Articles Posted in SEC

SEC Reaches $600M Insider Trading Settlement with SAC Capital Advisors-Affiliated Hedge Fund Advisory Firm

Published on: March 29, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Calling it its largest insider trading settlement to date, the Securities and Exchange Commission has settled its securities case with CR Intrinsic Investors LLC, an SAC Capital Advisors-affiliated hedge fund advisory firm, for $600 million. The regulator had sued the CR Intrinsic Investors and portfolio manager Matthew Martoma last year, accusing the latter of gaining access to inside information about an Alzheimer’s drug trial that was being developed by pharmaceutical companies Wyeth and Elan Corp. plc. before the results were released to the public.

The advanced information noted that the drug might be ineffective. This allegedly prompted Martoma to liquidate the position of his funds in both companies’ stocks and take on short positions. Martoma and his funds are said to have yielded $276 million in avoided losses (or profits) from the scam. He is now facing related criminal charges.

Earlier this month, the SEC amended its securities lawsuit, adding SAC and four affiliated hedge funds as relief defendants for allegedly receiving ill-gotten games from the insider trading scheme. According to the regulator’s acting director of enforcement George Canellos, the evidence in this case came from “the earth,” meaning that they were obtained from phone records, trading records, business records, and other information (as opposed to wiretaps).

The defendants resolved the securities case without denying or admitting to the claims. They agreed to pay about $275 million in disgorgement, a $275 million penalty, and $52 million in prejudgment interest. A court, however, must approve the settlement.

US v. Martoma (PDF)

SEC v. CR Intrinsic Investors (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Investors are Not Raymond James Financial Customers for FINRA Arbitration Purposes, Rules 4th Circuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 28, 2013

Investment Advisors Report: SEC Division Reviews Application of Investment Advisers Act, New Commission Unit Will Watch For Adviser Risk, & Just 1 in 10 SEC Exams Leads to Enforcement Action, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 26, 2013 Continue Reading ›

Investment Advisors Report: SEC Division Reviews Application of Investment Advisers Act, New Commission Unit Will Watch For Adviser Risk, & Just 1 in 10 SEC Exams Leads to Enforcement Action

Published on: March 26, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

SEC Division Reviews Investment Advisers Act As It Applies to Private Fund Advisers

Currently examining the way applies the 1940 Investment Advisers Act to private fund advisers, the Securities and Exchange Commission is reportedly concentrating specifically on the areas of Form ADV and advertising. SEC Division of Investment Manager Director Norm Champ, who recently spoke at an Investment Adviser Association compliance conference, said that rules related to both areas might have to be modified in the wake of changes brought about due to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The Advisers Act’s Rule 206(4)-1 doesn’t let adviser use advertising that includes misleading or false statements or refers to testimonials. Champ, however, noted that because of the advent of new forms of communications, including social media, as well as the birth of new business models since the rule was promulgated decades ago, there might be a need to revise the rule. As to Form ADV, which new registrants to the SEC must fill out, Champ pointed out that the way it is designed may not be take into consideration the sometimes complex nature of private funds.

Securities Law and Congress Roundup: SEC Plans to Look at Corporate Political Spending Has Some Republicans Asking Why, Regulator Wants Lawmakers To Set Up Independent Auditor for Advisory Firms, & DOJ Stands by Its Record on Prosecuting Financial Firms

Published on: March 19, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

SEC Plans to Look at Corporate Political Spending Has Some Republicans Asking Why

In a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Elisse Walter, a number of House Republicans, including Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), asked why the agency plans to consider making corporate political spending disclosures a requirement when this matter seems “unrelated to its mandate” that it protect investors, maintain the markets, and “facilitate capital formation.” The lawmakers expressed concern that such a move by the SEC would be “especially problematic” seeing as it has no experience in this matter and the writing of such a rule would likely require much in terms of resources and staff.

The Congressional lawmakers said that the Commission should concentrate not on a “discretionary rule” but on a rulemaking that is mandatory. They pointed to the agency’s delays in getting the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act efected in time for the mandated statutory deadline. They are asking why resources should be allocated to non-essential rulemaking that brings up serious concerns.

