SEC BRINGS ADDITIONAL FRAUD CHARGES AGAINST CO-FOUNDER OF CHINA VOICE HOLDING

Below is an additional release by the SEC regarding China Voice Holding. The following is and excerpt from the SEC website:

"On June 20, 2011, the Commission filed an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) in its case against the co-founder of China Voice Holding Corp., David Ronald Allen, and multiple other defendants. The SEC’s amended complaint charges China Voice, Allen, and William F. Burbank IV (China Voice’s former chairman and CEO) with reconstituting former subsidiaries of China Voice at Voice One Corp. without informing China Voice investors.
On April 28, 2011, the SEC filed a complaint in federal court in Texas, alleging that Allen, Burbank, and China Voice engaged in a series of false and misleading statements and material omissions to investors about China Voice’s financial condition. Today’s complaint alleges that this fraudulent behavior extended to renaming two China Voice subsidiaries and reconstituting them at Voice One and that Allen and Burbank are now involved in running Voice One.
Also as alleged in the SEC’s original complaint, Allen, with the assistance of two associates, launched what became an ongoing fraud that sought to raise at least $8.6 million from investors, telling them that their funds would be used to make loans to profitable businesses with demonstrated track records. The Commission alleged that contrary to what investors were told, proceeds were used to pay back earlier investors; to make payments to Allen and his associates; and to make payments to Allen-affiliated businesses, including China Voice. Today’s amended complaint alleges that Allen also used investor funds to make payments to Voice One, contradicting the disclosures made to investors. The amended complaint also names as a defendant yet another company used by Allen to help carry out the fraud on investors.
The SEC’s amended complaint charges Allen, Alex Dowlatshahi, Christopher Mills, and various related companies with violations of 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 thereunder. The SEC’s amended complaint also charges China Voice, Burbank, and Allen for a series of fraudulent statements about China Voice’s financial condition and business prospects, as well as Gerald Patera, Ilya Drapkin, and Robert Wilson for their roles in the scheme, including violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition to the preliminary relief, the SEC’s amended complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and financial penalties against all defendants, as well as penny stock bars against Allen, Burbank, Patera, Drapkin, and Wilson, and officer and director bars against Allen and Burbank.
The SEC’s investigation is ongoing."

CFTC COMMISSIONER BART CHILTON COMMENDS SARKOZY

The following article is an excerpt from the CFTC website:

Statement on the Address by President Nicolas Sarkozy before the European Commission's Conference on Commodities and Raw Materials, Brussels
Commissioner Bart Chilton
June 14, 2011

"I commend President Sarkozy, not only for his leadership, but for his thoughtful understanding of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The President got it exactly right when he spoke about the need for thoughtful regulations to address excessive speculation and the need to harmonize regulations. Appropriate speculative limits need to be instituted as soon as possible. I also completely agree on the need to avoid regulatory arbitrage where markets could migrate to the least regulation nation. We need to avoid a regulatory sidewalk sale and work together for harmonized rules that make markets more transparent and more competitive."


Last Updated: June 14, 2011

SEC STAFF RESPONDS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT MONEY MARKET FUNDS

The following is an excerpt from the SEC web site:

