SEC SAYS GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. LACKED ADEQUATE PROCEDURES FOR RESEARCH "HUDDLES"

FROM:  SEC
SEC Charges Goldman, Sachs & Co. Lacked Adequate Policies and Procedures for Research “Huddles”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2012-61
Washington, D.C., April 12, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged that Goldman, Sachs & Co. lacked adequate policies and procedures to address the risk that during weekly “huddles,” the firm’s analysts could share material, nonpublic information about upcoming research changes. Huddles were a practice where Goldman’s stock research analysts met to provide their best trading ideas to firm traders and later passed them on to a select group of top clients.

Goldman agreed to settle the charges and will pay a $22 million penalty. Goldman also agreed to be censured, to be subject to a cease-and-desist order, and to review and revise its written policies and procedures to correct the deficiencies identified by the SEC. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) also announced today a settlement with Goldman for supervisory and other failures related to the huddles.

“Higher-risk trading and business strategies require higher-order controls,” said Robert S. Khuzami, Director of the Commission’s Division of Enforcement. “Despite being on notice from the SEC about the importance of such controls, Goldman failed to implement policies and procedures that adequately controlled the risk that research analysts could preview upcoming ratings changes with select traders and clients.”

The SEC in an administrative proceeding found that from 2006 to 2011, Goldman held weekly huddles sometimes attended by sales personnel in which analysts discussed their top short-term trading ideas and traders discussed their views on the markets. In 2007, Goldman began a program known as the Asymmetric Service Initiative (ASI) in which analysts shared information and trading ideas from the huddles with select clients.

According to the SEC’s order, the programs created a serious risk that Goldman’s analysts could share material, nonpublic information about upcoming changes to their published research with ASI clients and the firm’s traders. The SEC found these risks were increased by the fact that many of the clients and traders engaged in frequent, high-volume trading. Despite those risks, Goldman failed to establish adequate policies or adequately enforce and maintain its existing policies to prevent the misuse of material, nonpublic information about upcoming changes to its research. Goldman’s surveillance of trading ahead of research changes — both in connection with huddles and otherwise — was deficient.

“Firms must understand that they cannot develop new programs and services without evaluating their policies and procedures,” said Antonia Chion, Associate Director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

In 2003, Goldman paid a $5 million penalty and more than $4.3 million in disgorgement and interest to settle SEC charges that, among other violations, it violated Section 15(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, nonpublic information obtained from outside consultants about U.S. Treasury 30-year bonds.  The 2003 order found that although Goldman had policies and procedures regarding the use of confidential information, its policies and procedures should have identified specifically the potential for receiving material, nonpublic information from outside consultants. Goldman settled the SEC’s 2003 proceeding without admitting or denying the findings.

The order issued today finds that Goldman willfully violated Section 15(g) of the Exchange Act (formerly Section 15(f)). The SEC censured the firm and ordered it to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 15(g) of the Exchange Act. Under the terms of the settlement, Goldman will pay a $22 million penalty, $11 million of which shall be deemed satisfied upon payment by Goldman of an $11 million penalty to FINRA in a related proceeding. The SEC considers a variety of factors, including prior enforcement actions, when determining sanctions.

In addition, Goldman agreed to complete a comprehensive review of the policies, procedures, and practices relating to the SEC’s findings in the order, and to adopt, implement, and maintain practices and written policies and procedures consistent with the findings of the order and the recommendations in the comprehensive review. In June 2011, Goldman entered into a consent order relating to the huddles and ASI with the Massachusetts Securities Division (Docket No. 2009-079). In the SEC’s action, Goldman admits to the factual findings to the extent those findings are also contained in Section V of the Massachusetts Consent Order, but otherwise neither admits nor denies the SEC’s findings.

Stacy Bogert, Drew Dorman, Dmitry Lukovsky, Alexander Koch, and Yuri Zelinsky in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement conducted the investigation.
The SEC thanks FINRA for its assistance in this matter.

FALSELY CLAIMING HIS COMPANIES TO BE THE "NEXT GOOGLE" GETS MAN SOME SEC TROUBLES

FROM:  SEC
SEC Settles Fraud Charges Against Silicon Valley Man
Washington, D.C., April 9, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Silicon Valley man who raised millions for two Internet start-ups by falsely promising investors that his companies were on the verge of undergoing successful initial public offerings and were well on their way to becoming the “next Google.”

