The following case from the SEC web site details the settlement in a case which involved the Foreign Corrupt Practices act:
“The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced a settlement with Johnson and Johnson (“J&J”) to resolve SEC charges that the New Brunswick, NJ-based global pharmaceutical, consumer product, and medical device company violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by bribing public doctors in several European countries and paying kickbacks to Iraq to illegally obtain business.
The SEC alleges that, since at least 1998, J&J’s subsidiaries paid bribes to public doctors in Greece who selected J&J surgical implants, paid bribes to public doctors and hospital administrators in Poland who awarded tenders to J&J, and paid bribes to public doctors in Romania to prescribe J&J pharmaceutical products. J&J also paid kickbacks to Iraq in order to obtain contracts under the United Nations Oil for Food Program (“Program”).
J&J has agreed to pay more than $48.6 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest to settle the SEC’s charges and to pay a $21.4 million fine to the U.S. Department of Justice to settle criminal charges. A resolution of a related investigation by the United Kingdom Serious Fraud Office is anticipated.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that J&J subsidiaries, employees, and agents paid bribes to public doctors and administrators in Greece, Poland, and Romania. Doctors who ordered or prescribed J&J products were rewarded in a variety of ways, including cash and inappropriate travel. A variety of schemes were used to carry-out the bribery, including the use of slush funds, sham civil contracts with doctors, and off-shore companies in the Isle of Man. A J&J executive was involved in the Greek conduct, and MD&D Poland executives running three business lines oversaw the creation of sham contracts, travel documents, and the creation of slush funds in Poland. The SEC’s complaint also alleges that J&J’s agent paid secret kickbacks to Iraq to obtain nineteen Oil for Food contracts.
Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, J&J has consented to the entry of a court order permanently enjoining it from future violations of Sections 30A, 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; ordering it to pay $38,227,826 in disgorgement and $10,438,490 in prejudgment interest; and ordering it to comply with certain undertakings regarding its FCPA compliance program.
J&J voluntarily disclosed some of the violations by its employees, and conducted a thorough internal investigation to determine the scope of the bribery and other violations, including proactive investigations in more than a dozen countries by both its internal auditors and outside counsel. J&J’s internal investigation and its ongoing compliance programs were essential in gathering facts regarding the full extent of J&J’s FCPA violations.
Kelly G. Kilroy and Tracy L. Price of the Enforcement Division’s FCPA Unit and Brent S. Mitchell and Reid A. Muoio conducted the SEC’s investigation. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice, Fraud Section; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Serious Fraud Office in the United Kingdom; and 5th Investigation Department of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Radom, Poland. The SEC's investigation is continuing.”
This is a photo of the National Register of Historic Places listing with reference number 7000063
Monday, May 16, 2011
COURT JUDGMENT IN EAST DELTA RESOURCES CASE
In the following excerpt from the SEC web site the SEC got a summary judgment against in a securities fraud case:
‘The United States Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on March 22, 2011, Judge Sandra Feuerstein of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered summary judgment in favor of the Commission on most of its claims against Mayer Amsel and his brother, David Amsel in a market manipulation case involving the securities of East Delta Resources Corp. Mayer Amsel is a securities fraud recidivist.
The Commission’s motion for summary judgment argued that from 2004 through at least 2006, the Amsels, in concert with several others and through their individual actions, artificially inflated the volume of market activity for, and in turn the price of, East Delta stock, and illegally sold East Delta shares that they received at little or no cost. The Commission’s summary judgment motion further argued that the Amsels together collected illegal profits of $1,322,703 from their manipulative conduct.
The summary judgment opinion grants the following relief: (1) a permanent injunction prohibiting both Amsels from violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; (2) a permanent injunction prohibiting both Amsels from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act); (3) a permanent injunction prohibiting David Amsel from violating Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder; and (4) a permanent injunction prohibiting both Amsels from participating in an offering of penny stock, absent an explicit release from the Commission. The opinion reserved judgment on the issue of the Amsels’ liability for violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act (together, Section 5), the question of whether to impose an officer and director bar against David Amsel, and what the appropriate judgment amount should be with respect to disgorgement, civil penalties, and prejudgment interest. Subsequently, the court entered a default judgment against David Amsel that permanently enjoined him from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act after he failed to appear at a bench trial that was held in the case on March 28, 2011.
