ALLEGED STOCK PRICE INFLATION TRANSACTIONS LEAD TO FRAUD CHARGES AGAINST CORP. EXECUTIVES

October 6, 2011 The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: “The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed fraud charges against two former sales executives with Mountain View, Calif. medical equipment company Hansen Medical, Inc., alleging they orchestrated fraudulent transactions to inflate the company’s reported revenues. In a separate proceeding, the SEC also filed settled charges against Hansen Medical for providing misleading financial information to public investors. The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal district court in San Francisco, alleges that Christopher Sells, Hansen Medical’s former Vice President of Commercial Operations, and Timothy Murawski, a former Vice President of Sales who reported to Sells, participated in multiple improper sales transactions in 2008 and 2009. The SEC alleges the individuals engaged in the scheme as Hansen Medical underwent efforts to raise additional capital from investors. According to the SEC’s complaint, on multiple occasions Sells of Dallas, Tex., and Murawski of Lake Zurich, Ill., schemed to have Hansen Medical personnel temporarily install the company’s robotic catheter system at a customer site before the customer was ready for it so that Hansen Medical could record the product sale. Hansen Medical personnel would then immediately dismantle the equipment and put it in storage until months later, when they would return to reinstall the equipment. The SEC further alleges that, in a sales transaction in the final days of December 2008, Sells and Murawski instructed Hansen Medical personnel to forge a customer signature on certain required documents to allow the company to record the revenue that quarter. According to the SEC, Sells and Murawski’s schemes were intended to circumvent revenue recognition rules and to fool Hansen Medical’s finance personnel and auditors into believing that the sales had been completed and revenue could be recorded. The SEC’s complaint charges Sells and Murawski with violations of Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 thereunder, aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder. The SEC also charges Sells with violations of Rules 13b2-2 under the Exchange Act. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions and financial penalties against Sells and Murawski, and also seeks to bar Sells from serving as an officer or director of a public company. In a separate administrative proceeding, Hansen Medical consented (without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings) to the entry of a Order that requires that Hansen Medical to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. In considering whether to accept Hansen Medical's settlement offer, the Commission took into consideration Hansen Medical’s cooperation with the Commission’s investigation and its remedial efforts once the fraud came to light.”

