SEC CHARGES COMPUTER COMPANY AND FORMER EXECS IN ALLEGED ACCOUNTING FRAUD SCHEME

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION  

06/05/2015 09:40 AM EDT

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Computer Sciences Corporation and former executives with manipulating financial results and concealing significant problems about the company’s largest and most high-profile contract.  The SEC additionally charged former finance executives involved with CSC’s international businesses for ignoring basic accounting standards to increase reported profits.

CSC agreed to pay a $190 million penalty to settle the charges, and five of the eight charged executives agreed to settlements.  Former CEO Michael Laphen agreed to return to CSC more than $3.7 million in compensation under the clawback provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and pay a $750,000 penalty.  Former CFO Michael Mancuso agreed to return $369,100 in compensation and pay a $175,000 penalty.

The SEC filed complaints in federal court in Manhattan against former CSC finance executives Robert Sutcliffe, Edward Parker, and Chris Edwards, who are contesting the charges against them.  Sutcliffe was CSC’s finance director for its multi-billion dollar contract with the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS).

The SEC alleges that CSC’s accounting and disclosure fraud began after the company learned it would lose money on the NHS contract because it was unable to meet certain deadlines.  To avoid the large hit to its earnings that CSC was required to record, Sutcliffe allegedly added items to CSC’s accounting models that artificially increased its profits but had no basis in reality.  CSC, with Laphen’s approval, then continued to avoid the financial impact of its delays by basing its models on contract amendments it was proposing to the NHS rather than the actual contract.  In reality, NHS officials repeatedly rejected CSC’s requests that the NHS pay the company higher prices for less work.  By basing its models on the flailing proposals, CSC artificially avoided recording significant reductions in its earnings in 2010 and 2011.

The SEC’s investigation found that Laphen and Mancuso repeatedly failed to comply with multiple rules requiring them to disclose these issues to investors, and they made public statements about the NHS contract that misled investors about CSC’s performance.  Mancuso also concealed from investors a prepayment arrangement that allowed CSC to meet its cash flow targets by effectively borrowing large sums of money from the NHS at a high interest rate.  Mancuso merely told investors that CSC was hitting its targets “the old fashioned hard way.”

“When companies face significant difficulties impacting their businesses, they and their top executives must truthfully disclose this information to investors,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “CSC repeatedly based its financial results and disclosures on the NHS contract it was negotiating rather than the one it actually had, and misled investors about the true status of the contract.  The significant sanctions in this case against the company, CEO, and CFO reflect our focus on ensuring that such misconduct is vigorously pursued and punished.”

Stephen L. Cohen, Associate Director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, added, “The wide-ranging misconduct in this case spanned several countries and occurred over multiple years, reflecting significant management lapses and internal controls failures.  We expect this settlement and the recommendations of an independent ethics and compliance consultant will help prevent future misconduct.”

In addition to the accounting and disclosure violations involving the NHS contract, the SEC’s investigation found that CSC and finance executives in Australia and Denmark fraudulently manipulated the financial results of the company’s businesses in those regions.

The SEC alleges that Parker, who served as controller in Australia, along with regional CFO Wayne Banks overstated the company’s earnings by using “cookie jar” reserves and failing to record expenses as required.  They overstated CSC’s operating results by more than 5 percent in the first quarter of fiscal year 2009 and allowed the company to meet analysts’ earnings targets during that period.  Banks agreed to settle the charges and pay disgorgement of $10,990 with prejudgment interest of $2,400, plus accept an officer-and-director bar of at least four years as well as a bar from practicing as an accountant on behalf of SEC-regulated entities for at least four years.  The SEC’s case continues against Parker.

In CSC’s Nordic region, the SEC alleges a variety of accounting manipulations to fraudulently inflate operating results as finance executives there struggled to achieve budgets set by CSC management in the U.S.  Among the misconduct was improperly accounting for client disputes, overstating assets, and capitalizing expenses.  For example, Edwards, who was a finance manager, allegedly recorded and maintained large amounts of “prepaid assets” that CSC was required to actually record as expenses.  This tactic guaranteed these expenses would not reduce CSC’s earnings.  CSC’s finance director of the Nordic region Paul Wakefield also engaged in the accounting fraud, which overstated CSC’s consolidated pre-tax income in Denmark as much as 7 percent.  CSC’s finance manager Claus Zilmer was involved in violations of the financial reporting and books and records provisions of the securities laws.  Wakefield and Zilmer agreed to settle the charges, with Wakefield agreeing to accept an officer-and-director bar of at least three years as well as a bar from practicing as an accountant on behalf of SEC-regulated entities for at least three years.  The SEC’s case continues against Edwards.