The latest judgments against the Amsel brothers follow others entered in the same case within the past seven months against East Delta and its former CEO, Victor Sun. On September 22, 2010 and October 13, 2010, the court entered final judgments against East Delta and Sun, respectively. Both defendants settled with the Commission without admitting or denying the allegations against them.
A decision on Mayer Amsel’s Section 5 liability is still pending following the March 28, 2011 trial. A ruling on the officer and director bar against David Amsel and the monetary remedies sought by the Commission is expected after further briefing.
The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Quebec Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) and the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) in connection with the investigation leading to the litigation.”
‘The United States Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on March 22, 2011, Judge Sandra Feuerstein of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered summary judgment in favor of the Commission on most of its claims against Mayer Amsel and his brother, David Amsel in a market manipulation case involving the securities of East Delta Resources Corp. Mayer Amsel is a securities fraud recidivist.
The Commission’s motion for summary judgment argued that from 2004 through at least 2006, the Amsels, in concert with several others and through their individual actions, artificially inflated the volume of market activity for, and in turn the price of, East Delta stock, and illegally sold East Delta shares that they received at little or no cost. The Commission’s summary judgment motion further argued that the Amsels together collected illegal profits of $1,322,703 from their manipulative conduct.
The summary judgment opinion grants the following relief: (1) a permanent injunction prohibiting both Amsels from violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; (2) a permanent injunction prohibiting both Amsels from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act); (3) a permanent injunction prohibiting David Amsel from violating Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder; and (4) a permanent injunction prohibiting both Amsels from participating in an offering of penny stock, absent an explicit release from the Commission. The opinion reserved judgment on the issue of the Amsels’ liability for violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act (together, Section 5), the question of whether to impose an officer and director bar against David Amsel, and what the appropriate judgment amount should be with respect to disgorgement, civil penalties, and prejudgment interest. Subsequently, the court entered a default judgment against David Amsel that permanently enjoined him from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act after he failed to appear at a bench trial that was held in the case on March 28, 2011.
The latest judgments against the Amsel brothers follow others entered in the same case within the past seven months against East Delta and its former CEO, Victor Sun. On September 22, 2010 and October 13, 2010, the court entered final judgments against East Delta and Sun, respectively. Both defendants settled with the Commission without admitting or denying the allegations against them.
A decision on Mayer Amsel’s Section 5 liability is still pending following the March 28, 2011 trial. A ruling on the officer and director bar against David Amsel and the monetary remedies sought by the Commission is expected after further briefing.
The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Quebec Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) and the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) in connection with the investigation leading to the litigation.”
Sunday, May 15, 2011
FORMER BANCO SANTANDER S.A. ANALYST SETTLES WITH SEC
Insider trading is not just a problem in the United States but is a world wide problem. The following case involves an analyst at Banco Santander S.A. who allegedly decided to use company information to make some money for his personal benefit. The following is an excerpt from the SEC web site:
“ Washington, D.C., April 25, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that former Banco Santander S.A. analyst Juan Jose Fernandez Garcia of Madrid, Spain, has agreed to pay more than $625,000 to settle insider trading charges against him. The SEC accused Garcia in August 2010 of illegally trading in advance of a corporate takeover by a company that Santander advised.
The settlement with Garcia requires the approval of U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Aspen in the Northern District of Illinois.
“This concludes our emergency action against Garcia and demonstrates that the Commission will act swiftly to prevent foreign citizens who commit fraud in the U.S. securities markets from reaping the profits of their illegal activity,” said Daniel M. Hawke, Chief of the Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit.
