SEC AGREES TO A SETTLEMENT IN ALLEGED BOOK-COOKING CASE AGAINST BRITISH BASED FIRM

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

January 30, 2012
“The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced four enforcement actions arising from an alleged financial fraud spanning several years at a British subsidiary of the NYSE-listed Symmetry Medical, Inc. (“Symmetry”).

First, the Commission announced today that it has filed and, subject to Court approval, simultaneously settled charges against Richard J. Senior, Matthew Bell, Lynne Norman and Shaun P. Whiteley arising from the alleged financial fraud. According to the Commission’s Complaint, the fraud was orchestrated and carried out by senior executives and accounting staff of the Sheffield, England-based Symmetry Medical Sheffield LTD, f/k/a Thornton Precision Components, Limited (hereinafter “TPC”), particularly by Senior, Bell, Norman and Whiteley, who were, respectively, Symmetry’s VP for European Operations, TPC’s Finance Director, TPC’s Controller and a TPC Management Accountant. According to the Complaint, the fraud involved the systematic understatement of expenses and overstatement of assets and revenues, and materially distorted the financial statements of the Indiana-headquartered Symmetry, into which TPC’s financials were consolidated, for a period running from Symmetry’s December 2004 initial public offering through its second fiscal quarter of 2007. The Complaint further alleges that during the fraud, Senior, Bell and Norman made false certifications as to the accuracy of the financial information reported to Symmetry by TPC, and lied to TPC’s outside auditors. Finally, the Complaint alleges that Senior and Bell sold Symmetry stock during the fraud, at prices each knew or recklessly disregarded were inflated by the fraud at TPC.

According to the Complaint, by their conduct, Senior, Bell, Norman and Whiteley violated Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 thereunder, and aided and abetted Symmetry’s violation of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder; Senior and Bell also violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933; and Senior, Bell and Norman also violated Exchange Act Rule 13b2-2. The four defendants’ signed Consents—which are subject to approval by the Court—provide that, without admitting or denying the Commission’s allegations, defendants Senior, Bell and Norman would be barred from serving as an officer or director of any public company. (Additionally, Bell, Norman and Whiteley each consented to be permanently barred, in follow-on administrative proceedings, from appearing or practicing before the Commission as accountants.) The final judgment to which Bell consented further orders that he is liable for disgorgement of $136,209 together with $50,728 in prejudgment interest thereon, but, based on his sworn financial statements and supporting documentation, waives payment of disgorgement and prejudgment interest; and the judgment to which Senior consented defers resolution of the monetary portion of his case pending the completion of asset discovery, with which Senior would be ordered to cooperate. Each defendant would also be permanently enjoined against future violations of the statutes and rules each is alleged to have violated.

The Commission also announced that it has filed, and, subject to Court approval, simultaneously settled, a civil action against Symmetry’s former CEO, Brian S. Moore, seeking reimbursement for bonuses and other incentive-based and equity-based compensation pursuant Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The Commission’s Complaint alleges that Symmetry was required to restate its annual financial statements for 2005 and 2006, as well as other reporting periods, as a result of misconduct in the reporting of TPC’s financials. The Complaint further alleges that Moore received from Symmetry bonuses and incentive-based and equity-based compensation, and realized profits from the sale of Symmetry stock, during the 12-month periods following the restated financials, but has made no reimbursement thereof. The Complaint does not allege that Moore engaged in the fraud. Moore’s signed Consent—which is subject to approval by the Court—provides that, without admitting or denying the Commission’s allegations, Moore would agree to issuance of a Final Judgment ordering him make reimbursement of $450,000 to Symmetry.

