13 CHARGED BY SEC IN ALLEGED PUMP AND DUMP STOCK PROGRAM

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

“The Securities and Exchange Commission announced charges today against Daniel “Rudy” Ruettiger and twelve other individuals who participated in a pump-and-dump scheme involving the stock of Rudy Nutrition, a now defunct Nevada corporation. The SEC's complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleges that Rudy Ruettiger, who is known for having inspired the motion picture “Rudy,” founded Rudy Nutrition to compete with Gatorade in the sports drink market. The SEC alleges that while Rudy Nutrition produced and sold modest amounts of a sports drink called “Rudy,” with the tagline “Dream Big! Never Quit!,” the company primarily served as a vehicle for a pump-and-dump scheme in 2008. As alleged in the complaint, participants in this scheme made false and misleading statements in company press releases, SEC filings, and promotional materials, and engaged in manipulative trading to artificially inflate the price of Rudy Nutrition stock, while selling unregistered shares to investors. The complaint alleges that the scheme generated more than $11 million in illicit profits.

The SEC’s complaint names thirteen defendants and includes the following allegations:
Daniel “Rudy” Ruettiger, a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, was the CEO of Rudy Nutrition. Ruettiger made false statements in SEC filings and authorized the issuance of company shares to nominee accounts used by other defendants to sell unregistered stock in the scheme.

Rocco “Rocky” Brandonisio, a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, was the President of Rudy Nutrition. Brandonisio made false statements in an SEC filing and authorized the issuance of company shares to nominee accounts used by other defendants to sell unregistered stock in the scheme.
Stephen DeCesare, a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, is a stock promoter. DeCesare was the primary organizer of the scheme. He recruited other defendants to manipulate the price of Rudy Nutrition stock, and directed the issuance of false company press releases.

Pawel P. Dynkowski, a citizen of Poland, is a stock promoter. Dynkowski manipulated the price of Rudy Nutrition stock using wash sales, matched orders, and other trading coordinated with the issuance of false company press releases.
Kevin S. Kaplan, a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, was the Chief Financial Officer of Rudy Nutrition. Kaplan authorized the issuance of company shares to nominee accounts used by other defendants to sell unregistered stock in the scheme.

Gregg R. Mulholland, a resident of Huntington Beach, California, is a stock promoter. As part of the scheme, Mulholland made false statements about the company in mailers sent to two million domestic households, and controlled nominee accounts that sold shares in the scheme.
Mehmet Mustafoglu, a resident of Beverly Hills, California, was a consultant to Rudy Nutrition. Mustafoglu sold unregistered shares of Rudy Nutrition during the scheme.

Joseph A. Padilla, a resident of San Marcos, California, is a stock promoter and a former registered representative at the broker-dealer Scottsdale Capital Advisors LLC. Padilla sold unregistered shares of Rudy Nutrition during the scheme.

Angelo R. Panetta, a resident of Montebello, California, is a stock promoter. Panetta made false statements about Rudy Nutrition on an Internet radio show and in an Internet chat room, and sold unregistered shares of the company during the scheme.

Kevin J. Quinn, a resident of Santa Monica, California, is a business consultant and a disbarred attorney. Quinn arranged for the company to issue unregistered shares to nominee accounts used to sell shares during the scheme.

Andrea M. Ritchie, a resident of San Marcos, California, is a former registered representative at the broker-dealer Scottsdale Capital Advisors LLC. Ritchie sold shares of Rudy Nutrition for other defendants without conducting a reasonable inquiry as to the registration status of the shares.
Chad P. Smanjak, a citizen of the Republic of South Africa, is a stock promoter. Smanjak directed Dynkowski’s manipulative trading, and controlled a series of Panamanian companies that sold shares during the scheme.
Gary J. Yocom, a resident of Altamonte Springs, Florida, is a former registered representative at Thomas Anthony & Associates, Inc., a now defunct broker-dealer. Yocom sold shares of Rudy Nutrition for other defendants without conducting a reasonable inquiry as to the registration status of the shares.