“Question 1
Q: Under new SEC rules, money market funds must report their portfolio holdings and other information to the SEC on Form N-MFP. Will this information be available to the public?
A: Yes, on a 60-day delayed basis. Rule 30b1-7(b) states that the "Commission will make the information filed on Form N-MFP available to the public 60 days after the end of the month to which the information pertains." For example, information reported on Form N-MFP for November 2010 will be available 60 days after November 30. Because the 60th day after November 30 (January 29, 2011) is a Saturday, the information will be available to the public the next business day (Monday, January 31, 2011). More recent but less detailed information about money market fund portfolio holdings is available on fund websites, and that information must be posted within 5 business days after the end of the month.
Question 2
Q: How do I find the publicly available information that money market funds file on Form N-MFP?
A: Information filed on Form N-MFP will be available on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval web page ("EDGAR"), which is at http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. You can retrieve the information in different ways, including a readable format in which information corresponds to the items of the form, or the data format the fund used to submit the information to the Commission (eXtensible Markup Language or "XML").
Useful links on the Commission's website include "Search for Company Filings" (http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm), where you can enter the fund's ticker symbol. You can also find links to this information through money market funds' websites that include portfolio holdings information. In addition, it is likely that financial publications will include some of the publicly available information filed on Form N-MFP by money market funds.
Question 3
Q: Money market funds report the "shadow price" of their net asset value ("NAV") per share on Form N-MFP (Items 18 and 25). What is a shadow price?
A: A money market fund's shadow price is the NAV per share most recently calculated using available market quotations (or an appropriate substitute that reflects current market conditions). In other words, it is the NAV that reflects the current market value of the securities the fund owns, rather than the amortized cost of those securities. SEC rules permit a money market fund to value its securities at cost and spread out (or amortize) any discounts given or premiums paid on the securities when the fund acquired them. SEC rules also permit a fund to round the cost-based NAV to the nearest penny per share. Both of these provisions, combined with the strict limits on money market fund investments under SEC rules, enable a money market fund to maintain a stable NAV, typically $1 per share.
Question 4
Q: What does it mean if a money market fund's shadow price NAV differs from the $1 per share at which the fund sells and redeems its shares?
A: Because the markets are constantly changing, a money market fund's market based (shadow price) NAV is constantly changing too. Therefore it is not uncommon for a fund's shadow price NAV per share to differ from exactly $1.0000 per share, for example due to interest rate changes that affect securities values in a fund's portfolio. As long as the fund's shadow price NAV per share is at least 99½ cents (or $0.995) and no greater than 100½ cents (or $1.005), the fund can continue to sell and redeem shares at $1 per share. If a money market fund's shadow price NAV per share goes outside these limits, the fund may need to re-price its shares at a value other than $1 per share, an event known as "breaking the buck." In the past couple of decades since money market funds began, two money market funds have broken the buck. It is also important to remember that the shadow price NAV shown on publicly available Form N-MFP information is at least 60 days old and is likely not the fund's current shadow price NAV. More recent monthly information (including portfolio holdings but not necessarily including shadow prices) is available on money market fund websites. Some money market funds post information on their websites more often than monthly.
Question 5
Q: Where can I find out more about money market funds, net asset values, etc.?
A: SEC publications you may find useful include:
Investor Bulletin: Focus on Money Market Funds (http://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/mmf-investoralert.htm)
Mutual Funds: A Guide for Investors (http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/sec-guide-to-mutual-funds.pdf)
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/guidance/formn-mfpqa-info.htm "

SEC ALLEGES JUPITER GROUP CAPITAL ADVISORS MADE FALSE STATEMENTS TO SEC

The following case is an excerpt from the SEC web site:

“Litigation Release No. 21961 / May 10, 2011
SEC CHARGES INVESTMENT FIRM AND ITS PRESIDENT WITH FALSE STATEMENTS
Firm and President Refused to Comply with SEC Requests to Examine Records
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced it has obtained a court order against an investment firm purportedly located in Kirkland, Wash., and its president, who lives in Honolulu, for making false statements in a report to the SEC and refusing to allow the Commission’s staff to review the firm’s books and records.
U.S. District Court Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi issued a temporary restraining order on May 9 requiring the firm to produce the firm’s books and records for examination and providing additional equitable relief.
The SEC alleges that Jupiter Group Capital Advisors LLC and Rick Cho falsely reported that the advisory firm managed $153 million in 38 investor accounts. The false statements were made on Jupiter Group’s Form ADV filing – the public form used by investment advisers to register with the SEC or state securities authorities. When SEC staff sought to conduct an examination of Jupiter Group after the filing was made, Cho initially failed to respond and then later claimed that the filing referred to estimated future assets and stated that Jupiter Group has no client accounts.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Cho refused to provide any evidence for his claim that the assets identified on Jupiter Group’s March 2010 Form ADV filing with the SEC belong to an unrelated business venture. He also failed to explain why the document originally filed in October 2009 was amended to show an increased number of clients and assets under management, when in reality there weren’t any client accounts. The SEC alleges that Jupiter Group did not manage $25 million or more of client assets for any reporting period, and therefore was not eligible for SEC registration. In addition, from December 2010 to the present, Jupiter Group and Cho have refused to submit to an examination.
The SEC alleges that Jupiter Group violated Sections 203A, 204, and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act, and that Cho violated Section 207 of the Advisers Act and aided and abetted Jupiter Group’s violations of Sections 203A and 204 of the Advisers Act. The parties stipulated to the terms of the May 9 temporary restraining order prohibiting Jupiter Group from making false statements in Commission filings, and orders requiring Jupiter Group to submit to an examination of its books and records, requiring withdrawal of Jupiter Group’s Form ADV, prohibiting Jupiter Group and Cho from destroying documents, requiring accountings, and granting expedited discovery. The Commission also requested a preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, and civil penalties. The court set a hearing regarding the preliminary injunction for May 31, 2011 at 9:45 a.m.”

