LABOR, SEC RENEW MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING SHARED INFORMATION ON RETIREMENT AND INVESTMENTS

FROM:   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

US Labor Department renews its memorandum of understanding with Securities and Exchange Commission

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor announced that it has renewed a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on sharing information on retirement and investment matters. The memorandum was signed by Secretary of Labor Tom Perez and SEC Chair Mary Jo White.

"The department views our work with the SEC on shared interests in recent years as a tremendous success. By renewing this memorandum of understanding, we will continue to better serve all of America's workers who depend on private-sector retirement plans," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security Phyllis C. Borzi. "Our experience with the SEC helps to boost the department's enforcement program and ensure that our regulatory and other programs work in tandem with the SEC's initiatives to provide meaningful protections for workers' retirement savings."

The memorandum sets forth a process for the department's Employee Benefits Security Administration and SEC staffs to share information and meet regularly to discuss topics of mutual interest. The memorandum also will facilitate the sharing of non-public information regarding subjects of mutual interest between the two agencies. Additionally, both agencies will cross-train staff with the goal of enhancing each agency's understanding of the other's mission and investigative jurisdiction.

As more and more investors turn to the markets to help secure their futures, pay for homes and send children to college, the shared investor protection mission of the SEC and the Department of Labor is more vital for America's workers than ever before. The renewed memorandum reinforces the agencies' historical commitment to share information and work together on a variety of regulatory, enforcement, public outreach, research and information technology matters.
EBSA's mission is to assure the retirement, health and other workplace-related benefits of America's workers, retirees and their families. In the retirement area, EBSA has authority over private-sector retirement plans including 401(k) plans and IRAs, plan fiduciaries, and service providers.

ATTORNEY SUSPENDED FROM PRACTICING LAW FOR THREE YEARS OVER INSIDER TRADING ROLE

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

New York State Suspends Attorney Mitchell S. Drucker from Practicing Law for Three Years Based On Insider Trading Violation

The Commission announces that on July 17, 2013, the Appellate Division, Second Department, of the New York State Supreme Court (the "Appellate Division"), issued a decision suspending attorney Mitchell S. Drucker from the practicing law for three years, commencing August 16, 2013. The decision provides that Drucker cannot apply for reinstatement earlier than February 16, 2016. The Court imposed this sanction based on the judgment the Commission obtained in its insider trading case against Drucker. SEC v. Mitchell S. Drucker, et al, 06 Civ. 1644 (S.D.N.Y.) In December 2007, a jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that Drucker, who was in the legal department of public company NBTY, Inc., violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws by insider trading the common stock of NBTY, tipping his father, who traded, and trading his friend's NBTY shares. In its decision, the Appellate Division upheld the determination of a Special Referee that Drucker had (1) "engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation, in violation of former Code of Professional Responsibility DR1-102(a)(4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][4])," and (2) "engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as an attorney, in violation of former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(a)(7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][7])." In imposing its sanction, the Appellate Division found:

. . . [W]e note the absence of cooperation by the respondent with the SEC, as well as the absence of any admission by the respondent that he engaged in insider trading. As the District Court noted, the respondent "failed to cooperate … until … he could no longer conceal his transgression, thereby misleading his employer," and he failed to take responsibility for what he did. We find the absence of remorse to be an aggravating factor, consistent with the District Court's finding that the respondent was entitled to "no mercy" as a result of the "brazenness" of his conduct and his "cocky refusal to own up to it." Moreover, we note the District Court's description of the respondent as having "demonstrated utter indifference to the law and to his client," and of his conduct as "egregious."

Previously, on December 26, 2007, Judge Colleen McMahon, whose decision and findings were cited by the Appellate Division, enjoined Drucker from violating 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 barred him from serving as an officer and director of any public company. The judgment also ordered defendant Drucker to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $201,146, to pay, and be jointly and severally liable with his father, defendant Ronald Drucker for, disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $74,411, and to pay, and be jointly and severally liable with his friend, relief defendant William Minerva for, disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $11,577. Finally, the judgment ordered Mitchell Drucker to pay a civil penalty of $394,486, representing two times the combined ill-gotten gains obtained by defendants Mitchell Drucker and Ronald Drucker, and relief defendant Minerva. Drucker subsequently completed those payments to the U.S. Treasury.

In February 2008, the Commission issued an Order temporarily and then permanently suspending Drucker from practicing before the Commission based on his insider trading judgment.

FUND MANAGER CHARGED FOR ALLEGED RISKY MORTGAGE-RELATED INVESTMENT

FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Charges Fund Manager in Scheme Involving Risky Mortgage-Related Investment

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against an investment fund manager with offices in California and Arizona who is allegedly deceiving investors about the safety and performance of their investments, which involve risky collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs).

The SEC alleges that George Charles Cody Price of La Jolla, Calif., raised $18 million for three investment funds through his firm ABS Manager LLC, and he promised investors that their money was secured by government-backed bonds yielding extraordinary double-digit returns as high as 18 percent per year. Price used the tagline "Your Flight to Safety" in marketing one of those funds. However, Price was actually investing in one the riskiest tranches of CMOs on the market, and the investments failed to achieve the returns that Price promised and sometimes even lost money. Price concealed the actual performance of these risky bonds by providing fake monthly statements to investors that inflated the value of the investments.

The SEC further alleges that Price, who regularly co-hosted a radio show in the San Diego area called "The Wealth Weekend Hour" and recommended that listeners invest in one of his funds, also stole a half-million dollars of fund assets in the form of purported fees, and grossly inflated the assets under his management to misrepresent his prominence as an investment manager as he solicited investors.

The SEC's complaint charges Price and ABS Manager with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rules 206(4)-8(a) thereunder. Price's three investment funds (ABS Fund, LLC [Arizona], ABS Fund, LLC [California], and Capital Access, LLC) are named as relief defendants along with his company Cavan Private Equity Holdings LLC and his wife's company Lucky Star Events LLC because they hold cash or other assets acquired from the fund assets.

Concurrent with filing the complaint, the SEC also sought a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, receiver, order prohibiting the destruction of documents, and an accounting. The SEC sought to file the action under seal. In an Order dated February 11, 2013, United States District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel denied the requests at this time.

The SEC's investigation was conducted by Morgan B. Ward Doran, Janet Weissman, and Carol Shau of the Los Angeles Regional Office. Sam Puathasnanon and Lynn Dean will lead the litigation.

SEC OBTAINS JUDGEMENTS AGAINST FORMER SPONGETECH EXECUTIVES MICHAEL E. METTER AND STEVEN Y. MOSKOWITZ

FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on December 18, 2012 and June 12, 2012, the Honorable Judge Dora L. Irizarry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, entered Judgments against, respectively, Michael E. Metter ("Metter"), the former Chief Executive Office of Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. ("Spongetech"), and Steven Y. Moskowitz ("Moskowitz"), Spongetech’s former Chief Financial Officer. The judgments permanently enjoin Metter and Moskowitz from violating antifraud and securities registration provisions of the federal securities laws, as well as reporting, recordkeeping, and internal controls provisions. The Judgments also bar Metter and Moskowitz from serving as an officer or director of a public company, bar them from engaging in any offering of penny stock, and order them to pay penalties and disgorgement in amounts to be determined by the court, upon motion by the Commission. On September 20, 2012, the Commission instituted a settled administrative proceeding suspending Moskowitz from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant.

The Commission’s complaint, filed on May 5, 2010, alleged that Metter, Moskowitz, Spongetech, and others engaged in a scheme to increase demand illegally for, and profit from, the unregistered sale of publicly-traded Spongetech stock by, among other things, "pumping" up demand for the stock through false public statements about non-existent customers, fictitious sales orders, and phony revenue. They also repeatedly and fraudulently understated the number of Spongetech’s outstanding shares in press releases and public filings. The purpose of flooding the market with false public information was to fraudulently inflate the price for Spongetech shares so the defendants and others could then "dump" the shares by illegally selling them to the public through affiliated entities in unregistered transactions. Among other things, the complaint further alleged that Spongetech, at the direction of Metter and Moskowitz, filed periodic reports with the Commission that contained materially false and misleading statements and materially overstated revenues, created materially false purchase orders, invoices, and other documents, and failed to ensure that Spongetech maintained accurate books and records or implemented effective internal controls. Metter and Moskowitz consented to the entry of the Judgments without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission’s complaint.

