FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., Dec. 26, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced additional charges in an insider trading case against two brokers who traded on nonpublic information ahead of IBM Corporation’s acquisition of SPSS Inc.
In an amended complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan, the SEC is now charging research analyst Trent Martin, who was the brokers’ source of confidential information in an insider trading scheme that yielded more than $1 million in illicit profits. Martin worked at a brokerage firm in Connecticut and specialized in Australian equity investments, and he learned nonpublic information about the impending IBM-SPSS transaction from an attorney friend who was working on the deal. Rather than maintaining the confidence of the information, Martin used the information for his own benefit, purchasing SPSS securities and subsequently tipping his roommate Thomas C. Conradt, who traded and tipped his friend and fellow retail broker David J. Weishaus. Martin was specifically named as their source in instant messages between Conradt and Weishaus about their illegal trading.
The SEC charged Conradt and Weishaus with insider trading on November 29. Martin, who fled the U.S. to Australia soon after learning about the SEC’s investigation, currently lives in Hong Kong.
"Martin is a licensed professional who knowingly disregarded insider trading laws to enrich himself, and then fled the United States when he learned of our investigation," said Daniel M. Hawke, Director of the SEC’s Philadelphia Regional Office. "Martin could run but he could not hide, as the long arm of the SEC will extend to those who flee the United States hoping to avoid the consequences of their unlawful conduct."
The SEC alleges that Martin’s attorney friend expected him to maintain information in confidence and refrain from illegal trading or disclosing it to others. The attorney sought moral support, reassurance, and advice when he privately told Martin about his new assignment working on the IBM-SPSS acquisition. The lawyer disclosed to Martin such details as the anticipated transaction price and the identities of the acquiring and target companies while he was describing the magnitude of the assignment.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Martin attempted to purchase SPSS common stock on the very first business day after learning the nonpublic information from his friend. His first three orders were cancelled because he did not have sufficient funds in the account to make the purchases, but he later wired $50,000 from his checking account into his brokerage account to purchase SPSS shares.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that Martin, Conradt and Weishaus violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The SEC is seeking disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest and financial penalties, and a permanent injunction against the brokers.
The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, is being conducted by Mary P. Hansen, A. Kristina Littman, and John S. Rymas in the SEC’s Philadelphia Regional Office. G. Jeffrey Boujoukos and Catherine E. Pappas in the Philadelphia office are handling the litigation.
The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Options Regulatory Surveillance Authority (ORSA), the New Zealand Securities Commission, and the Australia Securities and Investments Commission. The SEC also acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Toronto-based brokerage firm and its top two executives for failing to supervise overseas day traders who used the firm’s order management system to engage repeatedly in a manipulative trading practice known as layering.
In layering, a trader places orders with no intention of having them executed but rather to trick others into buying or selling a stock at an artificial price driven by the orders, which the trader later cancels. The SEC’s investigation found that Biremis – whose worldwide day trading business enabled up to 5,000 traders on as many 200 trading floors in 30 countries to gain access to U.S. markets – failed to address repeated instances of layering by many of the overseas day traders using its system. The firm’s co-founders Peter Beck and Charles Kim ignored repeated red flags indicating that overseas traders were engaging in layering manipulations. Biremis served as the broker-dealer for an affiliated Canadian day trading firm, Swift Trade Inc.
Biremis and the two executives agreed to a settlement in which the firm’s registration as a U.S. broker-dealer is revoked and permanent industry bars are imposed on Beck and Kim, who also will pay a combined half-million dollars to settle the SEC’s charges.
"Engaged and forceful supervisors are the first line of defense against individual misconduct in financial services companies," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. "Beck and Kim were neither, as they saw obvious red flags of market manipulation by their firm’s traders but failed to respond or take any steps to prevent the manipulation. They have learned the painful lesson that supervisors who fail to heed repeated red flags of misconduct will no longer have any place in the securities industry."
According to the SEC’s order instituting settled administrative proceedings, Biremis, Beck, and Kim exercised substantial control over the overseas day traders. They backed the traders’ trading with capital from Biremis, determined the amount of Biremis capital available to each individual trader to purchase stocks, and set and enforced daily loss limits on each trader. They also wielded authority to reprimand, restrict, suspend, or terminate traders.
The SEC’s order found that many of the Biremis-affiliated overseas day traders engaged in repeated instances of layering from January 2007 to mid-2010. Beck and Kim learned from numerous sources – including three U.S. broker-dealers and a Biremis employee – that layering was occurring, yet they failed to take any steps to prevent it. For example, in spring 2008, representatives of one U.S. broker-dealer warned Beck and Kim that certain overseas traders were "gaming" U.S. stocks by altering those stocks’ bid and offer prices in order to buy or sell the stock at the altered price. Beck and Kim failed to act on this information.
According to the SEC’s order, Biremis also failed to retain virtually all of its instant messages related to its broker-dealer business, and failed to file any suspicious activity reports (SARs) related to the manipulative trading.
"Broker-dealers must recognize that their supervisory responsibilities over their associated persons don’t end at the U.S. border," said Antonia Chion, Associate Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. "Broker-dealers face severe consequences if they fail to supervise their traders who engage in manipulative trading, whether those traders are located in the U.S. or abroad."
The SEC’s order finds that Biremis, Beck, and Kim failed reasonably to supervise the firm’s associated persons (the overseas day traders) with a view to preventing and detecting their layering manipulations. The order also finds that Biremis willfully violated Exchange Act Section 17(a) and Rule 17a-8 by failing to file SARs and Section 17(a) and Rule 17a-4(b)(4) by failing to retain instant messages.
The SEC’s order revokes Biremis’ registration as a broker-dealer and requires the firm to cease and desist from committing or causing violations of Exchange Act Section 17(a) and Rules 17a-4(b)(4) and 17a-8. The SEC imposed permanent industry bars on Beck and Kim, who each agreed to pay penalties of $250,000. Biremis, Beck, and Kim neither admitted nor denied the findings contained in the SEC’s order.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by senior counsel Paul J. Bohr and supervised by assistant director Ricky Sachar. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Ontario Securities Commission, the U.K. Financial Services Authority, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Charges Former Chairman of Board In Connection With A Fraudulent Plan To Evade The Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) announced today it filed a civil action against Lee S. Rosen, the former Chairman of the Board of publicly traded New Generation Biofuels Holdings, Inc., alleging that he fraudulently evaded the reporting requirements concerning his ownership interest in New Generation shares held in five separate trusts in violation of the antifraud provisions and beneficial reporting provisions of the federal securities laws. According to the Commission's complaint, at various times from June 2007 through May 2010, Rosen, directly or indirectly profited from the sale of New Generation shares held in two of the five trusts and benefited from using shares in two trusts as payment toward an ultimately unsuccessful purchase of a yacht. The complaint alleges that Rosen received at least $666,000 in direct payments from sales of New Generation stock held in three of the trusts and from a trustee's individual brokerage account. The complaint also alleges that Rosen indirectly benefited from using New Generation shares held in two trusts as partial payment in an effort to purchase a yacht. Further, the complaint alleges that Rosen failed to disclose these transactions and his true holdings in New Generation securities in various Commission filings and that Rosen made false and misleading statements and omissions in Commission filings regarding his true beneficial ownership of New Generation shares.
The SEC's complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, charges Rosen with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b), 13(d) and 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 13d-1, 13d-2, 16a-3, and 16a-8 thereunder. Rosen has agreed to settle the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the allegations. Rosen consented to a permanent injunction, and an order requiring him to pay $666,000 in disgorgement, plus $50,484 in prejudgment interest, a $195,000 civil money penalty, and barring him from serving as an officer or director.
FROM: U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,
CFTC Settles Charges against Virginia Resident Alexander Giap for Engaging in Two Fraudulent Commodity Futures Trading Schemes
Federal Court in Virginia orders Giap to pay over $700,000 in restitution and penalties and permanently bars him from the commodities industry
Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it obtained a federal court order requiring defendant Alexander Giap of Falls Church, Va., to pay $456,743 in restitution to defrauded customers and a $250,000 civil monetary penalty for violating the anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) (see CFTC Press Release 6191-12, February 27, 2012, as a Related Link). The consent order of permanent injunction, entered on December 17, 2012, by the Honorable Claude M. Hilton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, also imposes permanent trading and registration bans against Giap and prohibits him from violating the CEA, as charged.
The order finds that Giap engaged in two schemes in which he acted as an unregistered Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA). In the first scheme, which took place in 2009, Giap solicited customers to participate in iTRADE, a purported "school" that Giap used to conduct his CTA business, according to the order. iTRADE "students" provided Giap with "tuition" ranging from $4,000 to $20,000 and traded under Giap’s direction, the order finds. Giap and iTRADE offered a money back guarantee under which the iTRADE students would retain all profits from trading until they had recovered their initial deposit, the order finds. However, Giap’s trading resulted in substantial losses, losing money seven out of the nine months from January 2009 through September 2009, according to the order.
Furthermore, the order finds that Giap made a number of material misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts when he solicited customers to engage his services, including that he was a convicted felon who still owed restitution relating to his criminal conviction and was subject to Internal Revenue Service liens for delinquent taxes. Giap also failed to disclose the full extent of his history of losses incurred trading commodity futures, that he was not registered with the CFTC as a CTA, and that he had never traded commodity futures prior to January 2009, according to the order.
In Giap’s second commodity futures trading scheme, which began in October 2009, he defrauded three additional customers through the same material omissions as his first scheme, and his trading resulted in substantial financial losses to customers, according to the order.
The CFTC thanks the Virginia Corporation Commission for its assistance.
CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this matter are Allison Baker Shealy, Jason Mahoney, Timothy J. Mulreany, George Malas, Rainey Perez, John Einstman, Paul G. Hayeck, and Joan Manley.
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Court Enters Final Judgment Against Massachusetts Investment Adviser and its Principal, Orders Payment of Over $1.7 Million in Illicit Gains and Penalties
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that, on December 12, 2012, a federal judge in Boston, Massachusetts entered a final judgment against registered investment adviser EagleEye Asset Management, LLC, and its sole principal, Jeffrey A. Liskov, both of Plymouth, Massachusetts, in an action the Commission previously filed against them. The Commission’s action alleged that that the defendants defrauded advisory clients concerning foreign currency exchange ("forex") trading.
On November 26, 2012, after an eight-day trial, a federal jury found that EagleEye and Liskov violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 206(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. After a judicial hearing on remedies, Judge William G. Young also found violations by EagleEye and Liskov of Section 204 of the Advisers Act and Rule 204-2 thereunder, concerning their obligation to maintain true, accurate, and current certain books and records relating to EagleEye’s investment advisory business. The court ordered that EagleEye and Liskov are permanently enjoined from future violations of the foregoing provisions of the securities laws. The court further ordered EagleEye and Liskov to pay, jointly and severally, disgorgement of their ill-gotten gains in the amount of $301,502.26, plus pre-judgment interest on that amount of $29,603.59. The court also ordered EagleEye and Liskov each to pay a civil penalty of $725,000.
In its complaint, filed on September 8, 2011, the Commission alleged that, between at least November 2008 and August 2010, Liskov made material misrepresentations to several advisory clients to induce them to liquidate investments in securities and instead invest the proceeds in forex trading. The forex investments, which were not suitable for older clients with conservative investment goals, resulted in steep losses for clients, totaling nearly $4 million, but EagleEye and Liskov came away with over $300,000 in performance fees, in addition to other management fees they collected from clients. Liskov’s strategy was to generate temporary profits on client forex investments to enable him to collect performance fees, after which client forex investments invariably would sharply decline in value.
According to the Commission’s complaint, Liskov made material misrepresentations or failed to disclose material information to clients concerning the nature of forex investments, the risks involved, and his poor track record in forex trading for himself and other clients. The Commission’s complaint further alleged that, in the case of two clients, without their knowledge or consent, Liskov liquidated securities in their brokerage accounts and transferred the proceeds to their forex trading accounts where he lost nearly all client funds, but not before first collecting performance fees for EagleEye (and ultimately himself) on short-lived profits in the clients’ forex accounts. The complaint alleged that Liskov accomplished the unauthorized transfers by doctoring asset transfer forms. On several occasions, Liskov took old forms signed by the clients and used "white out" correction fluid to change dates, asset transfer amounts, and other data. Liskov also used similar tactics to open multiple forex trading accounts in the name of one client, thereby maximizing his ability to earn performance fees for EagleEye (and ultimately himself) on the client’s investments, all without disclosing this to the client or obtaining the client’s consent.
The Commission alleged that, as a result of this conduct, EagleEye and Liskov violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act. The Commission also alleged that EagleEye failed to maintain certain books and records required of investment advisers in violation of Section 204 of the Advisers Act and Rule 204-2 thereunder, and that Liskov aided and abetted EagleEye’s violations of these provisions.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance of Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts William F. Galvin’s Securities Division and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, both of which filed related cases against the defendants in September 2011.
Posts