JUDGE ORDERS COMMODITY COMPANY MANAGEMENT TO PAY MILLIONS

Investing in foreign currencies might be a bit of a gamble especially if the people you are placing your money with are dishonest. The old adage “It’s all Greek to me,” might be something foreign currency investors should bear in mind. The following is an excerpt from the CFTC website: “Washington, DC - The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that the Honorable Judge John Antoon II of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ordered Capital Blu Management, LLC (Capital Blu) of Melbourne, Fla., Donovan Davis Jr. of Palm Bay, Fla., Damien Bromfield of Ocoee, Fla., Blayne Davis of Naples, Fla., and DD International Holdings, LLC (DDIH) of Palm Bay, Fla., jointly and severally to pay restitution of $2,463,592.12. Judge Antoon ordered Bromfield and Blayne Davis each to pay a civil monetary penalty of $4,927,184.24 and ordered Donovan Davis Jr. and DDIH jointly and severally to pay a civil monetary penalty of the same amount. The federal order, entered on June 9, 2011, also permanently bars all defendants from engaging in any commodity-related activity, including trading and registering with the CFTC The order follows a verdict returned on February 3, 2011 against Donovan Davis Jr. and Bromfield by a jury in Orlando, Fla., that heard testimony and arguments for almost three weeks. In 2009, the CFTC charged the defendants with operating a fraudulent commodity pool that solicited approximately $17 million from about 100 investors purportedly to invest in off-exchange foreign currency futures (see CFTC Press Release 5643-09, April 7, 2009). According to the evidence adduced at trial, Donovan Davis Jr. (through his wholly owned company, DDIH) and Bromfield were two of the three principals of Capital Blu, a commodity pool operator that managed a foreign currency trading fund called the CBM FX Fund, LP. Donovan Davis Jr. was Capital Blu’s Director of Corporate Affairs and Bromfield was its Director of Operations. The third principal of Capital Blu, Blayne Davis, was the Director of Trading. Because Blayne Davis, Capital Blu and DDIH did not respond to the CFTC’s complaint, the court entered default judgments against them. According to the evidence presented at trial, Capital Blu began soliciting participants for the CBM FX Fund in August 2007 and ultimately obtained contributions from participants totaling approximately $17 million. In January 2008, the CBM FX Fund sustained losses of about $1.8 million. Instead of reporting a loss for the month to the participants, Donovan Davis Jr. instructed Capital Blu’s Controller to report a 1.6 percent gain for January 2008. Thereafter, Bromfield, Donovan Davis Jr. and Blayne Davis developed and implemented a plan to put the money that had been lost back into the CBM FX Fund, which included raising additional funds from new participants, trading aggressively and falsifying statements to participants. At roughly this same time, Capital Blu’s expenses began to exceed its revenue. At the direction of its principals, Capital Blu began to pay operating expense with money from the CBM FX Fund. These expenses included the purchase and operation of a jet. After some short-term trading success from April to July 2008, in August 2008 the CBM FX Fund sustained millions of dollars in losses. Instead of reporting these losses, Bromfield and Donovan Davis Jr. again provided participants with falsified statements and reported a 0.16 percent profit for August 2008. Bromfield and Donovan Davis Jr. also sent participants a notice that their funds would be locked up for four months. All the while, Bromfield, Donovan Davis Jr. and Blayne Davis continued to use CBM FX Fund money to pay operating expenses, including their own salaries of $15,000 per month each. Capital Blu’s operations were shut down after the National Futures Association (NFA) conducted a surprise audit in September 2008 after receiving information from several sources, including an employee of Capital Blu. During the trial and a subsequent damages hearing conducted on March 2, 2011 before Judge Antoon, the CFTC established that, from January 2008 through September 2008, the CBM FX Fund sustained trading losses of approximately $5.4 million and defendants misappropriated approximately $2.46 million of participants’ funds. Judge Antoon ordered the defendants to pay the amount misappropriated as restitution and ordered a civil monetary penalty equal to twice the amount that the defendants misappropriated. The CFTC thanks the NFA for its assistance.”

FORMER GALLEON MANAGER SETTLES INSIDER TRADING CHARGES

The case below is an excerpt from the SEC web site:
June 17, 2011
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that, on May 31, 2011, The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a judgment against Adam Smith in SEC v. Adam Smith, 11-CV-0535, an insider trading case the SEC filed on January 26, 2011.
The Complaint alleged that Smith, a former portfolio manager at New York-based hedge fund investment adviser Galleon Management, LP, traded in the securities of ATI Technologies Inc., based on material nonpublic information concerning the acquisition of ATI by Advanced Micro Devices Inc. that was announced in July 2006. Prior to the announcement, Smith learned of the acquisition from an investment banker, who had received such information while serving as an employee of an investment bank that was advising one of the parties to the acquisition.
To settle the SEC’s charges, Smith consented to the entry of a judgment that: (i) permanently enjoins him from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and (ii) orders him to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest, for a total of $149,706.25. The judgment further provides that, based on his agreement to cooperate with the Commission, the Court is not ordering Smith to pay a civil penalty. In a related SEC administrative proceeding, Smith consented to the entry of an SEC order barring him from association with any investment adviser, broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, or transfer agent. Smith previously pleaded guilty to charges of securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud in a related criminal case, United States v. Adam Smith, 1:11-cr-00079 (S.D.N.Y.), and is awaiting sentencing.”