OPTIONS TRADER GETS CHARGED BY SEC WITH FAILURE TO DELIVER SHORT SALES SHARES

The following excerpt is from the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website: “Washington, D.C., Dec. 13, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged an options trader in the Chicago area with violating short selling restrictions when he failed to locate and deliver the shares involved in short sales to broker-dealers and their institutional customers. The trader agreed to pay more than $2 million to settle the SEC’s charges. According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings, Gary S. Bell violated the “locate” and “close out” requirements of Regulation SHO, which require market participants to locate a source of borrowable shares prior to selling short and to deliver those securities by a specified date. Market makers who ensure liquidity in the market are excepted from these requirements if they are engaged in bona-fide market making activities in the security for which the exception is claimed. The SEC’s order finds that Bell improperly relied on the market maker exception in his line of business that essentially loaned large amounts of hard-to-borrow stock to broker-dealers, who then provided their customers with locates on those shares and lucrative stock loans of those shares. The customers then sold short certain securities that they may not have otherwise been able to without Bell’s participation. However, because the stock being provided by Bell was not truly available for delivery to the broker-dealers or their short selling customers, Bell actually was effecting illegal “naked” short sales. “Bell avoided the cost of borrowing shares while engaging in complex short selling transactions, thus earning significant profits with minimal risk and gaining an advantage over legitimate participants in the market,” said George S. Canellos, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office. “We’ll continue aggressively to pursue and punish abusive short sellers who attempt to circumvent regulatory requirements to make more money.” According to the SEC’s order, Bell effected naked short sales from December 2006 to June 2007 while working as a broker-dealer himself and then later as the principal trader at Chicago-based broker-dealer GAS I LLC, which is no longer in business. Bell and GAS engaged in two specific types of transactions that violated the locate and close-out requirements of Regulation SHO. The first type of transaction — a “reverse conversion” or “reversal” — involves selling stock short and simultaneously selling a put option and buying a call option on the stock. The second type of transaction is a combined stock-and-option transaction that is essentially a sham and creates the illusion that the party subject to a close-out obligation has satisfied that obligation by buying the same kind and quantity of securities it has sold short. The SEC’s order finds that Bell’s and GAS’s transactions created the false appearance of compliance with the requirements of Regulation SHO. The shares that were apparently purchased in the transactions were never actually delivered because they were purchased from a “naked” short seller, and left Bell and GAS with persistent “fail-to-deliver” positions, meaning that they did not deliver shares to make good on their sales of stock. The market maker exception to Regulation SHO was not available to either Bell or GAS because they were not engaging in bona-fide market making activities in these securities. As a result of his short selling violations, Bell received ill-gotten gains of at least $1.5 million. Bell settled the SEC’s administrative proceedings without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings. The Commission’s order requires Bell to cease and desist from committing or causing violations of Rules 203(b)(1) and 203(b)(3) of Regulation SHO, and suspends Bell from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization for a period of nine months. Bell is required to pay $1.5 million in disgorgement, $336,094 in prejudgment interest, and a $250,000 penalty. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Chicago Board Options Exchange in this matter. The SEC’s investigation into violations of Regulation SHO is continuing.”

FORMER CEO CHARGED WITH MARKET MANIPULATION

"The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre, the former CEO of Dolphin Digital Media, Inc. (“Dolphin”), Robert Mouallem, a registered representative, and Malcolm Stockdale, a Dolphin shareholder, with engaging in a fraudulent broker bribery scheme designed to manipulate the market for Dolphin’s common stock. Baldassarre, age 53 and a resident of Indialantic, Florida, was Dolphin’s President from May 15, 2007 until March 20, 2009, and Dolphin’s CEO from May 15, 2007 until June 25, 2008. Mouallem, age 56 and a resident of Boca Raton, Florida, is a registered representative at Garden State Securities, Inc., a registered broker-dealer. Stockdale, age 66 and a resident of Prince Edward Island, Canada, is the owner of Winterman Group Ltd., a Canadian limited liability company. The complaint, filed today in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, alleges that from at least October 2009 until April 2010, Baldassarre, Stockdale, and Mouallem engaged in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the market for Dolphin stock through matched trades and by bribing registered representatives to purchase Dolphin stock. The complaint also alleged that Baldassarre and Stockdale entered into a kickback arrangement with an individual (“Individual A”) who claimed to represent a group of registered representatives with trading discretion over the accounts of wealthy customers. Baldassarre and Stockdale promised to pay a 30% kickback to Individual A and the registered representatives he represented in exchange for the purchase of up to seven million shares of Dolphin stock for at least $3 million. The complaint further alleges that between March 31 and April 6, 2010, and in accordance with the illicit arrangement, Mouallem, who was responsible for handling the sales, instructed Individual A to purchase approximately 105,000 shares of Baldassarre and Stockdale’s Dolphin stock for a total of approximately $38,100. Mouallem gave Individual A detailed instructions concerning the size, price and timing of the orders. In this way, Mouallem was able to insure that almost all of Individual A’s purchase orders were matched with Mouallem’s sell orders at prices Mouallem predetermined. Thereafter, Baldassarre paid Individual A bribes of approximately $11,440 for those purchases. The complaint charges Baldassarre, Mouallem, and Stockdale with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The Commission seeks permanent injunctive relief from the Defendants, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, if any, plus pre-judgment interest, civil penalties, penny stock bars, and a judgment prohibiting Baldassarre from serving as an officer or director of a public company. The Commission acknowledges assistance provided by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this matter." "

"SHELL PACKAGING" FIRM CHARGED BY SEC WITH ISSUEING UNRESTRICTED SHARES OF STOCK TO THE PUBLIC

The following excerpt is from the SEC website: December 12, 2011 "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Alternative Green Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-9056 (S.D.N.Y. December 12, 2011) (DAB) SEC Charges “Shell Packaging” Firm and Its CEO in Fraudulent Scheme The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a shell packaging firm and several others involved in a penny stock scheme to issue purportedly unrestricted shares in the public markets. The SEC alleges that Joseph Meuse and his firm Belmont Partners LLC – which is in the business of identifying and selling public shell companies for use in reverse mergers – fabricated and backdated documents used to convince a transfer agent and an attorney writing an opinion letter to issue free-trading shares of Alternative Green Technologies Inc. (AGTI). The SEC also charged AGTI and its CEO Mitchell Segal as well as Segal’s business partner Howard Borg and stock promoters David Ryan, Vikram Khanna and Panascope Capital Inc. for their roles in the scheme that resulted in unknowing investors purchasing fraudulently issued AGTI shares without the protections afforded by the securities laws. According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Long Island, N.Y.-based AGTI and Segal, an attorney licensed to practice in New York, knowingly submitted false documents to a transfer agent and an attorney, who relied on them to conclude that free-trading shares of AGTI could legitimately be issued. Virginia-based Belmont and Meuse aided and abetted AGTI’s fraud by knowingly creating and sometimes backdating the false documentation, including a sham assignment of debt and a fabricated and backdated corporate resolution and convertible note. Segal then used the stock certificates illegally issued to fund promotional campaigns promoting AGTI’s stock. The stock promoters – Ryan, Panascope Capital and its president Khanna – were charged with selling the unregistered securities. The SEC’s complaint charges all defendants with violating Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, and AGTI and Segal with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder. Segal, Meuse and Belmont are charged with aiding and abetting the fraud by AGTI. The SEC’s complaint seeks permanent injunctions and disgorgement against all defendants; a financial penalty against AGTI, Segal, Belmont, Meuse and Ryan; and officer and director and penny stock bars against Segal and Meuse. The SEC’s complaint also names several relief defendants for the purposes of recovering proceeds they received from the illicit stock sales. Borg, Khanna and Panascope Capital have consented to the entry of a final judgment enjoining them from further violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint. Khanna and Panascope Capital agreed to pay $81,477.10 to settle the charges, and Borg agreed to pay $35,264.05 and surrender to the transfer agent for cancellation more than four million shares of AGTI stock that were illegally issued. The settlements are subject to court approval."

GLAXOSMITHKLINE SUSIDIARY CHARGED WITH ALLEGED FRAUD BY SEC

The following excerpt comes from an SEC e-mail received on 12-12-2011" 2/12/2011 10:35 AM EST "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 2011-261 Washington, D.C., Dec. 12, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a subsidiary of pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline and the subsidiary’s former chairman and CEO with defrauding employees and other shareholders in the company’s stock plan by buying back their stock at severely undervalued prices. The SEC alleges that Stiefel Laboratories Inc., which was a family-owned business located in Coral Gables, Fla., prior to being purchased by GlaxoSmithKline two years ago, used low valuations for stock buybacks from November 2006 to April 2009. Stiefel Labs omitted key information that would have alerted employees that their stock was actually worth much more. Instead, the information was confined to then-CEO Charles Stiefel and certain members of his family as well as some senior management. At the time, Stiefel Labs was the world’s largest private manufacturer of dermatology products. “Stiefel Labs and Charles Stiefel profited at the expense of their employee shareholders who lost more than $110 million by selling their stock based on the misleading valuations they were provided,” said Eric I. Bustillo, Director of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office. “Private companies and their officers must understand that they are not immune from the federal securities laws, which protect all shareholders regardless of whether they bought stock in the open market or earned shares through a company’s stock plan.” According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Stiefel Labs purchased more than 750 shares of company stock from shareholders between November 2006 and April 2007 at a price of $13,012 per share. Charles Stiefel knew that five private equity firms had submitted offers to buy preferred stock in November 2006 based on equity valuations of Stiefel Labs that were approximately 50 to 200 percent higher than the valuation later used for stock buybacks. The SEC alleges that between late July 2007 and June 2008, Stiefel Labs purchased more than 350 additional shares of company stock from shareholders under the company’s employee stock plan at $14,517 per share. It also bought more than 1,050 shares from shareholders outside the plan at even lower stock prices. At the time of these buybacks, Charles Stiefel knew not only about the November 2006 private equity valuations, but that a prominent private equity firm had bought preferred stock based on an equity valuation for Stiefel Labs that was more than 300 percent higher than that used for stock buybacks. The SEC’s complaint further alleges that between Dec. 3, 2008 and April 1, 2009, Stiefel Labs purchased more than 800 shares of its stock from shareholders at $16,469 a share even though Charles Stiefel knew that equity valuation was low and misleading, in part because he was negotiating the sale of the company. Beginning in late November 2008, Stiefel Labs decided to seek acquisition bids from several pharmaceutical companies. On Jan. 26, 2009, GlaxoSmithKline expressed interest in a Stiefel Labs acquisition and signed a confidentiality agreement two days later. As late as March 16, 2009, Charles Stiefel ordered that the ongoing negotiations not be disclosed to employees, and he misled shareholders to believe the company would remain family-owned. On April 20, 2009, Stiefel Labs announced that GlaxoSmithKline would acquire the company for a value that amounted to more than $68,000 per share. This price was more than 300 percent higher than the per share price that Stiefel Labs had been paying to buy back shares from its shareholders. The SEC’s complaint alleges Stiefel Labs violated and Charles Stiefel violated and aided and abetted Stiefel Labs’ violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC’s complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, financial penalties, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest against both defendants, and an officer and director bar against Charles Stiefel. The SEC’s investigation was conducted by attorney Drew D. Panahi and accountant Kathleen Strandell in the SEC’s Miami Regional Office under the supervision of Thierry Olivier Desmet. Christopher E. Martin of the Miami Regional Office will be litigating the SEC’s case."

U.S. HOLDS ANTITRUST MERGER ENFORCEMENT TALKS HELD WITH CHINA

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION MEET WITH CHINESE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE ON MERGER ENFORCEMENT MATTERS The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division website: November 29, 2011 “WASHINGTON — Acting Assistant Attorney General Sharis Pozen of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Jon Leibowitz today met with a delegation from China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) to discuss antitrust merger enforcement. The delegation was led by China International Trade Representative and MOFCOM Vice Minister Gao Hucheng. MOFCOM is responsible for handling reviews of mergers and acquisitions under China’s Antimonopoly Law. This is the first high-level MOFCOM visit to the U.S. antitrust agencies since the department and the FTC signed an antitrust memorandum of understanding (MOU) with China’s three antimonopoly agencies in July 2011, to promote communication and cooperation among the antitrust enforcement agencies in both countries. The discussion topics in today’s meeting included recent antitrust enforcement and policy developments, the role of antitrust enforcement in times of economic downturn and cooperation among the three agencies on merger enforcement issues. The three agencies developed further guidance for cooperation on investigations when one of the U.S. antitrust agencies and MOFCOM are reviewing the same merger. Department and FTC officials said that the discussions with the delegation from MOFCOM were productive, and that they look forward to continuing their cooperative relationship.”

SEC, FBI GO AFTER ALLEGED KICKBACKS IN THINLY TRADED STOCKS

The following excerpt is from the SEC website: December 2, 2011 The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that, on December 1, 2011, the Commission, U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, and Federal Bureau of Investigation filed parallel cases in federal court against several corporate officers, lawyers and a stock promoter alleging they used kickbacks and other schemes to trigger investments in various thinly-traded stocks. The Commission filed civil charges of securities fraud against ZipGlobal Holdings, Inc.; Microholdings US, Inc.; Michael Lee of Hingham, MA; James Wheeler of Camas, WA; Paul Desjourdy of Medfield, MA; and Edward Henderson of Lincoln, Rhode Island and alleging they used kickbacks to engage in fraudulent activity involving microcap stocks. The criminal case charged 13 defendants who engaged in criminal activity in the midst of an undercover FBI operation. According to the charges filed in U.S. District Court, the schemes involved secret kickbacks to an investment fund representative in exchange for having the investment fund buy stock in certain companies; the kickbacks were to be concealed through the use of sham consulting agreements. What the insiders and promoters did not know was that the purported investment fund representative was actually an undercover agent. The charges follow a year-long investigation focusing on preventing fraud in the micro-cap stock markets. Microcap companies are small publicly traded companies whose stock often trades at pennies per share. Fraud in the microcap stock markets is of increasing concern to regulators as such markets have proven to be fertile grounds for fraud and abuse. This is, in part, because accurate information about microcap stocks may be difficult for the average investor to find, since many microcap companies do not file financial reports with the Commission. The Commission's complaint charges the defendants with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaints seeks a permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, civil monetary penalties, penny stock and officer and director bars.”