The Commission further announced that, separately, it has instituted and simultaneously settled administrative proceedings against two Associate Chartered Accountants in the United Kingdom, Christopher J. Kelly and Margaret Hebb née Whyte, who were the former audit partner and audit manager, respectively, on Ernst & Young UK LLP’s audits of TPC for the 2004 through 2006 fiscal years (in the case of Kelly) and for the 2005 and 2006 fiscal years (in the case of Hebb). Kelly and Hebb consented to issuance of the Commission’s Order and the sanctions it imposed, without admitting or denying the Order’s findings. The Order found that both Kelly and Hebb engaged in improper professional conduct by, among other things, failing to properly audit TPC’s accounts receivable balances and inventory. Based on these findings, the Order suspended both Kelly and Hebb from appearing or practicing before the Commission as accountants, with the opportunity to seek reinstatement after two years. See Matter of Christopher J. Kelly, ACA and Margaret Hebb, ACA, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-____ (Jan. 30, 2012)

Finally, the Commission further announced that, separately, it has instituted and simultaneously settled administrative proceedings against Symmetry and its CFO, Fred L. Hite. Symmetry and Hite consented to issuance of the Commission’s Order and the sanctions it imposed, without admitting or denying the Order’s findings. With respect to Symmetry, the Order found that, as a result of the fraud at TPC, Symmetry (i) filed periodic reports with the Commission that included materially false and misleading financial statements in violation of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 and (ii) maintained materially inaccurate books, records and accounts in violation of Exchange Act Section 13(b)(2)(a); and that Symmetry also failed to devise and maintain effective internal accounting controls in violation of Exchange Act Section 13(b)(2)(B). With respect to Hite, the Order found that by failing to provide an internal audit status report concerning TPC to Symmetry’s Audit Committee in July 2006, Hite violated Exchange Act Section 13(b)(5) and was a cause of Symmetry’s violation of Exchange Act Section 13(b)(2)(B); and that by failing to reimburse Symmetry for bonuses, incentive- and equity-based compensation, and Symmetry stock-sale proceeds he received during periods embraced by Symmetry’s restatement, Hite violated Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Based on the foregoing findings, the Commission ordered Symmetry and Hite to cease-and-desist from committing or causing future violations of the relevant provisions, and ordered Hite to pay a $25,000 penalty and make reimbursement of $185,000 to Symmetry. “

SEC BRINGS CHARGES AGAINST 4 INDIVIDUALS IN ALLEGED $3 BILLION SUB-PRIME BOND SCHEME

The following excerpt is from an e-mail sent out by the Securities and Exchange Commission

"Washington, D.C., Feb 1, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged four former veteran investment bankers and traders at Credit Suisse Group for engaging in a complex scheme to fraudulently overstate the prices of $3 billion in subprime bonds during the height of the subprime credit crisis.

The SEC alleges that Credit Suisse’s former global head of structured credit trading Kareem Serageldin and former head of hedge trading David Higgs along with two mortgage bond traders deliberately ignored specific market information showing a sharp decline in the price of subprime bonds under the control of their group. They instead priced them in a way that allowed Credit Suisse to achieve fictional profits. Serageldin and Higgs periodically directed the traders to change the bond prices in order to hit daily and monthly profit targets, cover up losses in other trading books, and send a message to senior management about their group’s profitability. The SEC alleges that the mispricing scheme was driven in part by these investment bankers’ desire for lavish year-end bonuses and, in the case of Serageldin, a promotion into the senior-most echelon of Credit Suisse’s investment banking unit.

“The stunning scale of the illegal mismarking in this case was surpassed only by the greed of the senior bankers behind the scheme,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “At precisely the moment investors and market participants were urgently seeking accurate information about financial institutions’ exposure to the subprime market, the senior bankers falsely and selfishly inflated the value of more than $3 billion in asset-backed securities in order to protect their bonuses and, in one case, protect a highly coveted promotion.”

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Serageldin oversaw a significant portion of Credit Suisse’s structured products and mortgage-related businesses. The traders reported to Higgs and Serageldin. As the subprime credit crisis accelerated in late 2007 and 2008, Serageldin frequently communicated to Higgs the specific profit & loss (P&L) outcome he wanted. Higgs in turn directed the traders to mark the book in a manner that would achieve the desired P&L. However, under the relevant accounting principles and Credit Suisse policy, the group was required to record the prices of these bonds to accurately reflect their fair value. Proper pricing would have reflected that Credit Suisse was incurring significant losses as the subprime market collapsed.

