HONG-KONG BASED FIRM SETTLES INSIDER TRADING CHARGES WITH SEC

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C., Oct. 18, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that a Hong Kong-based firm charged with insider trading in July has agreed to settle the case by paying more than $14 million, which is double the amount of its alleged illicit profits. The proposed settlement is subject to the approval of Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The SEC filed an emergency action against Well Advantate to freeze its assets less than 24 hours after the firm placed an order to liquidate its entire position in Nexen Inc. The SEC alleged that Well Advantage had stockpiled shares of Nexen stock based on confidential information that China-based CNOOC Ltd. was about to announce an acquisition of Nexen. Well Advantage sold those shares for more than $7 million in illicit profits immediately after the deal was publicly announced. Well Advantage is controlled by prominent Hong Kong businessman Zhang Zhi Rong, who also controls another company that has a "strategic cooperation agreement" with CNOOC.

"If approved by the court, Well Advantage has agreed to give up all of its ill-gotten profits from these trades and pay a substantial penalty on top of that," said Sanjay Wadhwa, Deputy Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division's Market Abuse Unit and Associate Director of the New York Regional Office. "The speedy resolution of this case shows the serious consequences that await traders who engage in insider trading."

Well Advantage has agreed to the entry of a final judgment requiring payment of $7,122,633.52 in illegal profits made from trading Nexen stock, and payment of a $7,122,633.52 penalty. The proposed judgment also enjoins Well Advantage from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. Well Advantage neither admits nor denies the charges.

The SEC's investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by Michael P. Holland, Simona Suh, Charles D. Riely, and Joseph G. Sansone — members of the SEC's Market Abuse Unit in New York - and Elzbieta Wraga and Aaron Arnzen of the New York Regional Office.

The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority(FINRA

BILLION DOLLAR HEDGE FUND ADVISORY FIRM CHARGED WITH THE OVERVALUE OF ASSETS

FROM: U.S SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C., Oct. 17, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a former $1 billion hedge fund advisory firm and two executives with scheming to overvalue assets under management and exaggerate the reported returns of hedge funds they managed in order to hide losses and increase the fees collected from investors.

The SEC alleges that New Jersey-based Yorkville Advisors LLC, founder and president Mark Angelo, and chief financial officer Edward Schinik enticed pension funds and other investors to invest in their hedge funds by falsely portraying Yorkville as a firm that managed a highly-collateralized investment portfolio and employed a robust valuation procedure. They misrepresented the safety and liquidity of the investments made by the hedge funds, and charged excessive fees to the funds based on the fraudulently inflated values of the investments.

This is the seventh case arising from the SEC’s Aberrational Performance Inquiry, an initiative by the Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit that uses proprietary risk analytics to identify hedge funds with suspicious returns. Performance that is flagged as inconsistent with a fund’s investment strategy or other benchmarks forms a basis for further investigation and scrutiny.

"The analytics put Yorkville front and center on our radar screen," said Bruce Karpati, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. "When we looked further we found lies to investors and the firm’s auditors as well as a scheme to inflate fees by grossly overvaluing fund assets. We will continue to pursue hedge fund managers whose success is based on fiction rather than fact."

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Yorkville, Angelo, and Schinik defrauded investors in the YA Global Investments (U.S.) LP and YA Offshore Global Investments Ltd hedge funds.

The SEC alleges that Yorkville and the two executives:
Failed to adhere to Yorkville’s stated valuation policies.
Ignored negative information about certain investments by the funds.
Withheld adverse information about fund investments from Yorkville’s auditor, which enabled Yorkville to carry some of its largest investments at inflated values.
Misled investors about the liquidity of the funds, collateral underlying the investments, and Yorkville’s use of a third-party valuation firm.
The SEC alleges that by fraudulently making Yorkville’s funds more attractive to potential investors, Angelo and Schinik enticed more than $280 million in investments from pension funds and funds of funds. This enabled Yorkville to charge the funds at least $10 million in excess fees based on the inflated values of Yorkville’s assets under management.

The SEC’s complaint charges Yorkville with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5. Yorkville also is charged with violating Sections 206(1), (2) and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8. Angelo is charged with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Sections 206(1), (2) and (4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8. He also is charged with aiding and abetting Yorkville’s violations of the Exchange Act and Advisers Act. Schinik is charged with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and with aiding and abetting Yorkville’s violations of the Exchange Act and Advisers Act.

The SEC’s Aberrational Performance Inquiry is a joint effort among staff in its Division of Enforcement, Office of Compliance, Inspections and Examinations, and Division of Risk, Strategy and Financial Innovation. The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Stephen B. Holden, Brian Fitzpatrick, and Kenneth Gottlieb with the support of Frank Milewski under the supervision of Valerie A. Szczepanik and Ken Joseph. The SEC’s litigation is being led by Todd Brody.

SEC Proposes Rules for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants

SEC Proposes Rules for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants

FINAL JUDGEMENT ENTERED IN SUN VILLAGE CASE

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

October 5, 2012 the Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Judge

for the District of Nevada, entered a Final Judgment against Derek F.C. Elliott

On May 24, 2012, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a

complaint, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada,

against James B. Catledge, Derek F.C. Elliott, EMI Resorts (S.V.G.) Inc., EMI

Sun Village, Inc. and Sun Village Juan Dolio alleging that James B. Catledge and

Elliott, and certain of their related entities, made material misrepresentations

to investors in connection with the unregistered sale of interests in two

resorts in the Dominican Republic. The Final Judgment against Elliot seeks no

civil penalty at this time, waives disgorgement and authorizes the Commission to

seek a civil penalty of not more than $250,000 by subsequent motion.