CSC and the five settling executives neither admit nor deny the findings in the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding against them.  CSC must retain an independent consultant to review the company’s ethics and compliance programs.  The SEC particularly acknowledges the cooperation of Wakefield in its investigation, which was conducted by Shelby Hunt, David Miller, Ian Rupell, Robert Peak, and Joseph Zambuto Jr.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority.

FEED COMPANY SETTLES ACCOUNTING FRAUD CASE AND WILL PAY $18 MILLION

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

Tennessee-Based Animal Feed Company Agrees to Pay $18 Million to Settle Accounting Fraud Case

09/15/2014 03:35 PM EDT

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that a Tennessee-based animal feed company has agreed to pay back $18 million in illicit profits from an accounting fraud that resulted in an SEC enforcement action earlier this year.

AgFeed Industries, which is currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, was charged by the SEC in March along with top company executives for repeatedly reporting fake revenues from the company’s China operations in order to meet financial targets and prop up AgFeed’s stock price.  The company obtained illicit gains in stock offerings to investors at the inflated prices resulting from the accounting scheme.  The SEC also alleged that U.S. managers learned of the accounting fraud, but failed to take adequate steps to investigate and disclose it to investors.

The $18 million to be paid by AgFeed to settle the SEC’s case will be distributed to victims of the company’s fraud.  Details of the settlement were presented to the bankruptcy court in Delaware earlier today, and the settlement is subject to court approval by the bankruptcy court as well as the district court in Tennessee where the case was filed.

The SEC’s case continues against five former company executives and a former audit committee chair.

“This settlement holds AgFeed accountable for its accounting fraud and deprives the company of ill-gotten gains,” said Julie Lutz, Director of the SEC’s Denver Regional Office.  “This provides the most expedient and effective way to provide a substantial recovery to victims of AgFeed’s fraud while the company remains in bankruptcy.”

Under the proposed settlement, AgFeed also agrees to the entry of a permanent injunction enjoining it from the antifraud, periodic reporting, and recordkeeping and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws.  AgFeed neither admits nor denies the charges in the settlement.

The SEC’s investigation has been conducted by Michael Cates, Donna Walker, and Ian Karpel of the Denver Regional Office.  The court litigation is being led by Gregory Kasper and Nancy Ferguson while the bankruptcy aspects of the case are being handled by Alistaire Bambach, Patricia Schrage, and Neal Jacobson of the New York Regional Office.

ALLEGED INVENTORY OVER-STATER GETS CHARGED WITH ACCOUNTING FRAUD BY SEC

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SEC Charges Former CFO of Dallas-Based Jewelry and Collectibles Company with Accounting Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed accounting fraud charges against a Dallas-based company and its former chief financial officer for manipulating its inventory accounts.

The SEC alleges that I. John Benson made repeated false accounting entries that materially inflated the value of inventory on the balance sheets at DGSE Companies Inc., which buys and sells jewelry, diamonds, fine watches, rare coins, precious metals and other collectibles. Benson’s entries made it appear that DGSE owned certain inventory that actually still belonged to customers in consignment arrangements where DGSE held the goods on the owner’s behalf until they were sold. Benson then misled the company’s independent auditors about the journal entries, and DGSE subsequently overstated its inventory by anywhere from 99.1 percent to 227.4 percent in public filings during 2009, 2010, and 2011.

DGSE agreed to settle the SEC’s charges, and Benson agreed to a settlement in which he will pay a $75,000 penalty, be permanently barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company, and be suspended from practicing as an accountant on behalf of any publicly traded company or other entity regulated by the SEC.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in the Dallas Division of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, deficiencies in DGSE’s accounting systems and controls led to problems that significantly compromised the integrity of the company’s financial data. The deficiencies included the failure to properly record intercompany transactions such as inventory transfers between stores. As a result, DGSE’s intercompany accounts became out of balance by millions of dollars.

The SEC alleges that Benson subsequently made a number of fraudulent accounting entries in order to bring the intercompany accounts and DGSE’s general ledger as a whole back into balance. The entries resulted in a number of errors in DGSE’s financial statements including the large overstatement of DGSE inventory by millions of dollars. Benson concealed the improper entries by manipulating inventory detail listings to improperly reflect the consigned inventory as being owned by DGSE. Benson sent these listings to DGSE’s external auditor, and misled the auditor to believe the consigned goods were owned by DGSE. Benson then knowingly signed misleading public filings by DGSE, including annual reports for the 2009 and 2010 fiscal years as well as quarterly filings. Benson also signed false management certifications that were attached to these filings.