The Commission previously obtained judgments against other defendants in this action. On November 10, 2011, the court entered a judgment by consent against Spongetech. The judgment imposed full injunctive relief and ordered Spongetech to pay penalties and disgorgement in amounts to be determined by the court, upon motion by the Commission.

On March 6, 2012, the court entered final judgments against RM Enterprises International, Inc. ("RM Enterprises"), a Spongetech affiliate, and George Speranza, a stock promoter. The final judgments imposed full injunctive relief against both, ordered Speranza to pay penalties, disgorgement, and prejudgment interest totaling $135,883.40, and barred Speranza from participating in any penny stock offering. The court deferred ruling on monetary remedies against RM Enterprises until the claims against other defendants are resolved.

Status of the Commission’s Spongetech Litigation

On March 14, 2011, the court issued an order granting the SEC’s motion for preliminary injunctions against six defendants, and granted the SEC’s requests for asset freezes against Metter, Moskowitz, and RM Enterprises. An asset freeze was not entered against Spongetech because the company filed for bankruptcy in July 2010, and has since been controlled by a court-appointed bankruptcy trustee. The asset freezes entered against Metter, Moskowitz, and RM, as subsequently modified by the court, remain in effect, as does the preliminary injunction entered against defendant Joel Pensley.

On March 27, 2012, the court granted the Commission’s motion to add BusinessTalkRadio.net, Inc. ("BTR") and Blue Star Media Group, Inc. ("Blue Star") as relief defendants. The amended complaint alleges that in 2009, RM Enterprises transferred illicit proceeds from the Spongetech fraud to satisfy a judgment that had been entered against Metter, these entities, and others.

The Commission’s action remains pending against BTR, Blue Star, and two of Spongetech’s former attorneys, Pensley and Jack Halperin, who are charged with violating the antifraud provisions by authoring false and misleading opinion letters to improperly remove the restrictions on trading shares of Spongetech stock.

On December 19, 2011, in a separate action, the court entered a Final Judgment permanently enjoining Myron Weiner from violating the securities registration provisions in connection with his purchase and sale of Spongetech’s stock, imposing a one-year penny stock bar, and ordered him to pay disgorgement and penalties totaling over $1.3 million. SEC v. Myron Weiner, Civil Action No. 11-CV-5731 (E.D.N.Y.). [See Litigation Release No. 22168 (Nov. 23, 2011), Litigation Release No. 22206 (Dec. 21, 2011)].

The Parallel Criminal Action

On May 5, 2010, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (USAO-EDNY) arrested Metter and Moskowitz, who were indicted for conspiracy to commit securities fraud and obstruction of justice, securities fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and perjury. On October 14, 2010, the USAO-EDNY filed a superseding indictment against Speranza and four former Spongetech employees – Andrew Tepfer, Seymour Eisenberg, Thomas Cavanagh, and Frank Nicolois – on charges including securities fraud, obstruction of justice, money laundering, structuring, and contempt.

All of the criminal defendants have entered guilty pleas, with the exception of Metter. Moskowitz pleaded guilty to securities fraud and is awaiting sentencing. Speranza pleaded guilty to perjury for giving false testimony during the SEC’s investigation, and was sentenced to five years of probation. Cavanagh and Nicolois pleaded guilty to structuring transactions to avoid federal currency transaction reporting requirements, and were sentenced to 24 months and 16 months in prison, respectively, followed by three years of supervised release. Eisenberg and Tepfer also have pleaded guilty to securities fraud and await sentencing.

The Commission’s investigation is continuing, and is being conducted by Uta von Eckartsberg, Charles Davis, Scott Stanley, and Alexander Koch. The SEC’s lead trial counsel in the pending civil action is Paul Kisslinger.

SEC CHARGES MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY WITH SECURITIES LAW VIOLATIONS

FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C., Nov. 15, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company with securities law violations for failing to sufficiently disclose the potential negative impact of a "cap" it placed on a complex investment product that investors were planning to use for retirement.

The SEC's investigation found that MassMutual included a cap feature in certain optional riders offered to investors, and the cap potentially affected $2.5 billion worth of MassMutual variable annuities. Neither the prospectuses nor the sales literature sufficiently explained that if the cap was reached, the guaranteed minimum income benefit (GMIB) value would no longer earn interest. MassMutual's disclosures instead implied that interest would continue to accrue after the GMIB value reached the cap, and dollar-for-dollar withdrawals would remain available to investors. A number of MassMutual's own sales agents were confused by the language in the disclosures, and investors were not sufficiently informed of the potential negative effect of taking withdrawals if they reached the cap approximately a decade from now.

MassMutual, which removed the cap after the SEC's investigation to ensure that no investors will be harmed, has agreed to settle the charges and pay a $1.625 million penalty.

"Investors shouldn't have their retirement nest eggs at risk because of undisclosed investment complexities," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "Through our proactive investigative efforts, we exposed a problem with a complex variable annuity investment at least a decade before it could have harmed investors."

According to the SEC's order instituting settled administrative proceedings, MassMutual offered GMIB 5 and 6 riders from 2007 to 2009 as an optional feature on certain variable annuity products. The GMIB rider sets a minimum floor for a future amount that can be applied to an annuity option, known as the "GMIB value." Unlike the contract value of the annuity that fluctuates with the performance of the underlying investment, the GMIB value increases by a compound annual interest rate of either 5 or 6 percent and allows investors to make withdrawals any time during the annuity's accumulation phase.

According to the SEC's order, MassMutual advertised its GMIB riders as providing "Income Now" if investors elected to make withdrawals during the accumulation phase or "Income Later" if they elected to receive annuity payments. MassMutual's sales literature highlighted the guarantee provided by the riders by stating, "Even if your contract value drops to zero, you can apply your GMIB value to a fixed or variable annuity." The riders included a maximum GMIB value, and investors could not reach this cap until 2022. If the GMIB value reached the cap, every dollar withdrawn would reduce the GMIB value by a pro-rata amount tied to the percentage decrease on the contract value. After a number of such withdrawals, depending on market conditions, both the contract value and the GMIB value could decline and adversely affect the amount a customer could apply to an annuity and the future income stream.

The SEC's investigation found that a number of MassMutual sales agents and others did not understand that all withdrawals taken after the GMIB value reached the cap would result in such pro-rata reductions. After reviewing MassMutual's prospectuses and other disclosures, they believed that if the GMIB value reached the cap, investors could take withdrawals and the GMIB value would remain at the cap. Some sales agents mistakenly believed that investors could maximize their benefits by waiting until the GMIB value reaches the cap, taking annual 5 or 6 percent withdrawals, and annuitizing their contracts in order to receive an income stream tied to the maximum GMIB value. But in reality, following such an investment strategy could have had severe adverse consequences for investors. By taking withdrawals annually after the cap is reached, investors would proportionately reduce their GMIB values and in turn potentially decrease their future income streams. In a worst-case scenario, they would withdraw all of their contract value, the GMIB value would decline to zero, and they would be left with nothing to annuitize and, consequently, no future income stream.

According to the SEC's order, while MassMutual was offering GMIB riders, there were indications that sales agents and others did not understand the effect of post-cap withdrawals on the GMIB value, which should have alerted the company to the fact that its disclosures were inadequate. Beginning May 1, 2009, after it stopped offering the riders, MassMutual revised its prospectuses to better explain the consequences of taking withdrawals after the GMIB value reaches the cap. Following the SEC's investigation, MassMutual undertook the remedial step of removing the cap entirely from these riders in order to guarantee that no investor will ever reach the cap. This action contributed to the determination of the penalty amount. MassMutual consented to the SEC's order without admitting or denying the findings. In addition to the $1.625 million penalty, MassMutual agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act.