The SEC filed an emergency court action on Aug. 20, 2010, against Garcia and another trader in Spain and obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order and asset freeze over the funds held in Garcia’s brokerage account at Interactive Brokers LLC. The SEC alleged that Garcia just days earlier had traded on the basis of material, nonpublic information about a multi-billion dollar cash tender offer by BHP Billiton Plc to acquire Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. At the time, Garcia was the head of a research arm at Santander, a Spanish banking group advising BHP on its bid. Garcia purchased 282 call option contracts for Potash stock in the days leading up to the public announcement, and immediately sold all of his options following the announcement for illicit profits of $576,033.
Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Garcia agreed to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3, and ordering him to pay disgorgement of $576,033 and a penalty of $50,000.
The SEC’s charges against the other trader, Luis Martin Caro Sanchez, remain pending.”
“ Washington, D.C., April 25, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that former Banco Santander S.A. analyst Juan Jose Fernandez Garcia of Madrid, Spain, has agreed to pay more than $625,000 to settle insider trading charges against him. The SEC accused Garcia in August 2010 of illegally trading in advance of a corporate takeover by a company that Santander advised.
The settlement with Garcia requires the approval of U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Aspen in the Northern District of Illinois.
“This concludes our emergency action against Garcia and demonstrates that the Commission will act swiftly to prevent foreign citizens who commit fraud in the U.S. securities markets from reaping the profits of their illegal activity,” said Daniel M. Hawke, Chief of the Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit.
The SEC filed an emergency court action on Aug. 20, 2010, against Garcia and another trader in Spain and obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order and asset freeze over the funds held in Garcia’s brokerage account at Interactive Brokers LLC. The SEC alleged that Garcia just days earlier had traded on the basis of material, nonpublic information about a multi-billion dollar cash tender offer by BHP Billiton Plc to acquire Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. At the time, Garcia was the head of a research arm at Santander, a Spanish banking group advising BHP on its bid. Garcia purchased 282 call option contracts for Potash stock in the days leading up to the public announcement, and immediately sold all of his options following the announcement for illicit profits of $576,033.
Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Garcia agreed to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3, and ordering him to pay disgorgement of $576,033 and a penalty of $50,000.
The SEC’s charges against the other trader, Luis Martin Caro Sanchez, remain pending.”
Thursday, May 12, 2011
SEC: RAISE WORTH THRESHOLD BEFORE CLIENTS CHARGED BY ADVISERS
The following announcement came from the SEC web site. In this announcement the SEC discusses proposed changes to how a threshold is determined before a financial adviser can charge a fee:
Washington, D.C., May 10, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today provided public notice of its plan to raise certain dollar thresholds that would need to be met before investment advisers can charge their clients performance fees. The SEC seeks public comment on the plan, which would satisfy a requirement of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Currently, Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act allows an adviser to charge its clients performance fees in certain circumstances. Two of the circumstances are:
The client has at least $750,000 under management with the adviser.
The adviser reasonably believes the client has a net worth of more than $1.5 million.
Section 418 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC to issue an order to adjust for inflation these dollar amount thresholds by July 21, 2011, and every five years thereafter. As a result, the SEC issued today’s notice that it intends to issue an order to revise the dollar amount tests to $1 million for assets under management and $2 million for net worth.
The Commission also proposed related amendments to Rule 205-3 that would:
Provide the method for calculating future inflation adjustments of the dollar amount tests.
Exclude the value of a person’s primary residence from the determination of whether a person meets the net worth standard.
Modify the transition provisions of the rule to take into account performance fee arrangements that were permissible at the time the adviser and client entered into their advisory contract.”
One important change noted above is the provision to exclude the value of a person’s primary residence when computing net worth. After the real estate collapse and current weakness in the real estate market, the determination of the value of a person’s home seems to be precarious. In many areas of the United States the value of homes is still falling with no end in sight.
Washington, D.C., May 10, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today provided public notice of its plan to raise certain dollar thresholds that would need to be met before investment advisers can charge their clients performance fees. The SEC seeks public comment on the plan, which would satisfy a requirement of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Currently, Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act allows an adviser to charge its clients performance fees in certain circumstances. Two of the circumstances are:
The client has at least $750,000 under management with the adviser.
The adviser reasonably believes the client has a net worth of more than $1.5 million.