Broker-Dealer, Attorneys, Stock Promoters and others charged in “Pump-and-Dump” Scam Involving Tradeshow Marketing Company and Pacific Blue Energy

Published on: March 15, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission is charging Canadian stock promoters James Hinton, John Kirk, and Benjamin Kirk, and their associates with employing misleading and false promotions to inflate trading in two microcap companies. As a result, they allegedly made millions of dollars after dumping their shares in a pump-and-dump scheme.

Also charged are California-based lawyers Wade Huettel and Luis Carillo, who allegedly assisted Kirk, Hinton, and Kirk in hiding their ownership stakes in the companies by putting together public filings that were misleading and giving legal opinions that were also intended to lead others astray, and Gibraltar Global Securities, which is a brokerage firm located in the Bahamas. The broker-dealer is accused of issuing misleading statements and fake affidavits that let one of the stock promoters sell shares of the company he was pushing in secret. Meantime, Carrillo Huettel LLP, the law practice of Luis and Carillo, was allegedly given stock sale proceeds disguised as a fake “loan” in secret.

The regulator contends the Luniel de Beer, the president of Tradeshow Marketing Company Ltd. and chairman of Pacific Blue Energy Corporation, was paid over $330,000 in secret kickbacks for his alleged involvement in the pump-and-dump scam. Pacific Blue President Joel Franklin, whom the SEC accused of misleading representations and playing a role in the stock sales being able to happen, has already settled the Commission’s charges against him. As for the others mentioned above (and in the SEC’s securities case), they are charged with violating US anti-fraud rules and laws, as well as US securities laws.

Securities Fraud Litigation Roundup: Former Hedge Fund Exec Admits to $1M Investment Fraud, SEC Files Penny Stock Scam Case& Class Action Claims Against Contact Lens Maker are Dismissed

Published on: February 12, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ex-Hedge Fund Exec Pleads Guilty to $1M Investment Fraud

In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ex-hedge fund principal Berton Hochfeld pleaded guilty to wire fraud and securities charges over his alleged role in an investment scam that bilked investors of over $1M. He had been the organizer of limited liability Hochfield Capital, the general partner of Heppelwhite Fund LLP, which was set up to invest in publicly traded securities.

According to prosecutors, Hochfeld issued false representations to investors about the investments they made while misappropriating their money. He also is accused of taking money from Heppelwhite. Hochfeld will pay restitution and forfeit illegal profits. He will be sentenced this summer.

SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro to Leave Job

Published on: November 27, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro announced this week that she plans to vacate the position on December 14. According to The New York Times, she leaves behind a stronger SEC that underwent an overhaul because of her focus on “detail and meticulous preparation.”

Schapiro became SEC chairwoman following the tenure of former SEC chairman Christopher Cox. Following her appointment in 2009, Schapiro, who is the first woman to serve as SEC head, revamped the agency’s management and obtained it more Congressional funding (an approximately 50% budget bump). She also has been credited with reviving the enforcement unit, speeding up the investigative process by eliminating a policy mandating that enforcement attorneys get the SEC’s permission before they can begin a probe, getting the enforcement division to combine over 70 tip lines into one, and selecting former federal prosecutor Robert Khuzami to head up the unit. Also, in just the last two years of her tenure, the SEC’s enforcement division has filed a record number of enforcement actions against firms and individuals, even winning a securities fraud case against Goldman Sachs (GS) that required the firm to pay a $550 million fine.

Commenting on Schapiro’s departure, Shepherd Smith Edwards Kantas founder and stockbroker fraud lawyer William Shepherd said: “Any credit given Ms. Schapiro can only be as a comparison to her deplorable predecessor. She has been an instrument of the investment community her entire career. Proof of this lies a single statistic: Her SEC filed actions against 129 people and firms tied to the financial crisis – yet no top banking official was ever named.”

Technology and Market Developments Warrant Review of IPO Quiet Period, Says SEC Chairman Schapiro

Published on: September 15, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Replying to House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.)’s worries about the IPO process, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro wrote him a letter that, while standing by the existing structure, acknowledged that the Commission does need to take a look at the rules involving the “quiet period.” Per the rules, companies are not allowed to talk about their stock price to an offering during this time. Issa had recently told her that the SEC and Congress needed to take a more in-depth examination of both the way IPO’s are being priced and current communication restrictions.

