FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., June 11, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) and an affiliate for various systemic breakdowns in their regulatory and compliance functions as a self-regulatory organization, including a failure to enforce or even fully comprehend rules to prevent abusive short selling.
CBOE agreed to pay a $6 million penalty and implement major remedial measures to settle the SEC's charges. The financial penalty is the first assessed against an exchange for violations related to its regulatory oversight. Previous financial penalties against exchanges involved misconduct on the business side of their operations.
Self-regulatory organizations (SROs) must enforce the federal securities laws as well as their own rules to regulate trading on their exchanges by their member firms. In doing so, they must sufficiently manage an inherent conflict that exists between self-regulatory obligations and the business interests of an SRO and its members. An SEC investigation found that CBOE failed to adequately police and control this conflict for a member firm that later became the subject of an SEC enforcement action. CBOE put the interests of the firm ahead of its regulatory obligations by failing to properly investigate the firm's compliance with Regulation SHO and then interfering with the SEC investigation of the firm.
According to the SEC's order instituting settled administrative proceedings, CBOE demonstrated an overall inability to enforce Reg. SHO with an ineffective surveillance program that failed to detect wrongdoing despite numerous red flags that its members were engaged in abusive short selling. CBOE also fell short in its regulatory and compliance responsibilities in several other areas during a four-year period.
"The proper regulation of the markets relies on SROs to aggressively police their member firms and enforce their rules as well as the securities laws," said Andrew J. Ceresney, Co-Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "When SROs fail to regulate responsibly the conduct of their member firms as CBOE did here, we will not hesitate to bring an enforcement action."
Daniel M. Hawke, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division's Market Abuse Unit, added, "CBOE's failures in this case were disappointing. The public depends on SROs to provide a watchful eye on their exchanges and market activities occurring through them. They must have strong compliance cultures and adequate and dedicated compliance resources to ensure that they do not stray from their bedrock obligation to provide rigorous self-regulation."
According to the SEC's order, CBOE moved its surveillance and monitoring of Reg. SHO compliance from one department to another in 2008, and the transfer of responsibilities adversely affected its Reg. SHO enforcement program. After that transfer, CBOE did not take action against any firm for violations of Reg. SHO as a result of its surveillance or complaints from third parties. Reg. SHO requires the delivery of equity securities to a registered clearing agency when delivery is due, generally three days after the trade date (T+3). If no delivery is made by that time, the firm must purchase or borrow the securities to close out that failure-to-deliver position by no later than the beginning of regular trading hours on the next day (T+4). CBOE failed to adequately enforce Reg. SHO because its staff lacked a fundamental understanding of the rule. CBOE investigators responsible for Reg. SHO surveillance never received any formal training. CBOE never ensured that its investigators even read the rules. Therefore, they did not have a basic understanding of a failure to deliver.
According to the SEC's order, CBOE received a complaint in February 2009 about possible short sale violations involving a customer account at a member firm. CBOE began investigating whether the trading activity violated Rule 204T of Reg. SHO. However, CBOE staff assigned to the case did not know how to determine if a fail existed and were confused about whether Reg. SHO applied to a retail customer. CBOE closed its Reg. SHO investigation later that year.
The SEC's order found that not only did CBOE fail to adequately detect violations and investigate and discipline one of its members, but it also took misguided and unprecedented steps to assist that same member firm when it became the subject of an SEC investigation in December 2009. CBOE failed to provide information to SEC staff when requested, and went so far as to assist the member firm by providing information for its Wells submission to the SEC. The CBOE actually edited the firm's draft submission, and some of the information and edits provided by CBOE were inaccurate and misleading. The SEC brought its enforcement action against the firm in April 2012, and an administrative law judge recently rendered an initial decision in that case.
According to the SEC's order, CBOE had a number of other regulatory and compliance failures at various times between 2008 and 2012. CBOE failed to adequately enforce its firm quote and priority rules for certain orders and trades on its exchange as well as rules requiring the registration of persons associated with its proprietary trading members. CBOE also provided unauthorized "customer accommodation" payments to some members and not others without applicable rules in place, resulting in unfair discrimination. And CBOE and affiliate C2 Options Exchange failed to file proposed rule changes with the SEC when certain trading functions on their exchanges were implemented.
