Search This Blog


This is a photo of the National Register of Historic Places listing with reference number 7000063

Friday, January 17, 2014

FINAL JUDGEMENTS ENTERED FOR ALLEGED INSIDER TRADING OF NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
Court Enters Final Judgment Against Officer, Broker and Relief Defendant Broker-Dealer in Settlement of Insider Trading Charges

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that, pursuant to settlement agreements, the Honorable Thomas L. Ludington of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan entered final judgments on January 13, 2014 against defendants Mack D. Murrell and Charles W. Adams, and relief defendant Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (Raymond James) in the SEC's insider trading case, SEC v. Mack D. Murrell, et al., Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-12856 (E.D. Mich.). The final judgments permanently enjoin Murrell and Adams from violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Murrell was ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $367,250 and is prohibited from acting as an officer or director of a publicly traded company. Adams was ordered to disgorge $64,450, plus prejudgment interest of $13,285, and to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $107,046.Raymo Jndames was ordered to disgorge $373,497 plus prejudgment interest of $8,692. Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, Murrell, Adams, and Raymond James consented to the entry of the final judgments.

The SEC charged Murrell, who was the Vice President of Information Systems for The Dow Chemical Company (Dow), with unlawfully tipping material, non-public information to his long-time friend, David A. Teekell, in advance of Dow's July 10, 2008 announcement of its acquisition of Rohm & Haas Co. The SEC also charged Teekell and Adams, Teekell's broker at Raymond James, with trading on the confidential information. Teekell previously settled the SEC's charges.Raymond James was charged as a relief defendant because profits from certain trades by Teekell were held in its firm account.

No comments:

Post a Comment