REMARKS MADE AT BETTER INVESTING NATIONAL CONVENTION

The following excerpt is from the SEC website: "Speech by SEC Staff: by by Lori J. Schock Director, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Covington, Kentucky September 17, 2011 I. Introduction I would like to begin by thanking BetterInvesting for inviting me to speak with you today. As I begin, I must remind you that my remarks expressed here are my own views, and not necessarily those of the Commission or its staff.1 I’d like to begin my talk today with an overview of how the Commission’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (OIEA) helps empower individual investors throughout the United States. I will follow that discussion with a brief summary of the financial reform bill that Congress passed last year, followed by discussion of the recent work that the Commission is doing in connection with that legislation. I’ll leave a few minutes for questions at the end, if there are any. II. Overview of OIEA OIEA’s mission is to provide individual investors with the information they need to make sound decisions concerning investments in the securities markets. OIEA administers three primary programs to promote this mission: conducting educational outreach to individual investors; assisting individual investors with complaints and inquiries about the securities markets; and providing the Commission and Commission staff with input from the perspective of the individual investor. III. Investor Outreach and Education OIEA administers the SEC’s nationwide investor education program. In addition to participation in numerous financial literacy and investor education events throughout the year, this program includes Investor.gov, print publications, Investor Alerts and Bulletins, and numerous partnerships with outside organizations. Investor.gov In March 2011, the SEC re-launched Investor.gov, its first-ever Web site devoted exclusively to investor education, to make it easier for people to get objective information on investing wisely and avoiding fraud. The updated site contains a new design and additional information in an even more user-friendly format. By visiting Investor.gov, individuals can access unbiased information on a variety of investing topics, including researching investments and investment professionals, understanding fees, and avoiding fraud. Most of the content on the site is written at an 8 th grade reading level, including the “Investing Basics” section, which explains common retail investment products in plain language. Investor.gov also offers helpful tools and materials targeted to specific groups, such as members of the military, teachers, and retirees. The site will be further enhanced with videos, interactive quizzes, and additional investor education resources in the coming months. In addition, we are working with the Department of Treasury to ensure that key resources from Investor.gov are included in relevant sections of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission’s financial education web site, MyMoney.gov. Print Publications Like our online materials, our print publications are directed at helping individuals make wise investment choices and avoid fraud. We emphasize factors everyone should consider before they invest, and explain important questions to which they should get answers before investing. All of our materials are available free of charge and not copyrighted, so that the widest possible dissemination is encouraged. We offer our most popular brochures in both English and Spanish, including publications focused on mutual funds and variable annuities. Our most recent publication is a primer to help students get started on a long-term financial goal. The SEC’s Saving and Investing for Students booklet explains different types of financial products, the realities of risk, and other key information for students. Individuals can order free copies of Saving and Investing for Students or any SEC print publication by calling (888) 878-3256 or visiting Investor.gov. Individuals can also receive SEC brochures by ordering the Financial Literacy and Education Commission’s MyMoney toolkit. Additionally, we have developed a series of 14 information sheets including such topics as Asset Allocation, Target Date Funds, Ponzi Schemes and Affinity Fraud. Investor Alerts and Bulletins Another way we reach out to individual investors is through our Investor Alerts and Bulletins program. Investor Alerts and Investor Bulletins are short articles written to inform the investing public about topical issues. Investor Bulletins provide individual investors with important information regarding various investment-related topics; through our Investor Alerts, OIEA warns investors about potentially questionable activity that the Commission’s staff has been made aware of, including through investor complaints and inquiries. In the past year we have published over 25 different pieces on a variety of subjects, including Forex trading, reverse mergers, municipal securities, stock trading basics, life settlements , and a number of new SEC rules. Recent Investor Alerts have covered Cobell Indian Settlement Payout investment scams, pre-IPO investment fraud, BP payout investment scams, and fake securities-related websites. Moreover, we have issued a number of joint alerts, including on target date funds with the Department of Labor and on structured notes with principal protection with FINRA. OIEA publishes Investor Alerts and Bulletins on the SEC’s website, SEC.gov, as well as on Investor.gov. We also disseminate them out through a variety of other channels, including a designated RSS feed, Gov.delivery, press releases, and our Twitter account, @SEC_Investor_Ed. In that light, and especially given potential constraints on resources, we plan to continue to explore the possible utilization other social media tools to reach more individual investors with limited additional cost. IV. OIEA’s Investor Assistance Program OIEA’s Office of Investor Assistance responds to questions, complaints, and suggestions from members of the public. The Office handles investment-related complaints and questions from tens of thousands of individual investors and others every year. Investors contact OIEA’s Investor Assistance Office seeking information about the securities markets, securities laws and regulations, investment products, and financial professionals. Investors also submit complaints involving brokers, investment advisers, transfer agents, mutual funds and other companies that issue securities. V. Overview of Dodd-Frank As you may know, the Dodd-frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, also known as the “Dodd-Frank Act,” was signed into law by President Obama in July 2010. This enormous law has 16 sections, and requires regulators to issue more than 20 studies and more than 100 rules. These requirements are split among banking regulators, the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, with a large majority of the work falling on the SEC. Accordingly, we have and will continue to be very busy complying with the requirements of the new law. Providing an overview of all the provisions of the new law could take us sometime. Instead, I plan to focus on some of the studies and rules that the SEC is required to complete under the law which will have a significant impact on individual investors. VI. Dodd-Frank Studies and Rulemakings The Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC’s staff to complete a number of studies and rulemakings regarding issues that are important to individual investors. Financial Literacy Study One of the studies currently being worked on by the Commission involves an assessment of financial literacy among retail investors and subgroups of retail investors. In this study, we will examine and identify: The existing level of financial literacy among retail investors; Methods to improve the timing, content, and format of disclosures to investors with respect to financial intermediaries, investment products, and investment services; Methods to increase the transparency of expenses and conflicts of interest in transactions involving investment services and products; and The most effective existing private and