Benson is charged with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and Sections 10(b), 13(a), and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2(a) thereunder, and from aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder. DGSE is charged with violating Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder. DGSE and Benson each consented to injunctions against future violations of these provisions. DGSE also agreed to the appointment of an independent consultant to review the company’s accounting controls, and DGSE has taken or agreed to take remedial steps to correct its deficiencies.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Chris Davis, Keith Hunter, and Joann Harris of the Fort Worth Regional Office.

SEC ANNOUNCES BODY ARMY CORPORATE DIRECTORS TO $1.6 MILLION TO SETTLE ACCOUNTING FRAUD CHARGES

The following excerpt is from the SEC website: November 15, 2011 “The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida ordered three former directors to pay more than $1.6 million in monetary sanctions to settle charges that they were involved in an accounting fraud at a major supplier of body armor to the U.S. military and law enforcement agencies. The settlements by Cary Chasin, Jerome Krantz and Gary Nadelman - former members of the board of directors at Pompano Beach, Fla.-based DHB Industries - impose permanent officer-and-director bars in addition to monetary sanctions. The final judgments entered on November 10, 2011, find Chasin liable for disgorgement of $100,000 plus prejudgment interest of $5,723 and a penalty of $100,000; Krantz liable for disgorgement of $375,000 plus prejudgment interest of $21,464 and a penalty of $100,000, and Nadelman liable for disgorgement of $820,000 plus prejudgment interest of $46,935 and a penalty of $100,000. The final judgments also bar Chasin, Krantz and Nadelman from acting as officers or directors of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In addition, the final judgments enjoin Chasin, Krantz and Nadelman from violating Sections 10(b) and 14(a) and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 of the Exchange Act and from aiding and abetting violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 of the Exchange Act, and enjoins Nadelman from violating Section 13(b)(5) and Rules 13b2-1 and 13b2-2 of the Exchange Act. Chasin, Krantz and Nadelman agreed to settle the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the allegations.”

INDIAN COMPANY PW SETTLES SEC CHARGES AND PAYS $6 MILLION

The following story came from the SEC Web site:

"Washington, D.C., April 5, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today sanctioned five India-based affiliates of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) that formerly served as independent auditors of Satyam Computer Services Limited for repeatedly conducting deficient audits of the company’s financial statements and enabling a massive accounting fraud to go undetected for several years.

The SEC found that the audit failures by the PW India affiliates – Lovelock & Lewes, Price Waterhouse Bangalore, Price Waterhouse & Co. Bangalore, Price Waterhouse Calcutta, and Price Waterhouse & Co. Calcutta – were not limited to Satyam, but rather indicative of a much larger quality control failure throughout PW India.

The PW India affiliates agreed to settle the SEC’s charges and pay a $6 million penalty, the largest ever by a foreign-based accounting firm in an SEC enforcement action.

In addition, the PW India affiliates agreed to refrain from accepting any new U.S.-based clients for a period of six months, establish training programs for its officers and employees on securities laws and accounting principles; institute new pre-opinion review controls; revise its audit policies and procedures; and appoint an independent monitor to ensure these measures are implemented.

In a related settlement today, Satyam agreed to settle fraud charges, pay a $10 million penalty, and undertake a series of internal reforms. Since the fraud came to light, the India government seized control of the company by dissolving its board of directors and appointing new government-nominated directors, among other things. Additionally, India authorities filed criminal charges against several former officials as well as two lead engagement partners from PW India.

"PW India violated its most fundamental duty as a public watchdog by failing to comply with some of the most elementary auditing standards and procedures in conducting the Sataym audits. The result of this failure was very harmful to Satyam shareholders, employees and vendors," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement.

Cheryl Scarboro, Chief of the SEC’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit, added, “PW India failed to conduct even the most fundamental audit procedures. Audit firms worldwide must take seriously their critical gate-keeping duties whenever they perform audit engagements for SEC-registered issuers and their affiliates, and conduct proper audits that exercise professional skepticism and care.”

The SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings against the firms finds that PW India staff failed to conduct procedures to confirm Satyam’s cash and cash equivalent balances or its accounts receivables. Specifically, the order finds that PW India’s “failure to properly execute third-party confirmation procedures resulted in the fraud at Satyam going undetected” for years. PW India’s failures in auditing Satyam “were indicative of a quality control failure throughout PW India” because PW India staff “routinely relinquished control of the delivery and receipt of cash confirmations entirely to their audit clients and rarely, if ever, questioned the integrity of the confirmation responses they received from the client by following up with the banks.”

