FIRM AND TOP MANAGEMENT CHARGED BY SEC FOR VIOLATING ANTI-FRAUD PROVISIONS OF THE SECURITIES LAWS

The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: “On October 4, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a complaint in United States District Court for the Northern District of New York charging StratoComm Corporation, its CEO Roger D. Shearer, and its former Director of Investor Relations, Craig Danzig, with violating the antifraud provisions of the securities laws and with illegally selling securities in unregistered transactions. On October 3, 2011, the SEC filed a complaint in United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that attorney Stewart A. Merkin, StratoComm’s outside counsel, also committed securities fraud. The SEC’s complaint filed in Albany, New York alleges that StratoComm, acting at Shearer’s direction and with Danzig’s assistance, issued and distributed public statements falsely portraying the company as actively engaged in the manufacture and sale of telecommunications systems for use in underdeveloped countries, particularly Africa. In reality, the company had no product and no revenue. The SEC’s complaint also alleges that StratoComm, Shearer and Danzig sold investors approximately $3 million worth of StratoComm stock in unregistered transactions. Shearer used much of that money for his own purposes, including paying a substantial part of the restitution he owed in connection with his guilty plea in a prior criminal proceeding. The SEC’s complaint charges StratoComm with violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. It charges Shearer with violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, aiding and abetting StratoComm’s violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and with being liable as a control person for StratoComm’s violations. The SEC’s complaint charges Danzig with violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act, with violating Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, and with aiding and abetting StratoComm’s violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC’s complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of unlawful proceeds plus prejudgment interest, and a financial penalty from all defendants. It also seeks an order prohibiting Shearer from serving as an officer or director of a public company and prohibiting Shearer and Danzig from participating in the offering of a penny stock. The SEC’s complaint filed in Miami, Florida alleges that Merkin wrote four attorney representation letters for posting on the website of Pink Sheets LLC and its successor, Pink OTC Markets, Inc. In those letters Merkin disclaimed knowledge of any investigation into possible violations of the securities laws by StratoComm or any of its officers or directors. However, the SEC’s complaint also alleges that Merkin was representing StratoComm and several individuals in connection with the SEC’s investigation at the time. Nevertheless, in order that StratoComm’s shares would continue to be quoted, the SEC’s complaint alleges that Merkin falsely stated that to his knowledge StatoComm was not under investigation. The SEC’s complaint charges Merkin with violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. It seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement of unlawful proceeds plus prejudgment interest, a financial penalty, and an order prohibiting Merkin from participating in the offering of a penny stock.”

SEC GETS ASSETS FROZEN AT QUANTITATIVE HEDGE FUND

The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: “Washington, D.C., Oct. 26, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today obtained an asset freeze against a Boston-area money manager and his investment advisory firm charged with misleading investors in a supposed quantitative hedge fund and diverting portions of investor money into his personal bank account. The SEC alleges that Andrey C. Hicks and Locust Offshore Management LLC made false representations to create an aura of legitimacy when soliciting individuals to invest in a purported billion dollar hedge fund that Hicks controlled called Locust Offshore Fund Ltd. Hicks raised at least $1.7 million from several investors for the hedge fund. Among the false claims made to investors were that Hicks obtained undergraduate and graduate degrees at Harvard University, and that he previously worked for Barclays Capital, and that the hedge fund held more than $1.2 billion in assets. “Hicks lied to investors about virtually every aspect of his fictitious hedge fund. This brazen web of lies to investors constituted an outright fraud,” said David P. Bergers, Director of the SEC’s Boston Regional Office. “Hicks and Locust Offshore Management created this intricate scheme in order to gain credibility with investors,” said Robert Kaplan, Co-Chief of the Asset Management Unit in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Even hedge fund managers who claim affiliations with well-known institutions should be thoroughly researched before making an investment.” At the SEC’s request, Judge Richard Stearns of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order that freezes the assets of Hicks, his firm, and the hedge fund. According to the SEC’s complaint, Hicks and his firm falsely claimed that the firm’s quantitative strategies were based on mathematical models that Hicks developed while at Harvard, where he purportedly received his undergraduate degree in 2005 and a graduate degree in 2007. Unbeknownst to investors, Hicks only attended Harvard’s undergraduate college for three semesters and never graduated after twice being required to withdraw for failing to perform academically. Hicks only took one mathematics course during his time at Harvard, receiving a D- for a grade. The SEC alleges that Hicks and his firm misrepresented in offering materials to potential investors that while purportedly at Barclays Capital, Hicks “grew his book nearly two-fold and expanded his group’s assets under management to roughly $16 [billion].” According to a search of records at Barclays Capital, the firm has no record of employing Hicks. According to the SEC’s complaint, Hicks and his firm also falsely claimed that Ernst & Young served as the fund’s auditor, Credit Suisse served as the fund’s prime broker and custodian, and the fund was a business company incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. The SEC’s complaint charges Hicks and Locust Offshore Management 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 thereunder, and Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The complaint also names the Locust Offshore Fund as a relief defendant, alleging that it received investor funds to which it had no right. The SEC’s expedited investigation was conducted by Boston Regional Office staff including Michele T. Perillo and Kevin M. Kelcourse of the Asset Management Unit and Amy S. Gwiazda. Richard M. Harper II will lead the SEC’s litigation. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority and the British Virgin Islands Financial Services Commission. The SEC’s investigation is continuing.”