The SEC alleges that Benedict Van, of San Jose, Calif., lured investors into web-based start-ups hereUare, Inc. and eCity, Inc. by falsely telling them that the companies would go public within a matter of months and generate millions in quick returns. In truth, Van had no plans to take the companies public and relied solely on investor funds to stay in business. Ultimately, when investor funds ran out by the end of 2008, Van was forced to shut down operations.

“Van played on the hopes of investors, tricking them into believing that his companies were on the verge of becoming the next Silicon Valley success stories,” said Marc Fagel, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office. “Investors should be wary of pitches promising IPO riches from companies with minimal operations and track records.”

According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in the Northern District of California, Van raised more than $6.2 million from investors for hereUare in 2007 and 2008, and raised $880,000 in investor funds for eCity in 2008. In presentations to prospective investors, chiefly in homes in Sacramento and Stockton, Van held himself out as a wealthy venture capitalist with prior IPO experience. Van told prospective investors that the companies had lucrative deals and patents, and that he had retained Goldman Sachs and an international law firm to help take the companies public within six months. According to the SEC, all of these representations were false.

The SEC’s complaint charges Van and hereUare violated the antifraud and registration provisions of U.S. securities laws, and charges eCity with violations of the antifraud provisions. Van, hereUare, and eCity have agreed to settle the charges against them without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations and have consented to permanent injunctions. Van also consented to a district court order to permanently bar him from serving as a public company officer or director, and hereUare has consented to an administrative proceeding order deregistering its stock with the Commission. The SEC waived any financial payment against Van based on his demonstrated inability to pay.
Jennifer J. Lee and Jina L. Choi of the San Francisco Regional Office conducted the SEC’s investigation.

MAN SENTENCED IN SOUTH FLORIDA $135 MILLION INVESTOR FRAUD CASE

FROM:  SEC
Royal West Properties, Inc. Founding Principal Sentenced In $135 Million Investor Fraud
On April 4, 2012, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams of the Southern District of Florida sentenced Gaston E. Cantens to five years’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release for conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §371 involving a $135 million securities offering fraud and Ponzi scheme targeting Cuban-American investors primarily from South Florida. Cantens, who is now 73, served as president of Royal West Properties, Inc. (Royal West), a Miami-based real estate developer that purchased and resold thousands of parcels of real estate on the west coast of Florida. Cantens funded Royal West by offering investors no-risk promissory notes that promised investors annual returns of 9% to 16% purportedly backed by recorded mortgage assignments. On January 25, 2012, Cantens pled guilty to a criminal Information filed by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. According to the Information, beginning in 2008, Cantens made numerous material misrepresentations to investors about the financial health of Royal West when Cantens knew that Royal West, among other things, paid existing investors with new investors’ funds, assigned the same collateral to multiple investors, assigned investors to non-performing or non-existing mortgages, and failed properly to record mortgages and other interests in the public records, causing investors to have unsecured legal interests in the mortgages and parcels.

On March 3, 2010 the SEC filed an injunctive action that named Cantens and his wife, Teresita Cantens, as defendants.  The SEC’s complaint alleged that Cantens and his wife violated Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. On March 24, 2011, both Cantens and Teresita Cantens each consented to entry of a Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief in the SEC action. In addition to being enjoined from further violations of the federal securities laws, Cantens and his wife were ordered to pay full injunctive relief and disgorgement of $5,276,750, along with prejudgment interest of $88,297.62. The Order forgoes seeking payment of civil penalties under Section 20(d) of the Securities Act and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act based on the Cantens’s asserted inability to pay as evidenced by their sworn financial statements and supporting documents submitted to the Commission staff.

SEC ALLEGES FLORIDA MAN MADE FALSE CLAIMS ON QUARTERLY REPORTS

FROM: SEC
Commission Charges South Florida Man in Investment Fraud Scheme
The Commission today charged that a South Florida investment manager defrauded investors by making false claims about his investment track record and providing bogus account statements that reflected fictitious profits.

In the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the SEC alleges that since 2005, George Elia and International Consultants & Investment Group Ltd. Corp., pulled in at least $11 million from investors by falsely claiming annual returns as high as 26%, and that Elia transferred more than $2.5 million of investor funds to two entities he controlled, Elia Realty, Inc., and 212 Entertainment Club, Inc.