public efforts to educate investors. As part of this financial literacy study, the SEC currently is conducting investor testing to examine the effectiveness of SEC-mandated disclosure documents, specifically, the Form 10-K annual report and the mutual fund shareholder report, in communicating useful information to individual investors. This testing is designed to gather feedback from investors in order to determine how these disclosure materials could more effectively communicate information to individual investors. We plan to deliver the results of this study in a final report to Congress by July 2012. BD and IA Registration Information Access Study Another Dodd-Frank Act study, which we recently completed, examines investor access to information about investment professionals. Currently, investors who want to investigate their broker or advisor online have to use two separate databases. For brokers and brokerage firms, the information is available through BrokerCheck, which is owned and operated by FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the self-regulatory organization for broker-dealers. For investment advisers and advisory firms, the information is available online through the Investment Adviser Public Disclosure system, or IAPD, which FINRA operates on behalf of the Commission. Most brokers, advisers and firms are either in one system or the other, but not both. At present, there is no crossover or link between the two systems, so investors have to know where to start — with BrokerCheck for brokers and brokerage firms, or with IAPD for advisers and advisory firms. This study analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of centralizing access to the information in these two databases. Additionally, the study also examines and identifies ways to make these databases more accessible and useful for investors. Based on our staff’s analysis of these two databases, the primary recommendations of the study include: Unifying FINRA’s BrokerCheck and the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (“IAPD”) database search results; Adding a ZIP code search function to BrokerCheck and IAPD; and Adding educational content to BrokerCheck and IAPD. In addition, the study recommends that our staff and FINRA continue to analyze the feasibility and advisability of expanding BrokerCheck to include information currently available in the Central Registration Depository (the securities industry online registration and licensing database developed by FINRA in consultation with the states), as well as the method and format of publishing that registration information. Say-on-Pay and Golden Parachute Votes The Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC to establish new rules regarding shareholder approval of executive compensation and “golden parachute” compensation. On January 25, 2011, the SEC adopted new rules that require public companies subject to the Commission’s proxy rules to provide their shareholders with separate advisory votes on: The compensation of the most highly compensated executives, generally known as “Say-on-Pay” votes; The frequency of Say-on-Pay votes – every one, two or three years; and The compensation arrangements and understandings with those executive officers in connection with an acquisition or merger, known as “golden parachute” arrangements. In addition to the advisory vote on “golden parachute” arrangements, the new rules require companies to disclose, in narrative and tabular form, any agreements with executive officers regarding compensation related to the acquisition or merger. All public companies subject to the proxy rules, except smaller ones, must hold Say-on-Pay and frequency votes at shareholder meetings starting on January 21, 2011. Smaller public companies – those companies with a $75 million public float or less – are not required to hold these votes until January 21, 2013. All companies subject to the proxy rules are required to comply with the “golden parachute” vote and disclosure requirements for any proxy statement submitted on or after April 25, 2011. VII. Whistleblower Program In addition to new rules and regulations, the Dodd-Frank Act creates a powerful new tool to assist the SEC in the investigation and prosecution of violations of the federal securities laws. The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the SEC to establish a new whistleblower program. This whistleblower program allows the SEC to pay awards to individuals who provide the Commission with high-quality tips that lead to successful SEC enforcement actions and certain related actions. This provision of the Dodd-Frank Act substantially expands the Commission’s authority to compensate individuals who provide the SEC with information about violations of federal securities law. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission’s bounty program was limited to insider trading cases, and the amount of the award was capped at 10 percent of the penalties collected in the action. Under this new whistleblower program, the SEC will pay awards to individuals who voluntarily provide the Commission with original information that leads to a successful SEC enforcement action which results in monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million. The amount the SEC may award individuals ranges from 10 to 30 percent of the total monetary sanctions collected in the Commission’s enforcement action or any related action such as in a criminal case. The SEC determines the specific amount awarded on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration factors such as the importance of the information and the degree of assistance provided. The Commission has adopted rules detailing the procedures potential whistleblowers would need to follow to qualify for award. In addition, the Commission has established a new Office of the Whistleblower that will work with whistleblowers, handle their tips and complaints, and help the Commission determine the awards for each eligible whistleblower. The initial staffing of this new office has been completed and the Investor Protection Fund, which will be used to pay awards to eligible whistleblower, has been fully funded. Lastly, in order to better protect potential whistleblowers, the Dodd-Frank Act expressly prohibits retaliation by employers against whistleblowers and provides them with a private cause of action in the event that they are discharged or discriminated against by their employers. VIII. The Investor Advocate and Investor Advisory Committee The Dodd-Frank Act also established an Office of the Investor Advocate within the Commission. The Investor Advocate will report directly to the SEC Chairman and be responsible for: Assisting retail investors in resolving significant problems they may have with the Commission or SROs; Identifying areas in which investors would benefit from changes in Commission regulations or SRO rules; Analyzing the potential impact on investors of proposed Commission regulations and SRO rules; and Identifying problems that investors have with financial services providers. This office will also have an “Ombudsman” appointed by the Investor Advocate who will act as a liaison between the Commission and investors. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act mandates the creation of a new “Investor Advisory Committee” composed of the Investor Advocate, state regulators, and representatives of a broad cross-section of the investing public. This committee will meet at least twice a year to advise and consult with the Commission on investor protection issues and related regulatory matters. The Commission plans to establish both the Office of Investor Advocate and the Investor Advisory Committee sometime in the near future. IX. Conclusion I hope I’ve given you a little insight into what the SEC has been doing and will be doing in the months ahead. And now I’d be happy to take your questions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 The Securities and Exchange Commission, as a matter of policy, disclaims responsibility for any private publication or statement by any of its employees. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or the author’s colleagues upon the staff of the Commission."