Section 418 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC to issue an order to adjust for inflation these dollar amount thresholds by July 21, 2011, and every five years thereafter. As a result, the SEC issued today’s notice that it intends to issue an order to revise the dollar amount tests to $1 million for assets under management and $2 million for net worth.
The Commission also proposed related amendments to Rule 205-3 that would:
Provide the method for calculating future inflation adjustments of the dollar amount tests.
Exclude the value of a person’s primary residence from the determination of whether a person meets the net worth standard.
Modify the transition provisions of the rule to take into account performance fee arrangements that were permissible at the time the adviser and client entered into their advisory contract.”
One important change noted above is the provision to exclude the value of a person’s primary residence when computing net worth. After the real estate collapse and current weakness in the real estate market, the determination of the value of a person’s home seems to be precarious. In many areas of the United States the value of homes is still falling with no end in sight.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
BID RIGGING AT FORCLOSURE SALES: INVESTOR PLEADS GUILTY
Although this case involves real estate foreclosures and not securities fraud; the real estate market is directly connected to Wall Street as seen by the recent real estate market melt down which also affected all kinds of investors. The following case is an excerpt from the Department of Justice web site:
FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 2011
CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE INVESTOR PLEADS GUILTY TO BID RIGGING
AT PUBLIC FORECLOSURE AUCTIONS
WASHINGTON — A real estate investor pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, Calif., to conspiring to rig bids and commit mail fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions held in San Joaquin County, Calif., Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, and Benjamin B. Wagner, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, announced.
Gregory L. Jackson pleaded guilty to conspiring with a group of real estate speculators who agreed not to bid against each other at certain public real estate foreclosure auctions in San Joaquin County. The primary purpose of the conspiracy was to suppress and restrain competition and to obtain selected real estate offered at San Joaquin County public foreclosure auctions at non-competitive prices, the department said in court papers.
According to the court documents, after the conspirators’ designated bidder bought a property at a public auction, they would hold a second, private auction, at which each participating conspirator would bid the amount above the public auction price he or she was willing to pay. The conspirator who bid the highest amount at the end of the private auction won the property. The difference between the price at the public auction and that at the second auction was the group’s illicit profit, and it was divided among the conspirators in payoffs. According to his plea agreement, Jackson participated in the scheme beginning in or about March 2009 until in or about October 2009.
To date, six individuals, including Jackson, have pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in connection with this investigation: Anthony B. Ghio, John R. Vanzetti, Theodore B. Hutz, Richard W. Northcutt and Yama Marifat.
“Today’s guilty plea demonstrates the Antitrust Division’s commitment to vigorously pursue and prosecute bid rigging conspiracies in real estate foreclosure auctions that harm competition,” said Assistant Attorney General Varney.
“Public auctions are designed to determine the fair market value in the housing market, and they play a pivotal role in protecting its integrity. These defendants manipulated the system for their own gain; their conduct was serious and prosecution is necessary,” said U.S. Attorney Wagner.
Jackson pleaded guilty to bid rigging, a violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine. Jackson also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine.
These charges arose from an ongoing federal antitrust investigation of fraud and bidding irregularities in certain real estate auctions in San Joaquin County. The investigation is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California, the FBI’s Sacramento Division and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. Trial attorneys Barbara Nelson and Tai Milder from the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office and Assistant U.S. Attorney Russell L. Carlberg are prosecuting the case.
Today’s plea is part of efforts underway by President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. One component of the task force is the national Mortgage Fraud Working Group, co-chaired by U.S. Attorney Wagner.”
It seems that President Obama's special task force investigating financial crimes did a good job in this case. Hopefully there will be many more prosecutions for finacial fraud.
FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 2011
CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE INVESTOR PLEADS GUILTY TO BID RIGGING
AT PUBLIC FORECLOSURE AUCTIONS
WASHINGTON — A real estate investor pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, Calif., to conspiring to rig bids and commit mail fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions held in San Joaquin County, Calif., Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, and Benjamin B. Wagner, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, announced.