Elia, age 67, and until recently a resident of Oakland Park, Florida, told investors that he had extensive experience in day trading stocks and exchange-traded funds, but his trading resulted in losses or only marginal gains, and the quarterly account statements he sent to clients overstated their returns, the SEC alleged.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Elia typically met and pitched prospective investors over meals at expensive restaurants in and around Fort Lauderdale. The SEC said his clients typically came to him through word-of-mouth referrals among friends and relatives.  A significant number of the victims of his scheme were members of the gay community in Wilton Manors, Florida.

"Elia's blatant fraud and cruel deceptions have wrecked the lives of investors and their families," said Eric I. Bustillo, Regional Director of the SEC's Miami Regional Office. "This is a sad lesson that investors must always be skeptical of claims of high and steady investment returns, even when the manager is recommended by trusted friends or members of one’s own community."

In a parallel criminal case, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida announced that Elia was indicted on April 5 on one count of wire fraud.

The SEC alleges that Elia and ICIG operated through an informal “Investor Funding Club” and through funds including Vision Equities Fund II, LLC and Vision Equities Fund IV, LLC. It alleges that Elia sent one investor a statement for the first three quarters of 2009, showing returns of 3.48%, 3.48%, and 3.52% respectively.  The SEC alleges the statement was false and misleading because the returns exceeded Elia’s trading gains for the period.  In at least one instance, the SEC alleges Elia reassured an investor by showing him falsified statements that grossly overstated account balances.

The SEC’s complaint charges that Elia and ICIG violated antifraud provisions of U.S. securities laws and that Elia aided and abetted violations by the firms.  The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions against Elia and ICIG, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus pre-judgment interest, and civil penalties.  The complaint also named Elia Realty, Inc. and 212 Club Entertainment, Inc. as relief defendants.
The Commission thanks the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their assistance in this matter. (Press Rel. 2012-56; LR-22319)

CFTC ORDERS JPMORGAN CHASE TO PAY $20 MILLION TO SETTLE ILLEGAL HANDLING OF CUSTOMER FUNDS

FROM CFTC
April 4, 2012
CFTC Orders JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to Pay a $20 Million Civil Monetary Penalty to Settle CFTC Charges of Unlawfully Handling Customer Segregated Funds
CFTC charges relate to JPMorgan’s handling of Lehman Brothers, Inc.’s customer segregated funds.

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today filed and simultaneously settled charges against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMorgan) for its unlawful handling of Lehman Brothers, Inc.’s (LBI) customer segregated funds. The CFTC order imposes a $20 million civil monetary penalty against JPMorgan. The order also requires JPMorgan to implement undertakings to ensure the proper handling of customer segregated funds in the future and to release customer funds upon notice and instruction from the CFTC.

The CFTC order finds that from at least November 2006 to September 2008, JPMorgan was a depository institution serving LBI, a futures commission merchant (FCM) registered with the CFTC. During this time, LBI deposited its customers’ segregated funds with JPMorgan in large amounts that varied in size, but almost always more than $250 million at any one time. According to the order, during the same time period, JPMorgan extended intra-day credit to LBI on a daily basis to facilitate LBI’s proprietary transactions, including repurchase agreements, or “repos.” JPMorgan would extend intra-day credit to LBI to the extent that LBI’s “net free equity” at JPMorgan was positive. As of November 17, 2006, JPMorgan included LBI’s customer segregated funds in its calculation of LBI’s net free equity, even though these funds belonged to LBI’s customers, not to LBI, the order also finds.

The Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations prohibit depository institutions, like JPMorgan, from using or holding segregated funds that belong to an FCM’s customer as though they belong to anyone other than that customer, and also prohibit the extension of credit based on such funds to anyone other than that customer.

According to the order, JPMorgan violated these prohibitions in two ways. First, as stated in the order, JPMorgan extended intra-day credit to LBI for approximately 22 months based in part on LBI customers’ segregated funds because those funds were included in JPMorgan’s determination of LBI’s net free equity. Second, on September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holding, Inc. filed for bankruptcy. Two days later, LBI requested that JPMorgan release LBI’s customers’ segregated funds. JPMorgan improperly declined the request based on JPMorgan’s determination that LBI no longer had positive net free equity held at JPMorgan. JPMorgan continued to refuse to release these funds for approximately two weeks thereafter, only to release the funds after being instructed by CFTC officials. The CFTC order does not find that there were any customer losses.