FINAL JUDGMENT ON GALLEON INSIDER TRADING CASE

The following excerpt is from the SEC website: October 5, 2011 “States District Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered a Final Judgment on Consent as to Steven Fortuna in the SEC's insider trading case, SEC v. Galleon Management, LP, et al., 09-CV-8811 (SDNY) (JSR). On the same day, the Court entered the SEC's Notice of Dismissal as to S2 Capital Management, LP. The SEC filed its action on October 16, 2009, which alleged that Raj Rajaratnam, Galleon Management, LP, Fortuna, S2 Capital, and others engaged in a widespread insider trading scheme involving hedge funds, industry professionals, and corporate insiders. At the time of the alleged conduct, Fortuna resided in Westwood, Massachusetts. Fortuna was a co-founder and principal of S2 Capital, which was an unregistered hedge fund investment adviser based in New York, New York. S2 Capital served as the investment adviser to the hedge fund S2 Capital Fund, LP. During the relevant time period, S2 Capital had over $125 million in assets under management. The Commission alleged that Fortuna and S2 Capital violated the federal securities laws by trading on the basis of material nonpublic information concerning quarterly earnings of Akamai Technologies, Inc. and concerning Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s pending transactions with two Abu Dhabi sovereign entities. Fortuna and S2 Capital learned the inside information from Danielle Chiesi, a consultant and portfolio manager at New Castle Funds LLC, then a registered investment adviser based in White Plains, New York. Specifically, in July 2008, an Akamai executive tipped Chiesi about Akamai's disappointing earnings for its 2008 second quarter. Chiesi tipped others, including Fortuna, who traded based on that information on behalf of S2 Capital. Similarly, in October 2008, executives at IBM and AMD provided Chiesi with information concerning AMD's pending transactions with the Abu Dhabi entities. Chiesi tipped others, including Fortuna, who traded based on that information on behalf of S2 Capital. The Final Judgment permanently enjoins Fortuna from violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5; and (2) orders him liable for disgorgement of $193,536, prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $11,040, and a civil penalty in the amount of $96,768. Fortuna separately pleaded guilty in a parallel criminal case before the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, titled United States v. Fortuna, 09 Cr. 01003 (SDNY), and has been cooperating in connection with this action and related investigations. The SEC dismissed its case against S2 Capital, an entity which has ceased operations and is essentially defunct. In addition, since the case was filed the SEC has: obtained a final judgment by default as to Deep Shah, permanently enjoining Shah from violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5; and ordering him liable for over $34.5 million comprised of (a) disgorgement of ill-gotten gains of $8,201,464.96, representing Shah's ill-gotten gains and those of his downstream tippees, (b) prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $1,755,865.09, and (c) a civil penalty in the amount of $24,604,394.88. entered into a settlement with Chiesi, pursuant to which Chiesi is permanently enjoined from violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"); and is liable for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains of $500,000, together with prejudgment interest of $40,534.90, for a total of $540,534.90. entered into a settlement with David Plate, a proprietary trader at broker/dealer Schottenfeld Group, LLC. Pursuant to that settlement, Plate is permanently enjoined from violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5; and is liable for disgorgement of $43,876.37, plus prejudgment interest of $9,415.54. The judgment further provides that the Court later will determine issues relating to a civil penalty. Plate has agreed to cooperate with the SEC in connection with this action and related investigations. entered into a settlement with Gautham Shankar, a proprietary trader at Schottenfeld. Pursuant to that settlement, Shankar is permanently enjoined from violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5; and is liable for disgorgement of $243,105.59, plus prejudgment interest of $34,462.35. The judgment further provides that the Court later will determine issues relating to a civil penalty. Shankar has agreed to cooperate with the SEC in connection with this action and related investigations. entered into a settlement with Ali Hariri, an Atheros Communications, Inc. executive. Pursuant to that settlement, Hariri is permanently enjoined from violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act; and is permanently barred him from acting as an officer or director