After the fraud at Satyam came to light, PW India replaced virtually all senior management responsible for audit matters. The affiliates suspended its Satyam audit engagement partners from all work and removed from client service all senior audit professionals on the former Satyam audit team.

In addition to the $6 million penalty and previously listed reforms, the PW India affiliates have consented to a censure, as well as the entry of a cease-and-desist order finding that they violated Section 10A(a) of the Exchange Act and were a cause of Satyam’s violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act and relevant Rules thereunder.

PCAOB Proceeding
In a related proceeding, the PW India affiliates also reached a settlement with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) in which the PW India firms have been censured and agreed to extensive undertakings substantially similar to those set forth in the SEC administrative order. Additionally, Lovelock & Lewes and Price Waterhouse Bangalore have agreed to pay the PCAOB a $1.5 million penalty for their violations of PCAOB rules and standards in relation to the Satyam audit engagement.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the PCAOB. The SEC’s investigation is continuing."

SEC CHARGES INDYMAC EXECUTIVES WITH FRAUD

The SEC occasionally brings charges against bank executives. The following excerpt from the SEC web site alleges that executives at IndyMac Bancorp lied to their investors:

“Washington, D.C., Feb. 11, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged three former senior executives at IndyMac Bancorp with securities fraud for misleading investors about the mortgage lender’s deteriorating financial condition.
The SEC alleges that former CEO Michael W. Perry and former CFOs A. Scott Keys and S. Blair Abernathy participated in the filing of false and misleading disclosures about the financial stability of IndyMac and its main subsidiary, IndyMac Bank F.S.B. The three executives regularly received internal reports about IndyMac’s deteriorating capital and liquidity positions in 2007 and 2008, but failed to ensure adequate disclosure of that information to investors as IndyMac sold millions of dollars in new stock.

IndyMac Bank was a federally-chartered thrift institution regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and headquartered in Pasadena, Calif. The OTS closed the bank on July 11, 2008, and placed it under Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) receivership. IndyMac filed for bankruptcy protection later that month.
“These corporate executives made false and misleading disclosures about IndyMac at a time when the company’s financial condition was rapidly deteriorating. Truthful and accurate disclosure to investors is particularly critical during a time of crisis, and the federal securities laws do not become optional when the news is negative,” said Lorin L. Reisner, Deputy Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
According to the SEC’s complaints filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Perry and Keys defrauded new and existing IndyMac shareholders by making false and misleading statements about IndyMac’s financial condition in its 2007 annual report and in offering materials for the company’s sale of $100 million in new stock to investors. In early February 2008, IndyMac projected that it would return to profitability and continue to pay preferred dividends in 2008 without having to raise new capital. In late February 2008, Perry and Keys knew that contrary to the rosy projections released just two weeks earlier, IndyMac had begun raising new capital to protect IndyMac’s capital and liquidity positions. Specifically, Perry and Keys regularly received information that IndyMac’s financial condition was rapidly deteriorating and authorized new stock sales as a result. Yet they fraudulently failed to fully disclose IndyMac’s precarious financial condition in the 2007 annual report and the offering documents for the new stock sales.
The SEC further alleges that Perry knew that rating downgrades in April 2008 on bonds held by IndyMac Bank had exacerbated its capital and liquidity positions to the extent that IndyMac had no choice but to suspend future preferred dividend payments by no later than May 2, 2008. This material information was not disclosed in IndyMac’s ongoing stock offerings. Perry also failed to disclose in various SEC filings or a May 2008 earnings conference call that IndyMac would not have been “well-capitalized” at the end of its first quarter without departing from its traditional method for risk-weighting subprime assets and backdating an $18 million capital contribution.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Abernathy replaced Keys as IndyMac’s CFO in April 2008. He similarly made false and misleading statements in the offering documents used in selling new IndyMac stock to investors despite regularly receiving internal reports about IndyMac’s deteriorating capital and liquidity positions.
The SEC also alleges that in summer 2007 while serving as IndyMac’s executive vice president in charge of specialty lending, Abernathy made false and misleading statements about the quality of the loans in six IndyMac offerings of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) totaling $2.5 billion. Abernathy received internal reports each month revealing that 12 to 18 percent of IndyMac’s loans contained misrepresentations regarding important loan and borrower characteristics. However, the RMBS offering documents stated that nothing had come to IndyMac’s attention that any loan included in the offering contained a misrepresentation. The SEC alleges that Abernathy failed to ensure that the quality of IndyMac’s loans was accurately disclosed and failed to disclose that information had come to IndyMac’s attention about loans containing misrepresentations.
Abernathy agreed to settle the SEC’s charges without admitting or denying the allegations. He consented to the entry of an order that permanently restrains and enjoins him from violating Section 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act and requires him to pay a $100,000 penalty, $25,000 in disgorgement, and prejudgment interest of $1,592.26. Abernathy also consented to the issuance of an administrative order pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the SEC’s Rules of Practice, suspending him from appearing or practicing before the SEC as an accountant. He has the right to apply for reinstatement after two years.
The SEC’s complaint charges Perry and Keys with knowingly violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and aiding and abetting IndyMac’s violations of its periodic reporting requirements under Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1 thereunder. Perry also is charged with aiding and abetting IndyMac’s reporting violations under Exchange Act Rules 13a-11 and 13a-13. The SEC’s complaint against Perry and Keys seeks permanent injunctive relief, an officer and director bar, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and a financial penalty.
The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the FDIC in this investigation.”

