Bank, F.S.B and the holding company filed for bankruptcy protection. They are accusing Perry of letting investors receive misleading or false statements about the company’s failing financial state that omitted material information. (S. Blair Abernathy, also a former IndyMac chief financial officer, had also been sued by the SEC. However, rather that fight the lawsuit, he chose to settle without denying or admitting to any wrongdoing.)

Attorneys for Perry and Keys had filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that five of the seven filings that the SEC is targeting cannot support the claims. Real granted that motion last month, finding that IndyMac’s regulatory filings lacked any misleading or false statements to investors and did not leave out key information.

The remaining claims revolve around whether the bank properly disclosed in its 2008 first-quarter earnings report (and companion slideshow presentation) the financial hazards it was in at the time. The judge also ruled that Perry could not be made to pay back allegedly ill-gotten gains.

Real’s decision substantially narrows the Commission’s securities case against Perry and Keys. According to Reuters, the ruling also could potentially end the lawsuit against Keys because he was on a leave of absence during the time that the matters related to the filings that are still at issue would have occurred.

Before its collapse in 2008, Countrywide spinoff IndyMac was the country’s largest issuers of alt-A mortgage, also called “liar loans.” These high-risk home loans are primarily based on simple statements from borrowers of their income instead of tax returns. Unfortunately, loan defaults ended up soaring and a mid-2008 run on deposits at IndyMac contributed to its collapse. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, which places its IndyMac losses at $13 billion, went on to sell what was left of the bank to private investors. IndyMac is now OneWest bank.

Judge dismisses parts of IndyMac fraud case, Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2012

Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

More Blog Posts:

Citigroup’s $75 Million Securities Fraud Settlement with the SEC Over Subprime Mortgage Debt Approved by Judge, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 23, 2010

SEC Practice of Settling Enforcement Actions Without Requiring Defendants to Deny or Admit to Allegations Gets Support from Federal Judges and Democrats

Published on: May 26, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

At a House Financial Services Committee hearing on May 17, a number of Democratic lawmakers spoke out against the Securities and Exchange Commission’s practice of settling securities enforcement actions without making defendants deny or admit to the allegations. There is concern that companies might see this solution as a mere business expense.

The hearing was spurred by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff’s rejection of the SEC’s $285 million securities settlement with Citigroup (C) over its alleged misrepresentation of its role in a collateralized debt obligation that it marketed and structured in 2007. Citigroup had agreed to settle without denying or admitting to the allegations.

Rakoff, however, refused to approve the deal. In addition to calling for more facts before the court could accurately judge whether or not to approve the agreement, he spoke out against the SEC’s policy of letting defendants off the hook in terms of not having to deny or admit to allegations when settling. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later went on to stay Rakoff’s ruling that SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. go to trial.

Trading in Securities of 379 Microcap Companies Suspended in SEC’s Fraud Crackdown

Published on: May 14, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In an effort to crack down on fraud via pump-and-dump scams and reverse mergers, the Securities and Exchange Commission is suspending trading in the securities of 379 Microcap companies that are dormant. This is the most number of companies to have trading in them suspended in one day.

As part of its heightened efforts to combat microcap shell company-related fraud, The SEC’s Microcap Fraud Working Group employed Operation Shell-Expel, which employed different agency resources to pinpoint shell companies in 6 other countries and 32 US states that were dormant and vulnerable to scams. SEC Division Director Robert Khuzami said that “empty shell companies” are to certain financial scammers “what guns are to bank robbers.”

According to the SEC, stock manipulators are willing to pay up to $750,000 to get control of a company so they can pump and dump the stock to make illegal gains while investors suffer. Now, however, because the trading suspension mandates that current financial formation must be provided, these shell companies can no longer be used by fraudsters to perpetuate their scams.

Securities laws let the SEC suspend trading in any stock for 10 days maximum. Barring exemptions and exceptions, a company whose trading privileges have been suspended can’t be quoted again unless it issues update information, including financial statements that are accurate.

The SEC chooses to suspend trading in a stock when it feels that to do so will protect investors. In an Investor Alert, the Commission listed some of the reasons for suspending trading, including:

• Insufficient or not the most up-to-date or accurate information about a company, including no current periodic report filings.

• Existing questions about whether information made available to the public is accurate, including the most current details about a company’s operational status, business transactions, or financial state.

• Potential issues over the trading in the stock, such as possible market manipulation and insider trading.

Because the SEC knows that suspending trading in a stock can cause the security’s price to dramatically go down, it is very discriminating about issuing suspensions.