of any public company. Hariri also is liable for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, together with prejudgment interest, for a total of $2,665.68. entered into a settlement with Robert Moffat, Senior Vice President and Group Executive of IBM's Systems and Technology Group. Pursuant to that settlement, Moffat is permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and barred from acting as an officer or director of any public company. entered into a settlement with Mark Kurland, Chief Executive Officer of New Castle Funds LLC. Pursuant to that settlement, Kurland is permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act. Kurland is also liable for disgorgement of $4,213,630.18, representing profits made and/or losses avoided as a result of the unlawful trading alleged to have occurred at New Castle, together with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $204,553.59, for a total of $4,418,183.77. dismissed its claims against New Castle, which is no longer operating as an investment advisor and has filed Form ADV-W with the Commission, withdrawing its registration as an investment advisor. New Castle has agreed to cooperate with the Commission's staff and has represented that, as a condition of the dismissal of the Commission's action against it, it will not engage in further operations. entered into a settlement with Rajiv Goel, a former managing director in the treasury group of Intel Corp., as well as the Director of Strategic Investments at Intel Capital, an Intel subsidiary that makes proprietary equity investments in technology companies. Pursuant to that settlement, Goel is permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act. Goel is also required to pay disgorgement in the amount of $230,570.52, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $23,447.21, for a total of $254,017.73. The Court will determine at a later date whether any civil penalty is appropriate as to Goel. Goel is barred from acting as an officer or director of any public company. Goel has agreed to cooperate with the SEC in connection with this action and related investigations. entered into a settlement with Roomy Khan, an individual investor who had been employed at Intel in the late 1990s and had been subsequently employed at Galleon, pursuant to which Khan is permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and is required to pay disgorgement in the amount of $1,552,566.94, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $304,398.77, for a total of $1,856,965.71. The Court will determine at a later date whether any civil penalty is appropriate as to Khan. Khan has agreed to cooperate with the SEC in connection with this action and related investigations. entered into a settlement with Anil Kumar, a former director at the global consulting firm McKinsey & Co., pursuant to which Kumar is permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and is required to pay disgorgement in the amount of $2.6 million, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $190,621, for a total of $2,790,621. The Court will determine at a later date whether any civil penalty is appropriate as to Kumar. Kumar has agreed to cooperate with the SEC in connection with this action and related investigations. entered into a settlement with Schottenfeld Group, LLC, a New York limited liability company and registered broker-dealer, pursuant to which Schottenfeld is permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and is required to pay disgorgement in the amount of $460,475.28, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $72,202.72, and a civil penalty of $230,237.64, representing fifty percent of the disgorgement amount, a discount from a one-time penalty in recognition of its agreement to cooperate. Schottenfeld also agreed to implement enhanced policies and procedures to prevent future securities laws violations, as well as to retain an independent consultant to review its policies and procedures. entered into settlements with Choo-Beng Lee and Ali T. Far, who were both managing members of Far & Lee LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. In addition, Lee was president and Far a managing member of Spherix Capital LLC, an unregistered hedge fund investment adviser based in San Jose, California. Pursuant to the settlements, Lee and Far are permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and are required, jointly and severally, to pay disgorgement in the amount of $1,335,618.17, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $96,385.52, and a civil penalty of $667,809.09, representing fifty percent of the disgorgement amount, a discount from a one-time penalty in recognition of their cooperation. dismissed its claims against Far & Lee and Spherix, which are now defunct or nearly so, in exchange for their agreement to cooperate and cease doing business.”