The SEC's investigation was conducted by Attorney-Advisor Daniel H. Rubenstein and supervised by Associate Director Stephen L. Cohen and Assistant Director C. Joshua Felker.

SEC CHARGES CEO WITH INSIDER TRADING ON CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C., Oct. 26, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged an insurance company CEO with insider trading based on confidential information he obtained in advance of a private investment firm acquiring a significant stake in a Denver-based oil and gas company

The SEC alleges that Michael Van Gilder learned from a Delta Petroleum Corporation insider that Beverly Hills-based Tracinda — which has previously owned large portions of companies such as MGM Resorts International, General Motors, and Ford Motor Company — was planning to acquire a 35 percent stake in Delta Petroleum for $684 million. Van Gilder subsequently purchased Delta Petroleum stock and highly speculative options contracts. He tipped several others, encouraging them to do the same, including a pair of relatives via an e-mail with the subject line "Xmas present." After Tracinda’s investment was publicly announced, Delta Petroleum’s stock price shot up by almost 20 percent. Van Gilder and his tippees made more than $161,000 in illegal trading profits.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado today announced a parallel criminal action against Van Gilder.

"Michael Van Gilder crossed the line when he took advantage of highly confidential corporate information to make trades and reap illicit profits," said Sanjay Wadhwa, Deputy Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit and Associate Director of the New York Regional Office. "He may have thought that he could get away with it, but he is faced today with the consequences of his actions."

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Denver, Van Gilder is the CEO of Van Gilder Insurance Company. He obtained the confidential information about Tracinda’s proposed investment and loaded up on Delta Petroleum stock and options in November and December 2007. He then tipped his broker, a co-worker, and relatives.

The SEC alleges that a mere two minutes after speaking to his source at Delta Petroleum on December 22, Van Gilder e-mailed two relatives with the "Xmas present" subject line and stated, "my present (just kidding) is that I can’t stress enough the opportunity right now to buy Delta Petroleum." That same day, Van Gilder contacted his broker and arranged to purchase more Delta stock and options for himself. Following the public announcement, Van Gilder reaped approximately $109,000 in illegal profits and his broker, co-worker, and a relative made approximately $52,000.

The SEC’s complaint charges Van Gilder with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and seeks a final judgment ordering him to disgorge his and his tippees’ ill-gotten gains and pay prejudgment interest and a financial penalty, and permanently enjoining him from future violations of these provisions of the federal securities laws.

The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by members of the SEC’s Market Abuse Unit — Michael Holland and Joseph Sansone in New York and Jeffrey Oraker and Jay Scoggins in Denver — with substantial assistance from Neil Hendelman of the New York Regional Office. Thomas Krysa, Regional Trial Counsel of the Denver Regional Office, Jeffrey Oraker and Michael Holland will handle the SEC’s litigation.

The SEC thanks the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the District of Colorado and the Southern District of New York as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their assistance in this matter.

SEC CHARGES FORMER CEO AND CHAIRMAN OF MAMTEK U.S. WITH FRAUD IN THE OFFER AND SALE OF MUNICIPAL BONDS

FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, charging former CEO and chairman of Mamtek U.S., Bruce Cole, with fraud related to the offer and sale of municipal bonds.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Cole executed a scheme to defraud investors and made material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the July 2010 offer and sale of $39 million of appropriations credit bonds backed by the City of Moberly, Missouri ("Moberly"). The bond offering was intended to finance a sucralose processing plant in Moberly that Mamtek would construct and operate. The SEC alleges that Cole executed his fraud by directing unsuspecting Mamtek employees to take actions that diverted over $900,000 in bond proceeds for his and his wife’s personal use and by misleading city officials and bondholders about the use of those proceeds.

According to the complaint, prior to the close of the bond offering, Cole directed Mamtek employees and consultants to create false documentation for a nonexistent company to falsely justify fictitious expenses for the sucralose project. The complaint alleges he then instructed Mamtek employees to wire his wife, Nanette H. Cole, $900,000 in bond proceeds, which were used to pay among other things, their mortgage, credit card debt, homeowners and auto insurance, and household employees, in part, under the false pretense that she was an agent of the sham company.

The complaint further alleges that as a precondition to the issuance of the bonds, Cole signed a certificate representing certain portions of the Official Statement delivered to bondholders for the $39 million offering were not false or misleading. However, at the time that Cole signed the document, he had already directed the creation of the false documentation and had made preliminary plans to divert and misuse the bond proceeds, rendering his representation in the closing certificate false. In doing so, he misrepresented the use of bond proceeds and the accuracy of the Official Statement.

By engaging in this conduct, Cole has violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, for making material misrepresentations and omissions and engaging in a scheme to defraud the city and bondholders. Through this Complaint, the Commission seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty. The Commission further names Nanette Cole as a relief defendant because she obtained the bond proceeds from her husband, and seeks return of those funds.

BROKER AND COMPANY CHARGED WITH STEAING INVESTOR FUNDS

FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Charges Connecticut-Based Broker for Stealing Investor Funds

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that it has charged Stephen B. Blankenship, a resident of New Fairfield, Connecticut, and Deer Hill Financial Group, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company under Blankenship’s control, with a scheme to defraud investors. The Commission’s Complaint alleges that, from at least 2002 through November 2011, Blankenship misappropriated at least $600,000 from at least 12 brokerage customers by falsely representing that he would invest their funds in securities through defendant Deer Hill.

The SEC alleges that until November 2011, Blankenship was a registered representative of Vanderbilt Securities, LLC, a registered broker-dealer based in Melville, New York. According to the complaint, Blankenship lied to his brokerage customers and in many instances, lured customers to withdraw money from their brokerage accounts with promises that they could obtain a greater rate of return by investing through Deer Hill. The complaint alleges that Blankenship assured his customers that he would invest their money in established securities such as publicly traded mutual funds. When customers requested account statements, Blankenship provided the customers with fictitious statements from Deer Hill that falsely represented that Blankenship had invested their money in a variety of investments.

According to the SEC’s Complaint, Blankenship never invested the customers’ money. Instead, Blankenship used the customers’ money for personal expenses, business expenses and to make Ponzi-like payments to other customers who requested a return of all or part of their investment.

The action was filed in federal court in Connecticut on September 13, 2012, and the Complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. The Commission also alleges that the defendants violated Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. In its action, the Commission seeks the entry of a permanent injunction against the defendants, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains by the defendants plus pre-judgment interest thereon, and the imposition of civil monetary penalties.

Based on the same misconduct, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut charged Blankenship with criminal violations. The Connecticut Department of Banking‘s Securities Division has obtained, by consent, a revocation of Blankenship’s registration and has barred Blankenship and Deer Hill from operating in Connecticut. The SEC thanks the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, the Connecticut Department of Banking’s Securities Division, and the police department in Danbury, Conn., for their assistance in this matter. The Commission’s investigation is continuing.

ISIDER TRADING ON KNOWLEDGE OF INTENDED TENDOR OFFER

FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SEC Charges Georgia Resident with Insider Trading

On August 28, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action in the Northern District of Georgia against Casey D. Jackson ("Jackson"). The Commission alleges that Thomas D. Melvin ("Melvin"), a Griffin, Georgia based CPA and friend of C. Roan Berry ("Berry"), disclosed material non-public information about the pending tender offer for Chattem, Inc. ("Chattem") securities to Berry. The Commission also alleges that Berry tipped his next door neighbor, Ashley J. Coots. The Commission further alleges that Coots tipped Casey D. Jackson ("Jackson"), and that Jackson traded in the securities of Chattem based on that material non-public information.

According to the Commission’s complaint, on December 21, 2009, Sanofi-Aventis ("Sanofi"), a French pharmaceutical company, announced its intent to make a tender offer for Chattem, a Tennessee-based distributor of over-the-counter pharmaceutical products, at the price of $93.50 per share ("Announcement"). Shares of Chattem closed 32.60% higher on the day of the Announcement than the prior trading day’s close of $69.98 and volume increased more than 3,000% to 10.3 million shares.