Microcap companies usually have low-priced stock, which trades in low volumes, and limited assets. A pump-and-dump scam is one of the most common types of securities fraud involving these firms. Scammers will issue misleading and false statements to promote a microcap stock that is lightly traded. After buying low and then inflating the stock price by making it appear as if there is a lot of market activity, fraudsters will dump the stock by selling it into the market at the higher rate and make huge profits in the process.

Investor Bulletins: Trading Suspension, SEC (PDF)

SEC Microcap Fraud-Fighting Initiative Expels 379 Dormant Shell Companies to Protect Investors From Potential Scams, SEC, May 14, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Daniel “Rudy” Ruettiger Faces SEC Charges Over Pump-and-Dump Scam Involving Sports Drink Company, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 19, 2011
Business Man Pleads Guilty Plea in Florida Microcap Market Fraud Case, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 17, 2010
Pump & Dump Scam Alleged in $600 Million Lawsuit Against Law Firm Baker & McKenzie, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Stockbroker Fraud News Roundup: UBS Puerto Rico Settles SEC Action for $26M, Morgan Keegan’s Bid to Get $40K Award Over Marketing of RMK Advantage Income Fund Vacated is Denied, and SEC Settles with Attorney Involved in $1B Viaticals Scam

Published on: May 11, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico (UBS) has agreed to pay $26.6 million to settle the Securities and Exchange Commission administrative action accusing the financial firm of misleading investors about its control and liquidity over the secondary market for nearly two dozen proprietary closed-end mutual funds. By settling, UBS Puerto Rico is not denying or admitting to the allegations.

Per the SEC, not only did UBS Puerto Rico fail to disclose to clients that it was in control of the secondary market, but also when investor demand became less in 2008, the financial firm bought millions of dollars of the fund shares from shareholders that were exiting to make it appear as if the funds’ market was stable and liquid. The Commission also contends that when UBS Puerto Rico’s parent firm told it to lower the risks by reducing its closed-end fund inventory, the Latin America-based financial firm carried through with a strategy to liquidate its inventory at prices that undercut a number of customer sell orders that were pending. As a result, closed-end fund clients were allegedly denied the liquidity information and price that they are entitled to under the law. UBS Puerto Rico must now pay a $14 million penalty, $11.5 million in disgorgement, and $1.1 million in prejudgment interest.

The SEC has also filed an administrative action against Miguel A. Ferrer, the company’s ex-CEO and vice chairman, and Carlos Ortiz, the firm’s capital markets head. Ferrer allegedly made misrepresentations, did not disclose certain facts about the closed-end funds, and falsely represented the funds’ market price and trading premiums. The Commission is accusing Ortiz of falsely representing the basis of the fund share prices.

In other stockbroker fraud news, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has denied Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc.’s bid to vacate the over $40,000 arbitration award it has been ordered to pay over the way it marketed its RMK Advantage Income Fund (RMA). Judge Richard Matsch instead granted the investors’ motion to have the award confirmed, noting that there were “many factual allegations” in the statement of claim supporting the contention that the firm was liable.

Per the court, Morgan Keegan had argued that the arbitration panel wasn’t authorized to issue a ruling on the claimants’ bid for damages related to the marketing of the fund, which they had invested in through Fidelity Investment. Morgan Keegan contended that seeing as it had no business relationship with the claimants, it couldn’t be held liable for their losses, and therefore, the FINRA arbitration panel had disregarded applicable law and went outside its authority. The district court, however, disagreed with the financial firm.

In other stockbroker fraud news, the SEC has reached a settlement with a Florida attorney accused of being involved in a financial scam run by a viaticals company that defrauded investors of over $1 billion. The securities action, which restrains Michael McNerney from future securities violations, is SEC v. McNerney. He is the ex-outside counsel for now defunct Mutual Benefits Corp.

The MBC sales agent and the company’s marketing materials allegedly falsely claimed that viatical settlements were “secure” and “safe” investments as part of the strategy to get clients to invest. The viaticals company also is accused of improperly obtaining polices that couldn’t be sold or bought, improperly managing escrow premium funds in a Ponzi scam, and pressuring doctors to approve bogus false life expectancy figures.

McNerney, who was sentenced to time in prison for conspiracy to commit securities fraud, must pay $826 million in restitution (jointly and severally with other defendants convicted over the MBC offering fraud).