SEC GETS JUDGMENTS IN CHINA VOICE HOLDINGS CORP. ALLEGED PONZI SCHEME

October 4, 2011 The following excerpt is from the SEC website: “On October 4, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that the Honorable Reed O’Connor, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, recently entered orders permanently enjoining multiple defendants in a case involving the co-founder of China Voice Holding Corp. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, Alex Dowlatshahi and Christopher Mills consented to the entry of judgments that permanently enjoin them from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition, companies owned and controlled by Dowlatshahi and Mills, including Defendants Integrity Driven Network Corp., Lucrative Enterprises Corp., Synergetic Solutions LLC, Silver Summit Holdings LLC, and Sleeping Bear LLC, were permanently enjoined from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The judgments also provide that upon motion of the Commission, the Court may order disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, prejudgment interest thereon, and civil penalties in amounts the Court deems appropriate. The judgments were entered on August 31, 2011, and September 19, 2011. On September 23, 2011, Defendant Ilya Drapkin was permanently enjoined from violating Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act. In addition the judgment permanently bars Drapkin from participating in the offer or sale of penny stocks and provides that, upon motion of the Commission, the Court shall order disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, prejudgment interest thereon, and civil penalties in amounts the Court deems appropriate. Drapkin’s companies, Defendants MG TK Corp. and SMI Chips, Inc., also shall be ordered to pay disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and prejudgment interest in amounts the Court deems appropriate upon motion of the Commission. The Defendants consented to the entry of the judgment without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint. On September 26, 2011, Defendant Gerald Patera, and his companies, Defendants Capital Bankers Group Ltd. and Third Securities Corp., were permanently enjoined from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition, the judgment permanently bars Patera from participating in the offer or sale of penny stocks and provides that, upon motion of the Commission, the Court shall order disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, prejudgment interest thereon, and civil penalties in amounts the Court deems appropriate. The Defendants consented to the entry of the judgment without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint. The Commission filed an emergency action on April 28, 2011, alleging that China Voice’s co-founder and former Chief Financial Officer, David Ronald Allen, with the assistance Dowlatshahi and Mills, and numerous related entities, launched what became a Ponzi scheme that sought to raise at least $8.6 million from investors across the country. The Commission alleged that, contrary to what investors were told, proceeds were used to pay back earlier investors; to make payments to Allen, Dowlatshahi, and Mills; and to make payments to Allen-affiliated business, including China Voice. On June 5, the Honorable Judge Reed O’Connor, United States District Judge, entered a preliminary injunction, which, along with freezing the assets of multiple defendants and relief defendants, prevents the defendants from violating certain provisions of the securities laws, orders the preservation of documents, and requires the defendants to provide an accounting to determine the disposition of investor funds. The SEC’s complaint also charges China Voice, its former chairman and CEO William Burbank IV, and Allen for a series of fraudulent statements about China Voice’s financial condition and business prospects, as well as Patera, Drapkin, and Robert Wilson for their roles in the scheme. The Commission’s case is still pending against remaining defendants Allen, Burbank, Wilson, China Voice, and various of their related entities.”