An executive lying to stockholders is very common in the United States. Seldom are any real penalties given or even charges brought against executives who lie. In fact lying seems to be a prerequisite for the post of CEO at most U.S. corporations that I look at as an investor. Perhaps stockholders believe they need a devious monster to run their company. The problem with devious people is that they tend to steal from everyone. A ruthless person when it comes to competitors is also a ruthless person when it comes to stockholders. To paraphrase Shakespeare a thief by any other name is still a thief.

SEC CHARGED BANC OF AMERICA SECUITIES WITH SECURITIES FRAUD

The following is a breaking story which alleged that Banc of America Securities committed fraud in it’s dealings with municipal bonds. BAS was part of Bank of America and was merged with Merril Lynch when Bank of America took over that firm. The following excerpt from the SEC web page shows in detail the case which the SEC laid out against BAS:

"Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Banc of America Securities, LLC (BAS) with securities fraud for its part in an effort to rig bids in connection with the investment of proceeds of municipal securities.

To settle the SEC's charges, BAS has agreed to pay more than $36 million in disgorgement and interest. In addition, BAS and its affiliates have agreed to pay another $101 million to other federal and state authorities for its conduct.
"This ongoing investigation has helped to expose wide-spread corruption in the municipal reinvestment industry," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "The conduct was egregious — in return for business, the company repeatedly paid undisclosed gratuitous payments and kickbacks and affirmatively misrepresented that the bidding process was proper."
When investors purchase municipal securities, the municipalities generally invest the proceeds temporarily in reinvestment products before the money is used for the intended purposes. Under relevant IRS regulations, the proceeds of tax-exempt municipal securities must generally be invested at fair market value. The most common way of establishing fair market value is through a competitive bidding process, whereby bidding agents search for the appropriate investment vehicle for a municipality.
In its Order, the SEC found that the bidding process was not competitive because it was tainted by undisclosed consultations, agreements, or payments and, therefore, could not be used to establish the fair market value of the reinvestment instruments. As a result, these improper bidding practices affected the prices of the reinvestment products and jeopardized the tax-exempt status of the underlying municipal securities, the principal amounts of which totaled billions of dollars.
According to the Commission's Order, certain bidding agents steered business from municipalities to BAS through a variety of mechanisms. In some cases, the agents gave BAS information on competing bids (last looks), and deliberately obtained off-market "courtesy" bids or purposefully non-winning bids so that BAS could win the transaction (set-ups). As a result, BAS won the bids for 88 affected reinvestment instruments, such as guaranteed investment contracts (GICs), repurchase agreements (Repos) and forward purchase agreements (FPAs).
In return, BAS steered business to those bidding agents and submitted courtesy and purposefully non-winning bids upon request. In addition, those bidding agents were at times rewarded with, among other things, undisclosed gratuitous payments and kickbacks. The Commission also found that former officers of BAS participated in, and condoned, these improper bidding practices.
BAS is now known as Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated following a merger.
Elaine C. Greenberg, Chief of the SEC's Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit, added "This conduct threatened the integrity of the municipal marketplace, affecting not only the municipal issuers who were directly defrauded, but also the thousands of investors nationwide who purchased their tax-exempt municipal securities."
Without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, BAS consented to the entry of a Commission Order which censures BAS, requires it to cease-and-desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 15(c)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and to pay disgorgement plus prejudgment interest totaling $36,096,442 directly to the affected entities.
In determining to accept BAS' offer, which does not include the imposition of a civil penalty, the Commission considered the cooperation of and remedial actions undertaken by BAS in connection with the Commission's investigation as well as investigations conducted by other law enforcement agencies. Among other things, BAS self-reported the bidding practices to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.
In a related action, the Commission barred Douglas Lee Campbell, a former officer of BAS, from association with any broker, dealer or investment adviser, based upon his guilty plea to a criminal information on Sept. 9, 2010, in United States v. Douglas Lee Campbell (Criminal Action No. 10-cr-803) charging him with two counts of conspiracy and one count of wire fraud. The criminal information charged, among other things, that Campbell engaged in fraudulent misconduct in connection with the competitive bidding process involving the investment of proceeds of tax-exempt municipal bonds. The Commission is not imposing a civil penalty against Campbell based on his cooperation in the Commission's investigation.