SECURITY COMPANY ALLEGEDLY SOLD FAKE SECURITIES

The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: “On October 7, 2011, United States District Judge John G. Koeltl entered an order, consistent with a stipulated agreement between the Commission and Defendants, preliminarily enjoining Murdoch Security & Investigations, Inc. (“Murdoch”) and its two principal officers, Robert Goldstein and William Vassell from continuing an allegedly illegal, unregistered offering and sale of securities that the Commission alleges raised more than $1 million from noteholders, who were promised 22% annual interest on their investments. Judge Koeltl’s order also preliminarily enjoined Defendants Murdoch and Goldstein from further violations of certain anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws and froze certain of Defendants’ assets pending final disposition of the case. The Commission’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that Defendants, beginning in approximately October 2010, offered and sold notes to investors by placing advertisements in the Wall Street Journal and other financial press. The Commission further alleges that Murdoch, through Goldstein, misrepresented material facts to investors about the security company, including boasts of highly lucrative overseas operations when, in fact, Murdoch lacked any international business whatsoever. According to the Commission’s complaint, Murdoch told investors that capital was needed to finance acquisitions of additional security companies that would enhance Murdoch’s overall revenues and fund 22% interest payments to noteholders. In reality, the Commission alleges, money from new investors has been used primarily to fund interest payments to earlier investors and to pay the salaries of Defendants Goldstein and Vassell. The Commission’s complaint charges each Defendant with violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Defendants Murdoch and Goldstein with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission is seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants, and to have them return their allegedly ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and pay civil monetary penalties. The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the New York District Attorney’s Office in connection with this matter.”

SEC SAYS FORMER BANK EXECUTIVES COOKED THE BOOKS DURING FINANCIAL CRISIS

The following excerpt is from the SEC website: “Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged former bank executives with misleading investors about mounting loan losses at San Francisco-based United Commercial Bank during the height of the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009. The SEC alleges that the bank’s former chief executive officer Thomas Wu, chief operating officer Ebrahim Shabudin, and senior officer Thomas Yu concealed losses on loans and other assets from the bank’s auditors, causing the bank’s public holding company UCBH Holdings Inc. (UCBH) to understate 2008 operating losses by at least $65 million (approximately 50 percent). A few months later, continued declines in the value of the bank’s loans led the bank to fail, and the California Department of Financial Institutions closed the bank and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. United Commercial Bank was one of the 10 largest bank failures of the recent financial crisis, causing a loss of $2.5 billion to the FDIC’s insurance fund. “Today’s charges reflect an all too familiar pattern – corporate executives once seen as rising stars embrace deception to avoid losses and conceal negative news, with investors and the FDIC insurance fund left to pick up the pieces,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “But accountability for these executives begins today.” Marc Fagel, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office, added, “This investigation shows how federal regulators can work together to ferret out fraud by the guardians of financial institutions entrusted to deal honestly with public investors.” According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in San Francisco, UCBH and its subsidiary United Commercial Bank grew rapidly, doubling in size after an initial public offering in 1998. It was the first U.S. bank to acquire a bank in the People’s Republic of China, and Wu was considered a rising star in the banking industry. By 2009, however, Wu found himself at the helm of a bank on the brink of failure. The SEC alleges that Wu, Shabudin, and Yu deliberately delayed the proper recording of loan losses, and each committed securities fraud by making false and misleading statements to investors and UCBH’s independent auditors. During December 2008 and the first three months of 2009 as the company prepared its 2008 financial statements, Wu, Shabudin, and Yu were aware of significant losses on several large loans. Among other things, these executives allegedly learned about dramatically reduced property appraisals and worthless collateral securing the loans, yet they repeatedly hid this information from UCBH’s auditors and investors. The SEC’s complaint also alleges that the bank’s former chief financial officer Craig On acted negligently by misleading the company’s outside auditors and aiding the filing of false financial statements. On agreed to settle the SEC charges without admitting or denying the allegations. He will be permanently enjoined from violating certain antifraud, reporting, record-keeping, and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws and will pay a $150,000 penalty. On also consented to an administrative order suspending him from appearing or practicing before the SEC as an accountant, with a right to apply for reinstatement after five years. The litigation against the other defendants is ongoing. Lloyd Farnham, Michael Fortunato, Jason Habermeyer, and Cary Robnett of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office conducted the SEC’s investigation. The SEC’s litigation will be handled by Lloyd Farnham and Robert Mitchell. The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California today announced parallel criminal charges against former employees of the bank, and the FDIC announced enforcement actions against 13 individuals for violations of federal banking regulations. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the FDIC, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), FDIC’s Office of Inspector General, and Office of Inspector General for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.”