PHONY DOCUMENTS LEAD TO SEC CHARGES

The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: “Washington, D.C., Sept. 28, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a San Francisco-area investment adviser with fraud for lying to clients about how brokerage commission rebates were being used and producing phony documents to cover up the fraud during an SEC examination. The SEC alleges that Kurt Hovan misappropriated more than $178,000 in “soft dollars” that he falsely claimed to be using to pay for legitimate investment research on his clients’ behalf. In reality, Hovan was secretly funneling the money for such undisclosed uses as office rent, computer hardware, and his brother’s salary. When SEC examination staff asked Hovan to provide documentation to back up his claims, he created phony research reports. The SEC also charged his wife Lisa Hovan and his brother Edward Hovan for their roles in the fraudulent scheme at Hovan Capital Management (HCM). Soft dollars are credits or rebates from brokerage firms on commissions paid by clients for trades executed in the client accounts of an investment adviser. If appropriately disclosed, an investment adviser may retain the soft dollar credits to pay for a limited category of brokerage and research services that benefit clients. According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in San Francisco, Kurt and Lisa Hovan falsely disclosed to clients that HCM would use soft dollars only for certain research services. Instead, they used $166,667 in soft dollars to pay Edward Hovan’s salary over a 10-month period in 2008 and 2009. To cover up these payments, the three Hovans created a shell company – “Bolton Research” – secretly controlled by Edward Hovan. Through this company, the Hovans invoiced HCM’s brokerage firms for research services that had never been rendered. Once Edward Hovan received the payments, he kicked back approximately 40 percent ($65,000) to Kurt and Lisa Hovan to pay the office rent. The SEC further alleges that Kurt and Lisa Hovan instructed a research provider paid with soft dollars to pad its invoices by $12,000 and kick back this amount to help HCM pay for a new computer server. During a January 2010 examination of HCM, the SEC staff asked HCM to provide copies of the research reports prepared by Bolton Research in exchange for the soft dollar payments. In response, Kurt Hovan quickly drafted numerous research reports and doctored materials to make them appear as if they had been prepared by Bolton. Hovan provided these phony documents to SEC examiners. The SEC’s complaint charges Kurt Hovan with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), Section 17(e)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”), and aiding and abetting violations of Section 204(a) of the Advisers Act and Rule 204-2(a)(7). The SEC’s complaint charges Lisa Hovan with violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, Section 207 of the Advisers Act, and aiding and abetting violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act. The SEC’s complaint charges Edward Hovan with violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and Section 17(e)(1) of the Investment Company Act, and aiding and abetting violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act. The SEC’s complaint charges HCM with violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, Sections 204(a), 206(1), 206(2), and 207 of the Advisers Act, and Section 17(e)(1) of the Investment Company Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties. The SEC’s case was investigated by Karen Kreuzkamp and Robert S. Leach of the San Francisco Regional Office. The examination of HCM was conducted by Karah To, Tracey A. Bonner, and Ada C. Chee of the San Francisco Regional Office’s investment adviser/investment company examination program. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California today filed criminal charges against Kurt Hovan. The Commission would like to thank the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their assistance in this matter.”

UNREGISTERED ADVISOR CHARGED WITH FRAUD

The following excerpt is from the SEC website: September 27, 2011 “On September 27, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action against Shreyans Desai and ShreySiddh Capital, LLC (SSC) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Commission's complaint alleges fraudulent conduct by Desai in connection with the purchase and sale of securities for individuals who provided Desai with more than $245,000 to invest on their behalf. According to the complaint, from April 2009 to February 2011, Desai, acting through SSC, an unregistered investment adviser founded by Desai, made numerous materially false and misleading statements to potential investors, including that SSC was a securities broker registered with the Commission and that potential investors would receive returns of at least 50% if they invested their money with SSC. Desai also guaranteed to investors that he would not lose their money. On the basis of Desai's misrepresentations, five individuals gave Desai money to invest on their behalf through SSC. Desai then misappropriated investor money, using it to, among other things, make donations to a local religious institution and pay the personal debts and expenses of Desai's family members. Desai also lost investor money through bad trades. To hide the fact that Desai had misappropriated or lost investor money, Desai provided SSC investors with account statements that overstated the value of the investors' accounts by as much as 300%. According to the Commission's complaint, Desai and SSC also acted as securities brokers by engaging in the regular business of effecting transactions in securities for the accounts of others and by holding themselves out as securities brokers that were registered with the Commission. At the time, however, neither Desai nor SSC was registered with the Commission as a broker and neither was associated with a registered broker-dealer. The Commission's complaint charges Desai and SSC with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Commission is seeking permanent injunctive relief, civil penalties and disgorgement against Desai and SSC.”