The SEC alleges that the scheme reached its peak at the end of 2007, when the group recorded falsely overstated year-end prices for the subprime bonds. Just days later in a recorded call, Serageldin and Higgs acknowledged that the year-end prices were too high and expressed a concern that risk personnel at Credit Suisse would “spot” their mispricing. Despite acknowledging that the subprime bonds were mispriced, Serageldin approved his group’s year-end results without making any effort to correct the prices. When the mispricing was eventually detected in February 2008, Credit Suisse disclosed $2.65 billion in additional subprime-related losses related to the investment bankers’ misconduct.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Serageldin, Higgs, and the traders Faisal Siddiqui and Salmaan Siddiqui violated Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 thereunder, and aided and abetted pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) and 13(b)(2) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 12b-20 and 13a-16 thereunder.

Under the SEC’s Statement on the Relationship of Cooperation to Agency Enforcement Decisions (Seaboard Report) and the Enforcement Division’s Cooperation Initiative, entities can benefit from acting swiftly to detect, report, and remediate misconduct and cooperate robustly with the SEC’s investigation. The SEC’s decision not to charge Credit Suisse was influenced by several factors, including the isolated nature of the wrongdoing and Credit Suisse’s immediate self-reporting to the SEC and other law enforcement agencies as well as prompt public disclosure of corrected financial results. Credit Suisse voluntarily terminated the four investment bankers and implemented enhanced internal controls to prevent a recurrence of the misconduct. Credit Suisse also cooperated vigorously with the SEC’s investigation of this matter, providing SEC enforcement officials with timely access to evidence and witnesses. The SEC’s investigation also was assisted by cooperation provided by Higgs, Faisal Siddiqui, and Salmaan Siddiqui.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Staff Accountant Kenneth Gottlieb, Senior Counsel Kristine Zaleskas, Senior Specialized Examiner Michael Fioribello, Assistant Regional Director Michael Paley, and Assistant Regional Director Michael Osnato, Jr. in the SEC’s New York Regional Office. Senior Trial Counsel Howard Fischer will lead the SEC’s litigation efforts.

The SEC thanks the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and United Kingdom Financial Services Authority for their assistance in this matter."

REAL ESTATE INVESTOR PLEADS GUILTY TO BID-RIGGING IN FORECLOSURE MARKET

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice Website:

“SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A real estate investor pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court in Sacramento to conspiring to rig bids and commit mail fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions held in San Joaquin County, Calif., Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, and Benjamin B. Wagner, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, announced.

Kenneth A. Swanger pleaded guilty to conspiring with a group of real estate speculators who agreed not to bid against each other at certain public real estate foreclosure auctions in San Joaquin County. The primary purpose of the conspiracy was to suppress and restrain competition and to obtain selected real estate offered at San Joaquin County public foreclosure auctions at noncompetitive prices, the department said in court papers.

According to the court documents, after the conspirators’ designated bidder bought a property at a public auction, they would hold a second, private auction, at which each participating conspirator would bid the amount above the public auction price he or she was willing to pay. The conspirator who bid the highest amount at the end of the private auction won the property. The difference between the price at the public auction and that at the second auction was the group’s illicit profit. The illicit profit was divided among the conspirators in payoffs. According to his plea agreement, Swanger participated in the scheme beginning in or about June 2009 until in or about October 2009.
To date, nine individuals, including Swanger, have pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in connection with the investigation. They are: Anthony B. Ghio; John R. Vanzetti; Theodore B. Hutz; Richard W. Northcutt; Yama Marifat; Gregory L. Jackson; Walter Daniel Olmstead; and Robert Rose. In addition, four other investors, Wiley C. Chandler, Andrew B. Katakis, Donald M. Parker and Anthony B. Joachim, and one auctioneer, W. Theodore Longley, were indicted by a federal grand jury in Sacramento on Dec. 7, 2011.

“This type of illegal scheme undermines the transparency and integrity of the competitive market for residential real estate. Today’s guilty plea sends a clear message that the Department of Justice does not tolerate anticompetitive conduct that harms consumers,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Pozen. “The Antitrust Division will continue to work with its law enforcement partners to prosecute the perpetrators of anticompetitive schemes in public real estate foreclosure auctions in the Sacramento area and into northern California.”
“The Department of Justice is bringing greater scrutiny to auctions of foreclosed properties as part of our effort to root out fraud in the real estate industry in all its forms,” said U.S. Attorney Wagner. “The days when a few players could rig these auctions for their own benefit are ending.”