Deputy Chief Mark R. Zehner and Assistant Municipal Securities Counsel Denise D. Colliers of the SEC's Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit conducted the investigation out of the agency's Philadelphia Regional Office under the leadership of Unit Chief Elaine C. Greenberg, Regional Director Daniel M. Hawke and Assistant Regional Director Mary P. Hansen.
The SEC thanks the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their cooperation and assistance in this matter. The SEC is bringing this action in coordination with the Internal Revenue Service, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and 20 State Attorney Generals.
The SEC's investigation is continuing."

The above is an ongoing story and it may be possible that several other
institutions might be involved in similar schemes. Maybe other institutions should be feeling nervous with the SEC's current dedication to giving the corpses of financial institutions very detailed autopsies.

SEC CHARGES SKIN CARE COMPANY CFO WITH COOKING THE BOOKS

Fraud is so common in the American investment community that it is a wonder that the DJIA trades above 1,000 points. Financial statements are rendered worthless because so many accountants are willing to take bribes and falsely report income and losses (commonly known as cooking the books). So what is an investor to do? Well, based upon the performance of the stock market this year, most have choose to put their money under their mattress and wait and see if someone will ever get serious about stopping the rampant fraud throughout our economy. The following is an excerpt from the SEC blog which tells the tale of a company that allegedly defrauded investors with the help of an accounting firm:

“Washington, D.C., Aug. 9, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the former chief financial officer of a Seattle-area skin care retailer with fraudulently boosting earnings by reporting sales of anti-aging products promoted through Home Shopping Network infomercials while the products still sat unsold in the company’s warehouse. The agency also separately settled charges against the company and began administrative proceedings against the company’s outside auditors for professional misconduct.

The SEC alleges that Karl Redekopp, the former CFO of International Commercial Television Inc. (ICTV), turned millions of dollars of quarterly losses into profits by falsely accounting for ICTV's sales of the Derma Wand, a skin care appliance that purports to reduce wrinkles and improve skin appearance. Redekopp fraudulently recognized revenue before the Home Shopping Network had actually sold or delivered the product to viewers. He also improperly recognized revenue before a free trial period offered by the company had expired, and failed to reverse revenue from products that had been returned. Redekopp's misconduct caused the company to falsely report millions of dollars in excess revenue in 2007 and 2008.

"Redekopp violated fundamental principles of accounting to fraudulently boost ICTV's bottom line and conceal its true financial health from investors," said Marc J. Fagel, Director of the SEC's San Francisco Regional Office. "Unfortunately, ICTV's auditors turned a blind eye to the company's financial irregularities and failed to fulfill their role in investor protection."

The SEC's complaint against Redekopp, filed in federal district court in Tacoma, Wash., alleges that Redekopp recorded "sales" of products that had not been shipped or that the customer was not obligated to pay for. Redekopp's fraudulent accounting resulted in ICTV adjusting net sales by more than $3.7 million over a five-quarter period in 2007 and 2008, negating all originally reported net income for those periods to restated net losses. For example, for year-end 2007 alone, ICTV restated its originally reported net income of $1.5 million to a net loss of $1.1 million after correcting the fraudulent reporting.

The SEC's complaint charges Redekopp, who lives in Vancouver, B.C., with violations of the antifraud, reporting, books and records and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC seeks a permanent injunction, a financial penalty, and an order barring him from serving as an officer of a public company.

In a separate complaint, the SEC charged ICTV for its misleading financial statements. Without admitting or denying the allegations, ICTV agreed to settle the charges by consenting to a final judgment permanently enjoining the company from future violations of the reporting, books and records, and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws.
The SEC instituted administrative proceedings against ICTV's former outside auditors Steven H. Dohan, Nancy L. Brown and their Miami-area firm Dohan + Company CPAs as well as Erez Bahar, a Canadian Chartered Accountant who lives in Vancouver.