“The laws applying to customer segregated accounts impose critical restrictions on how financial institutions can treat customer funds, and prohibit these institutions from standing in the way of immediate withdrawal,” said David Meister, the Director of the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement. “As should be crystal clear, these laws must be strictly observed at all times, whether the markets are calm or in crisis."

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this matter are Joan M. Manley, A. Daniel Ullman II, and Alison B. Wilson. Ananda K. Radhakrishnan and Robert B. Wasserman, of the CFTC’s Division of Clearing and Risk, also contributed to this matter.

CFTC CHARGES ROYAL BANK OF CANADA WITH WASH SALE SCHEMING

FROM CFTC
CFTC Charges Royal Bank of Canada with Multi-Hundred Million Dollar Wash Sale Scheme
CFTC also charges that bank concealed material information from, and made material false statements to, a futures exchangeWashington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced the filing of a complaint in federal district court in New York charging theRoyal Bank of Canada (RBC), a Canadian bank and financial services firm doing business in New York, with conducting a multi-hundred million dollar wash sale scheme in connection with exchange-traded stock futures contracts. The CFTC’s complaint also alleges that RBC willfully concealed, and made false statements concerning, material aspects of its wash sale scheme from OneChicago, LLC (OneChicago), an electronic futures exchange, and CME Group, Inc. (CME Group), the entity that exercised the regulatory compliance function for OneChicago.

From at least June 2007 to May 2010, RBC allegedly non-competitively traded hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of narrow based stock index futures (NBI) and single stock futures (SSF) contracts with two of its subsidiaries that RBC reported as “block” trades on OneChicago.  The CFTC’s complaint alleges that RBC’s NBI and SSF trading activity, which accounted for the majority of OneChicago’s volume during the relevant period, constituted unlawful non-competitive trades, wash sales and fictitious sales.

Specifically, according to the CFTC’s complaint, RBC’s NBI and SSF trades were not negotiated at arm’s length between the counterparties to the trades, as required by law, but were instead designed and controlled by a small group of senior RBC personnel acting on RBC’s behalf.  The trading scheme was allegedly designed as part of RBC’s strategy to realize lucrative Canadian tax benefits from holding certain public companies’ securities in its Canadian and offshore trading accounts.

Prior to each trade, RBC allegedly identified stocks in U.S. and Canadian companies that RBC believed would generate a tax benefit.  RBC and a subsidiary allegedly bought and sold these stocks, and also bought and sold NBI or SSF futures contracts written on the stocks opposite each other.  According to the complaint, RBC’s futures trading was conducted in a riskless manner that ensured that the positions, profits and losses of each RBC counterparty washed to zero, in disregard of the price discovery principles of the futures markets, which resulted in a financial and position nullity for RBC while allowing it to reap the tax benefits.

In addition, the CFTC’s complaint alleges that, from at least January 2005 to April 2010, RBC unlawfully concealed material information from, and made false statements to, CME Group concerning RBC’s SSF trading activity.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that when RBC purported to describe the trades to CME Group, RBC falsely stated that its SSF trading was conducted at arm’s length between the counterparties to the trades, and concealed the fact that the trading strategy was created and managed by a group of senior RBC personnel acting on RBC’s behalf.  In addition, the complaint alleges that RBC concealed from CME Group the fact that it had intentionally designed its stock futures trading strategy to exclude non RBC-affiliated parties from RBC’s futures trades.

“A fundamental purpose of the futures markets is to provide an arm’s-length mechanism for market participants to discover prices and shift risks associated with products traded in those markets,” said David Meister, the Director of the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement.  “As we allege, RBC not only designed and executed a wash sale scheme that undermined that purpose, it went a step further and misled the exchange into believing that its conduct was lawful.  Today’s action should make clear that the CFTC will not hesitate to bring charges against even the most sophisticated market participants who unlawfully exploit the futures markets for their own gain.”

In its continuing litigation, the CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties and a permanent injunction against further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and the CFTC’s Regulations, as charged.

The following CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members are responsible for this case: Susan Gradman, David Slovick, Lindsey Evans, Joseph Rosenberg, Joseph Patrick, Scott Williamson, Rosemary Hollinger and Richard Wagner.