The Final Judgment enjoins Elliott from future violations of Sections 5(a),

5(c) and 17(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 15(a)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Elliott consented to the relief granted

in the Final Judgment.

A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A SETTLEMENT

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

James L. Cooper Held in Civil Contempt after Failing to Comply With Judgment

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that on August 20, 2012, the Honorable Jack Zouhary of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio found James L. Douglas a/k/a James L. Cooper in civil contempt for failure to pay in full a judgment entered in 1983.

On January 18, 1982, the SEC filed a complaint against Douglas, alleging that he had raised more than $7.5 million by offering and selling unregistered oil and gas partnerships through false pretenses. Douglas subsequently settled. On August 26, 1983, the Court entered an Order Directing Ancillary Relief, ordering him to disgorge $200,000 within three years.

Douglas did not comply with the Court’s payment schedule, paying only $121,975.29 of the $200,000 judgment, and leaving an unpaid balance of $78,024.71 plus post-judgment interest. Counsel for Douglas at the time reported that Douglas lacked the ability to pay, and that Douglas may have moved to Scotland.

Based on the non-payment, the SEC filed a motion for contempt on July 8, 1988. On August 8, 1988, the Court granted the SEC’s motion, found Douglas in contempt, and issued a warrant for his arrest. The warrant was never executed because the U.S. Marshals could not locate Douglas. In 2010, the SEC learned that Douglas had returned to the U.S. and that his fortunes had changed. Douglas filed suit on behalf of his deceased wife’s estate against several tobacco companies in Florida state court. In March, 2010, the jury awarded $2.5 million to the Estate of Charlotte M. Douglas, of which Douglas is the sole beneficiary. The verdict is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida.

On January 23, 2012, the SEC filed a Motion for a Rule to Show Cause and for an Order of Civil Contempt, requesting that the Court hold Douglas in contempt for a second time. The Court presided over four days of evidentiary hearings. On August 20, 2012, the Court granted the SEC’s motion, holding Douglas in contempt for a second time. The Court ruled that "Defendant’s lavish lifestyle apparently is over, but he has dodged his legal debt long enough, and it is high time for him to pay what he owes." See August 20, 2012 Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court also ruled that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, Douglas must pay post-judgment interest at the statutory rate of 10.74% from the "date of the entry of the judgment" in 1983. "That rate may seem high by today’s standards, but it is properly calculated. . . . And if [Douglas] finds the amount due unreasonable, it is the result of his own misconduct for avoiding payment for so long." See August 20, 2012 Memorandum Opinion and Order. Based on the SEC’s calculation, the post-judgment interest now exceeds $1.7 million.

FARR FINANCIAL INC., SETTLES CHARGES WITH CFTC FOR $280,000

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

CFTC Orders Farr Financial Inc. to Pay $280,000 to Settle Charges of Improper Investment of Customer Segregated Funds and Supervision Failures

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced the Farr Financial Inc. (Farr) of San Jose, Calif., agreed to pay a $280,000 civil monetary penalty to settle CFTC charges that it failed to properly invest customer segregated funds and failed to diligently supervise those investment activities. Farr is currently registered with the CFTC as an introducing broker and was registered as a futures commission merchant (FCM) during the period relevant to the settlement.

FCMs receive money, securities, and other property (funds) from their customers to margin, guarantee, or secure the customers’ futures and options trades. Under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations, FCMs are required to segregate customer funds from funds belonging to the FCM, and can invest customer funds only in investments enumerated in CFTC regulation 1.25, such as obligations of the United States, any state (or subdivision thereof), obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States, and other specified instruments that satisfy a general prudential standard consistent with the objectives of preserving principal and maintaining liquidity for customer funds.

During the period from late 2007 through the end of 2010, Farr invested customer funds in at least seven different accounts that failed to comply with the requirements of regulation 1.25, the CFTC order finds. These investments included (1) an investment in a money market mutual fund from which funds could not be withdrawn by the next business day as required by regulation 1.25, (2) five savings or money market deposit accounts, which are not permitted investments under regulation 1.25, and (3) a certificate of deposit whose issuer did not meet the then-existing credit rating requirement of regulation 1.25, the order finds.

Furthermore, Farr failed to diligently supervise its employees and agents in violation of regulation 166.3, the order finds. Farr failed to implement any written policies or procedures governing the opening and maintenance of customer segregated accounts and failed to implement an adequate supervisory structure to insure the proper segregation of funds, according to the order.

Farr also violated several other regulations involving customer funds, including failing to prepare and maintain certain required records and miscalculating the amount of money it was required to segregate for its customers, according to the order.

In addition to imposing the $280,000 civil monetary penalty, the CFTC order requires Farr to cease and desist from further violations of the CEA and CFTC regulations, as charged.

The CFTC thanks the National Futures Association for its assistance in this matter.

CFTC staff members responsible for this case are Theodore Z. Polley III, Ken Hampton, William P. Janulis, Scott Williamson, Rosemary Hollinger, and Richard B. Wagner of the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement, and Tom Bloom and Kurt J. Harms of CFTC’s Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight.