UBS ADVISORY ARM CHARGED BY SEC WITH MICONDUCT

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

“Washington, D.C., Jan. 17, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged an investment advisory arm of UBS with failing to properly price securities in three mutual funds that it managed, resulting in a misstatement to investors of the net asset values (NAVs) of those funds. The misconduct was revealed during the course of an SEC examination, minimizing investor harm.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division began investigating UBS Global Asset Management (UBSGAM) following a referral from SEC examiners who conducted a routine exam of the firm, which is an SEC-registered investment adviser. The SEC’s investigation further determined that during a two-week period, UBSGAM did not follow the mutual funds’ fair valuation procedures in pricing certain illiquid fixed-income securities in the portfolios of the mutual funds.

UBSGAM agreed to pay $300,000 to settle the SEC’s charges.
“UBS Global Asset Management failed to fulfill one of its core delegated responsibilities on behalf of mutual funds it advises – to price securities in the mutual funds accurately,” said Merri Jo Gillette, Regional Director of the SEC’s Chicago Regional Office.

“Fortunately this misconduct was brought to light quickly, so the duration was short and the harm to investors minimal.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings against UBSGAM, the firm purchased on behalf of the mutual funds approximately 54 complex fixed-income securities in June 2008 at an aggregate purchase price of approximately $22 million. Most of the securities were part of subordinated tranches of nonagency mortgage-backed securities whose underlying collateral generally consisted of mortgages that did not conform to the requirements necessary for inclusion in mortgage-backed securities guaranteed or issued by Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac. The securities purchased also included asset-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations.

The SEC’s order finds that following the purchases, all but six of the securities were then valued at prices substantially in excess of the transaction prices, including many at least 100 percent higher. The valuations used by UBSGAM were provided by pricing sources (broker-dealers or a third-party pricing service) that did not appear to take into account the prices at which the mutual funds had purchased the securities. Some of the broker-dealer quotations were based on the previous month-end pricing; other quotes were stale and not priced daily. UBSGAM did not price the securities at fair value until it held a meeting of the firm’s Global Valuation Committee more than two weeks after UBSGAM began receiving “price tolerance reports” identifying the discrepancies between the purchase prices and the valuation of the securities based on the pricing sources. By using the valuations provided by broker-dealers or a third-party pricing service instead of the transaction prices, UBSGAM caused the mutual funds to not follow their own written valuation procedures. These procedures required the securities to be valued at the transaction price until UBSGAM received a response to a price challenge based on the discrepancy identified in the price tolerance report, or UBSGAM made a fair value determination. The procedures provided that the transaction price could be used for up to five business days until a decision needed to be made to determine the fair value. By failing to implement these procedures, UBSGAM aided and abetted and caused the funds to violate Rule 38a-1 under the Investment Company Act.

The SEC’s order further finds that because the securities were not properly or timely priced at fair value, the NAVs of the funds were misstated between one cent and 10 cents per share for several days in June 2008. Consequently, the mutual funds sold, purchased, and redeemed their shares based on inaccurately high NAVs on those days. UBSGAM thus aided and abetted and caused the funds to violate Rule 22c-1 adopted pursuant to Section 22(c) of the Investment Company Act.

In settling the charges without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, UBSGAM agreed to be censured and to pay a $300,000 penalty, and also consented to a cease-and- desist order from committing or causing violations of Rules 22c-1 and 38a-1 under the Investment Company Act. The SEC acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of UBSGAM during the examination and investigation.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Jamie Davidson, Marlene Key, Steven Levine, and Eric Phillips of the Chicago Regional Office. The SEC examination team that referred the matter to enforcement officials included Maureen Dempsey, Matthew Harris, Leora Hughes, Stanton Nelson, and Susan Weis of the Chicago Regional Office.”

SEC COMMISSIONER JOHN GALLAGHER MAKES REMARKS AT SRO OUTREACH CONFERENCE

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

"Thank you, John, for that kind introduction. I would first like to thank Robert Cook and Carlo di Florio for inviting me, and would like to thank them both for their leadership in conceiving of and planning this important event. And thank you to all of the members of the SRO community who are attending today. You are literally on the front line of the securities markets, and your wisdom and feedback are incredibly important to the Commission as we wrestle with issues impacting the markets.And, as you would expect, I need to tell you that my remarks today are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or my fellow Commissioners.

The title of this Conference is “Collaboration, Cooperation, and Oversight,” and it has been described to me by my friend John Polise as designed to foster dialogue with the SROs in an environment where both the SROs and the SEC can discuss candidly their relationship. I was heartened to hear about this drive for collaboration. Simply put, we are at a crossroads with respect to the status of self regulation. Forums like this should produce concrete results that further the incredibly important relationship between the SEC and SROs. Do not waste this opportunity. The dialogue should be open and honest, and it needs to flow in both directions.

And given the dynamism in the markets, the continued changes in the SRO community, and the massive legislative and regulatory changes in recent years, it is critically important that this dialogue be nurtured and continued.

After all, our interests as regulators should be aligned, but to do so we also need to make sure that as our markets and the regulation of those markets continue to develop, we do not let habit, past practice and provincialism get in the way of sound, effective, and vigorous markets oversight. Importantly also, we need to insure that as much as possible the SEC speaks clearly, consistently, and with a single voice in dealing the SROs it oversees.

The SRO structure is a bedrock of the US scheme of securities regulation. It should be fostered, not eroded in an effort to make the SROs into “deputy SECs” — let’s not forget about the “S” in SRO. To be sure, the SEC must be able to vigorously carry out its duty to oversee the SROs. But, if this regulatory construct is to survive and flourish, SEC oversight must be conducted in a way that respects the unique missions and market structures of the various SROs. And if this is not possible, then we need to ask ourselves even deeper questions, such as:

• Should we have exchanges with statutory self regulatory responsibilities when, in fact, the vast majority of those responsibilities have been outsourced to another SRO?
   
• What limits, if any, should the Commission impose on the ability of SROs to contract with others?

Fortunately, the Commission had the prescience in 2004 to raise very similar questions in its SRO concept release. Although the issues discussed in that release require a substantial updating in light of the consolidations, demutualizations, and IPOs of various SROs in the last several years, the basic regulatory questions remain the same. Regardless of the answers to the questions I just posed, it may well be time for the Commission to dust off and reconsider many of the issues raised in the 2004 release.

In conclusion, I hope that today is the beginning of a new era of SEC/SRO relations. I am confident that under the stewardship of Carlo and Robert, this can be the case. I can tell you that I am very interested in these issues, and I look forward to working with the SEC staff and the SROs as the issues discussed today and other, bigger picture, issues are debated."

SEC AMENDS COMPLAINT AGAINST THREE SWISS BUSINESSES IN ARCH CHEMICALS INC., INSIDER TRADING CASE

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

“The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that it has filed an amended complaint in a pending action against three Swiss-based entities previously charged with insider trading. On July 15, 2011, the Commission filed a complaint charging defendants Compania International Financiera S.A. (Compania”), Coudree Capital Gestion S.A. (“Coudree”), and Chartwell Asset Management Services (“Chartwell”) with insider trading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, alleging that the defendants traded ahead of a July 11, 2011 public announcement that Swiss-based Lonza Group Ltd. would acquire Connecticut-based Arch Chemicals, Inc.
Today the Commission filed an amended complaint adding an additional claim for relief under the tender offer antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act, specifically Section 14(e) and Rule 14e-3 thereunder. The Commission amended its complaint because the Lonza acquisition of Arch Chemicals was in the form of a tender offer. The Commission’s amended complaint now charges the defendants with violating Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and Rule 14e-3. The amended complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of illegal trading profits plus prejudgment interest, and civil monetary penalties.
The Commission’s action remains pending.”

CPA PLEADS GUILTY TO LYING TO SEC STAFF

The following excerpt is from an e-mail sent out by the SEC:

“Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that a former audit partner at accounting and consulting firm BDO USA LLP has pled guilty to criminal charges for lying to SEC enforcement staff during investigative testimony.

Ronald C. Machen Jr., the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, filed the criminal charges against certified public accountant Bryan N. Polozola, who lives in Richardson, Texas.

According to the criminal information filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the SEC issued subpoenas last year to BDO and Polozola, who was responsible for auditing several hedge funds managed by an investment adviser that the SEC is investigating. The criminal information states that the audit is a central issue in the SEC inquiry, and investigators took testimony from Polozola to obtain information about his role in the audit process and assess his credibility. Polozola was the subject of a 2005 NASD (now FINRA) proceeding alleging that he took $49,350 in funds from a former employer for his personal use. Polozola neither admitted nor denied NASD’s allegations in consenting to a bar from associating with any NASD firm.
The criminal information alleges that during questioning in September 2011, Polozola falsely testified to SEC staff that he was not aware of a $49,350 payment made on his behalf to his former employer. In fact, Polozola was aware that his attorney had repaid the $49,350 to the former employer as reimbursement of the funds he had allegedly taken for his personal use. The payment was made at Polozola’s direction and with Polozola’s funds.

“Truth in testimony is the first principle of a fair and effective enforcement program,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “This guilty plea is a stark reminder that those who lie in SEC investigations will face an SEC committed to working closely with the criminal authorities to ensure that they are held accountable.”
Polozola pled guilty to a one-count information charging him with making a false statement to government officials in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

The SEC thanks the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia for its efforts in prosecuting the case.”

SEC BRINGS CHARGES AGAINST IMPERIALI, INC., FOR FRAUD

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

“On January 9, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Florida-based Imperiali, Inc., one current and one former officer, and its former auditor for their involvement in a fraudulent disclosure and accounting scheme.

The SEC’s Complaint alleges that between 2005 and 2008, Daniel Imperato orchestrated a scheme to use Imperiali, a business development company that Imperato owned and controlled, to defraud investors by making it appear that Imperiali was a thriving multinational corporation with several wholly-owned businesses, when in fact it was nothing more than a shell corporation. The Complaint alleges that Imperiali raised approximately $2.5 million using offering materials that included numerous material misrepresentations and omissions, and that Imperato and Fiscina drafted, reviewed, and certified at least 16 materially false and misleading registration statements, periodic reports and current reports with the Commission on behalf of Imperiali. Among other things, the Complaint alleges that those filings overvalued Imperiali’s virtually worthless assets at amounts ranging from $3.5 million to $269 million, and failed to disclose the issuance of millions of shares of restricted stock. The Complaint also alleges that O’Donnell failed to audit Imperiali’s financial statements in accordance with Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) Standards, and issued audit reports on Imperiali’s financial statements that he knew or was reckless in not knowing contained materially false and misleading information.

The SEC’s complaint charges that Imperiali and Imperato violated, or aided and abetted violations of, Sections 5(a), 5(a), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder; that Imperiali also violated Sections 18(d), 31(a), and 34(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (Investment Company Act) and rule 31a-1 thereunder; that Imperato also violated Sections 13(b)(5) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and rules 13b2-1, 13b2-2, and 13a-14 thereunder, and Section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act; and that O’Donnell violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions and civil penalties from each defendant, disgorgement with prejudgment interest from Imperiali and Imperato, and an officer and director bar against Imperato, and Fiscina.
Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Fiscina has consented to the entry of a final judgment that permanently enjoins him from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, 13b2-2, and 13a-14 thereunder, and Section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act, and from aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder, and bars him from acting as an officer or director of a public company. The Fiscina final judgment does not impose a civil penalty against him based on his sworn inability to pay. The settlement is subject to the Court’s approval.”

SEC ALLEGES INSIDER TRADING IN MATRIA HEALTHCARE, INC., STOCK

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

"On January 9, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action against Earl C. Arrowood, a 67-year old resident of Gainesville, Georgia, and Parker H. “Pete” Petit, a 72-year old who maintains residences in both Miramar Beach, Florida and Roswell, Georgia. The Commission alleges insider trading by Arrowood based on material non-public information about the potential sale of Matria Healthcare, Inc. (“Matria”), formerly a NASDAQ-listed company, provided by his friend and flying partner, Petit. At that time, Petit was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Matria. The Commission alleges that Petit tipped Arrowood that Matria was seeking to be acquired in advance of Matria’s January 15, 2008 public announcement. Based on the tip, Arrowood purchased a total of over 17,500 common shares of Matria in October and December 2007 resulting in unrealized gains on the Matria trades in excess of $94,000, based on a 20 percent increase in Matria’s share price after the news was made public in January 2008.

The Commission’s complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, charges Arrowood and Petit with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that that each violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, alleges and seeks against each a permanent injunction, disgorgement with prejudgment interest and civil monetary penalties pursuant Section 21A of the Exchange Act; and as to Petit, an order barring him from acting as an officer or director of any issuer whose securities are registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act or which is required to file reports with the Commission pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act."

COURT FINDS AWMS ACQUISITIONS, INC., AND OWNER MADE FALSE STATEMENTS IN AMR AND KODAK BUYOUT OFFERS

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

“On January 10, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami entered final judgments against Allen E. Weintraub and his company, AWMS Acquisitions, Inc., d/b/a Sterling Global Holdings (Sterling Global), in connection with purported tender offers they made for the common stock of Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak) and AMR Corporation (AMR), the parent company of American Airlines. The Court’s order imposes permanent injunctions against Weintraub and Sterling Global and requires them to pay $400,000 in civil money penalties.

On December 30, 2011, the Court entered an order granting the Securities and Exchange Commission’s motion for summary judgment against Weintraub, a resident of Aventura, Florida. In its Order, the Court found that Weintraub deceived the public by making false and misleading statements regarding Sterling Global’s ability to purchase and operate Kodak and AMR. Specifically, the Court found:
On March 19, 2011, Weintraub, on behalf of Sterling Global, emailed a written offer to Kodak for all its “outstanding stock” at a total price of approximately $1.3 billion in cash. On March 29, 2011, Weintraub emailed substantially the same letter to AMR offering to purchase all AMR’s “outstanding stock” for approximately $3.25 billion in cash. These offer prices represented almost a 50% premium over each company’s then current stock price.

Before submitting the offer letters to Kodak and AMR, Weintraub entered the local branches of three banking institutions to solicit respective loans of $3 billion, $3.5 billion, and $1.3 billion. Each institution informed Weintraub that they were not interested in establishing a business relationship. Weintraub never obtained a letter of credit or other written financing agreement. The letters he sent to Kodak and AMR created the misleading impression that Sterling Global was poised to purchase the companies because Weintraub and Sterling Global had substantially no assets, and lacked the resources to complete the offers.

Weintraub emailed the purported tender offers to media outlets, investment research firms, and large shareholders in an effort to publicize his proposed deal. In published media interviews, Weintraub misrepresented that he had the financial backing of “several large institutions,” could produce letters of credit “within five minutes,” had done similarly-sized deals, and was in discussions with Kodak about his offer.

Weintraub did not disclose several aspects of his personal background before submitting the offer letters to Kodak and AMR, or in his subsequent communications with shareholders and members of the press. Specifically, Weintraub never disclosed that in 2008 he pleaded guilty to two felony counts of organized fraud and one count of felony money laundering, and that he was on probation when he submitted the offer letters to Kodak and AMR. He also did not disclose that in 2002 the Court permanently enjoined him from acting as an officer or director of any public company as a result of a previous violation of federal securities law. SEC v. Florida Stock Transfer, Inc., et al., Lit. Rel. 17795 & 18021.