The SEC's order finds that CBOE violated Section 19(b)(1) and Section 19(g)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act as well as Section 17(a) and Rule 17a-1 when it failed to promptly provide information requested by the SEC that the exchange kept in the course of its business, including information related to the member firm that was under SEC investigation for Reg. SHO violations. CBOE and C2 agreed to settle the charges without admitting or denying the SEC's findings. CBOE agreed to pay $6 million, accept a censure and cease-and-desist order, and implement significant undertakings. C2 also agreed to a censure and cease-and-desist order and significant undertakings.
After the SEC began its investigation, CBOE and C2 responded by engaging in voluntary remedial efforts and initiatives. In reaching the settlement, the SEC took into account these remediation efforts and initiatives. CBOE reorganized its Regulatory Services Division, and hired a chief compliance officer and two deputy chief regulatory officers. CBOE updated written policies and procedures, increased the regulatory budget and the hiring of regulatory staff, implemented mandatory training for all staff and management, and hired a third-party consultant to review its Reg. SHO enforcement program. CBOE also conducted a "bottom-up" review of its Regulatory Services Division's independence, began a "gap" analysis to determine whether CBOE or C2 needed to file any additional rules, and reviewed all of CBOE's regulatory surveillances and the exchange's enterprise risk management framework. After the SEC expressed concern about an accommodation payment to a member, CBOE hired outside counsel to investigate and self-reported additional instances of financial accommodations to other members. After considering CBOE's remedial efforts, the SEC determined not to impose limitations upon the activities, functions or operations of CBOE pursuant to Section 19(h)(1) of the Exchange Act.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Market Abuse Unit members Paul E. Kim and Deborah A. Tarasevich and Structured and New Products Unit member Jill S. Henderson with assistance from market surveillance specialist Brian Shute and trading strategies specialist Ainsley Kerr. The case was supervised by Market Abuse Unit Chief Daniel M. Hawke
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Charges Former Officer of Intermune, Inc. with Insider Trading
On June 6, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Bruce W. Tomlinson, the former vice president of finance, principal accounting officer, and controller of InterMune, Inc., a pharmaceutical company based in Brisbane, California, with having tipped his friend and former business associate, Michael Sarkesian, about material nonpublic information concerning the progress of InterMune’s application before a European Union regulatory body to market its drug Esbriet in the EU.
According to the Commission’s complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, in March 2010, InterMune submitted its marketing application to the European Medicines Agency. The complaint further alleges that an EMA advisory subcommittee, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use ("CHMP"), began assessing the application and communicating with InterMune. By mid-November 2010, in the course of his employment, Tomlinson allegedly had become privy to material non-public information about the increasing probability that the CHMP would render a positive opinion and faster than had been publicly anticipated by InterMune. The complaint alleges that on November 17, 2010, Tomlinson emailed Sarkesian that, amongst other things, the European regulatory review process appeared "to be moving faster and better" than anticipated and that this impacted on "Company wide strategic decisions." On the basis of that information, Sarkesian allegedly directed the purchase of 400 out-of-the-money call options on InterMune common stock through a brokerage account held in the name of Quorne Limited in advance of a December 17, 2010 announcement that the CHMP had rendered a positive opinion. The price of the options increased over 500% on the news, resulting in $616,000 in alleged imputed profits.
Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, Tomlinson has consented to entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from further violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, prohibiting him from serving as an officer or director of a public company for a period of five years, and ordering him to pay a civil penalty of $616,000. Based on the anticipated entry of a final judgment, Tomlinson has also consented to the issuance of an order in a separate administrative proceeding pursuant to which he would be suspended under Rule 102(e)(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant with a right to apply for reinstatement after five years.
A consent judgment was previously entered against Sarkesian and Quorne Limited pursuant to which, amongst other things, the defendants, without admitting or denying the Commission’s allegations, were ordered to disgorge $616,000.
FROM: U.S. SECURITEIS AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Opening Statement at the SEC Open Meeting
by
Chairman Mary Jo White
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.
