BILLION DOLLAR HEDGE FUND ADVISORY FIRM CHARGED WITH THE OVERVALUE OF ASSETS

FROM: U.S SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C., Oct. 17, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a former $1 billion hedge fund advisory firm and two executives with scheming to overvalue assets under management and exaggerate the reported returns of hedge funds they managed in order to hide losses and increase the fees collected from investors.

The SEC alleges that New Jersey-based Yorkville Advisors LLC, founder and president Mark Angelo, and chief financial officer Edward Schinik enticed pension funds and other investors to invest in their hedge funds by falsely portraying Yorkville as a firm that managed a highly-collateralized investment portfolio and employed a robust valuation procedure. They misrepresented the safety and liquidity of the investments made by the hedge funds, and charged excessive fees to the funds based on the fraudulently inflated values of the investments.

This is the seventh case arising from the SEC’s Aberrational Performance Inquiry, an initiative by the Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit that uses proprietary risk analytics to identify hedge funds with suspicious returns. Performance that is flagged as inconsistent with a fund’s investment strategy or other benchmarks forms a basis for further investigation and scrutiny.

"The analytics put Yorkville front and center on our radar screen," said Bruce Karpati, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. "When we looked further we found lies to investors and the firm’s auditors as well as a scheme to inflate fees by grossly overvaluing fund assets. We will continue to pursue hedge fund managers whose success is based on fiction rather than fact."

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Yorkville, Angelo, and Schinik defrauded investors in the YA Global Investments (U.S.) LP and YA Offshore Global Investments Ltd hedge funds.

The SEC alleges that Yorkville and the two executives:
Failed to adhere to Yorkville’s stated valuation policies.
Ignored negative information about certain investments by the funds.
Withheld adverse information about fund investments from Yorkville’s auditor, which enabled Yorkville to carry some of its largest investments at inflated values.
Misled investors about the liquidity of the funds, collateral underlying the investments, and Yorkville’s use of a third-party valuation firm.
The SEC alleges that by fraudulently making Yorkville’s funds more attractive to potential investors, Angelo and Schinik enticed more than $280 million in investments from pension funds and funds of funds. This enabled Yorkville to charge the funds at least $10 million in excess fees based on the inflated values of Yorkville’s assets under management.

The SEC’s complaint charges Yorkville with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5. Yorkville also is charged with violating Sections 206(1), (2) and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8. Angelo is charged with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Sections 206(1), (2) and (4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8. He also is charged with aiding and abetting Yorkville’s violations of the Exchange Act and Advisers Act. Schinik is charged with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and with aiding and abetting Yorkville’s violations of the Exchange Act and Advisers Act.

The SEC’s Aberrational Performance Inquiry is a joint effort among staff in its Division of Enforcement, Office of Compliance, Inspections and Examinations, and Division of Risk, Strategy and Financial Innovation. The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Stephen B. Holden, Brian Fitzpatrick, and Kenneth Gottlieb with the support of Frank Milewski under the supervision of Valerie A. Szczepanik and Ken Joseph. The SEC’s litigation is being led by Todd Brody.

SEC DEFINES DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY "CHILLS" AND "FREEZES"

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy is issuing this Investor Bulletin to help educate investors about the effects of chills and freezes on an investor’s ability to hold and trade securities. A “chill” is a limitation of certain services available for a security on deposit at The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). A “freeze,” formally referred to as a “global lock,” is a complete restriction on all DTC services for a particular security on deposit at DTC. 

What is DTC and what does it do? 

DTC was created by the securities industry to improve efficiencies and reduce risk in the clearance and settlement of securities transactions. Today, DTC is the largest securities depository in the world. Including securities issued in the U.S. and 121 other countries, DTC has on deposit 3.6 million securities worth about $35 trillion. 

As a clearing agency registered with the SEC, DTC provides security custody and book-entry transfer services for securities transactions in the U.S. market involving equities, corporate and municipal debt, money market instruments, American depositary receipts, and exchange-traded funds. In accordance with its rules, DTC accepts deposits of securities from its participants (i.e., broker-dealers and banks), credits those securities to the depositing participants’ accounts, and effects book-entry movements of those securities. 

Most large U.S. broker-dealers and banks are DTC participants, meaning that they deposit and hold securities at DTC. DTC appears in an issuer’s stock records as the sole registered owner of securities deposited at DTC. DTC holds the deposited securities in “fungible bulk,” meaning that there are no specifically identifiable shares directly owned by DTC participants. Rather, each participant owns a pro rata interest in the aggregate number of shares of a particular issuer held at DTC. Correspondingly, each customer of a DTC participant, such as an individual investor, owns a pro rata interest in the shares in which the DTC participant has an interest. 

Because the securities held by DTC are for the benefit of its participants and their customers (i.e., investors holding their securities at a broker-dealer), frequently the issuer and its transfer agent must interact with DTC in order to facilitate the distribution of dividend payments to investors, to facilitate corporate actions (i.e., mergers, splits, etc.), to effect the transfer of securities, and to accurately record the number of shares actually owned by DTC at all times. 

What are “chills” and “freezes” and why does DTC impose them?