As a result of the conduct described in the complaint, the Commission alleges that Ruettiger, Brandonisio, DeCesare, Dynkowski, Kaplan, Panetta, Quinn, and Smanjak violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5; that Mulholland violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a), and 17(b) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5; and that Padilla, Ritchie, Mustafoglu and Yocom violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act. The Commission’s complaint seeks against each defendant permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties, and, as to certain defendants, orders barring them from participating in penny stock offerings and/or serving as officers and directors of public companies.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, nine of the defendants – Ruettiger, Brandonisio, DeCesare, Kaplan, Mustafoglu, Padilla, Panetta, Quinn, and Yocom – have agreed to final judgments, which are subject to Court approval:
Ruettiger has consented to a final judgment that orders disgorgement of $185,750, prejudgment interest of $11,366, and a civil penalty of $185,750, bars him from participating in the future offering of any penny stock, bars him from acting as an officer or director of a public company, and permanently enjoins him from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5;

Brandonisio has consented to a final judgment that orders a civil penalty of $50,000, bars him from participating in the future offering of any penny stock, bars him from acting as an officer or director of a public company, and permanently enjoins him from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5.

DeCesare has consented to a final judgment that orders disgorgement of $1,341,366 and prejudgment interest of $108,744, bars him participating in the future offering of any penny stock, and permanently enjoins him from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5.

Kaplan has consented to a final judgment that orders a civil penalty of $25,000, bars him from participating in the future offering of any penny stock, bars him from acting as an officer or director of a public company for a period of five years, and permanently enjoins him from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5.

Mustafoglu has consented to a final judgment that orders disgorgement of $363,603, prejudgment interest of $31,765, and a civil penalty of $40,000, bars him from participating in the future offering of any penny stock, and permanently enjoins him from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act.

Padilla has consented to a final judgment that orders disgorgement of $197,427, prejudgment interest of $18,128, and a civil penalty of $100,000, bars him from participating in the offering of any penny stock for a period of three years, and permanently enjoins him from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act. Additionally, in related administrative proceedings, Padilla has consented to a Commission Order barring him from association with any broker or dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization for a period of three years.

Panetta has consented to a final judgment that orders disgorgement of $175,000 and prejudgment interest of $21,692, bars him participating in the future offering of any penny stock, and permanently enjoins him from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5.

Quinn has consented to a final judgment that orders disgorgement of $197,286 and prejudgment interest of $17,755, and permanently enjoins him from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5.

Yocom has consented to a final judgment that orders disgorgement of $166,250 and prejudgment interest of $20,608, bars him from participating in the offering of any penny stock for a period of three years, and permanently enjoins him from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act. Additionally, in related administrative proceedings, Yocom has consented to a Commission Order barring him from association with any broker or dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization for a period of three years.
In addition, two defendants – Mulholland and Ritchie – have agreed to bifurcated judgments which are subject to Court approval:
Mulholland has consented to a judgment that bars him from participating in the future offering of any penny stock, permanently enjoins him from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a), and 17(b) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, and provides that upon subsequent motion the Court will determine issues relating to monetary relief.

Ritchie has consented to a judgment that bars her from participating in the offering of any penny stock for a period of three years, permanently enjoins her from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, and provides that upon subsequent motion the Court will determine issues relating to monetary relief. In related administrative proceedings, Ritchie has also consented to a Commission Order barring her from association with any broker or dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization for a period of three years.
The SEC thanks the following agencies for their cooperation and assistance in connection with this matter: the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California; the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware; United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations; and the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation.”