The Commission alleges that in early December 2009, several weeks before the Announcement, an independent board member of Chattem who owned Chattem options that would automatically exercise in the event of an ownership change at Chattem, initiated a series of confidential conversations and meetings with his longtime accountant, Melvin, to discuss potential methods of ameliorating the effect of an acquisition of Chattem on his tax liability. The Chattem board member told Melvin sufficient facts such that, given Melvin’s knowledge of the board member’s affairs, Melvin would have clearly known that the board member was discussing Chattem. Melvin and the Chattem board member also discussed the price impact of the tender offer on the board member’s options.

The Commission further alleges that Melvin misappropriated material non-public information regarding the impending tender offer for Chattem securities. Within days of his first meeting with the board member, Melvin disclosed material non-public information about the impending tender offer to Berry. Berry tipped Coots, who tipped Jackson. Jackson traded in Chattem securities based on the material non-public information Coots disclosed to him.

Jackson has agreed to settle the Commission claims against him by consenting to the entry of a final judgment providing permanent injunctive relief under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and by paying disgorgement of $2,369.78, prejudgment interest of $221.93, and a penalty of $1,184.89. Jackson neither admits nor denies the Commission’s allegations, and his settlement is subject to court approval.

NEW CHARGES IN INSIDER TRADING CASE

FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced a second round of charges in an insider trading case involving former professional baseball players and the former top executive at a California-based medical eye products company that was the subject of the illegal trading.
　
The SEC brought initial charges in the case last year, accusing former professional baseball player Doug DeCinces and three others of insider trading on confidential information ahead of an acquisition of Advanced Medical Optics Inc. DeCinces and his three tippees made more than $1.7 million in illegal profits, and they agreed to pay more than $3.3 million to settle the SEC’s charges.
　
Now the SEC is charging the source of those illegal tips about the impending transaction – DeCinces’s close friend and neighbor James V. Mazzo, who was the Chairman and CEO of Advanced Medical Optics. The SEC also is charging two others who traded on inside information that DeCinces tipped to them – DeCinces’ former Baltimore Orioles teammate Eddie Murray and another friend David L. Parker, who is a businessman living in Utah.
　
The SEC alleges that Murray made approximately $235,314 in illegal profits after Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories Inc. publicly announced its plan to purchase Advanced Medical Optics through a tender offer. Murray agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying $358,151. The SEC’s case continues against Parker and Mazzo, the latter of whom was directly involved in the tender offer and tipped the confidential information to DeCinces along the way.
　
According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the total unlawful profits resulting from Mazzo’s illegal tipping was more than $2.4 million. Once Mazzo began tipping DeCinces with confidential information about the upcoming transaction, DeCinces soon began to purchase Advanced Medical Optics stock in several brokerage accounts. DeCinces bought more and more shares as the deal progressed and as he continued communicating with Mazzo. DeCinces tipped at least five others who traded on the inside information, including Murray, Parker, and the three traders who settled their charges along with DeCinces last year – physical therapist Joseph J. Donohue, real estate lawyer Fred Scott Jackson, and businessman Roger A. Wittenbach.
　
According to the SEC’s complaint, Mazzo and DeCinces had been close friends for quite some time and lived in the same exclusive gated community in Laguna Beach, Calif. They socialized together with their wives, belonging to the same Orange County country club and vacationing together overseas. They also communicated frequently by e-mail and through phone calls. Mazzo invested in the restaurant business of DeCinces’ son, and DeCinces’ daughter provided interior decorating services for Mazzo and his wife. Mazzo was directly involved in the impending Advanced Medical Optics/Abbott transaction from its inception in October 2008. With knowledge of confidential information about the deal and his duty not to disclose it, Mazzo illegally tipped DeCinces, who made significant purchases of Advanced Medical Optics shares on Nov. 5, 2008, and continuing up until and near the time of the public announcement of the acquisition.
　
The SEC alleges that Parker and DeCinces had been friends and business associates at the time of the illegal trading. Between Jan. 6 and Jan. 8, 2009, Parker bought 25,000 shares of Advanced Medical Optics stock on the basis of confidential information received from DeCinces about the impending transaction. Parker made approximately $347,920 when he sold the stock on the same day as the public announcement. Meanwhile on January 7, Murray used all of the available cash in his self-directed brokerage account to purchase 17,000 shares of Advanced Medical Optics stock on the basis of the confidential information that DeCinces communicated to him. Murray sold all of his shares following the public announcement.
　
Murray agreed to settle the charges against him without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations by consenting to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from violating Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3 thereunder. Murray agreed to pay disgorgement of $235,314, prejudgment interest of $5,180, and a penalty of $117,657 for a total of $358,151. The settlement is subject to final approval by the court.

FINAL JUDGEMENTS ENTERED AGAINST INOFIN EXECUTIVES IN $110 MILLION UNREGISTERED NOTES CASE

FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that final judgments were entered on July 23 and 24, 2012, respectively in its civil injunctive action against Kevin Mann, Sr., and Michael J. Cuomo, filed in the United States District Court of Massachusetts.
The Commission’s complaint alleged that Inofin and its executives, Cuomo, of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Mann of Marshfield, Massachusetts, and Melissa George of Duxbury, Massachusetts, illegally raised at least $110 million from hundreds of investors in 25 states and the District of Columbia through the sale of unregistered notes. According to the SEC’s complaint, Inofin, along with Cuomo, Mann and George, materially misrepresented how the Company was using investor money and the Company’s financial performance. The SEC also charged two sales agents – David Affeldt and Thomas K. (Kevin) Keough – alleging that they promoted the offering and sale of Inofin’s unregistered securities. Keough’s wife Nancy Keough is named in the complaint as a relief defendant for the purposes of recovering proceeds she received as a result of the violations.
Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Cuomo and Mann consented to entry of a permanent injunction against violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").
The final judgment as to Cuomo orders him pay disgorgement of $1,272, 914.57, representing profits he gained as a result of the conduct alleged in the Complaint, together with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $440,181.42 for a total of $1,713,095.90, plus a civil penalty in the amount of $150,000.
The final judgment as to Mann orders him to pay disgorgement of $733,944, representing profits he gained as a result of the conduct alleged in the Complaint, together with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $170,762 for a total of $904,706, plus a civil penalty in the amount of $150,000.
The SEC’s action remains pending against Inofin, George, Affeldt and the Keoughs.

MAN CHARGED WITH INSIDE TRADING ON FRIEND'S INSIDER KNOWLEDGE

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that it has filed a complaint against Joseph McVicker, of Wayland, Massachusetts. The complaint alleges that McVicker engaged in insider trading in shares of Cambridge-based Art Technology Group, Inc. in advance of an announcement on November 2, 2010, that Art Technology would be acquired by California-based Oracle Corporation. McVicker has agreed to settle these charges by, among other things, paying over $88,000 in disgorgement of trading profits and a civil penalty.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that on October 30, 2010, McVicker learned of the pending acquisition of Art Technology from a close friend at a social event. The complaint further alleges that McVicker understood that the information was material, nonpublic information and that he should not use it to trade. According to the Commission’s complaint, however, on November 1, 2010, McVicker used the information to purchase 24,400 shares of Art Technology. On November 2, 2010, before the market opened, Art Technology announced that Oracle had agreed to acquire Art Technology for $6 per share. Art Technology’s stock closed that day at $5.95 per share, a 45% increase from the previous trading day’s closing price, earning McVicker an ill-gotten gain of $44,268. The complaint alleges that McVicker violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b5 thereunder.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, McVicker consented to the entry of a final judgment which enjoins him from future violations Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b5 thereunder. McVicker also agreed to pay disgorgement of $44,268, prejudgment interest of $365, and a civil penalty of $44,268.