June 5, 2013
This is an open meeting of the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2013.
Today, the Commission will consider proposals that would reform the way money market funds operate in order to make them less susceptible to runs.
As many people know, money market funds are investment vehicles that hold a pool of high-quality, short-term securities. In the early 1980s, the Commission provided money market funds with an exemption making them distinct from mutual funds and certain other investment products. That exemptive rule (Rule 2a-7) allowed these funds generally to maintain a stable share price of $1.00 instead of changing their share prices according to the market value of the securities held by the fund.
The industry has changed substantially since that time. Money market funds are now a significant piece of the nation's financial system. Over the years, money market funds have become a popular investment product for both retail and institutional investors. They also have become an important provider of short-term financing to corporations, banks and governments. All told, money market funds hold nearly $3 trillion in assets, the majority of which are in institutional funds.
While money market funds have thus long served as an important investment vehicle, the financial crisis of 2008 highlighted the susceptibility of these products to runs. In September of that year - at the height of the financial crisis - a money market fund called the Reserve Primary Fund "broke the buck" - a term used when the value of a fund drops and investors are no longer able to get back the full dollar they put in.
Within the same week of that occurrence, investors pulled approximately $300 billion from other institutional prime money market funds. The contagion effect was rapid. The short term credit market dried up, and corporations had trouble borrowing to run their businesses. This reaction contributed to the significant disruption that already was consuming the financial system.
To stop this run, the government stepped in with unprecedented support in the form of the Treasury temporary money market fund guarantee program and Federal Reserve liquidity facilities.
In the aftermath of that experience, the Commission - in 2010 - adopted a series of reforms that increased the resiliency of money market funds. But, as the Commission stated at that time, those reforms were only a first step. Today's proposal takes the critical additional step of addressing the stable value pricing of institutional prime funds - at the heart of the 2008 run - and proposing methods to stop a money market fund run before such a run becomes a systemically destabilizing event.
It has been a journey to get to this point. Commission staff has spent literally years studying different reform alternatives and performing extensive economic analysis in arriving at these recommendations.
These proposals are important in and of themselves and because they advance the public debate that will shape the final rules to address one of the most prominent events arising from the financial crisis.
Today's proposal contains two alternative reforms that could be adopted separately or combined into a single reform package to address run risk in money market funds.
Floating NAV
The first proposed alternative would require that all institutional prime money market funds operate with a floating net asset value (NAV). That is, they could no longer value their entire portfolio at amortized cost and they could not round their share prices to the nearest penny. The set "dollar" would be replaced by a share price that actually fluctuates, reflecting the changing values in these money market funds.
This floating NAV proposal specifically targets the funds where the problems during the financial crisis occurred: institutional, prime money market funds.
Retail and government money market funds - which have not historically faced runs in even the worst of times - would be exempt from the proposed floating NAV requirement.
This approach would thus preserve the stable value fund product for those retail investors who have found it to be convenient and beneficial. It also would allow municipal and corporate investors to have access to government money market funds - a stable value product - if they need it, although it would be a product that holds federal government securities as opposed to the higher-yielding investments of a prime fund.
We are soliciting commenters' views regarding the impact of targeting the floating NAV reform to institutional prime funds and whether government and retail money market funds also should operate with a floating NAV, as well as commenters' views regarding whether today's proposal would effectively differentiate retail funds from institutional funds by imposing a $1 million redemption limit. These and other important questions are specifically posed in the proposal.
I believe the floating NAV reform proposal is important for a number of reasons:
First, by eliminating the ability of early redeemers to receive $1.00 - even when the fund has experienced a loss and its shares are worth somewhat less - this proposal should reduce incentives for shareholders to redeem from institutional prime money market funds in times of stress.
Second, the proposal increases transparency and highlights investment risk because shareholders would experience price changes as an institutional prime money market fund's value fluctuates.
And, third, the proposal is targeted, by focusing reform on the segment of the market that experienced the run in the financial crisis.
Fees & Gates
The second proposed alternative seeks to directly counter potentially harmful redemption behavior during times of stress.