According to the SEC's order, Dohan, Brown, and Bahar were responsible for the issuance of an unqualified audit report stating that ICTV's financial statements were fairly reported in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and that the audit had been conducted in accordance with Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) auditing standards. The SEC's Division of Enforcement alleges that the former auditors failed to identify the material accounting deficiencies and violations of GAAP that formed the basis of the SEC's enforcement action against Redekopp. The Division of Enforcement alleges that Dohan, Brown, Bahar, and Dohan + Company CPAs engaged in improper professional conduct under Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice. An administrative hearing will be scheduled to determine whether remedial sanctions are appropriate.”

This is another case where the SEC is taking action but, where is the Department of Justice? It seems that white collar crime is legal in the eyes of prosecutors. The theft of investment funds by fraudsters may well be recognized by historians as the reason for our current economic mess and also as the reason for our nation’s long term demise. Printing money to pour into the bottomless pit of Wall Street fraudster's pockets will cure nothing in the long run.

The government can only do so much to stimulate the economy. Before the economy can improve the general population must have a positive attitude toward business. For big business executives to simply blame the government for everything and then rail against any legislation that gets tough on fraudsters’ shows to the American public that business is not to be trusted any more than government. After all, if a business executive is not committing fraud then why is he against prosecuting those who are fraudsters? Perhaps “birds of a feather” do flock together.

For government and business to believe that doing nothing to clean up the horrific fraud in our economy caused by government and business, will somehow make things get better over time is ridiculous. Relying on luck or divine intervention to fix things will fix nothing because it was not a divinity or bad luck that caused this economic fiasco. To misquote Shakespeare, the economic problem that government and big business have isn’t in their stars, it’s in themselves.

SEC FILES CHARGES AGAINS DELL INC. FOR FRAUD

There are so many companies that cook their books to gain the approval of Wall Street. It is perhaps too often that traders and investors alike look to pundits on Wall Street to get information about a company. Some of the problem might be laziness on the part of potential purchasers of a given security. But, I suspect that a lot of the problem for purchases of securities is that the market moves so fast that by the time the real research and analysis is done on a company the company’s stock could have shot up several percent and then taken a nose dive only to shoot back up again. Doing corporate research and background checks is can be used to pick an entry point price to pay for a security but, because of extreme market volatility and the connectivity of our one world economy it is impossible to eliminate the gambling side to Wall Street. If something happens in Indonesia tomorrow it could cause a given company to go bankrupt or make billions. Since most companies are in several different countries keeping track of all the politics and economics in every country a company has ties to may be impossible.

The following is a story released by the SEC regarding Dell Inc. who seemed to consistently meet Wall Street expectations. You might recall the Bernard Madoff story in which he consistently did well for his investors and gave them fantastic returns. The Dell story like the Madoff story is a story of cooking the books so that investors did not panic when they saw that Dell did not meet the expectations of Wall Street gurus. Now Madoff cooked his books strictly to continue getting new investors to keep his Ponzi scheme going. Dell not only wanted to protect itself from investor flight but was also getting kickbacks from Intel to keep Dell from using another company’s CPU. In short, Dell made up for it’s shortfall in earnings from operations by taking bribes from Intel. Please read the excerpt from the SEC web site for details of this somewhat strange story.

“Washington, D.C., July 22, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Dell Inc. with failing to disclose material information to investors and using fraudulent accounting to make it falsely appear that the company was consistently meeting Wall Street earnings targets and reducing its operating expenses.

The SEC alleges that Dell did not disclose to investors large exclusivity payments the company received from Intel Corporation to not use central processing units (CPUs) manufactured by Intel’s main rival. It was these payments rather than the company’s management and operations that allowed Dell to meet its earnings targets. After Intel cut these payments, Dell again misled investors by not disclosing the true reason behind the company’s decreased profitability.

The SEC charged Dell Chairman and CEO Michael Dell, former CEO Kevin Rollins, and former CFO James Schneider for their roles in the disclosure violations. The SEC charged Schneider, former regional Vice President of Finance Nicholas Dunning, and former Assistant Controller Leslie Jackson for their roles in the improper accounting.