SEC EDUCATION: INTERNATIONAL INVESTING

FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
The Office of Investor Education and Advocacy has provided this information as a service to investors. It is neither a legal interpretation nor a statement of SEC policy. If you have questions concerning the meaning or application of a particular law or rule, please consult with an attorney who specializes in securities law
International InvestingIndividual investors in the United States have access to a wide selection of investment opportunities, including international investments. The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy is issuing this Investor Bulletin to help educate investors about international investing. This Investor Bulletin describes ways individual investors may obtain information about international investments— including special factors to consider when investing internationally.

Should I consider international investments?Two of the chief reasons individual investors invest internationally are:
diversification (spreading your investment risk among foreign companies and markets in addition to U.S. companies and markets); and
growth (taking advantage of the potential for growth in some foreign economies, particularly in emerging markets).
Investors should consider various factors when assessing potential investments, be they domestic or international.

International investment returns may move in a different direction, or at a different pace, than U.S. investment returns. Including exposure to both domestic and foreign securities in your portfolio may reduce the risk that you will lose money if there is a drop in U.S. investment returns and your portfolio’s overall investment returns over time may have less volatility. Keep in mind that with globalization, markets are increasingly intertwined across borders. Investors should balance these considerations along with factors unique to international investing, including those described below.

How can I invest internationally? There are a number of ways individual investors may gain exposure to international investments. As with domestic investments, investors should first learn as much as they can about an investment.

Mutual funds. There are different kinds of mutual funds that invest in foreign securities, including: global and international funds (that invest in companies and businesses outside of the United States); regional or country funds (that invest in a particular region or country); or international index funds (that seek to track the results of a particular foreign market or international index). Investing through mutual funds may reduce some of the potential risks of investing internationally because mutual funds provide more diversification than most investors could achieve on their own. If you want to learn more about investing in these types of mutual funds, as well as in mutual funds generally, information is available in Mutual Funds – A Guide for Investors.

Exchange-traded funds. An exchange-traded fund (ETF) is a type of investment that typically has an objective to achieve the same return as a particular market index. ETFs are listed on stock exchanges and, like stocks (and in contrast to mutual funds), trade throughout the trading day with fluctuating market prices. A share in an ETF that tracks an international or foreign index seeks to give an investor exposure to the performance of the underlying international or foreign stock or bond portfolio along with the ability to trade the ETF shares like any other exchange-traded security.

American depositary receipts. The stocks of most foreign companies that trade in U.S. markets are traded as American depositary receipts (ADRs) issued by U.S. depositary banks (rather than the actual foreign company stock). Each ADR represents one or more shares of a foreign stock or a fraction of a share. If you own an ADR you have the right to obtain the foreign stock it represents, but U.S. investors usually find it more convenient and cost-effective to own the ADR. The price of an ADR generally corresponds to the price of the foreign stock in its home market, adjusted for the ratio of ADRs to foreign company shares. Sometimes the terms "ADR" and "ADS" (for American depositary share) are used interchangeably.

U.S.-traded foreign stocks. Although most foreign stocks trade in the U.S. markets as ADRs, some foreign companies list their stock directly here as well as in their local market. For example, some Canadian stocks that are listed and trade on Canadian markets are also listed and trade directly in U.S. markets, rather than as ADRs. Some foreign companies list their securities in multiple markets, which may include U.S. markets. You can purchase ADRs and U.S.-listed foreign stocks that trade in the United States through your U.S. broker.

Trading on foreign markets. Your U.S. broker may be able to process an order for a company that only trades on a foreign securities market. These foreign companies are not likely to file reports with the SEC. The information available about these companies may be different than the information available about companies that file reports with the SEC. Moreover, the information may not be available in English.

Where can I find information about investing internationally?You should learn as much as you can about an investment, and about an investment adviser or broker-dealer, before you invest. Tracking down information on international investments may require extra effort, but it will make you a more informed investor. One of the most important things to remember is to read and understand the information about an investment before you invest. Here are some sources of information to consider:

SEC reports. Foreign companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges or that publicly offer their securities in the United States must file reports with the SEC. The SEC requires these foreign companies to file electronically, so their reports are available through the SEC’s EDGAR website at www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html at no charge. However, if the company’s securities trade on the over-the-counter markets in the United States rather than on a stock exchange, the company may not be required to file reports with the SEC.

Mutual fund firms. You can get the prospectus for a particular mutual fund directly from the mutual fund firm. Many firms also have websites and phone lines that provide helpful information about international investing.

Broker-dealers and investment advisers. Your broker or investment adviser may have research reports on particular foreign companies, individual countries or geographic regions. Ask whether updated reports are available on a regular basis. Your broker or investment adviser also may be able to provide you with copies of SEC reports and other information.

Foreign companies. Foreign companies often prepare annual reports, and some, but not all, companies also publish an English language version of their annual report. Ask your broker for copies of the company’s reports or check to see if they are available from the SEC. Some foreign companies post their annual reports and other financial information on their websites.

Foreign regulators. You may be able to learn more about a particular foreign public company by contacting the foreign securities regulator that oversees the markets in which that company’s securities trade. You may also be able to learn more about a particular foreign broker-dealer or foreign investment adviser by contacting the securities regulator with which the firm is registered. Many foreign securities regulators post information about issuers and registrants on their websites, including audited financial statements.

You will find a list of international securities regulators on the website of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) at www.iosco.org. Foreign regulators sometimes post warnings about investment scams and information about their enforcement actions that can be useful to investors. IOSCO publishes investor alerts that it receives from its securities regulator members on its website.

You may already be investing internationally. In the United States, we have access to information and products from all over the world. Foreign companies can achieve the status of household names in the United States without public awareness that these companies are domiciled outside of the United States, or they may conduct a majority of their business operations abroad. You should conduct your own review of your holdings to determine whether the securities you own or are considering for purchase already provide you with international or foreign exposure.

What issues and risks should I consider when investing internationally? While investing in any security requires careful consideration, international investing raises some special issues and risks. These include:

Access to different information. In some jurisdictions, the information provided by foreign companies is different than information provided by U.S. companies. The nature and frequency of disclosures required under foreign law may also be different from that of U.S. companies. In addition, foreign companies’ financial statements may be prepared using a different set of accounting standards than companies use in the United States. Information foreign companies publish may not be in English.

Moreover, the financial statements of publicly listed companies in the United States, whether based in the United States or abroad, must be audited by an independent public accounting firm subject to oversight by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). The financial statements of a foreign company that is not publicly listed in the United States may or may not be subject to analogous auditing and auditor oversight arrangements.

Costs of international investments. International investing can be more expensive than investing in U.S. companies. In some countries there may be unexpected taxes, such as withholding taxes on dividends. In addition, transaction costs such as fees, broker’s commissions and taxes may be higher than in U.S. markets. You also should be aware of the potential effects of currency conversion costs on your investment. Mutual funds that invest abroad may have higher fees and expenses than funds that invest in U.S. securities, in part because of the extra expense of trading in foreign markets.

Working with a broker or investment adviser. If you are working with a broker, make sure the broker is registered with the SEC. It is against the law for a broker, foreign or domestic, to contact you and solicit your investment unless it is registered with the SEC. You can obtain information about a U.S.-registered broker by visiting FINRA’s BrokerCheck website or calling FINRA’s toll-free BrokerCheck hotline at (800) 289-9999. If you are working with a U.S.-registered investment adviser, you may be able to obtain information about the investment adviser by visiting the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (IAPD) website. If you directly contact and work with a foreign broker not registered with the SEC, you may not have all the protections under the laws of the United States as would be the case if the broker were registered with the SEC.

Changes in currency exchange rates. A foreign investment also has foreign currency exchange risks. When the exchange rate between the foreign currency of an international investment and the U.S. dollar changes, it can increase or reduce your investment return in the foreign security. In fact, it is possible that a foreign investment may increase in value in its home market but, because of changing exchange rates, the value of that investment in U.S. dollars is actually lower. In addition to exchange rates, you should be aware that some countries might impose foreign currency controls that restrict or delay you from moving currency out of a country.

Changes in market value. All securities markets can experience dramatic changes in market value. One way to attempt to reduce the impact of these price changes is to be prepared to hold your investments through adverse times and sharp downturns in domestic or foreign markets, which may be long lasting.