Under this alternative, non-government money market funds would be required to impose a 2 percent liquidity fee if the fund's level of weekly liquid assets fell below 15 percent of its total assets, unless the fund's board determined that it was not in the best interest of the fund. That determination would be subject to the board's fiduciary duty, and we believe it would be a high hurdle. After falling below the 15 percent weekly liquid assets threshold, the fund's board would also be able to temporarily suspend redemptions in the fund for up to 30 days - or "gate" the fund.
This "fees and gates" alternative potentially could enhance our regulation in several ways:
First, it could more equitably allocate liquidity risk by assigning liquidity costs in times of stress (when liquidity is expensive) to redeeming shareholders - the ones who create the liquidity costs and disruption.
Second, this alternative would provide new tools to allow funds to better manage redemptions in times of stress, and thereby potentially prevent harmful contagion effects on investors, other funds, and the broader markets. If the beginning of a run or significantly heightened redemptions occur, they would no longer continue unchecked, potentially spiraling into a crisis. The imposition of liquidity fees or gates would be an available tool to directly counteract a run.
And, third, this approach also is targeted, focusing the potential limitations on a money market fund investor's experience to times of stress when unfettered liquidity can have real costs.
The two alternative approaches in today's proposal target the common goal of reducing the incentive to redeem in times of stress, albeit in different ways. Accordingly, the proposal requests comment on whether a better reform approach would be to combine the two alternatives into a single reform package - requiring that prime institutional funds have a floating NAV and be able to impose fees and gates in times of stress, and that retail funds be able to impose fees and gates. We specifically solicit and I am interested in commenters' views on this combined approach.
Greater Diversification, Disclosure and Reporting
Importantly, the staff's recommendations also contain a number of other significant reform proposals - tightening diversification requirements, enhancing disclosure requirements, strengthening stress testing and improving reporting on both money market funds and unregistered liquidity funds that could serve as alternatives to money market funds for some investors. These proposed reforms should further enhance the resiliency and transparency of this important product and are significant complements to the other proposals.
Today's proposal is the product of very hard work by all those who have sought to meaningfully reform this investment product that is such a critical piece of the nation's financial fabric.
There have been important and thoughtful comments throughout this process, including suggestions and recommendations from investors, the industry, and fellow regulators. We have given them all very careful consideration and they have proven invaluable to us formulating the important proposals we are voting on today.
In this regard I especially would like to thank all of my fellow Commissioners for their contributions and the spirit of cooperation in which we worked leading up to today's meeting.
I want to reiterate that our goal is to implement an effective reform that decreases the susceptibility of money market funds to run risk and prevents money market fund events similar to those that occurred in 2008 from repeating themselves. With this goal in mind, I very much look forward to the comments and am very pleased that, with my fellow Commissioners, we are moving this reform process forward.
Before I ask Norm Champ, Director of the Division of Investment Management, to discuss the proposed reforms, I would like to thank Norm and his team: Diane Blizzard, Sarah ten Siethoff, Thoreau Bartmann, Brian Johnson, Adam Bolter, Amanda Wagner, Kay Vobis, Jaime Eichen, and Megan Monroe for their tireless work on this rulemaking.
This rulemaking was a true team effort between the Division of Investment Management and the Division of Risk, Strategy and Financial Innovation, so I want to also express my gratitude for the work of Craig Lewis, Kathleen Hanley, Jennifer Marietta-Westberg, Woodrow Johnson, Jennifer Bethel, Virginia Meany, Dan Hiltgen, and Mila Sherman. I also would like to acknowledge the critical work and analysis included in the staff's economic study published late last year, which was highly influential in developing today's proposed reforms.
Thanks as well to Anne Small, Meridith Mitchell, Lori Price, Cathy Ahn, Jill Felker, and Kevin Christy from the Office of the General Counsel; Jim Burns, David Blass, Haime Workie, and Natasha Greiner from the Division of Trading and Markets; and Paul Beswick, Rachel Mincin, and Jeff Minton from the Office of the Chief Accountant.
And now I'll turn the meeting over to Norm Champ to provide a fuller explanation of the proposed reforms we are considering today.
FROM: COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
CFTC Files Complaint against U.S. Bank, N.A. Alleging Unlawful Use of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc.’s Customer Segregated Funds and Violation of Customer Segregation Laws
Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa against U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank) for unlawfully using and holding Peregrine Financial Group, Inc.’s (Peregrine) customer segregated funds. U.S. Bank is the fifth largest bank in the country and maintains branch offices in Cedar Falls, Iowa, where Peregrine and its owner, Russell R. Wasendorf Sr. (Wasendorf), were located.
The Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations prohibit depository institutions, like U.S. Bank, from using or holding funds that belong to customers of a Futures Commission Merchant (FCM) as though they belong to anyone other than the customers, and also prohibit the extension of credit based on such funds to anyone other than the customers.
The Complaint alleges that U.S. Bank was a depository institution serving Peregrine, a registered FCM, and Wasendorf since 1992. From approximately September 2008 to July 2012, U.S. Bank unlawfully accepted Peregrine’s customers’ funds as security on loans it made to Wasendorf, his wife, and his construction company, Wasendorf Construction, L.L.C., to build an office complex for Peregrine in Cedar Falls, Iowa. The Complaint further alleges that from approximately June 2008 to July 2012, U.S. Bank improperly held Peregrine’s customers’ funds in an account U.S. Bank treated as Peregrine’s commercial checking account and knowingly facilitated Wasendorf’s transfers of millions of dollars of customers’ funds out of this account to pay for Wasendorf’s private jet, his restaurant, and his divorce settlement, among other things. U.S. Bank knew that these transfers were not for the benefit of Peregrine’s customers, according to the Complaint.
David Meister, the CFTC’s Director of Enforcement, said: "The Commodity Exchange Act and Commission rules protecting customer funds impose obligations on banks that hold those funds. As should be apparent from today’s action, we will seek to hold a bank to account if it falls short on complying with customer fund protection obligations. Wasendorf stole vast sums of customer money, but his crimes do not excuse U.S. Bank from its own independent responsibilities."
According to the Complaint, Wasendorf defrauded more than 24,000 Peregrine clients and misappropriated more than $215 million over two decades using a customer segregated account at U.S. Bank. In connection with that fraud, Wasendorf misrepresented to the National Futures Association and to Peregrine’s auditor that Peregrine’s customer segregated account at U.S. Bank contained $200 million or more, when in fact the average balance since May 2005 was only $15.7 million. On July 10, 2012, the CFTC instituted a civil action against Wasendorf and Peregrine, CFTC v. Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. and Russell Wasendorf Sr., 1:12-cv-05383 (N.D. IL July 10 2012) (see CFTC Press Release 6300-12, July 10, 2012). Wasendorf was also criminally charged by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Iowa, pled guilty, and on January 23, 2013 was sentenced to 50 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $215 million in restitution. United States v. Russell Wasendorf, Sr., 12-cr-2021-LRR.
In this litigation, the CFTC seeks an injunction against U.S. Bank for further violations of the CEA and CFTC Regulations, restitution, disgorgement, and civil monetary penalties, among other appropriate relief.
The following CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members are responsible for this case: Robert Howell, Joy McCormack, Susan Gradman, Scott Williamson, Rosemary Hollinger, and Richard Wagner.
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., June 3, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Bellevue, Wash.-based commercial truck manufacturer and a subsidiary for various accounting deficiencies that clouded their financial reporting to investors in the midst of the financial crisis.
The SEC alleges that PACCAR’s internal accounting controls included ineffective procedures that kept the company from adhering to various accounting rules. PACCAR failed to report the operating results of its aftermarket parts business separately from its truck sales business as required under segment reporting requirements, which are in place to ensure that investors gain the same insight into a company as its executives. PACCAR and its subsidiary also failed to provide complete information about their respective loan and lease portfolios, and PACCAR overstated some loan and lease originations and collections at two foreign subsidiaries in its statement of cash flows.
PACCAR and its subsidiary PACCAR Financial Corp. agreed to settle the SEC’s charges.
"Companies must continually and diligently monitor their internal accounting systems to ensure that the information they are providing investors is accurate and consistent with relevant accounting guidance," said Michael S. Dicke, Associate Regional Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office. "The deficient controls and procedures at PACCAR caused inconsistencies in its financial reporting and kept investors and regulators from seeing the company through the eyes of management."