TWO ACCUSED OF VIOLATING ANTIFRAUD PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS

September 29, 2011 The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: “The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that, on September 28, 2011, it filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against Christopher A. Seeley, a resident of Herriman, Utah, and Justin G. Dickson, a resident of Salt Lake City, Utah, alleging that both of the Defendants violated the antifraud, securities offering registration and broker-dealer registration provisions of the federal securities laws. In its Complaint, the Commission alleges that Seeley conducted a fraudulent offering through two entities, AVF, Inc. and AV Funding, LLC (collectively, “Alden View”), and that Dickson conducted a fraudulent offering through AV Funding, LLC. According to the Complaint, from 2006 to 2009, Alden View raised $7.9 million from investors through the sale of promissory notes by representing to investors that Alden View was engaged a sophisticated real-estate lending business. In reality, Alden View funneled the majority of its investors’ funds into two Ponzi schemes that were run by its most significant borrowers. In doing so, Seeley and Dickson misled investors regarding, among other things: Alden View’s primary borrower’s loan and payment history, the security obtained by Alden View from its borrowers, and Alden View’s due diligence and knowledge of how its borrowers were using investor funds. The Complaint alleges that, based on this conduct, Seeley and Dickson violated Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement, and civil penalties against Seeley and Dickson.”

INVESTMENT ADVISOR TO PAY FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS

The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: September 29, 2011 ‘The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that, on September 21, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a judgment against Defendant Alfred Clay Ludlum, III in the matter captioned Securities and Exchange Commission v. Alfred Clay Ludlum, III, et al., Civil Action No.10-cv-7379 (E.D. Pa.). Ludlum is the founder, president, chief compliance officer, and sole individual in control of Printz Capital Management, LLC (Printz Capital), which was registered with the Commission as an investment adviser from September 19, 2006 until its registration was revoked on June 27, 2011. Ludlum also wholly controls Printz Financial Group, Inc. and PCM Global Holdings LLC (together with Printz Capital, the Printz Entities). In a civil action filed on December 20, 2010, the Commission alleged that Ludlum and the Printz Entities made fraudulent misrepresentations and material omissions to investors, including Printz Capital advisory clients, concerning unregistered offerings of equity and debt securities in the Printz Entities. These investors were told that their funds would be used for working capital and to grow and operate the businesses of the Printz Entities when, in fact, Ludlum used most of these funds to support lifestyle, pay his personal expenses, and repay other investors. The Commission also alleged that Ludlum fraudulently obtained loans from one advisory client and made unauthorized transfers of funds belonging to three advisory clients to accounts that he controlled. The complaint further alleged that Ludlum failed to register the securities offerings in the Printz Entities with the Commission, even though no exemption from registration applied, and that Printz Capital, aided and abetted by Ludlum, violated additional provisions governing investment advisers. To settle the SEC’s charges, Ludlum, without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, except as to jurisdiction, consented to the entry of a judgment that: (i) permanently enjoins him from violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the Advisers Act), and from aiding and abetting any violations of Sections 203, 204, and 207 of the Advisers Act; and (ii) provides that Ludlum will be ordered to pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and penalties in amounts to be determined by the court, upon motion by the Commission. Based on the entry of these injunctions, on September 29, 2011 the SEC issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Notice of Hearing against Ludlum. Previously in this matter, a final judgment was entered by default against the Printz Entities on March 15, 2011,, which permanently enjoined them from violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, permanently enjoined Printz Capital from violating Sections 206(1), 206(2), 203A, 204, and 207 of the Advisers Act, and permanently enjoined Printz Financial Group, Inc. from violating Securities Act Rule 503(a) of Regulation D. Pursuant to the final judgment, the Printz Entities were ordered to pay, jointly and severally, $735,617 in disgorgement, $49,817 in prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty of $735,617. No part of this judgment has been paid to date. The Commission subsequently instituted administrative proceedings against Printz Capital pursuant to Section 203(e) of the Advisers Act, and Printz Capital consented to the issuance of an order on June 27, 2011 revoking its registration with the Commission as an investment adviser.”