Weintraub failed to disclose that he had filed for bankruptcy in 2007, and that his primary residence was foreclosed upon in 2008. Weintraub also did not divulge that on September 24, 2010, the Division of Corporations of the Florida Department of State administratively dissolved Sterling Global for failing to file its annual report.
The Court permanently enjoined Weintraub and Sterling Global from future violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-8 thereunder, and ordered them to each pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $200,000. The Commission did not seek any other remedies.
The Commission filed its complaint in this matter on May 3, 2011. See Litigation Release 21955 (May 4, 2011). On July 21, 2011 the Clerk of the Court entered a default against Sterling Global for failing to appear via an attorney and to answer the Commission’s complaint.”

SEC CHAIRMAN MARY SCHAPIRO SPEAKS ON THE PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BOARD BUDGET AND FEE

The following excerpt comes from the SEC website:

January 11, 2012
Chairman Mary Schapiro
“Good morning. This is an open meeting of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 11, 2012.

Today, the Commission will consider the proposed 2012 budget and accounting support fee for the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which created the PCAOB, the Commission must annually review and approve the Board’s budget and support fee.

And while it our responsibility to ask questions about the appropriate funding level and the stewardship of those funds, there is little question that the PCAOB has grown into an important regulatory body with a significant investor protection role. Since its creation in 2002, the PCAOB has been empowered with the authority to oversee the audits and auditors of public companies’ financial statements — a role that is essential to investor confidence and the success of our capital markets.

And, more recently, the Dodd-Frank Act expanded the PCAOB’s role — vesting it with the express authority to oversee the audits and auditors of broker-dealer financial statements as well.

As we know, the PCAOB improves the quality of audits by developing and maintaining high quality standards for audit performance, conducting and reporting on inspections of audits, and carrying out enforcement actions.

When the PCAOB was established, it represented an unprecedented change in the oversight of the audit profession. Investors were no longer left to rely on a “peer review” system where one auditor reviewed the work of another. Rather, inspections were to be conducted by professionals free from potential conflict, and the results of those inspections were to be made public.

The increased credibility and objectivity inherent in this model speaks for itself. If you compare the findings of an old peer review report with a PCAOB inspection report, you would be struck by the nature and extent of investor protection and professional quality areas identified by the Board.

Likewise, the standards governing audit performance — including how an audit is to be performed by an independent and objective party — are now set by the PCAOB, rather than the auditing profession.

Given its responsibilities and the vital protections it provides to the investment community, the PCAOB must continuously re-examine the results of its standard setting, inspection, and enforcement efforts, and we at the SEC must do the same in our oversight capacity.
To do its job — and do it right — the PCAOB must have sufficient resources, and this review and approval process will give the Board a chance to justify its budget request. In turn, we at the SEC can carry out our responsibility by critically evaluating and ensuring the appropriate funding levels, and probing whether the funds that are collected from issuers and broker-dealers are used efficiently and effectively“.

SEC SETTLES ENFORCEMENT ACTION WITH SEVERAL REAL ESTATE ENTITIES

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

January 10, 2012
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today the resolution of an enforcement action filed by the Commission on March 1, 2010 in federal district court in Massachusetts against several Massachusetts-based parties who offered real estate investments. The court entered final judgments by consent against several defendants on January 10, 2012, and the Commission agreed to dismiss the case against certain of the other parties.

The Commission’s complaint charged Kathleen S. Dobens and Charles T. Dobens, husband and wife business partners from Duxbury, Massachusetts; their business partner, Joseph A. Roche of Braintree, Massachusetts; and four entities through which they operated (Silex Group, LLC, Preakness Apartments I & II, LLC, Cherry Hills Apartments of Fort Worth, LLC, and Clear River Partners, LLC). The complaint alleged that the defendants committed securities law violations with respect to real estate investments that they offered. The Commission also charged four other entities as relief defendants.
Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, the three individual defendants (Kathleen S. Dobens, Charles T. Dobens, and Joseph A. Roche) agreed to the entry of final judgments that: (a) permanently enjoin them from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; (b) order the individual defendants to pay, jointly and severally, disgorgement of $284,399 plus prejudgment interest of $20,775; (c) order Kathleen S. Dobens and Charles T. Dobens to each pay a civil monetary penalty of $80,000, but not imposing any civil penalty against Roche based on the representations in Roche’s sworn statement of financial condition; (d) order that any money, assets, or other benefit received by the individual defendants from their ownership interest in defendant Preakness Apartments I & II, LLC be applied toward partial satisfaction of the outstanding disgorgement orders against them; and (e) orders that the individual defendants comply with an undertaking forbidding them from having any control over expenditures made by or on behalf of Preakness Apartments I & II, LLC.

Three of the entity defendants (Silex Group, LLC, Cherry Hills Apartments of Forth Worth, LLC, and Clear River Partners, LLC), also agreed, without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, to the entry of final judgments permanently enjoining each of them from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Finally, the Commission agreed to dismiss its charges against defendant Preakness Apartments I & II, LLC and the relief defendants East Coast Investment Solutions, LLC, The Dobens Company, LLC, Crosscreeks Apartments I and Crosscreeks Apartments II, LLC.”

EXECUTIVE AND FORMER EXECUTIVE PLEAD GUILTY IN MUNICIPAL BOND BID-RIGGING CASE

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:

January 9, 2011

"WASHINGTON — An executive and a former executive of Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill Insurance Services, also known as CDR Financial Products, pleaded guilty today in the Southern District of New York for their participation in bid-rigging and fraud conspiracies related to contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds and other related municipal finance contracts, the Department of Justice announced.

Zevi Wolmark, also known as Stewart Wolmark, the former chief financial officer and managing director of CDR, and Evan Andrew Zarefsky, a CDR vice president, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero. CDR is a Beverly Hills, Calif.-based financial products and services firm. Wolmark and Zarefsky, together with CDR and its founder and president, David Rubin, were indicted on Oct. 29, 2009. Rubin and CDR pleaded guilty on Dec. 30, 2011.

Wolmark and Zarefsky each pleaded guilty to participating in separate bid-rigging and fraud conspiracies with various financial institutions and insurance companies and their representatives. These institutions and companies, or “providers,” offered a type of contract, known as an investment agreement, to state, county and local governments and agencies throughout the United States. The public entities were seeking to invest money from a variety of sources, primarily the proceeds of municipal bonds that they had issued to raise money for, among other things, public projects. Wolmark and Zarefsky also pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in connection with those schemes.

“Through corruption and bid rigging, Zevi Wolmark and Evan Zarefsky reaped profits for their company by defrauding municipalities and denying them the competition they deserved,” said Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Our investigation into the municipal bond derivatives industry has now led to guilty pleas by 12 financial executives and charges against six others.”

According to court documents, CDR was hired by public entities that issue municipal bonds to act as their broker and conduct what was supposed to be a competitive bidding process for contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds. Competitive bidding for those contracts is the subject of regulations issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and is related to the tax-exempt status of the bonds.

During his plea, Wolmark admitted that, from 1998 until 2006, he and other co-conspirators favored certain providers when determining which provider would win contracts for investment agreements. Wolmark also admitted that he ensured that certain providers won by soliciting intentionally losing bids from other providers and manipulated bidding in return for unearned or inflated fees. Additionally, Wolmark admitted that he signed certifications that contained false statements regarding whether the bidding process for certain investment agreements complied with relevant Treasury regulations.

Zarefsky admitted that he supplied information to providers to help them win bids, allowed providers to lower their bids and solicited intentionally losing bids from some providers so that other providers could win certain contracts.