UBS Puerto Rico unit to pay $26.6 mln in SEC pact, Reuters, May 1, 2012

Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc. v. Pessel (PDF)

SEC Files Charges Against Former Attorney for Mutual Benefits, SEC, April 30, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Stockbroker Fraud Roundup: SEC Issues Alert for Broker-Dealers and Investors Over Municipal Bonds, Man Who Posed As Investment Adviser Pleads Guilty to Securities Fraud, and Citigroup Settles FINRA Claims of Excessive Markups/Markdowns, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 10, 2012

Commodities/Futures Round Up: CFTC Cracks Down on Perpetrators of Securities Violations and Considers New Swap Market Definitions and Rules, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 20, 2012

Institutional Investor Fraud Roundup: SEC Seeks Approval of Settlement with Ex-Bear Stearns Portfolio Managers, Credits Ex-AXA Rosenberg Executive for Help in Quantitative Investment Case; IOSCO Gets Ready for Global Hedge Fund Survey, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 29, 2012 Continue Reading ›

SEC Changes to Enforcement Have Led to Enhanced Results, Says Khuzami

Published on: May 4, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Securities and Exchange Commission Enforcement Director Robert S. Khuzami, the restructuring that has recently taken place at that agency’s division is allowing the SEC to not just improve the quality of its efforts but also its results. He spoke at a Practicing Law Institute conference earlier this month.

Not only has the enforcement division set up several specialized units that are each assigned a specific area of enforcement to focus on, but also market specialists from the private sector have been hired. Khuzami also said that the SEC has improved its handling of complex securities cases and is now detecting signs of alleged wrongdoing sooner.

In the last fiscal year, the Commission has opened 735 enforcement cases—a record number—and imposed $3 billion in penalties and disgorgement against alleged offenders. Moving forward, the Commission intends to continue placing a lot of its attention on going after parties that committed securities laws violations related to the economic crisis of 2008. The SEC has so far initiated 107 such securities cases. 74 of these are against individuals.

Montford Associates to Pay $650,000 in Securities and Exchange Commission Penalties Over Failure to Disclose Payments from Hedge Fund

Published on: May 1, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC has ordered investment adviser Montford Associates and Ernest Montford Sr. to pay $650K in penalties for failing to disclose that it had received $210K from an allegedly fraudulent hedge fund that it had recommended to clients. The name of the fund is SJK Investment Management. Its owner, Stanley Kowalewski, is accused of using the fund to commit a $16.5 million fraud. Investors that put their money in the fund included the Tallulah Falls School’s endowment program, St. Joseph’s/Candler Hospital System, Georgia Ports Authority, Sea Island Co. Retirement Plan, and Savannah Country Day School Foundation.

Although Montford Associates and Ernest Montford are not accused of involvement in Kowalewski’s securities fraud, the two of them allegedly lied to investors by not telling them about the compensation they were getting for the referrals. Montford and his investment adviser firm were paid “marketing and syndication fees” and “consulting services.”

The SEC contends that failure to disclose the payments for the recommendations violates federal securities laws. The Commission also says that even though Montford was aware that these nonprofits, many of them charitable organizations and schools, were run by part-time volunteers that depended on his investment advice and he knew they wanted consistent, stable investments, he still pushed them to move their investments to SJK so that Kowalewski could manage their money.

In addition to the $650,000 penalty, Montford Associates and Montford must pay disgorgements of $130,000 and $80,000, each with prejudgment interest. They also must set up a Fair Fund so that their clients that were harmed can use the penalties and disgorgement. Both must also cease and desist from committing/causing future violations of the Advisers Act and Advisers Act Rule 204-1(a)(2). Montford also is barred from associating with brokers, investment advisers, municipal securities dealers, dealers, transfer agents, municipal advisors, and nationally recognized statistical rating organizations.

As for the SEC’s hedge fund fraud case against Stanley Kowalewski, the Commission is accusing the hedge fund manager of using millions of dollars in client funds to buy his residence and a beach home and directing $10 million in unfounded fees to his investment management company and himself. He allegedly tried to hide his financial scam by sending fraudulent account statements to investors each month. These updates grossly exaggerated the actual values of assets and returns.

SEC Fines Adviser Over Ties To Hedge Fund Accused Of Fraud, FINalternatives.com, April 30, 2012

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanley J. Kowalewski, et al, Case No. 1:11-cv-00056-TCB (N.D. Ga.), SEC.gov, August 29, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Institutional Investor Fraud Roundup: SEC Seeks Approval of Settlement with Ex-Bear Stearns Portfolio Managers, Credits Ex-AXA Rosenberg Executive for Help in Quantitative Investment Case; IOSCO Gets Ready for Global Hedge Fund Survey, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, March 29, 2012

Insider Trading: Former FrontPoint Partners Hedge Fund Manager Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, August 20, 2011

Silicon Valley Man Faces SEC Securities Fraud Charge After Allegedly Bilking Internet Start-Up Investors of the “Next Google” of Millions, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 19, 2012

SEC Chairman Says Commission Shouldn’t Impose Industry-Wide Bars On Offenders that Committed Misconduct Before Dodd-Frank Statute’s Enactment

Published on: April 16, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Speaking at the Rocky Mountain Securities Conference in Colorado a few days ago, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Daniel Gallagher said that the imposition of an industry-wide bar, which is authorized under Section 925 of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, shouldn’t be applied to misconduct that happened before the financial reform statute was enacted. He talked about how many of the cases that have been brought to the agency for consideration under Section 925 involve “pre-enactment” conduct.