Political, economic and social events. Depending on the country or region, it can be more difficult for individual investors to obtain information about and comprehensively analyze all the political, economic and social factors that influence a particular foreign market. These factors may provide diversification from a domestically-focused portfolio, but they may also contribute to the risk of international investing.

Different levels of liquidity. Some foreign markets may have lower trading volumes for securities or fewer listed companies than U.S. markets. Some foreign markets are open for shorter periods than U.S. markets. In addition, some countries may restrict the amount or type of securities that foreign investors may purchase. Where these factors exist, they can contribute to less liquidity when you want to sell and lead to difficulty finding a buyer.

Legal remedies. Where you purchase a security can impact whether you have, and where you can pursue, legal remedies against the foreign company or any other foreign-based entities involved in your transaction, such as a foreign broker. Even if you sue successfully in a U.S. court, you may not be able to collect on a U.S. judgment against a foreign company, entity or person. You may have to rely on legal remedies that are available in the home country, if any.

Morrison v. National Australia Bank Investors should be mindful when either buying or selling securities on foreign securities exchanges or otherwise outside the United States, or entering into securities transactions with parties located outside the United States, that, as a result of a recent Supreme Court decision, Morrison v. National Australia Bank, investors may not have the ability to seek certain legal remedies in U.S. courts as private plaintiffs. Investors who purchase or sell securities outside the territory of the United States will generally not be able to bring suit as private plaintiffs in U.S. courts to address fraudulent activity that may occur in connection with these transactions—even if the fraudulent activities occur within the United States. Please note, however, that the SEC’s law enforcement authority with respect to fraudulent conduct within the United States, and conduct outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States, is generally not subject to the limitations placed on private rights of action by the Morrison decision.

Investors who would like to provide information about fraud or wrongdoing involving potential violations of the U.S. securities laws may contact the SEC using the SEC’s Tips, Complaints and Referrals Portal. SEC action may or may not lead to the investor receiving funds to redress any fraud.

Different market operations. Foreign markets may operate differently from the major U.S. trading markets. For example, there may be different time periods for clearance and settlement of securities transactions. Some foreign markets may not report securities trades within the same period as U.S. markets. Rules providing for the safekeeping of shares held by foreign custodian banks or depositories may differ from those in the United States. If a foreign custodian has credit problems or fails, shares purchased in a foreign market may have different levels of protection than provided under the laws of the United States.

CEO FRIEND CHARGED WITH INSIDER TRADING

FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., July 25, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged the close friend of a CEO with insider trading in the stock of a Houston-based employment services company by exploiting confidential information he learned while they were spending time together.

The SEC alleges that Ladislav "Larry" Schvacho, who lived in Georgia at the time of his illegal trading, made approximately $511,000 in illicit profits by using inside information to trade around the acquisition of Comsys IT Partners Inc. by another staffing company. Schvacho gleaned nonpublic information while the Comsys CEO called other Comsys executives to discuss the acquisition and through confidential, merger-related documents to which Schvacho had access.

"As a result of Schvacho’s time with the CEO, he learned nonpublic details and stockpiled Comsys shares until it became by far the largest stock investment that he’d ever made into a single company," said William P. Hicks, Associate Regional Director of the SEC’s Atlanta Regional Office. "The Comsys CEO confided in Schvacho, who exploited that trust and stole information for a half-million-dollar payday."

According to the SEC’s complaint filed late yesterday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Schvacho first met Larry L. Enterline when they worked for the same company in the 1970s. Enterline went on to become the Comsys CEO in 2006. The two maintained their close friendship even after Enterline moved to Houston to run Comsys, speaking frequently on the phone and maintaining a longstanding tradition of Friday evening dinner and drinks when Enterline visited Atlanta, where he still had a home. The two often shared confidential information with one another.

The SEC alleges that Schvacho purchased approximately 72,000 shares of Comsys stock in the weeks leading up to a public announcement on Feb. 2, 2010, that Comsys was to be acquired by Manpower Inc. Given their close relationship and long history of sharing confidences, Enterline made no significant effort to shield information about the impending acquisition from Schvacho. Rather, Enterline reasonably expected that Schvacho would refrain from disclosing or otherwise misusing the confidential information. For example, during one of their Friday evening dinners at a restaurant in Atlanta on Nov. 6, 2009, Enterline discussed the potential acquisition in Schvacho’s presence during phone conversations with one or more Comsys senior executives. On the very next business day (November 9), Schvacho began purchasing Comsys stock relying on the material, nonpublic information he learned.

The SEC further alleges that Schvacho learned nonpublic information between December 11 and December 14 while he and Enterline vacationed together in Florida. Enterline again discussed the possible acquisition in Schvacho’s presence during a phone conversation with another Comsys senior executive. During that vacation, Schvacho also had access to Enterline’s merger-related documents. Just days later, Schvacho bought additional Comsys stock. On December 19, Enterline again discussed the impending acquisition in Schvacho’s presence during a phone conversation after Schvacho picked him up from the airport. On the next business day, Schvacho purchased additional Comsys shares.

According to the SEC’s complaint, on or about January 20, Schvacho converted his 401(k) account to create a self-directed account so that he could buy even more Comsys shares based on material, nonpublic information about the deal. In order to purchase his large position in Comsys stock, Schvacho undertook other various unusual steps including using all available cash in his brokerage accounts to purchase Comsys shares. The Comsys stock price increased approximately 31 percent following the public announcement on February 2. Schvacho immediately sold half of his Comsys shares after the announcement was made.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Debbie T. Hampton and Matthew F. McNamara in the Atlanta Regional Office, and Paul Kim will lead the litigation.

TWO INDICTED FOR ALLEGEDLY BRIBING STOCK BROKERS TO MANIPULATE A STOCK PRICE

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Thursday, July 5, 2012
CEO of Axius Inc. and Finance Professional Indicted for Alleged Roles in Scheme to Bribe Stock Brokers and Manipulate Stock Prices
WASHINGTON – The chief executive officer (CEO) of Axius Inc., a Nevada corporation, and a finance professional were indicted today on multiple charges for their alleged roles in a scheme to bribe stock brokers and manipulate the share price of Axius stock, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch for the Eastern District of New York.

Roland Kaufmann, a Swiss citizen and the CEO of Axius, and Jean-Pierre Neuhaus, a Swiss citizen and finance professional, were each charged in an indictment filed today in the Eastern District of New York with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and to violate the Travel Act, one count of securities fraud, one count of wire fraud, one count of violating the Travel Act, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and one count of money laundering.  According to court documents, Axius is incorporated in Nevada and its principal offices are in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.  Axius is a “holding company and business incubator” that develops other businesses.

“As CEO of Axius, Mr. Kaufmann allegedly conspired with Mr. Neuhaus to fraudulently manipulate the value of his company’s stock,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer.  “According to today’s indictment, he attempted to bribe stock brokers into artificially propping up the value of Axius stock.  With our partners in the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section is pursuing a nationwide effort to investigate and prosecute fraudulent conduct in our securities markets.”

“Rather than rely on the market to set the true value of Axius’ stock, the defendants allegedly sought to buy the best price possible through bribery and deception,” said U.S. Attorney Lynch.  “Their scheme stood to enrich themselves at the expense of the investing public.  We will vigorously investigate and prosecute any such corruption in the securities markets.”

“Conspiring to inflate the price of Axius shares artificially was likely to result in unjust enrichment for the defendants and undeserved losses for investors,” said Assistant Director-in-Charge Janice K. Fedarcyk of the FBI in New York.  “Market-driven fluctuations in share prices are risks investors have to accept. Illegal manipulations become the subject of FBI investigations.”

The indictment alleges that Kaufmann, 60, agreed with Neuhaus, 55, to defraud investors in Axius common stock by bribing stock brokers and manipulating the share price.  As part of the scheme, they enlisted the assistance of an individual they believed to have access to a group of corrupt stock brokers; this individual was in fact an undercover law enforcement agent.  Kaufmann and Neuhaus believed that the undercover agent controlled a network of stockbrokers in the United States with discretionary authority to trade stocks on behalf of their clients.

The indictment alleges that Kaufmann and Neuhaus instructed the undercover agent to direct brokers to purchase Axius shares that were owned or controlled by Kaufmann in return for a secret kickback of approximately 26 to 28 percent of the share price.  Kaufmann and Neuhaus allegedly instructed the undercover agent as to the price the brokers should pay for the stock, and Kaufmann specifically instructed the undercover agent that the brokers would have to pay gradually higher prices for the shares they were buying.  The indictment alleges that Kaufmann and Neuhaus directed the undercover agent that the brokers were to refrain from selling the Axius shares they purchased on behalf of their clients for a one-year period.  By preventing sales of Axius stock, Kaufmann and Neuhaus allegedly intended to maintain the fraudulently inflated share price for Axius stock.

Kaufmann and Neuhaus were originally charged in a criminal complaint filed in the Eastern District of New York on March 8, 2012.  They were arrested on March 8, 2012.  No investors were actually defrauded in the undercover operation.

In a related action, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) today filed a civil enforcement action against Kaufmann and Neuhaus in the Eastern District of New York.  The department thanks the SEC for its cooperation in this matter.

This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Justin Goodyear of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Shannon Jones of the Eastern District of New York.  The case was investigated by the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service.

THE PROTECTION OF INVESTORS FROM FRAUDSTERS

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Protecting Investors from Fraud
The following post appears courtesy of Barbara L. McQuade, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan
Investor fraud schemes are among the most pervasive types of cases handled by the White Collar Crime Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan.
In the past year, our prosecutors have charged a number of investment advisors and stock brokers with defrauding their investors. In one case, a defendant encouraged elderly investors to liquidate legitimate investments to invest with him. In fact, he kept their funds for his own use, depleting many of the victims of their life savings, totaling $4 million. In another case, a defendant offered investments over the Internet, promising high returns and taking in $72 million in investor dollars. Instead, the investments either generated losses or were never made at all.

Victims of fraud include individual investors with modest portfolios as well as institutional investors with large investments, such as pension funds.

President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force was designed to attack fraud, waste and abuse by increasing coordination among agencies and fully leveraging the government’s law enforcement and regulatory system. As part of that effort, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan is aggressively prosecuting financial fraud cases. In the largest investment scheme in the history of the district, a defendant was recently convicted of defrauding more than 1,200 individuals by convincing them to invest more than $350 million in fictitious limited liability corporations. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison.

In addition to prosecuting perpetrators, we are also combating fraud by raising public awareness to help investors protect themselves. Knowledge of common fraud schemes can help prevent individuals from becoming victims of these crimes.

One of the most common investor fraud schemes is the classic “Ponzi” scheme, named for Charles Ponzi, who devised the concept in the 1920s. In a Ponzi scheme, the investment promoter promises investors a high rate of return for their investment and then uses the funds of new investors to pay the promised return to the earlier investors. These early investors then unwittingly help advance the scheme by bragging about the high rate of return on their investment. Eventually, of course, the scheme collapses when the swindler needs to pay out more than he can take in. A recent example of this type of fraud was the massive scheme Bernard Madoff operated that cost investors billions of dollars.

Another common scheme is known as affinity fraud. In these schemes, perpetrators prey on members of an identifiable group, such as a church community, a school parent-teacher organization, a country club or a professional group. The investment advisor will join the group, or pretend to be part of it. As a result, he enjoys an inflated credibility that encourages members of the group to trust him and be less cautious than they might otherwise be when making an investment.

Another frequently used tactic used by perpetrators of investment fraud is to ingratiate themselves with their victims. In one recent case, a defendant regularly visited his clients at home, shared details of his personal life with them, attended family functions, such as birthday parties and weddings, provided gifts to family members, made donations to the clients’ preferred charities, and assisted clients in life decisions. After obtaining their trust, he took their money for his own use.

INVESTMENT ADVISER SUSPECTED OF FRAUD DISAPPEARS

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., July 2, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today obtained a court order to freeze the assets of a Georgia-based investment adviser who has apparently gone into hiding after orchestrating a $40 million investment fraud.

The SEC alleges that Aubrey Lee Price raised money from more than 100 investors living primarily in Georgia and Florida by selling shares in an unregistered investment fund (PFG) that he managed. Price purported to invest fund assets in traditional marketable securities, but he also made illiquid investments in South America real estate and a troubled South Georgia bank. In order to conceal mounting losses of investor funds, Price created bogus account statements with false account balances and returns that were provided to investors and bank regulators.

“Price raised nearly $40 million from investors and made woeful financial transactions that he hid from them,” said William P. Hicks, Associate Director of the SEC’s Atlanta Regional Office. “Now both the money and Price are missing.”

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Price is believed to be a resident of Lowndes County in Georgia after moving from Manatee County, Fla.

The SEC alleges that Price began his scheme in 2008. According to PFG’s private placement memorandum, the investment objective was to achieve “positive total returns with low volatility” by investing in a variety of opportunities, including equity securities traded on the U.S. markets. A significant portion of PFG investor funds – approximately $36.9 million – was placed in a securities trading account at a broker-dealer. The trading account suffered massive trading losses and money was frequently wire-transferred to PFG’s operating bank account. Throughout the time during which PFG suffered trading losses, client account statements prepared by Price were made available to investors indicating fictitious amounts of assets and investment returns.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Price has sent a letter to some individuals dated June 2012 and titled “Confidential Confession For Regulators – PFG, LLC and PFGBI, LLC Summary.” In the 22-page letter, Price admits that he “falsified statements with false returns” in order to conceal between $20 million and $23 million in investor losses.
The Honorable Timothy C. Batten, Sr. granted the SEC’s request for a temporary restraining order and entered an asset freeze for the benefit of investors against Price, PFG, and his affiliated entities.

Anyone with information about Price’s whereabouts should contact the Atlanta office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation at 404-679-9000 or the Lowndes County, Georgia Sheriff’s Office at 229-671-2985.

The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, was conducted in the Atlanta Regional Office by Senior Trial Counsels David Baddley, Kristin Wilhelm and W. Shawn Murnahan, and Assistant Regional Director Aaron W. Lipson. Mr. Murnahan is leading the SEC’s ongoing litigation. The Commission thanks the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the significant assistance provided in this matter.

SEC ALLEGES MARKET MANIPULATION

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., June 27, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed fraud charges against New York-based hedge fund adviser Philip A. Falcone and his advisory firm, Harbinger Capital Partners LLC for illicit conduct that included misappropriation of client assets, market manipulation, and betraying clients. The SEC also charged Peter A. Jenson, Harbinger’s former Chief Operating Officer, for aiding and abetting the misappropriation scheme. Additionally, the SEC reached a settlement with Harbinger for unlawful trading.

In a separate, settled action, the SEC charged Harbert Management Corporation, whose affiliates served as the managing members of two Harbinger-related entities, as a controlling person in the market manipulation.

The SEC alleges that Falcone used fund assets to pay his taxes, conducted an illegal “short squeeze” to manipulate bond prices, secretly favored certain customers at the expense of others, and that Harbinger unlawfully bought equity securities in a public offering, after having sold short the same security during a restricted period.

“Today’s charges read like the final exam in a graduate school course in how to operate a hedge fund unlawfully,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “Clients and market participants alike were victimized as Falcone unscrupulously used fund assets to pay his personal taxes, manipulated the market for certain bonds, favored some clients at the expense of others, and violated trading rules intended to prohibit manipulative short sales.”

The SEC filed actions in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Falcone, Jenson, and Harbinger, and, in connection with the illegal trading scheme, separately instituted and settled administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Harbinger.

In particular, the SEC alleges that: Falcone fraudulently obtained $113.2 million from a hedge fund that he advised and misappropriated the proceeds to pay his personal taxes;

Falcone and two Harbinger investment managers through which Falcone operated manipulated the price and availability of a series of distressed high-yield bonds by engaging in an illegal “short squeeze;”

Falcone and Harbinger secretly offered and granted favorable redemption and liquidity rights to certain strategically-important investors in exchange for those investors’ consent to restrict redemption rights of other fund investors, and concealed the arrangement from the fund’s directors and investors; and

Harbinger engaged in illegal trades in connection with the purchase of common stock in three public offerings after having sold the same securities short during a restricted period.

“Not only are hedge fund managers expected to be savvy investors, they are supposed to serve the interests of their clients. Here, in addition to raiding a fund for personal benefit and cutting secret deals with favored investors, Falcone then lied to investors about what he had done,” said Bruce Karpati, Chief of the Asset Management Unit in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

Describing the illegal short squeeze, Gerald W. Hodgkins, Associate Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement said, “After he took control of an entire issue of high-yield bonds, Falcone kept buying with an eye toward rigging the market and punishing short sellers to settle a score. In the process, Falcone hijacked the market for the bonds and illegally manipulated their price and availability. The Division will continue to police the bond market to make sure it operates as an efficient market, free of the corrosive effects of manipulators such as Falcone.”

Misappropriation Scheme
In the misappropriation scheme, the SEC alleges that Falcone unlawfully used fund assets to pay his personal taxes. In 2009 Falcone owed federal and state authorities $113.2 million in taxes. Declining to pursue other financing options, such as pledging his personal assets as collateral for a bank loan, Falcone elected instead to take a $113.2 million loan from the Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P. – the same fund from which Harbinger had earlier suspended investors from redeeming.

Falcone authorized the transfer of fund assets to himself in a transaction that Jenson helped structure. Falcone and Harbinger never sought or obtained consent from investors prior to using the fund's assets to benefit Falcone.

As part of the misappropriation scheme, the SEC alleges that Falcone and Harbinger, aided by Jenson, made several material misrepresentations and omissions in seeking legal advice regarding the loan and in subsequent communications with investors, including, among other things:
the financing alternatives available to Falcone; the circumstances that led to Falcone’s need for the loan; the ability of the Special Situations Fund to furnish the loan, without disadvantaging investors;

the terms and conditions of the loan, including the interest rate charged and the amount of collateral posted by Falcone; and the role of Harbinger’s outside legal counsel in vetting the transaction.
The SEC also alleges that Falcone and Harbinger delayed disclosing the loan for approximately five months because of their concern that disclosure of Falcone’s financial condition might have a negative impact on investor withdrawals and on Falcone’s ability to attract more investments for other Harbinger funds. Falcone repaid the loan in 2011, after the Commission commenced its investigation.

Market Manipulation / Illegal Short Squeeze
In a separate civil action, the SEC alleges that from 2006 through early 2008 Falcone and two Harbinger investment management entities manipulated the market in a series of distressed high-yield bonds issued by MAAX Holdings Inc. In this fraudulent scheme, Falcone and the Harbinger entities allegedly orchestrated an illegal “short squeeze” – a market manipulation scheme in which an investor constricts the supply of a security, through large purchases or other means, with the intent of forcing settlement from short sellers at arbitrary and inflated prices.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that at Falcone’s direction, Harbinger purchased a large position in the MAAX bonds during April and June of 2006. After hearing rumors that a Wall Street financial services firm was shorting the MAAX bonds and also encouraging its customers to do the same, Falcone decided to seek revenge. In September 2006, Falcone directed the Harbinger-managed funds to buy every available bond in the market, often purchasing the bonds from short sellers. Ultimately, Falcone raised the funds’ stake to approximately 13 percent more than the available supply of the MAAX bonds.

At one point, Harbinger had purchased 22 million more bonds than MAAX had ever issued. Contemporaneously with these purchases, Falcone locked up the MAAX bonds the Harbinger funds had purchased in a custodial account at a bank in Georgia to prevent his brokers from lending out the bonds to sellers seeking to deliver the bonds to purchasers after short sales.

Having seized control of the supply of the MAAX bonds, Falcone then demanded that the Wall Street firm and its customers settle their outstanding MAAX short sales, not disclosing that it would be virtually impossible to find bonds available for delivery. The Wall Street firm bid daily for the bonds, which quickly doubled in price. Then, Falcone engaged in a series of transactions with certain short sellers at arbitrary, inflated prices, while at the same time valuing the funds’ holdings on his books at a small fraction of the prices he charged the covering short sellers.

Preferential Redemption Scheme
In its action alleging misappropriation, the SEC also alleges that in a further breach of Falcone and Harbinger’s fiduciary duties to their clients, Falcone and Harbinger engaged in unlawful preferential redemptions for the benefit of certain favored investors.

In 2009, while soliciting required investor approval to restrict withdrawals from another Harbinger fund, Falcone and Harbinger secretly exempted certain large investors that Falcone deemed to be strategically important from soon-to-be imposed liquidity restrictions – provided those investors voted to approve restrictions that would temporarily stabilize the decline in Harbinger’s assets under management.

Ultimately, pursuant to these ‘vote buying’ agreements, Falcone and Harbinger allegedly permitted these investors who were connected to certain favored institutional investors to withdraw a total of approximately $169 million. Harbinger concealed these quid pro quo arrangements from the independent directors and from fund investors.

Other Illegal Trading by Harbinger
In a separate administrative and cease-and-desist proceeding, the SEC found that between April and June 2009, Harbinger violated Rule 105 of Regulation M of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). Rule 105 is an anti-manipulation rule that prohibits short selling securities during a restricted period and then purchasing the same securities in a public offering.

The Commission’s Order censures Harbinger and requires the firm to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of Rule 105 now or in the future. Harbinger will pay disgorgement in the amount of $857,950, prejudgment interest in the amount of $91,838, and a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $428,975. Harbinger consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the Commission’s findings.

Settlement with Harbert Management Company
In a separate complaint also filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the SEC filed a settled civil action against Harbert and two related investment entities – HMC-New York Inc. and HMC Investors, LLC – for their role in the illegal short squeeze described above.

The SEC alleges in its complaint against Harbert that during the entire period of the short squeeze, Defendants Harbert, HMC-NY and HMC Investors, directly or indirectly, possessed the power to control Falcone and the investment managers through which he operated. HMC-NY and HMC Investors, two entities controlled by Harbert, served as the managing members of two limited liability companies that acted as the general partners of the funds advised by Falcone.

Harbert and its affiliates also provided hedge fund administrative, legal, compliance, risk assessment and other services to the funds. In these capacities, Harbert, HMC-NY and HMC Investors knew of Falcone’s trades in the MAAX bonds, but failed to take appropriate steps to address Falcone’s manipulative conduct. The SEC charged the Harbert defendants as controlling persons pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging that they are jointly and severally liable for Falcone’s and the Harbinger investment managers’ violations of the antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act.

Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, Defendants Harbert, HMC-NY and HMC Investors have agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1 million. The Harbert defendants also have consented to the entry of a judgment enjoining them from violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The proposed settlement with Harbert is subject to approval by the court.

In the pending federal court actions concerning the first three fraudulent schemes described above, the Commission seeks a variety of sanctions and relief including injunctions against Falcone and Harbinger from violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Exchange Act, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

In addition, the Commission seeks to enjoin Harbinger and Falcone from controlling any person who violates the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act. As for monetary relief, the Commission seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, prejudgment interest, and civil money penalties from Falcone and Harbinger. The Commission further seeks to prohibit Falcone from serving as an officer and director of any public company. Against Jenson, the Commission seeks to enjoin Jenson from aiding and abetting future violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act and Advisers Act and seeks to obtain monetary penalties.

The SEC’s investigation was a coordinated effort between teams from the SEC’s headquarters and the New York Regional Office, including Conway T. Dodge, Jr., Robert C. Besse, Ken C. Joseph, Mark Salzberg, Brian Fitzpatrick, and David Stoelting. Messrs. Joseph, Salzberg, and Fitzpatrick are members of the Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. Mr. Stoelting and David Gottesman will lead the SEC’s litigation team.