“Municipal bonds are issued to fund public works or otherwise serve a public purpose,” said FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Janice K. Fedarcyk of the New York Field Office. “Bid rigging in the investment of bond proceeds effectively reduces the potential yield on those proceeds, meaning the actions of these defendants had an adverse impact on the public. This wasn’t just self-interest. It was self-interest that ran directly counter to the public interest.”

“Today’s guilty pleas by Zevi Wolmark and Evan Zarefsky represent a milestone in the government’s investigation,” said Special Agent in Charge Charles R. Pine of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) New York Field Office. “CDR and the firm’s employees have effectively been removed from the municipal bond market and will no longer be able to manipulate and control the bid process for the reinvestment of tax-exempt municipal bond proceeds. This scheme to conceal kickbacks through complex derivative transactions has come to an end. IRS Criminal Investigation will continue to investigate those who violate the law for financial gain at the expense of taxpayers.”

The bid–rigging conspiracy with which Wolmark and Zarefsky are charged carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million criminal fine. The fraud conspiracy with which they are charged carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 criminal fine. The wire fraud charge with which each defendant is charged carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 criminal fine. The maximum fines for each of these offenses 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.

Including today’s guilty pleas, 12 individuals have pleaded guilty in an ongoing federal investigation into the municipal bonds industry, which is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s New York Field Office, the FBI and IRS-CI.

In addition, Dominick Carollo and Peter S. Grimm, formerly of GE Funding Capital Market Services, and Steven E. Goldberg, formerly of GE Funding Capital Market Services and FSA, were indicted on July 27, 2010, and are scheduled to begin trial in April 2012. Three former UBS employees, Peter Ghavami, Gary Heinz and Michael Welty, were indicted on Dec. 9, 2010."

SEC ALLEGES THREE FORMER "WELLCARE" EXECS IMPROPERLY RETAINED $40 MILLION

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

“On January 9, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) filed a civil injunctive action against three former executives of WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (“WellCare”), a managed care services company that administers federal government-sponsored health care programs. According to the Commission’s complaint, from 2003 to 2007, Todd Farha, former Chief Executive Officer, Paul Behrens, former Chief Financial Officer, and Thaddeus Bereday, former General Counsel, (collectively, “the Defendants”), devised and carried out a fraudulent scheme that deceived the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) and the Florida Healthy Kids Corporation (“Healthy Kids”) by improperly retaining over $40 million in health care premiums the company was statutorily and contractually obligated to spend on certain health care services or reimburse to the state agencies. As a result of the scheme, WellCare recorded the retained amount as revenue, which materially inflated its net income and diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) in its public financial statements.

As alleged in the complaint, WellCare received premiums from AHCA and Healthy Kids that WellCare was required, by contract and by statute, to spend on certain eligible health care services for low-income plan participants. If WellCare spent less than a certain percentage of the premiums on eligible health care services, it was required to refund some or all of the difference to the State of Florida. According to the complaint, the Defendants devised a scheme to evade the state’s regulatory framework and fraudulently retain the premiums by, among other methods, funneling the premiums through an internal subsidiary and by applying administrative and other non-allowable expenses in their calculation of money spent on health care services. In total, through their fraudulent conduct, the complaint alleges that WellCare reduced the refunds it paid to AHCA by approximately $35 million and to Healthy Kids by approximately $6 million.

The excess premiums retained by the Defendants went straight to WellCare’s bottom line. WellCare materially misstated its net income and EPS in filings with the Commission and in quarterly and annual earnings releases from 2004-2006 and the first two quarters of 2007. On January 26, 2009, WellCare filed its Form 10-K for 2007 and restated its financial results for those time periods. The Restatement reduced WellCare’s reported net income and EPS by approximately 14% for fiscal year (“FY”) 2004, 9% for FY 2005, 13% for FY 2006, and 9% for the first quarter of FY 2007.

The Commission’s complaint also alleges that, after setting their fraudulent scheme in motion, the Defendants sold approximately 1.6 million WellCare shares into the public market for gross proceeds of approximately $91 million. The Commission alleges that the Defendants sold these shares on the basis of the material, nonpublic information that they were conducting a fraudulent scheme that impacted WellCare’s financial results, caused false and misleading statements, and imperiled the Company’s business relationship with the State of Florida. According to the complaint, the Defendants sold the shares pursuant to 10b5-1 trading plans that were created and amended in bad faith, and through three public stock offerings conducted while the scheme was ongoing.

Based on the conduct alleged in the complaint, the Commission charges that each of the Defendants violated antifraud provisions Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and also violated Exchange Act Section 13(b)(5) and Exchange Act Rule 13b2-1. All of the Defendants are also charged with aiding and abetting WellCare’s violations of reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions, namely, Sections (13)(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11 and 13a-13. Bereday is charged with aiding and abetting Farha’s and Behrens’ violations of antifraud provisions Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act. Finally, Farha and Behrens are charged with violating Exchange Act Rules 13b2-2 and 13a-14, and Section 304(a) of Sarbanes-Oxley, which requires that the CEO or CFO of a company that restates its financial results to reimburse the company any incentive-based or equity-based compensation received and any profits realized from the sale of the company’s stock during the 12-month period following initial issuance of the misleading financial statements.

As to each Defendant, the Commission is seeking a judgment permanently enjoining them from violating the provisions of the securities laws specified above, civil penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and officer and director bars. As to Farha and Behrens, the Commission seeks reimbursement of incentive-based and equity-based compensation pursuant to Section 304(a) of Sarbanes-Oxley.

In conducting its investigation, the Commission acknowledges assistance from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

TEXAS MAN TO PAY BACK $2.69 MILLION FOR FOREIGN CURRENCY PONZI SCHEME

The following excerpt is from the CFTC website:

“Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) obtained a federal court consent order requiring CFTC defendant Larry Benny Groover of Gunter, Texas, to pay a total of $2.69 million in restitution and a civil monetary penalty for defrauding customers and misappropriating funds in a foreign currency (forex) Ponzi scheme.

The consent order of permanent injunction, entered by Judge Richard A. Schell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, on January 4, 2012, also requires Groover and/or his wife, Joanne Groover, named as a Relief Defendant, to disgorge ill-gotten funds totaling $44,890, which Joanne Groover received as a result of her husband’s fraudulent conduct.

The court’s order finds that from June 18, 2008, to February 4, 2010, Groover solicited and received approximately $1.4 million to trade forex and commingled these customer funds with his and his wife’s personal funds. Groover used approximately $647,500 of the solicited funds to trade forex and lost approximately $600,000. Groover misappropriated the remaining customer funds by making payments to past customers with new customer funds and paying for personal expenses, such as health and medical care, cable television, groceries, dining, auto repair, gasoline, and insurance, according to the order. Additionally, the order finds that Groover used customer funds to purchase software and trade publications and to make payments directly to himself and Joanne Groover.

The CFTC thanks the Financial Services Authority of the United Kingdom, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, the Texas State Securities Board, and the Collin County District Attorney’s Office for their assistance.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this case are Jeff Le Riche, Jenny Chapin, Jo Mettenburg, Steve Turley, Richard Glaser, and Richard Wagner.”

COURT GIVES SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AGAINST MISAPPROPRIATOR OF INVESTOR FUNDS

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

“The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on December 29, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted its motion for summary judgment against Jeffrey L. Mowen. On May 4, 2011, Mowen pled guilty to committing wire fraud in a related criminal action, United States of America v. Mowen, Case No. 2:09-cr-00098-DB (D. Utah). In pleading guilty, Mowen acknowledged operating a Ponzi scheme from around October 2006 to around October 2008, wherein he received over $18 million from investors for use in a purported foreign currency trading program. The SEC Complaint alleges that the investor funds provided to Mowen were raised by Thomas Fry and the other defendants, Fry’s promoters, from the unregistered offer and sale of high-yield promissory notes to over 150 investors in several states. Mowen acknowledged in his guilty plea that, rather than using investor funds for their intended purpose, he used the money for his personal benefit, misappropriating over $8 million.

The SEC moved for summary judgment against Mowen based upon the facts he acknowledged in his guilty plea. The Court granted the SEC’s motion, which sought a finding that Mowen violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, an injunction against future violations of those provisions, and disgorgement of $8,041,779 in ill-gotten gains, plus prejudgment interest of $1,964,203.”

ATTORNEY CHARGED BY SEC WITH MUNICIPAL BOND FRAUD

The following excerpt is from the Sec website:

“The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced its filing of a civil injunctive action alleging fraud in the offer and sale of municipal bonds by Chalmer E. Detling, II, an attorney based in Atlanta.

Filed December 29, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the SEC’s complaint alleges that Detling made material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the 2006 offer and sale of $2.96 million of industrial development revenue bonds. Raleigh County, West Virginia issued the bonds in October 2006 to facilitate Aiken Continental, L.L.C.’s acquisition of Continental Casket, Inc., a casket manufacturing facility located within its jurisdiction. In 2006, Detling served as counsel to Aiken Continental and its sole principal, Charles A. Aiken, for purposes of the acquisition, and simultaneously represented Aiken in an unrelated federal criminal proceeding.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Detling failed to disclose to key participants to the transaction, including the issuer, bond counsel, the underwriter, and the bondholders’ trustee, that Aiken had been indicted for financial fraud in late 2005. Detling also failed to disclose that he was in the process of negotiating a plea agreement for Aiken just before the bonds were issued in October 2006. In addition, Detling failed to disclose material information about a $200,000 loan to Aiken and Aiken Continental from a company that was partially owned by Detling, in order to facilitate the closing of the transaction. This loan required a $100,000 interest payment, and gave the lender a twenty percent equity interest in Aiken Continental if the loan plus interest was not fully repaid within six months. Detling’s failure to disclose details about Aiken’s criminal proceeding and the loan rendered certain statements in the bonds’ Official Statement materially misleading. By reviewing the Official Statement, which was distributed to investors in connection with the transaction, and failing to correct the misstatements and omissions therein, the SEC’s complaint alleges that Detling aided and abetted the violations of Aiken and Aiken Continental.

In addition, the SEC’s complaint alleges that Detling signed an opinion letter as counsel to Aiken Continental in which he made false and misleading representations. Specifically, Detling represented that no proceeding at law was pending which would adversely affect Aiken Continental, and that the Official Statement did not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit any material facts. The SEC’s complaint alleges that these representations were materially false and misleading due to Detling’s failures to disclose material information about Aiken’s criminal proceeding and the loan.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Aiken served 90 days in federal prison and 90 days of home detention in Georgia following the close of the transaction. Aiken’s six-month absence negatively affected the operations of the casket company and the Raleigh County bonds are now in default, with the entire principal amount and accrued interest due.
Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Detling agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by consenting to the entry of a final judgment, which will permanently enjoin him from violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and from aiding and abetting violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. As part of the settlement, Detling also agreed to pay $10,000 in disgorgement, $3,052 in prejudgment interest, and a $25,000 civil penalty, all of which will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Raleigh County bondholders. The SEC’s settlement with Detling is subject to court approval. In addition, pursuant to Rule 102(e)(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, Detling consented to the entry of an administrative order suspending him from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an attorney, with the right to reapply after five years.”

PRESIDENT DEFENDS APPOINTMENT OF LEADER FOR THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

The following excerpt is from the White House website:

"Consumer Watchdog: After appointing Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau earlier this week, the President traveled to Shaker Heights, Ohio to talk about his decision -- and the fight to help secure a better future for the middle class. The CFPB is in place to ensure the integrity of the financial system and protect all American consumers from fraud and unfair play. The President said: “See, most people in the financial services industry do the right thing, but they're at a disadvantage if nobody is enforcing the rules. We can't let that happen. Now is not the time to play politics while people’s livelihoods are at stake. Now is the time to do everything we can to protect consumers, prevent financial crises like the one that we’ve been through from ever happening again. That starts with letting Richard do his job.”

SEC FILES INJUNCTION AGAINST BOND SELL AND HIS COMPANY

"The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced its filing of a civil injunctive action alleging fraud in the offer and sale of municipal bonds by Charles A. Aiken and his entity, Aiken Continental, L.L.C.

Filed December 29, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, the SEC’s complaint alleges that Aiken and Aiken Continental made material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the 2006 offer and sale of $2.96 million of industrial development revenue bonds. Raleigh County, West Virginia issued the bonds in October 2006 to facilitate Aiken Continental’s acquisition of Continental Casket, Inc., a casket manufacturing facility located within its jurisdiction. Aiken formed Aiken Continental in August 2006 for the sole purpose of acquiring Continental Casket’s assets, and served as its sole principal.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Aiken concealed from key participants to the transaction, including the issuer, bond counsel, the underwriter, and the bondholders’ trustee, that he had been indicted for felony financial fraud in late 2005. Aiken also concealed the fact that he was in the process of negotiating a plea agreement just before the bonds were issued in October 2006, which included a term of imprisonment. In addition, Aiken failed to disclose material information about a $200,000 loan to Aiken and Aiken Continental from an entity partially owned by their attorney, in order to facilitate the closing of the transaction. This loan required a $100,000 interest payment, and gave the lender a twenty percent equity interest in Aiken Continental if the loan plus interest was not fully repaid within six months. Aiken’s failure to disclose details about his criminal proceeding and the loan rendered certain statements in the bonds’ Official Statement materially misleading. For example, one section of the Official Statement contained information about Aiken’s background, but failed to mention his felony indictment for financial fraud. Another section of the Official Statement contained projected financial statements for Aiken Continental, but failed to take into account the repayment of the $200,000 loan plus $100,000 interest. Aiken Continental supplied and authorized the use of information in the Official Statement. Aiken signed the Official Statement on behalf of Aiken Continental, and authorized it to be distributed to investors.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Aiken served 90 days in federal prison and 90 days of home detention in Georgia following the close of the transaction. Aiken’s six-month absence negatively affected the operations of the casket company and the Raleigh County bonds are now in default, with the entire principal amount and accrued interest due.

Based on this conduct, the SEC’s complaint alleges that Aiken and Aiken Continental violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder. The SEC’s complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil money penalties."

BEVERLY HILLS FINANCIAL FIRM AND FOUNDER PLEAD GUILTY TO BID-RIGGING IN MUNI BOND MARKET

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:

"WASHINGTON – A Beverly Hills, Calif.,-based financial products and services firm, and its founder and owner pleaded guilty today in the Southern District of New York for their participation in bid-rigging and fraud conspiracies related to contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds and other related municipal finance contracts, the Department of Justice announced. 

Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill Insurance Services, also known as CDR Financial Products, and David Rubin, CDR founder and owner, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in the Southern District of New York.  Rubin and CDR, along with Zevi Wolmark, also known as Stewart Wolmark, the former chief financial officer and managing director of CDR, and Evan Andrew Zarefsky, a vice president of CDR, were indicted on Oct. 29, 2009.  The trial for Wolmark and Zarefsky is scheduled to begin on Jan. 3, 2012, in the Southern District of New York.

Rubin and CDR each pleaded guilty to participating in separate bid-rigging and fraud conspiracies with various financial institutions and insurance companies and their representatives.  These institutions and companies, or “providers,” offered a type of contract, known as an investment agreement, to state, county and local governments and agencies throughout the United States.  The public entities were seeking to invest money from a variety of sources, primarily the proceeds of municipal bonds that they had issued to raise money for, among other things, public projects.  Rubin and CDR also pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in connection with those schemes.

“Mr. Rubin and his company engaged in fraudulent and anticompetitive conduct that harmed municipalities and other public entities,” said Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.  “Today’s guilty pleas are an important development in our continued efforts to hold accountable those who violate the antitrust laws and subvert the competitive process in our financial markets.”

According to court documents, CDR was hired by public entities that issue municipal bonds to act as their broker and conduct what was supposed to be a competitive bidding process for contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds.  Competitive bidding for those contracts is the subject of regulations issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and is related to the tax-exempt status of the bonds.

During his plea hearing, Rubin admitted that, from 1998 until 2006, he and other co-conspirators supplied information to providers to help them win bids, solicited intentionally losing bids, and signed certifications that contained false statements regarding whether the bidding process for certain investment agreements complied with relevant Treasury Regulations.  Additionally, Rubin admitted that he and other co-conspirators solicited fees from providers, which were in fact payments to CDR for rigging or manipulating bids for certain investment agreements so that a particular provider would win that agreement at an artificially determined price. 

“Mr. Rubin and his firm were trusted with public money and confidence to assist municipalities with issuing bonds,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge Janice K. Fedarcyk.  “Contrary to his agreement and the law, Mr. Rubin shirked his responsibilities while defrauding taxpayers.  Thankfully, this bid-rigging scheme, where Mr. Rubin decided the winners and losers, is over.”

“ IRS is the federal agency responsible for compliance with tax laws applicable to the issuance of tax-exempt municipal bonds,” said Special Agent in Charge Charles R. Pine of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) New York Field Office .  “Today’s guilty pleas by David Rubin and CDR are the result of a coordinated effort by the Department of Justice and IRS-Criminal Investigation.  Depriving municipalities of investment earnings and diverting arbitrage via illegal agreements and kickbacks will not be tolerated.  IRS-Criminal Investigation agents will continue to investigate fraud in the municipal bond market and recommend prosecution against those who have participated in the fraudulent scheme.”      

The bid–rigging conspiracy with which Rubin is charged carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million criminal fine.  The fraud conspiracy with which Rubin is charged carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 criminal fine.  The wire fraud charge with which Rubin is charged carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 criminal fine.  The maximum fines for each of these offenses 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.

CDR faces a maximum criminal fine on the bid-rigging charge of $100 million.  The fraud conspiracy and wire fraud offenses with which CDR is charged each carry a maximum criminal fine of $500,000.  The maximum fines for each of these offenses 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.

Rubin is the tenth individual to plead guilty in an ongoing federal investigation into the municipal bonds industry, which is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s New York Field Office, the FBI and IRS-CI. 

In addition, Dominick Carollo and Peter S. Grimm, formerly of GE Funding Capital Market Services, and Steven E. Goldberg, formerly of GE Funding Capital Market Services and FSA, were indicted on July 27, 2010, and are scheduled to begin trial in April 2012.  Three former UBS employees, Peter Ghavami, Gary Heinz and Michael Welty, were indicted on Dec. 9, 2010."

INVESTMENT ADVISOR ALLEGEDLY USED SOCIAL MEDIA WEBSITES TO SELL FAKE SECURITEIS

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

“Washington, D.C., Jan. 4, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged an Illinois-based investment adviser with offering to sell fictitious securities on LinkedIn and issued two alerts in an agency-wide effort to highlight the risks investors and advisory firms face when using social media.

The SEC’s Division of Enforcement alleges that Anthony Fields of Lyons, Ill. offered more than $500 billion in fictitious securities through various social media websites. For example, he used LinkedIn discussions to promote fictitious “bank guarantees” and “medium-term notes.” The postings resulted in interest from multiple purported potential buyers.

“Fraudsters are quick to adapt to new technologies to exploit them for unlawful purposes,” said Robert B. Kaplan, Co-Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. “Social media is no exception, and today’s enforcement action reflects our determination to pursue fraudulent activity on new and evolving platforms.”
According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings against Fields, he made multiple fraudulent offers through his two sole proprietorships – Anthony Fields & Associates (AFA) and Platinum Securities Brokers. Fields provided false and misleading information concerning AFA’s assets under management, clients, and operational history to the public through its website and in SEC filings. Fields also failed to maintain required books and records, did not implement adequate compliance policies and procedures, and held himself out to be a broker-dealer while he was not registered with the SEC.
One of the alerts issued today – a National Examination Risk Alert titled“Investment Adviser Use of Social Media” – provides staff observations based on a review of investment advisers of varying sizes and strategies that use social media. In growing numbers, registered investment adviser firms are using social media to communicate with existing and potential clients, promote services, educate investors, and recruit new employees.

“As investment advisers increasingly utilize social media to communicate with clients and potential clients, firms need to be mindful of the applicable standards governing those communications,” said Carlo di Florio, Director of the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE).

The alert reviews concerns that may arise from use of social media by firms and their associated persons, and offers suggestions for complying with the antifraud, compliance, and recordkeeping provisions of the federal securities laws. The alert notes that firms should consider how to implement new compliance programs or revisit their existing programs in the face of rapidly changing technology.

The SEC also issued an Investor Alert titled “Social Media and Investing: Avoiding Fraud” prepared by the Office of Investor Education and Advocacy. The alert aims to help investors be better aware of fraudulent investment schemes that use social media, and provides tips for checking the backgrounds of advisers and brokers. A new Investor Bulletin titled “Social Media and Investing: Understanding Your Accounts” contains best practices including privacy settings, security tips, and password selection aimed to help social media users protect their personal information and avoid fraud.

“More and more, investors are using social media to help them with investment decisions. While social media can provide many benefits for investors, it also makes an attractive target for fraudsters. The Investor Alert provides some useful tips to help investors look out for securities fraud online,” said Lori J. Schock, Director of the Office of Investor Education and Advocacy.”

INVESTMENT FIRM HEAD GETS 20 YEAR PRISON TERM FOR MAIL FRAUD AND MONEY LAUNDERING

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

“The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on December 13, 2011, the Honorable William Stiehl, United States District Court judge, sentenced Edward Lynn Moskop, 64, of Belleville, Illinois, to the maximum statutory penalties of 240 months’ imprisonment on Mail Fraud and 120 months on Money Laundering, to be served concurrently. Judge Stiehl also ordered Moskop to pay more than $1.49 million in restitution to his victims. The sentencing followed Moskop’s August 3, 2011 plea of guilty to the two count indictment.

Moskop's 20-year prison sentence was the culmination of his long-time investment fraud and misappropriation scheme. In the criminal case, the United States Attorney’s office for the Southern District of Illinois alleged that Moskop, operating as Financial Services Moskop and Associates, Inc., acted as a securities broker for several customers by making investments on their behalf. According to the U.S. Attorney’s office, from 1991 to 2010, Moskop persuaded customers to provide him with funds for investment. But, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office, instead of making the investment, Moskop kept the funds for his own use. The U.S. Attorney’s office alleged that Moskop also provided his customers with fraudulent periodic investment statements showing false interest and gains in the investments. According to the U.S. Attorney’s office, Moskop obtained by fraud approximately $2,400,000 from 25 victims. The U.S. Attorney’s office alleged that Moskop’s victims included his relatives, individuals referred by trusted friends and attorneys, a local Veterans of Foreign War Post, and long-time customers of his insurance business.

The criminal charges against Moskop are related to the conduct underlying the SEC’s civil action against Moskop and his company, Financial Services Moskop & Associates. On November 19, 2010, the SEC filed an emergency civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to halt an ongoing fraud on investors conducted by Moskop and his company. In its complaint, the SEC alleged that from 1989 until the filing of the SEC’s action against Moskop and his company, Moskop misappropriated most of the life savings of at least two elderly investors. On the same day the SEC filed its case, the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, United States District Court Judge, granted the SEC’s motion for emergency relief, entering a temporary restraining order against Moskop and his company and an order freezing their assets. On November 27, 2010, the court entered a preliminary injunction against Moskop and his company, and on July 21, 2011, the court entered a permanent injunction against Moskop and his company and continued the order freezing their assets. The SEC's action, which is ongoing, seeks disgorgement of the ill-gotten gains received by Moskop and his company, as well as civil penalties.”

FOUNDER OF BEVERLY HILLS FINANCIAL FIRM PLEADS GUILTY TO BID-RIGGING AND FRAUD IN MUNICIPAL BOND MARKET

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:

“WASHINGTON — A Beverly Hills, Calif.,-based financial products and services firm, and its founder and owner pleaded guilty today in the Southern District of New York for their participation in bid-rigging and fraud conspiracies related to contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds and other related municipal finance contracts, the Department of Justice announced.

Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill Insurance Services, also known as CDR Financial Products, and David Rubin, CDR founder and owner, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in the Southern District of New York. Rubin and CDR, along with Zevi Wolmark, also known as Stewart Wolmark, the former chief financial officer and managing director of CDR, and Evan Andrew Zarefsky, a vice president of CDR, were indicted on Oct. 29, 2009. The trial for Wolmark and Zarefsky is scheduled to begin on Jan. 3, 2012, in the Southern District of New York.

Rubin and CDR each pleaded guilty to participating in separate bid-rigging and fraud conspiracies with various financial institutions and insurance companies and their representatives. These institutions and companies, or “providers,” offered a type of contract, known as an investment agreement, to state, county and local governments and agencies throughout the United States. The public entities were seeking to invest money from a variety of sources, primarily the proceeds of municipal bonds that they had issued to raise money for, among other things, public projects. Rubin and CDR also pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in connection with those schemes.

“Mr. Rubin and his company engaged in fraudulent and anticompetitive conduct that harmed municipalities and other public entities,” said Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Today’s guilty pleas are an important development in our continued efforts to hold accountable those who violate the antitrust laws and subvert the competitive process in our financial markets.”

According to court documents, CDR was hired by public entities that issue municipal bonds to act as their broker and conduct what was supposed to be a competitive bidding process for contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds. Competitive bidding for those contracts is the subject of regulations issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and is related to the tax-exempt status of the bonds.

During his plea hearing, Rubin admitted that, from 1998 until 2006, he and other co-conspirators supplied information to providers to help them win bids, solicited intentionally losing bids, and signed certifications that contained false statements regarding whether the bidding process for certain investment agreements complied with relevant Treasury Regulations. Additionally, Rubin admitted that he and other co-conspirators solicited fees from providers, which were in fact payments to CDR for rigging or manipulating bids for certain investment agreements so that a particular provider would win that agreement at an artificially determined price.

“Mr. Rubin and his firm were trusted with public money and confidence to assist municipalities with issuing bonds,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge Janice K. Fedarcyk. “Contrary to his agreement and the law, Mr. Rubin shirked his responsibilities while defrauding taxpayers. Thankfully, this bid-rigging scheme, where Mr. Rubin decided the winners and losers, is over.”

“IRS is the federal agency responsible for compliance with tax laws applicable to the issuance of tax-exempt municipal bonds,” said Special Agent in Charge Charles R. Pine of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) New York Field Office. “Today’s guilty pleas by David Rubin and CDR are the result of a coordinated effort by the Department of Justice and IRS-Criminal Investigation. Depriving municipalities of investment earnings and diverting arbitrage via illegal agreements and kickbacks will not be tolerated. IRS-Criminal Investigation agents will continue to investigate fraud in the municipal bond market and recommend prosecution against those who have participated in the fraudulent scheme.”

The bid–rigging conspiracy with which Rubin is charged carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million criminal fine.The fraud conspiracy with which Rubin is charged carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 criminal fine.The wire fraud charge with which Rubin is charged carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 criminal fine. The maximum fines for each of these offenses 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.

CDR faces a maximum criminal fine on the bid-rigging charge of $100 million. The fraud conspiracy and wire fraud offenses with which CDR is charged each carry a maximum criminal fine of $500,000. The maximum fines for each of these offenses 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.

Rubin is the tenth individual to plead guilty in an ongoing federal investigation into the municipal bonds industry, which is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s New York Field Office, the FBI and IRS-CI.
In addition, Dominick Carollo and Peter S. Grimm, formerly of GE Funding Capital Market Services, and Steven E. Goldberg, formerly of GE Funding Capital Market Services and FSA, were indicted on July 27, 2010, and are scheduled to begin trial in April 2012. Three former UBS employees, Peter Ghavami, Gary Heinz and Michael Welty, were indicted on Dec. 9, 2010.”

COMPANY AND EXECUTIVES CHARGED BY SEC OVER DISCLOSURES INVOLVING LIFE SETTLEMENTS

 The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

Jan. 3, 2012 

“Washington, D.C., — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Texas-based financial services firm Life Partners Holdings Inc. and three of its senior executives for their involvement in a fraudulent disclosure and accounting scheme involving life settlements.

The SEC alleges that Life Partners chairman and CEO Brian Pardo, president and general counsel Scott Peden, and chief financial officer David Martin misled shareholders by failing to disclose a significant risk to Life Partners’ business: the company was systematically and materially underestimating the life expectancy estimates it used to price transactions. Life expectancy estimates are a critical factor impacting the company’s revenues and profit margins as well as the company’s ability to generate profits for its shareholders.

The SEC alleges that Life Partners and the three executives were involved in disclosure violations and improper accounting that Life Partners used to overvalue assets held on the company’s books and create the appearance of a steady stream of earnings from brokering life settlement transactions. The SEC further charged Pardo and Peden with insider trading in their shares of Life Partners stock while in possession of material, non-public information indicating that the company had systematically and materially underestimated life expectancy estimates.

“Life Partners duped its shareholders by employing an unqualified medical doctor to assign baseless life expectancy estimates to the underlying insurance policies,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. “This deception misled shareholders into thinking that the company's revenue model was sustainable when in fact it was illusory.”

David Woodcock, Director of the SEC’s Fort Worth Regional Office, added, “The senior-most executives at Life Partners concealed significant risks to the business, manipulated financial statements with improper accounting, and knowingly profited from their misconduct by executing insider trades based on information that was not available to the public.”

Life Partners is a Nasdaq-traded company that generates virtually all of its revenues from brokering life settlements. Life settlements involve the purchase and sale of fractional interests of life insurance policies in the secondary market. In life settlement transactions, life insurance policy owners sell their policies to investors in exchange for a lump-sum payment. The dollar amount offered by the investor takes into account the insured’s life expectancy and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal district court in Waco, Texas, Life Partners misrepresented and failed to disclose in public filings with the SEC that the company’s systematic use of materially underestimated life expectancy estimates constituted a material risk to the company’s revenues. Beginning in 1999, the company used life expectancy estimates provided by Dr. Donald T. Cassidy, a Reno, Nev.-based doctor with no actuarial training or prior experience rendering life expectancy estimates. The SEC alleges that Life Partners and Pardo failed to conduct any meaningful due diligence on Cassidy’s qualification to act as a life expectancy underwriter and instructed the doctor to use a life expectancy methodology that was created by the company’s former underwriter, a part-owner of Life Partners. Pardo, Peden, and Martin were aware that the Cassidy-rendered life expectancy estimates were systematically and materially short.

The SEC alleges that Life Partners materially misstated net income from fiscal year 2007 through the third quarter of fiscal year 2011 by prematurely recognizing revenues and understating impairment expense related to its investments in life settlements. Life Partners improperly accelerated revenue recognition from the closing date to the date it obtained a non-binding agreement with the policy owner to sell a life settlement. Life Partners use of Cassidy’s life expectancy estimates as part of its impairment calculations caused the company to understate millions of dollars in impairment expense.

The SEC further alleges that during this time, Pardo and Peden sold approximately $11.5 million and $300,000 respectively of Life Partners stock at inflated prices while in possession of material non-public information about the company’s dependency on short life expectancy estimates to generate revenues.

In addition to the alleged violations of the antifraud and reporting provisions of the federal securities laws by Life Partners, Pardo, Peden and Martin, the SEC’s complaint also seeks repayment to the company of stock sales profits and bonuses received by Pardo and Martin pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.”

SEC SUES EXECUTIVE AND HIS COMPANIES FOR ALLEGED FRAUDULENT NOTE OFFERINGS

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

December 28, 2011
“On August 10, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Damian Omar Valdez of New York and two Houston-area firms he controlled, Evolution Capital Advisors (“Evolution Capital”) and Evolution Investment Group I (“EIGI”). Evolution Capital was an investment adviser registered with the Commission until June 2010. The firms and Valdez raised at least $10 million from more than 80 investors through two fraudulent note offerings.
After a contested evidentiary hearing on October 19 and 20, 2011, the Court found that: (1) Valdez, Evolution Capital, and EIGI misled investors to believe that the notes were safe and secured by assets guaranteed by the United States government; (2) the defendants falsely promised to use leverage to purchase the assets securing the notes; (3) the assets securing the notes were subject to significant undisclosed default and prepayment risk; (4) the defendants paid themselves more than $2.4 million in fees and expenses and used approximately $2.7 million from the second note offering to make Ponzi payments to investors in the first note offering; (5) because of defaults and prepayments on the underlying assets, failure to obtain leverage, and excessive Ponzi payments and fees, the defendants lacked sufficient assets to repay investors in accordance with the notes; and (6) the defendants would have continued taking all monies from the account each month as “profit” had the Commission not brought its enforcement action. The Court specifically found that Defendant Valdez acted with fraudulent intent.
Based on these findings, the Court granted the Commission’s motion for preliminary and permanent injunction, asset freeze, and appointment of a receiver. The Court also permanently froze the defendants’ assets. In addition, the Court specifically enjoined the defendants against further violations of the anti-fraud provisions 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 Commission’s requests for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, as well as civil penalties, remain pending.”

SEC HAS 12 TIPS FOR SAVING AND INVESTING

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

Below are some suggestions on how to become a smarter investor in 2012.
Tip #12 Pay off high-interest debt. Paying off high-interest debt may be your best investment strategy. Few investments pay off as well as, or with less risk than, eliminating high-interest debt on credit card or other loans.

Tip #11 Pay yourself first. Regular automatic deductions from your paycheck or bank account into a savings or investment account will keep you on track toward your short and long-term financial goals.

Tip #10 Boost your 'rainy day' fund. Many experts recommend keeping about six months of expenses in a federally insured account to cover sudden unemployment or other emergencies.

Tip #9 Help stop affinity fraud in your community. Affinity fraud refers to investment scams that prey upon members of identifiable groups. Learn how you can help protect yourself and your community (.pdf file) from the potentially devastating impact of affinity fraud.

Tip #8 Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Think twice before investing heavily in shares of your employer's stock or any individual investment.

Tip #7 Take advantage of 'free money' (if available). In many employer-sponsored retirement plans, the employer will match some or all of your contributions. If your employer offers a retirement plan and you do not contribute enough to get your employer's match, you are passing up 'free money' for your retirement savings.

Tip #6 Beware of promises of 'guaranteed returns.' Promises of high returns, with little or no risk, are classic warning signs for fraud. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Tip #5 Understand the fees you pay to buy, own, and sell your investments. Investment costs shouldn't take you by surprise. Fees and expenses vary from product to product and can take a huge bite out of your returns. Even small differences in investment costs can translate into large differences in returns over time.

Tip #4 Teach your children about good financial habits. Recent research suggests that direct teaching by parents is an important predictor of a young person's future financial success.

Tip #3 Research investments before handing over any money. Smart investors always check whether an investment is registered with the SEC by using the SEC's EDGAR database or contacting the SEC's toll-free investor assistance line at (800) 732-0330.

Tip #2 Check the background of your investment professional. Many investors do not know that you can check the background of a broker or investment adviser. It's free and easy - and a key step for avoiding investment fraud.

Tip #1 Visit Investor.gov before making your next investment decision. Created by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Investor.gov is a free, easy to use web site with objective information on investing wisely and avoiding fraud. You can learn about financial products, research investment professionals, and find more information about the tips above.

GE FUNDING CAPITAL TO PAY $70 MILLION FOR ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY IN THE MUNI BOND MARKET

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:

"WASHINGTON – GE Funding Capital Market Services Inc. entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice to resolve the company’s role in anticompetitive activity in the municipal bond investments market and agreed to pay a total of $70 million in restitution, penalties and disgorgement to federal and state agencies, the Department of Justice announced today.

As part of its agreement with the department, GE Funding admits, acknowledges and accepts responsibility for illegal, anticompetitive conduct by its former traders.  According to the non-prosecution agreement, from 1999 through 2004, certain former GE Funding traders entered into unlawful agreements to manipulate the bidding process on municipal investment and related contracts, and caused GE Funding to make payments and engage in other related activities in connection with those agreements through at least 2006.  These contracts were used to invest the proceeds of, or manage the risks associated with, bond issuances by municipalities and other public entities.

“GE Funding’s former traders entered into illegal agreements to manipulate the bidding process on municipal investment contracts,” said Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.  “This anticompetitive conduct harmed municipalities, as well as taxpayers.  Today’s resolution requires GE Funding to pay penalties, disgorgement and restitution to the victims of its illegal activity.  We will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to uphold our nation’s antitrust laws and ensure competition in the financial markets.”

Under the terms of the agreement, GE Funding agreed to pay restitution to victims of the anticompetitive conduct and to cooperate fully with the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division in its ongoing investigation into anticompetitive conduct in the municipal bond derivatives industry.  To date, the ongoing investigation has resulted in criminal charges against 18 former executives of various financial services companies and one corporation.  Nine of the 18 executives charged have pleaded guilty.    

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and 25 state attorneys general also entered into agreements with GE Funding requiring the payment of penalties, disgorgement of profits from the illegal conduct and payment of restitution to the victims harmed by the bid manipulation by GE Funding employees, as well as other remedial measures.

As a result of GE Funding’s admission of conduct; its cooperation with the Department of Justice and other enforcement and regulatory agencies; its monetary and non-monetary commitments to the SEC, IRS and state attorneys general; and its remedial efforts to address the anticompetitive conduct, the department agreed not to prosecute GE Funding for the manipulation of bidding for municipal investment and related contracts, provided that GE Funding satisfies its ongoing obligations under the agreement.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., UBS AG and Wachovia Bank N.A. also reached agreements with the Department of Justice and other federal and state agencies to resolve anticompetitive conduct in the municipal bond derivatives market.  On May 4, 2011, UBS AG agreed to pay a total of $160 million in restitution, penalties and disgorgement to federal and state agencies for its participation in the anticompetitive conduct.  On July 7, 2011, JPMorgan agreed to pay a total of $228 million in restitution, penalties and disgorgement to federal and state agencies for its role in the conduct.  On Dec. 8, 2011, Wachovia Bank agreed to pay a total of $148 million in restitution, penalties and disgorgement to federal and state agencies for its participation in the anticompetitive conduct.

The department’s ongoing investigation into the municipal bonds industry is being conducted by the Antitrust Division, the FBI and the IRS-Criminal Investigation.  The department is coordinating its investigation with the SEC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.  The department thanks the SEC, IRS and state attorneys general for their cooperation and assistance in this matter."