AON CORPORATION SETTLES BRIBERY CHARGES WITH SEC AND JUSTICE

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

December 20, 2011
The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed a settled enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Aon Corporation (Aon), an Illinois-based global provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance brokerage, alleging violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Aon will pay a total of approximately $14.5 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest to the SEC. In a related action, Aon will pay a $1.764 million criminal fine to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

The Commission’s complaint alleges that Aon’s subsidiaries made over $3.6 million in improper payments to various parties between 1983 and 2007 as a means of obtaining or retaining insurance business in those countries. The complaint alleges that some of the improper payments were made directly or indirectly to foreign government officials who could award business directly to Aon subsidiaries, who were in position to influence others who could award business to Aon subsidiaries, or who could otherwise provide favorable business treatment for the company’s interests. The complaint alleges that these payments were not accurately reflected in Aon’s books and records, and that Aon failed to maintain an adequate internal control system reasonably designed to detect and prevent the improper payments.

According to the Commission’s complaint, the improper payments made by Aon’s subsidiaries fall into two general categories: (i) training, travel, and entertainment provided to employees of foreign government-owned clients and third parties; and (ii) payments made to third-party facilitators. Aon subsidiaries made these payments in various countries around the world, including Costa Rica, Egypt, Vietnam, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, Myanmar, and Bangladesh. The complaint alleges that Aon realized over $11.4 million in profits from these improper payments.
Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, Aon consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining it from future violations of Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and ordering the company to pay disgorgement of $11,416,814 in profits, together with prejudgment interest thereon of $3,128,206, for a total of $14,545,020. Aon’s proposed settlement offer has been submitted to the court for its consideration. In a related criminal proceeding, DOJ announced today that Aon has entered into a non-prosecution agreement under which the company will pay a $1.764 million criminal fine for the misconduct. Aon cooperated with the Commission’s and DOJ’s investigations and implemented remedial measures during the course of the investigations.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Fraud Section of DOJ’s Criminal Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Financial Services Authority of the U.K. in this matter."

SEC ANNOUNCES OCC HOLDINGS CASE HAS BEEN RESOLVED

 The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

"The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on November 30, 2011, the Honorable J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered consent judgments against the remaining defendants, Ahmed Awan and Yakov Koppel, in a case arising out of alleged fraudulent offerings of securities of OCC Holdings, Ltd, a/k/a OnCallContractors.com (“OCC Holdings”) and several other issuers. Without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission’s complaint, Awan and Koppel, both of Brooklyn, New York, consented to the entry of judgment that permanently enjoins Awan and Koppel from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The judgment further orders that Awan pay $655.41 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and a $10,000 civil penalty and that Koppel pay $850.53 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and a $10,000 civil penalty, and bars Koppel from participating in the offering of any penny stock.

In a related SEC administrative proceeding, Awan consented to the entry of an SEC order permanently barring him from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, and from participating in any offering of a penny stock. In another related SEC administrative proceeding, Koppel consented to the entry of an SEC order permanently barring him from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or national recognized statistical rating organization.

According the Commission’s complaint, filed on February 11, 2004, beginning in December 2001, Awan, Koppel, Khurram Tanwir, Alan Labineri, and Joseph Favata, along with three entity defendants, fraudulently raised more than $2 million from investors through three offerings: (1) the sale of purported private placement shares of OCC Holdings; (2) the sale of promissory notes issued by MB Holdings and other entities; and (3) the purported sale of restricted shares of an unrelated, privately owned company. The offerings were orchestrated by, and/or for the benefit of, Tanwir and/or Labineri, who had allegedly been conducting fraudulent offerings together since at least 1999. In conducting the offerings, the defendants allegedly made false and misleading promises of imminent initial public offerings (“IPOs”) and/or substantial increases in the stock price; falsely represented that the promissory notes were guaranteed and risk-free; misappropriated and used investor funds for personal expenses; and failed to disclose their disciplinary history.

In March and April, 2004, the Commission obtained emergency relief, including temporary restraining orders, orders freezing the assets of almost all of the defendants and relief defendants, and expedited discovery.

On December 3, 2008, following the granting of the Commission’s motion for summary judgment, final judgments were entered against Tanwir and Labineri in which they were permanently enjoined from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, barred from participating in the offering of any penny stock and ordered, respectively, to pay $4,660,641.87 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and $3,432,739 in civil penalty (Tanwir) and $2,751,710.69 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and $2,026,739 in civil penalty (Labineri).