Dell Inc. agreed to pay a $100 million penalty to settle the SEC’s charges. Michael Dell and Rollins each agreed to pay a $4 million penalty, and Schneider agreed to pay $3 million, to settle the SEC’s charges against them. Dunning and Jackson also agreed to settle the SEC’s charges.
“Accuracy and completeness are the touchstones of public company disclosure under the federal securities laws,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Michael Dell and other senior Dell executives fell short of that standard repeatedly over many years, and today they are held accountable.”

Christopher Conte, Associate Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, added, “Dell manipulated its accounting over an extended period to project financial results that the company wished it had achieved, but could not. Dell was only able to meet Wall Street targets consistently during this period by breaking the rules. The financial results that public companies communicate to the investing public must reflect reality.”

The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C., alleges that Dell Inc., Michael Dell, Rollins, and Schneider misrepresented the basis for the company’s ability to consistently meet or exceed consensus analyst EPS estimates from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2006. Without the Intel payments, Dell would have missed the EPS consensus in every quarter during this period. The SEC’s complaint further alleges that Dell’s most senior former accounting personnel including Schneider, Dunning, and Jackson engaged in improper accounting by maintaining a series of “cookie jar” reserves that it used to cover shortfalls in operating results from FY 2002 to FY 2005. Dell’s fraudulent accounting made it appear that it was consistently meeting Wall Street earnings targets and reducing its operating expenses through the company’s management and operations.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Intel made exclusivity payments to Dell in order for Dell to not use CPUs manufactured by its rival — Advance Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD). These exclusivity payments grew from 10 percent of Dell’s operating income in FY 2003 to 38 percent in FY 2006, and peaked at 76 percent in the first quarter of FY 2007. The SEC alleges that Dell Inc., Michael Dell, Rollins, and Schneider failed to disclose the basis for the company’s sharp drop in its operating results in its second quarter of FY 2007 as Intel cut its payments after Dell announced its intention to begin using AMD CPUs. In dollar terms, the reduction in Intel exclusivity payments was equivalent to 75 percent of the decline in Dell’s operating income. Michael Dell, Rollins, and Schneider had been warned in the past that Intel would cut its funding if Dell added AMD as a vendor. Nevertheless, in Dell’s second quarter FY 2007 earnings call, they told investors that the sharp drop in the company’s operating results was attributable to Dell pricing too aggressively in the face of slowing demand and to component costs declining less than expected.

The SEC’s complaint further alleges that the reserve manipulations allowed Dell to materially misstate its earnings and its operating expenses as a percentage of revenue — an important financial metric that the company itself highlighted — for more than three years. The manipulations also enabled Dell to misstate materially the trend and amount of operating income of its EMEA segment, an important business unit that Dell also highlighted, from the third quarter of FY 2003 through the first quarter of FY 2005.

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Dell Inc. consented to the entry of an order that permanently restrains and enjoins it from violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13. Dell Inc. also agreed to enhance its Disclosure Review Committee and disclosure processes, including the retention of an independent consultant to recommend improvements to those processes and enhance training regarding the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws.

Michael Dell and Rollins settled the SEC’s disclosure charges, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, by each agreeing to pay the $4 million penalties and consenting to the entry of an order that permanently restrains and enjoins each of them from violating Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act and from violating or aiding and abetting violations of other provisions of the federal securities laws.

Schneider consented to settle the disclosure and accounting fraud charges against him without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, and agreed to pay the $3 million penalty, disgorgement of $83,096, and prejudgment interest of $38,640. Dunning and Jackson consented to settle the SEC’s improper accounting charges without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations. Dunning agreed to pay a penalty of $50,000. In their settlement offers, Schneider, Dunning and Jackson consented to the issuance of administrative orders pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, suspending each of them from appearing or practicing before the SEC as an accountant with the right to apply for reinstatement after five years for Schneider and three years for Dunning and Jackson.

The SEC’s investigation is continuing as to other individuals.”

The above might be a very stupid crime on the part of Dell executives. After all, perhaps if they had used the CPU’s of an Intel competitor they might have had more sales, more revenues and more profits in which case, their ability to meet Wall Street expectations would have been met or exceeded. In any case, the fines were quite severe. The one problem I have with fining a company for committing fraud on its stockholders is that the stockholders (victims) end up paying for the crime twice. The first time they pay are when they are defrauded by paying too much for a stock and the second time they also pay by a declining stock price due to decreased profits because of large fines that the SEC levies. To levy fines against the victims seems stupid on the face of it and it is stupid. Congress should find a way to fix this problem but, too many of them became politicians because daddy does not trust them to run the family business.

In full disclosure I own shares in Intel but, I do not own shares in Dell. I do own a Dell computer and I have no complaints about the product or company services.