Citing Facebook’s (PB) recent IPO in May, Issa pointed out that its underwriters gave negative forecasts about the company to certain institutional investors, which was a communication that current IPO rules allow. Retail investors, however, were not privy to this same information, so that when FB’s share price dropped significantly soon after trading started, it was the retail investors who were the ones that sustained most of the losses. Issa believes that quiet period rules discourage effective price discovery, which gives underwriters too much discretion in being able to establish IPO prices.

Although Schapiro did not talk about the Facebook IPO in her 32-page response, she argued that communication rules let the underwriter and company employ different means of figuring out the right securities price while simultaneously making sure that all prospective investors are given access to information that is consistent. She also spoke about how the quiet period is for making sure that all investors look at the offering documents of an issuer to get information about the IPO. Shapiro acknowledged that the SEC should look at current restrictions and she was adamant that making sure there is a proper regulatory structure for IPOs is integral to the “Commission’s mission to protect investors, facilitate capital formation, and maintain fair and orderly markets.”

Commenting on the exchange between Issa and Schapiro, Securities Lawyer William Shepherd had this to say: “The securities markets now operate at warp speed, but technological advances can work in two directions. Better technology can benefit all participants. Yet, better technology can also disadvantage all but the highest tech financial firms. The SEC should remember its role to protect investors from such disparities. If greater information is available to any investor, it should be easily available to all.”

Specifically addressing the “quiet period”, Shepherd, who is the founder of a stockbroker fraud law firm that represents clients throughout the US, said, “The required ‘quiet period,’ when a new issue is eminent, should not be violated to benefit a few, as was the situation during the Facebook initial public offering. Rather than working on plans to change the ‘quite period’ rules for the future, the SEC should first file charges against those who broke the current rule.”

Read Schapiro’s Letter to Issa (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
REIT Retail Properties of America’s $8 Public Offering Results in Major Losses for Fund Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 17, 2012

Should Retail Investors Be Given Greater Access to IPO Information?, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 29, 2012

Will the JOBS ACT Will Expand Private Offerings But Hurt Public Markets?, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 6, 2012 Continue Reading ›

SEC Study Reports that Many Retail Investors Are Financially Illiterate

Published on: September 5, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the Study Regarding Financial Literacy Among Investors, which was recently released by the SEC, many US retail investors are confused or don’t know much about making informed financial choices and can be considered financially illiterate. The study, which was created to fulfill the Dodd Frank Act’s section 917, is a representation of information distilled by SEC staff from retail investors, focus groups, public comments, quantitative research, and FLEC, which is comprised of 22 federal entities and was set up under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003’s Title V to better financial literacy in this country. The Commission also looked to the Library of Congress to review other studies on this subject.

Reportedly, regardless of whether the information came from, the general findings were the same: that many investors lacked an understanding of the most basic financial ideas, including the difference between bonds and stocks, did not know a lot about investment costs or their effect on investment returns, and were challenged when it came to knowing much about liquidity or credit risks. Women, elderly seniors, African-Americans, Hispanics, and the uneducated seemed to generally have less knowledge about investment than did members of the general population.

Also, many investors appeared to have a difficult time reading their portfolio account descriptions and trade confirmations. Many of them appeared confused about fees. One focus group participant even zeroed in on how, when given too much information, the “more that is disclosed” the less likely investors were to pay attention.

Also, per the study:
• Investors would rather get investment disclosures first before buying an investment service or product or getting involved with a financial intermediary.

• Investors do factor disciplinary history, fees, strategy for investments, and conflicts of interest when considering financial intermediaries.

• They prefer summaries with key data about their investments in investment product disclosures. They like disclosures that are concise, clear, easy to understand, and employ tables, bullet points, graphs, or charts.

• They also like “layered” disclosure, where they are given key information and can then access more details online or via e-mail or mail.

You can find out about other study findings by clicking on the link below.

From assessing commenter feedback, SEC staff have now identified which private and public investor educations efforts are the most useful to the audience they are targeting. Also, OIEA and other FLEC participants intend to work together to develop programs that zero in on specific groups, such as military members, young investors, investment trustees, lump sum payout recipients, and underserved populations. They will create programs that emphasize how key it is to perform investment professional background checks, market Investor.gov as the main federal government resource for information about investing, and make sure people become aware of the costs and fees associated with investing.