On February 20, 2009, the Commission obtained default judgments against defendants OCC Holdings, MB Holdings, and Equity Services Associates and relief defendants, Off World Strategic Holdings and MB Holdings USA Division A, Inc., in which the defendants were permanently enjoined from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and MB Holdings and Equity Services Associates were permanently barred from participating in the offering of any penny stock. In addition, OCC Holdings was ordered to pay $1,716,270.94 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and $1,252,652 in civil penalty, MB Holdings was ordered to pay $1,926,374.56 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and $1,406,000 in civil penalty, and Equity Services Associates was ordered to pay $1,060,584.26 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and $774,087 in civil penalty. Furthermore, relief defendants, Off World Strategic Holdings and MB Holdings USA Division A were respectively ordered to pay $592,958.91 and $137,010.99 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest.

On November 22, 2011, the Commission voluntarily dismissed all claims against defendant Favata."

SEC CHARGES BERNIE MADOFF EMPLOYEE WITH FALSIFYING RECORDS

The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: 

"Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a longtime Bernie Madoff employee with falsifying books and records in order to hide Madoff’s fraudulent investment advisory operations from regulators.

The SEC alleges that Enrica Cotellessa-Pitz, who worked at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BMIS) for more than 30 years, assisted in falsifying BMIS’s internal accounting records in order to misclassify hundreds of millions of dollars of income purportedly generated by BMIS’s investment advisory operations. Cotellessa-Pitz also falsified financial statements filed with the SEC and other regulators as well as materials that were prepared to deceive SEC staff examiners, federal and state tax auditors, and other external reviewers.

“To keep his massive fraud alive, Madoff had to hide as many facts about his advisory operations as possible,” said George S. Canellos, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office. “Cotellessa-Pitz along with other senior BMIS personnel played a critical role in this effort by creating false documents to deceive federal and state regulators.”

The SEC previously charged BMIS’s Director of Operations David Bonventrewith falsifying books and records to hide and obfuscate Madoff’s advisory operations. According to the SEC’s complaint against Cotellessa-Pitz filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, she played a central role in falsifying these records as directed by Madoff and Bonventre. Madoff used the false records to artificially improve the firm’s reported revenue and income as well as to deceive regulators who sought to review the firm’s operations and financial results.

The SEC alleges that Madoff instructed employees to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from bank accounts holding investor funds to the firm’s operating bank accounts. Madoff’s goal was as simple as it was misleading – to use stolen investor funds to hide the significant losses incurred by BMIS’s market-making and proprietary trading operations. Cotellessa-Pitz joined this effort after she was promoted to controller at the firm in 1998, when Madoff and Bonventre instructed her to falsely account for these transfers of investor funds as adjustments to certain securities positions on BMIS’s stock record.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Cotellessa-Pitz then used these figures to calculate and overstate the trading income purportedly generated by Madoff’s market-making and proprietary trading operations. Cotellessa-Pitz included these bogus figures on BMIS financial statements, which she then filed with the SEC and other regulators. Cotellessa-Pitz and other BMIS personnel then falsified documents provided to regulators to obscure the firm’s advisory operations and the transfer of investor funds to the operating bank accounts.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York today announced parallel criminal charges against Cotellessa-Pitz, who has pled guilty and also consented to the entry of a partial judgment in the SEC’s civil case against her. Subject to court approval, the proposed partial judgment will impose a permanent injunction against Cotellessa-Pitz and require her to disgorge ill-gotten gains and pay a fine in amounts to be determined by the court at a later date.

The SEC’s complaint against Cotellessa-Pitz alleges that by engaging in this conduct, she aided and abetted violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 17a-3, 17a-4, and 17a-5 thereunder, and Section 204 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 204-2 thereunder.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Aaron P. Arnzen and Kristine M. Zaleskas of the New York Regional Office. The SEC thanks the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its coordination and assistance. The SEC’s investigation is continuing."