Gallagher said this raised the question of “basic fairness.” He believes that imposing an industry bar on conduct that took place before the legislation was passed is unfair. He said that choosing not to apply the Dodd-Frank provision to “pre-enactment” conduct would show that the SEC is here to not just prevent bad behavior and protect investors and markets, but also to “afford procedural fairness” so that any SEC enforcement action that a party is subject to is “legitimate.” He noted that while there are many defendants that undoubtedly deserve to have the SEC enforce actions against them, there should be limits, such as not subjecting them to sanctions that didn’t exist at the time that their conduct occurred. During his speech, Gallagher was clear to note that the views he is expressing are his alone and not the SEC’s.

Commenting on Gallagher’s statements, Institutional Investment Fraud Attorney William Shepherd said, “When assessing past behavior in the securities markets and whether certain sanctions against wrongdoers is or is not appropriate, does Wall Street really want to rely on this standard: ‘we face a question of basic fairness?’”

Goldman Sachs to Pay $22M For Alleged Lack of Proper Internal Controls That Allowed Analysts to Attend Trading Huddles and Tip Favored Clients

Published on: April 14, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Accused of not putting in place policies to prevent analyst huddles, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) will settle for $22 million the allegations made against it by US regulators. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission and FINRA, due to the nature of the financial firm’s internal control system research analysts were able to share non-public information with select clients and traders.

To settle the securities case, Goldman will pay $11 million each to FINRA and the SEC. It also consented to refrain from committing future violations and it will reevaluate and modify its written policies and procedures so that compliance won’t be a problem in the future. The financial firm has agreed to have the SEC censure it. By settling Goldman is not denying or admitting to the allegations.

Meantime, FINRA claimed that Goldman neglected to identify and adequately investigate the increase in trading in the financial firm’s propriety account before changes were made to analysis and research that were published. The SRO says that certain transactions should have been reviewed.

This is not the first time that Goldman has gotten in trouble about its allegedly inadequate control systems. Last year, it agreed to pay $10 million to the Massachusetts Securities Division over ASI and the huddles. In 2003, the financial firm paid $9.3 million over allegations that its policies and controls were not adequate enough to stop privileged information about certain US Treasury bonds from being misused.

The latest securities actions are related to two programs that the financial firm created that allegedly encouraged analysts to share non-public, valued information with select clients. The SEC says that during weekly “huddles” between 2006 and 2011, Goldman analysts would share their perspectives on “market color” and short-term trading with company traders. Sales employees were also sometimes present, and until 2009, employees from the financial firm’s Franchise Risk Management Group who were allowed to set up large, long-term positions for Goldman also participated in the huddles.

Also in 2007, the financial firm established the Asymmetric Service Initiative. This program let analysts share ideas and information that they acquired at the huddles with a favored group made up of approximately 180 investment management and hedge fund clients.

The SEC contends that ASI and the huddles occurred so that Goldman’s traders’ performances would improve and there would be more revenue in the form of commissions. The financial firm even let analysts know that it would be monitoring whether ideas discussed at the huddles succeeded and that this would be a factor in performance evaluations. The Commission said that the two programs created a serious risk, especially considering that a lot of ASI clients were traders who did so often and in high volume.

Meantime, FINRA claimed that before changes were made to published analysis and research, Goldman would neglect to identify and adequately investigate the increase in trading in the financial firm’s proprietary account. The SRO says that there were certain transactions that should have been reviewed.

This is not the first time that Goldman has gotten in trouble over its allegedly inadequate control systems. Last year, it agreed to pay $10 million to the Massachusetts Securities Division over ASI and the huddles. In 2003, the financial firm paid $9.3 million over allegations that its policies and controls were not adequate enough to stop privileged information about certain US Treasury bonds from being misused.

Goldman Sachs to Pay $22 Million Over Analyst Huddle Claims, Bloomberg, April 12, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Ex-Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Pleads Not Guilty to Insider Trading Charges, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 26, 2011