Gregory L. Jackson pleaded guilty to conspiring with a group of real estate speculators who agreed not to bid against each other at certain public real estate foreclosure auctions in San Joaquin County. The primary purpose of the conspiracy was to suppress and restrain competition and to obtain selected real estate offered at San Joaquin County public foreclosure auctions at non-competitive prices, the department said in court papers.
According to the court documents, after the conspirators’ designated bidder bought a property at a public auction, they would hold a second, private auction, at which each participating conspirator would bid the amount above the public auction price he or she was willing to pay. The conspirator who bid the highest amount at the end of the private auction won the property. The difference between the price at the public auction and that at the second auction was the group’s illicit profit, and it was divided among the conspirators in payoffs. According to his plea agreement, Jackson participated in the scheme beginning in or about March 2009 until in or about October 2009.
To date, six individuals, including Jackson, have pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in connection with this investigation: Anthony B. Ghio, John R. Vanzetti, Theodore B. Hutz, Richard W. Northcutt and Yama Marifat.
“Today’s guilty plea demonstrates the Antitrust Division’s commitment to vigorously pursue and prosecute bid rigging conspiracies in real estate foreclosure auctions that harm competition,” said Assistant Attorney General Varney.
“Public auctions are designed to determine the fair market value in the housing market, and they play a pivotal role in protecting its integrity. These defendants manipulated the system for their own gain; their conduct was serious and prosecution is necessary,” said U.S. Attorney Wagner.
Jackson pleaded guilty to bid rigging, a violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine. Jackson also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine.
These charges arose from an ongoing federal antitrust investigation of fraud and bidding irregularities in certain real estate auctions in San Joaquin County. The investigation is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California, the FBI’s Sacramento Division and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. Trial attorneys Barbara Nelson and Tai Milder from the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office and Assistant U.S. Attorney Russell L. Carlberg are prosecuting the case.
Today’s plea is part of efforts underway by President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. One component of the task force is the national Mortgage Fraud Working Group, co-chaired by U.S. Attorney Wagner.”
It seems that President Obama's special task force investigating financial crimes did a good job in this case. Hopefully there will be many more prosecutions for finacial fraud.
Friday, May 6, 2011
SEC ASKS FOR COMMENT ON SHORT SALE TRANSACTIONS
The following was excerpted from the SEC web site. In it the SEC is asking for public commit on short sales:
“ Washington, D.C., May 4, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today published on its website a request for public comment on the feasibility, benefits, and costs of two short selling disclosure regimes as a part of a study mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Section 417 of the Dodd-Frank Act directs the SEC’s Division of Risk, Strategy and Financial Innovation to study two short sale disclosure regimes. A transactions reporting regime would add short sale-related marks to the consolidated tape in a voluntary pilot program. A position reporting regime would entail real time reporting of investors’ short positions either to the public or to regulators only. The Commission is required to submit a report on the study to Congress by July 21, 2011.
To better inform the study, the request seeks public comment on both the existing uses of short selling in securities markets and the adequacy or inadequacy of the information regarding short sales available today. The request also seeks public comment on the likely effect of these possible future reporting regimes on the securities markets, including their feasibility, benefits, and costs.
The public comment period will remain open for 45 days following publication of the request in the Federal Register.”
“ Washington, D.C., May 4, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today published on its website a request for public comment on the feasibility, benefits, and costs of two short selling disclosure regimes as a part of a study mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Section 417 of the Dodd-Frank Act directs the SEC’s Division of Risk, Strategy and Financial Innovation to study two short sale disclosure regimes. A transactions reporting regime would add short sale-related marks to the consolidated tape in a voluntary pilot program. A position reporting regime would entail real time reporting of investors’ short positions either to the public or to regulators only. The Commission is required to submit a report on the study to Congress by July 21, 2011.
To better inform the study, the request seeks public comment on both the existing uses of short selling in securities markets and the adequacy or inadequacy of the information regarding short sales available today. The request also seeks public comment on the likely effect of these possible future reporting regimes on the securities markets, including their feasibility, benefits, and costs.
The public comment period will remain open for 45 days following publication of the request in the Federal Register.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To WALL STREET FRAUDSTERS
Posts
All Comments