Swanger pleaded guilty to bid rigging, a violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine. Swanger also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine.

These charges arose from an ongoing federal antitrust investigation of fraud and bidding irregularities in certain real estate auctions in San Joaquin County. The investigation is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California, the FBI’s Sacramento Division and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. Trial attorneys Anna Pletcher and Tai Milder from the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office and Assistant U.S. Attorney Russell L. Carlberg are prosecuting the case.”
.

FORMER GATEWAY, INC. CEO SETTLES FRAUD SEC CHARGES

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

On January 25, 2012, final judgments were entered against Jeffrey Weitzen, former CEO of Gateway, Inc., and Robert D. Manza, former controller of Gateway. Weitzen and Manza consented to entry of the final judgments without admitting or denying the allegations made by the Securities and Exchange Commission that they engaged in fraud and other violations of the federal securities laws in connection with Gateway’s recognition of revenue in the third quarter of 2000.

The SEC alleged that the defendants falsely represented Gateway’s financial condition in the third quarter of 2000 in order to meet financial analysts’ earnings and revenue expectations. Among other transactions, the SEC alleged that the defendants caused Gateway to record $47.2 million in revenue from a one-time sale of fixed assets to Gateway’s third-party information technology services provider in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and that Manza and defendant John J. Todd, then Gateway’s CFO, caused Gateway to recognize an additional $21 million in revenue from an incomplete sale of computers to a second entity, also in violation of GAAP. The SEC alleged that absent either of these transactions, Gateway would not have met analysts’ expectations with regard to its third quarter revenue.

Weitzen consented to a final judgment permanently enjoining him from violations of the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and payment of a $110,000 civil penalty. Manza consented to a final judgment permanently enjoining him from violations of the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and from violations of SEC Rule 13b2-2, which prohibits making misrepresentations and omissions of material fact to company auditors, as well as from aiding and abetting the issuer reporting provisions of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. Manza further consented to be barred for five years from acting as an officer or director of a public company, and to pay disgorgement of $85,150, constituting his salary and bonus for the relevant quarter, together with prejudgment interest thereon of $75,551.43 totaling $160,701.43, and a $110,000 penalty.

Previously, on March 7, 2007, a jury had rendered a unanimous verdict finding Manza and defendant Todd liable for fraud, making false representations to auditors, aiding and abetting issuer reporting violations and other violations following a three week trial. On May 30, 2007, the Honorable Roger T. Benitez overturned the jury verdict as to the fraud and certain other claims. The SEC appealed that ruling, as well as the District Court’s prior August 1, 2006, grant of summary judgment to Weitzen dismissing the SEC’s case as to Weitzen. On June 23, 2011, the Ninth Circuit reversed those rulings and remanded the matter to the District Court.

The case remains pending as to defendant Todd.

SEC CHARGES TWO BROTHERS WITH NAKED SHORT SELLING

The following excerpt is from a Securities and Exchange Commission e-mail:

"Washington, D.C., Jan. 31, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two brothers living in Chicago and New York with naked short selling for failing to locate and deliver shares involved in short sales to broker-dealers.

Short sellers sell borrowed shares in hopes of profiting from declining prices. While short selling is legal, SEC rules require short sellers to locate shares to borrow before selling them short, and they must deliver the borrowed securities by a specified date. Market makers are excepted from the locate requirement when selling short in connection with bona-fide market making activities in the security for which the exception is claimed. Naked short selling occurs without having borrowed the securities to make delivery.

According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings against Jeffrey A. Wolfson and Robert A. Wolfson, they generated more than $17 million in ill-gotten gains from naked short selling transactions involving such stocks as Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd., Novastar Financial Inc., and NYSE Group. As Jeffrey Wolfson stated in a recorded telephone conversation, “What I sell them is not guaranteed, it never gets delivered, it’s funny paper.”

The SEC’s Division of Enforcement alleges that Jeffrey Wolfson engaged in illegal naked short sales while working as a broker-dealer himself and later as the principal trader at a Chicago-based broker-dealer that is no longer in business. He also taught his brother and others how to do it. Robert Wolfson conducted illegal naked short sales while trading through an account at New York-based broker-dealer Golden Anchor Trading II LLC, which also has been charged in the SEC’s enforcement action. The firm has changed its name to Barabino Trading LLC.