Occasionally a problem may arise with a company or its securities on deposit at DTC. In some of those cases DTC may impose a “chill” or a “freeze” on all the company’s securities. A “chill” is a restriction placed by DTC on one or more of DTC’s services, such as limiting a DTC participant’s ability to make a deposit or withdrawal of the security at DTC. A chill may remain imposed on a security for just a few days or for an extended period of time depending upon the reasons for the chill and whether the issuer or transfer agent corrects the problem. A “freeze” is a discontinuation of all services at DTC. Freezes may last a few days or an extended period of time, depending on the reason for the freeze. If the reasons for the freeze cannot be rectified, then the security will generally be removed from DTC, and securities transactions in that security will no longer be eligible to be cleared at any registered clearing agency.

DTC imposes chills and freezes on securities for various reasons. For example, DTC may impose a chill on a security because the issuer no longer has a transfer agent to facilitate the transfer of the security or the transfer agent is not complying with DTC rules in its interactions with DTC in transferring the security. Often this type of situation is resolved within a short period of time.

Chills and freezes can be imposed on securities for more complicated reasons, such as when DTC determines that there may be a legal, regulatory, or operational problem with the issuance of the security, or the trading or clearing of transactions involving the security. For example, DTC may chill or freeze a security when DTC becomes aware or is informed by the issuer, its transfer agent, federal or state regulators, or federal or state law enforcement officials that an issuance of some or all of the issuer’s securities or transfer in those securities is in violation of state or federal law. If DTC suspects that all or a portion of its holdings of a security may not be freely transferable as is required for DTC services, it may decide to chill one or more of its services or place a freeze on all services for the security. When there is a corporate reorganization, DTC will temporarily chill the security for book-entry activities.

When DTC chills or freezes a security, it will issue a “Participant Notice” to its participants. These notices are publicly available on DTC’s website athttp://www.dtcc.com/legal/imp_notices. When securities are frozen, DTC also provides optional automated notifications to its participants. These processes provide participants the ability to update their systems to automatically block future trading of affected securities, in addition to alerting participant compliance departments. DTC has information regarding these processes on its website.

What can investors do?

Prior to investing in a security, investors can ask their broker-dealer if there are or ever have been any DTC restrictions placed on any security they are considering buying or selling. This information may affect your decision to purchase or sell the security. The broker-dealer or the broker-dealer’s compliance department should be able to address the inquiry by checking with its back office or by calling its account manager at DTC. Given that DTC does not always disclose the reason for a chill or freeze, a broker-dealer may not be able to provide its customer with information as to why the freeze was imposed or if or when it will be lifted. Investors should also thoroughly research the company and its transfer agent prior to investing in the security.

TWO INDIVIDUALS TO PAY $7.5 MILLION FOR FOREX PONZI SCHEME

FROM:  U.S  CFTC
Federal Court in South Carolina Orders Ronald E. Satterfield and Nicholas and Patricia Bos to Pay over $7.5 Million for Fraud in Connection with a Forex Ponzi Scheme
Washington, DC - The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) obtained two federal court consent orders of permanent injunction, one order requiring defendant Ronald E. Satterfield, of Charleston, S.C., to pay $957,146 of restitution and a $2,871,438 civil monetary penalty, and the other order requiring defendant Nicholas Bos (Bos) of Ludington, Mich., to pay $849,146 of restitution and a $2,547,438 civil monetary penalty, for operating a foreign currency (forex) Ponzi scheme.  The Bos order also requires Patricia Bos (P. Bos), a relief defendant and Bos’ wife, to disgorge $295,000 in ill-gotten gains.  The orders also impose permanent trading and registration bans against Satterfield and Bos.

The consent orders, entered by Judge Richard M. Gergel, of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, arise from a CFTC complaint filed on November 8, 2010, that charged the defendants with operating a forex Ponzi scheme involving the fraudulent solicitation of at least $3.3 million from at least 70 individuals – residing in South Carolina, North Carolina, Michigan, and Maryland – to engage in leveraged or margined forex transactions (see CFTC Press Release 5935-10, November 15, 2010).

The Satterfield order, entered on May 9, 2012, finds that Satterfield fraudulently solicited customers by representing that his forex trading was profitable and that customers could receive monthly returns ranging from two to four percent.  The order also finds that Satterfield issued false account statements reflecting the promised returns when, in fact, a large amount of customer deposits were used to pay purported returns to other customers, rather than to trade forex.  The forex trading Satterfield actually did, according to the order, resulted in losses in almost every month.

The Bos order, entered on April 25, 2012, finds that Bos fraudulently solicited customers to trade forex through accounts managed by Satterfield.  The order also finds that Bos falsely represented to customers that there would be no risk to their deposits and failed to disclose that he was collecting commissions and fees paid from customer funds and that he misappropriated $295,000 in customer funds to purchase a house in Ludington, Mich., titled in his name and in that of his wife.

Default order entered against corporate defendants in June 2011
Earlier, on June 14, 2011, the CFTC obtained a default judgment order from Judge Gergel against the corporate defendants in this action: Graham Street Forex Group, LLC and Shore-2-Summit Financial, LLC.  The default order requires the corporate defendants jointly and severally to pay over $5.6 million in equitable relief and a monetary sanction and imposes permanent trading and registration bans against them.
The CFTC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of South Carolina, and the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office.
CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this case are Eugene Smith, Patricia Gomersall, Christine Ryall, Paul G. Hayeck, and Joan Manley.