SEC ALLEGES STOCK BUY-BACK FRAUD

The following excerpt is from the SEC website: December 12, 2011 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stiefel Laboratories Inc. and Charles W. Stiefel , (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, CASE NO. 1:11-cv-24438, FILED DECEMBER 12, 2011) On December 12, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed securities fraud charges against Stiefel Laboratories Inc. (at the time of its misconduct the world’s largest private manufacturer of dermatology products, and now a fully-owned subsidiary of GlaxoSmithKline PLC) and Charles Stiefel, its former chairman and CEO, alleging they defrauded shareholders by buying back their stock at severely undervalued stock prices from November 2006 to April 2009. The SEC alleges that in each of those years Stiefel Labs and Charles Stiefel used low valuations for stock buybacks and omitted to disclose to the Company’s own employees important information that would have alerted them that their stock was worth much more (information that only certain members of the Stiefel family and senior management knew about). The SEC’s complaint, filed in the Southern District of Florida, alleges that first, between November 2006 and April 2007, Stiefel Labs purchased more than 750 shares of Stiefel Labs stock from shareholders at $13,012 a share even though 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 more than 50% to 200% higher than the valuation later used for stock buybacks . Second, the complaint alleges that between late July 2007 and June 2008, Stiefel Labs purchased more than 350 additional shares of Stiefel Labs stock from shareholders under the Company’s employee stock plan at $14,517 a share. It also bought more than 1,050 shares from shareholders outside the Plan at an even lower stock price. 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% higher than that used for stock buybacks . Third, the complaint alleges that between December 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. Indeed, b eginning in late November 2008, Stiefel Labs decided to seek acquisition bids from several pharmaceutical companies. On January 26, 2009, Glaxo expressed interest in a Stiefel Labs acquisition and signed a confidentiality agreement on January 28, 2009. As late as March 16, 2009, Charles Stiefel ordered that the ongoing negotiations not be disclosed to employees and Stiefel Labs misled shareholders to believe the Company would remain family-owned. On April 20, 2009, Stiefel Labs announced that Glaxo would acquire the Company for a value that amounted to more than $68,000 per share (more than 300% higher than the $16,469 Stiefel Labs paid to buy back shares from its shareholders). As a result of their violations of the federal securities laws Stiefel Labs and Charles Stiefel benefitted greatly and shareholders lost more than $110 million by selling their stock to Stiefel Labs based on the misleading valuations Stiefel Labs and Charles Stiefel had provided them. The SEC’s complaint charges Stiefel Labs with violating and Charles Stiefel with violating and aiding and abetting Stiefel Labs’ violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint seeks a final judgment permanently enjoining the defendants from future violations of these provisions of the federal securities laws and ordering them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest and pay financial penalties, and also seeks an officer and director bar against Charles Stiefel."

U.S., CANADA AND MEXICO MEET TO DISCUSS ANTITRUST POLICIES

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website: DECEMBER 19, 2011 "WASHINGTON — The heads of the antitrust agencies of the United States, Canada and Mexico – Acting Assistant Attorney General Sharis A. Pozen of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, Chairman Jon Leibowitz of the Federal Trade Commission, Canadian Commissioner of Competition Melanie Aitken and President Eduardo Perez Motta of the Mexican Federal Competition Commission – met today to reaffirm their commitment to effective enforcement cooperation.  The discussions covered a wide range of enforcement and policy issues, including updates on merger policy and enforcement in the three jurisdictions and the sharing of recent experience in areas of mutual enforcement interest. “Working with our antitrust colleagues across both United States borders to ensure that antitrust enforcement is effective is good for businesses and consumers,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Pozen.  “The department values its close law enforcement relationships with Canada and Mexico, and I look forward to our continued efforts to work together to combat anticompetitive activity that affects North America.” The United States, Canada and Mexico are parties to a series of bilateral antitrust cooperation agreements that commit their antitrust agencies to cooperate and coordinate with each other in order to make their antitrust policies and enforcement as consistent and effective as possible.  The three nations also are parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which includes a competition chapter that provides for cooperation among them in antitrust investigations."