“By engaging in naked short selling, the Wolfsons had a major advantage over competitors who complied with the law and incurred the costs associated with actually borrowing the securities,” said George S. Canellos, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office. “The SEC is committed to recovering substantial ill-gotten proceeds made by traders who seek to circumvent important short selling regulations.”

According to the SEC’s order, the Wolfsons engaged in two types of transactions from July 2006 to July 2007 in violation 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 Wolfsons did not locate the stock before the sale, nor did they deliver the shares when sold or make a bona fide purchase of the stock when required to close out their resulting fail-to-deliver position. They were not entitled to the market maker exception to Regulation SHO because the short sales were not made in connection with bona-fide market making activities.

The SEC's order states that the second type of transaction was a stock and option combination that created the illusion that the party subject to a close-out obligation had satisfied that obligation by buying the same kind and quantity of securities it had sold short. However, the stock was always sold back either the next day or within several days, and the Wolfsons knew or had reason to know that the shares ostensibly purchased in these sham transactions would never be delivered because they were purchased from another naked short seller who did not have the stock either. The Wolfsons entered into a significant number of these sham "reset" transactions with each other and also took the other side of the "reset" trades done by each other as well those done by other market participants.

The SEC's Division of Enforcement alleges that by engaging in the misconduct described in the order, Jeffrey Wolfson willfully violated and willfully aided and abetted and caused BMR's violations of Rule 203(b)(1) of Regulation SHO, and willfully violated and willfully aided and abetted and caused others' violations of Rule 203(b)(3) of Regulation SHO. It further alleges that Golden Anchor willfully violated, and Robert Wolfson willfully aided and abetted and caused Golden Anchor's violations of Rules 203(b)(1) and 203(b)(3) of Regulation SHO. The administrative proceedings will determine what relief, if any, is in the public interest against Jeffrey Wolfson, Robert Wolfson and Golden Anchor, including disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, prejudgment interest, financial penalties, a censure or a suspension or bar from association with any broker-dealer.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Steven Rawlings, Peter Altenbach, Daniel Marcus and Layla Mayer and the litigation effort will be led by Kevin McGrath. They work in the New York Regional Office. The SEC’s investigation into violations of Regulation SHO is continuing.

The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in this matter."

SEC ALLEGES A $14,380,000 PROMISSORY NOTE FRAUD

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

January 30, 2012
"The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on January 25, 2012 U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo entered judgments against Arthur Lin (“Lin”) and his wife, Relief Defendant Gloria Lin. The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that from at least September 2006 through at least January 2009, Defendants Marcin Malarz (“Malarz”), Jacek Sienkiewicz (“Sienkiewicz”), and Lin raised at least $14,380,000 from at least 43 investors through the fraudulent unregistered offer and sale of promissory notes issued by entities owned and controlled by Malarz and/or Sienkiewicz. Malarz Equity Investments, LLC (“Malarz Equity”) was the primary entity through which the scheme was perpetrated. Gloria Lin was a member of Malarz Equity, and Lin was an officer of Malarz Equity. The complaint alleges, among other things, that investors were told that their funds would be used to purchase apartment complexes and rehabilitate and convert the individual apartment units for sale as condominiums. The complaint alleges that contrary to these representations, Malarz used substantial sums of the Malarz Equity investors’ funds for his personal benefit and to make ponzi-type “interest” and principal payments to previous investors. Further, Lin received at least $436,000 in undisclosed commission payments, which were transmitted to Relief Defendant Gloria Lin.

To resolve the Commission’s charges, without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, Lin consented to the entry of a judgment permanently enjoining him from violating 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, and ordering disgorgement of $436,000 and prejudgment interest of $49,583, but waiving payment of all but $158,240 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and not imposing a civil penalty, based upon Lin’s representations in his sworn statement of financial condition dated August 16, 2011. Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, Gloria Lin consented to the entry of a judgment ordering her jointly and severally liable for the disgorgement amount owed by Lin. The Lins are required to pay $43,500 within 14 days of the entry of the final judgments and the remaining $114,740 within 1 year of the date of entry of the final judgments plus post-judgment interest thereon.”
.