Securities Fraud
When an investor comes to a financial professional without a lot of investment knowledge of experience, it is the representative’s responsibility to make sure that the client knows about and understands the risks and costs involved before they invest and doesn’t get into anything that would be unsuitable or risky for their goals or finances. Unfortunately, there are brokers and investment advisers that take advantage of investor and their lack of knowledge in order to make a profit. When securities fraud happens it is the investor that suffers.

Study Regarding Financial Literacy Among Investors (PDF)

SEC Says Retail Investors Are Clueless About Stocks, Minyanville’s Wall Street, August 31, 2012

More Blog Posts:
SEC Acts to Put into Effect Provision of JOBS Act that Allows General Advertising and Solicitation in Securities Offerings, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 4, 2012

District Court in Texas Finds that SEC Improperly Deposed Witness in Lawsuit Over Alleged Life Settlement Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 1, 2012

Institutional Investor Securities Roundup: FHFA Can Start Discovery in MBS Litigation Against Banks, SEC Sues Puerto Rico Man Over Alleged $7M Scam, and Assets of Two Colorado Men are Temporarily Frozen Over Alleged Promissory Note Ponzi Scheme, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 31, 2012 Continue Reading ›

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.

SEC Securities Law Roundup: First Whistleblower Award Under New Program is Announced, Internet-Based Investment Adviser Seeks Regulator’s Recognition, & the Commission Stops Alleged $600M Online Ponzi Scheme

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission has made its first award to a whistleblower under its new program created under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Informants who give the commission “original information” leading to action resulting in $1 million or greater in penalties are entitled to receive 10-30% of whatever sanctions the regulator collects.

The SEC announced that it would pay $50,000 to this particular tipster for assistance provided in stopping a “multi-million dollar fraud.” This person gave “significant information” and documents, which helped speed up the agency’s probe. Now, the defendants in the securities case must pay about $1 million in penalties, of which the Commission has collected about $150,000. The $50,000 is about 30% of that amount. If a final judgment is issued against other defendants, the whistleblower could receive a larger amount.

In other SEC-related news, Larry Eiben the co-founder of Moxy Vote, an investment web site, wants the Commission to put into effect rules that recognize a new investment adviser category. He wants investors to be able to use a “neutral Internet voting platform” to get information about investments, as well as be able to not just vote shares during corporate meetings, but also “designate as the recipient of proxy materials” for transmission by companies with SEC-registered stock.

Eiben believes the rule changes is necessary because under existing regulations, retail investors cannot use the Internet to vote their shares or collect and get information through means that they might find most helpful when determining how to vote. He says the change will tackle what he considers an ongoing issue: “low participation by retail investors in voting shares of their portfolio companies.”

Unfortunately, the Internet continues to prove an effective tool for perpetuating financial fraud. Earlier this month, the SEC obtained an emergency asset freeze order stopping an alleged $600 million Ponzi scam that was about to collapse. The defendants are Rex Venture Group and its owner Paul Burkes, who is an online marketer.

Per the Commission, the two of them raised money from over one million clients on the Internet using ZeekRewards.com. They allegedly gave customers several options for earning money through a rewards program. Two of them involved the purchase of investment contracts. However, none of these securities were SEC registered, which they are required to be under federal securities laws. Meantime, investors were promised up to half of the company’s daily net profits via a profit sharing system. Also, despite the defendants’ allegedly giving them the impression that the company was profitable, investors received payouts that were unrelated to such profits, and instead, in typical Ponzi scam fashion, the money paid to them came from the newer investors.

The SEC said its order to freeze assets will allow the Ponzi scam victims to recoup more of their money so whatever is left of what they invested with ZeekRewards can be used as payouts to them. Burkes has agreed to settle the Commission’s allegations without denying or admitting to wrongdoing. He will, however, pay a $4 million penalty.

Whistleblower Program, SEC

S.E.C. Pays Out First Whistle-Blower Reward, The New York Times, August 21, 2012

Read Eiben’s Petition to the SEC (PDF)

MoxyVote (PDF)

Read the SEC complaint in its case against Rex Venture Group (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Merrill Lynch Agrees to Pay $40M Proposed Deferred Compensation Class Action Settlement to Ex-Brokers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2012

Majority of Non-Traded REITs Underperform Compared to Benchmarks, Reports New Study, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 25, 2012

Ex-Fannie Mae Executives Have to Defend Against SEC Lawsuit Over Their Alleged Involvement in Understating Mortgage Company’s Exposure Risk, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 25, 2012 Continue Reading ›