According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Seattle, PACCAR is a Fortune 200 company that designs, manufactures, and distributes trucks and related aftermarket parts that are sold worldwide under the Kenworth, Peterbilt, and DAF nameplates. From 2008 through the third quarter of 2012, PACCAR failed to report the results for its parts business as a separate segment from its truck sales as required under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). For example, PACCAR’s 2009 annual report showed $68 million in income before taxes for its truck segment. However, PACCAR documents and board materials reviewed by senior executives depicted the trucks business with a $474 million loss and the parts business with $542 million profit to arrive at the net income before taxes of $68 million. By at least 2008, PACCAR should have been reporting aftermarket parts as a separate segment in its SEC filings, but failed to do so until year-end 2012.
The SEC’s complaint further alleges that PACCAR and PACCAR Financial Corp. failed to maintain accurate books and records regarding their impaired loans and leases, causing them to improperly identify and disclose loans and leases for impairment. As a result, they understated the amounts of their impaired receivables and the specific reserve associated with the receivables in footnotes to their respective 2009 Form 10-K filings. PACCAR understated the amount of its impaired receivables by 65 percent and the amount of the specific reserve associated with the receivables by 78 percent. PACCAR Financial Corp. understated the amounts by 64 percent and 37 percent. As a result of these deficiencies, PACCAR also made inaccurate statements to the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance regarding its processes for calculating the specific reserves on its impaired receivables.
According to the SEC’s complaint, PACCAR also overstated equal and offsetting amounts in two lines within its statement of cash flows in the second and third quarters of 2009. PACCAR identified these errors during the first quarter of 2010 and reported corrected figures in its second and third quarter filings in 2010.
The SEC’s complaint charges PACCAR with violations of the reporting, books and records and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws, and charges PACCAR Financial Corp. with violations of the books and records and internal control provisions. Without admitting or denying the charges, they agreed to the entry of a permanent injunction and PACCAR agreed to pay a $225,000 penalty. The settlement, which is subject to court approval, takes into account that PACCAR and PACCAR Financial Corp. have implemented a number of remedial measures to enhance their internal accounting controls and improve their compliance with GAAP.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Jason Habermeyer and Cary Robnett of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office, and Peter J. Rosario of the Washington D.C. office.
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Charges Atlanta Attorney with Converting Investor Funds
On May 31, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Robert A. Gist ("Gist"), an Atlanta attorney and former sports agent, and Gist, Kennedy & Associates, Inc. ("Gist Kennedy") (collectively, "Defendants"), a company that Gist controls, with defrauding at least 32 customers out of at least $5.4 million while acting as an unregistered broker from approximately 2003 to the present.
According to the SEC’s complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Gist obtained the customers’ funds on the fraudulent pretense that he would invest conservatively on their behalves in corporate bonds and other securities. The complaint alleges that Gist invested none of the customer funds, but, instead, used the funds for his personal expenses, for the payment of purported dividends and proceeds from securities sales that he falsely claimed to have purchased on behalf of his customers, and for the operation of a company that he controlled until early 2013 known as ENCAP Technologies, LLC. The complaint further alleges that Gist regularly created and provided the customers of Gist Kennedy with fictitious account statements.
The complaint alleges that Gist used at least $2.2 million of the converted customer funds for the operation of ENCAP Technologies, LLC ("ENCAP") during the time that he controlled ENCAP, and that the company gave nothing of value in return for the money. The complaint names ENCAP as a relief defendant and seeks disgorgement from it of unjust enrichment in the amount of at least $2.2 million plus prejudgment interest.
Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Defendants Gist and Gist Kennedy agreed to settle the case against them. The settlement is pending final approval by the court. Specifically, the Defendants consented to the entry of an order permanently enjoining Defendants Gist and Gist Kennedy from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rules 10b-5 thereunder; permanently enjoining Gist from future violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act; finding Defendants jointly and severally liable for $5.4 million in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, imposing civil penalties to be determined upon motion of the Commission, freezing the Defendants’ assets, and providing other relief.
Posts
