Search This Blog


This is a photo of the National Register of Historic Places listing with reference number 7000063

Thursday, November 7, 2013

SEC FILES SUBPOENA ENFORCEMENT ACTION IN PRE-IPO SOLICITATIONS CASE

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SEC Files Subpoena Enforcement Action Against Anthony Coronati for Failure to Produce Documents and Appear for Testimony in Investigation of Solicitations Relating to Pre-Ipo Securities

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that it has filed a subpoena enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Anthony Coronati and that the Court entered an order directing Coronati to show cause why he should not be ordered to comply with the subpoenas. According to the application, the SEC is investigating whether Coronati and others have violated or are violating registration, anti-fraud, or other provisions of the federal securities laws in connection with a business known as Bidtoask.com.

The SEC's application alleges that Bidtoask.com, apparently created by Coronati, solicits investments relating to the securities of sought-after private companies that investors hope will soon hold initial public offerings, such as Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., and Dropbox Inc. The nature and extent of investors' interests once they purchase these purported pre-IPO shares is part of the investigation. The application further alleges that certain investor funds have been commingled with other funds in an account controlled by Coronati and that personal expenses appear to have been paid out of that account. The SEC staff is investigating whether any investor funds have been misappropriated or otherwise misused.

As part of its investigation, the staff in the SEC's New York Regional office served Coronati with a document subpoena in July 2013, and served a further subpoena for documents and sworn testimony in early October 2013. The SEC's application alleges that Coronati has ignored the subpoenas: he never produced any documents, appeared for testimony, or otherwise responded to the subpoenas.

The SEC's application seeks an order from the federal district court compelling Coronati to comply fully with the subpoenas. The SEC is continuing its fact-finding investigation and, to date, has not concluded that anyone has violated the securities laws.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

FDIC, BANK OF ENGLAND AND OTHERS WANT UNIFORM LANGUAGE IN DERIVATIVE CONTRACTS

FROM:  U.S. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Bank of England, German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority and Swiss Financial Market Supervisory 

Authority Call for Uniform Derivatives Contracts Language 
Change Would Facilitate the Resolution of a Global Systemically Important Financial Institution

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), together with the Bank of England, the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin), and the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), have authored a joint letter to encourage the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA) to adopt language in derivatives contracts to delay the early termination of those instruments in the event of the resolution of a global systemically important financial institution (G-SIFI).

In the letter, the resolution authorities express support for the adoption of changes to ISDA's standard documentation to provide for short-term suspension of early termination rights and other remedies in the event of a G-SIFI resolution. The adoption of such changes would allow derivatives contracts to remain in effect throughout the resolution process following the implementation of a number of potential resolution strategies. By minimizing the disorderly unwinding of such contracts, these changes would place resolution authorities in a better position to resolve G-SIFIs in a manner that promotes financial stability while providing market certainty and transparency.

"Uniform contractual language that limits termination rights with respect to derivatives transactions will greatly enhance the success of a resolution of a global systemically important financial institution (G-SIFI) which by its nature will have significant cross-border operations," said FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg. "The international regulatory community has worked closely to harmonize the statutory approach to this issue and our request to ISDA reinforces this effort. Continued efforts among international regulators to cooperate on cross-border resolution issues such as this will reduce the risk of global financial instability and minimize moral hazard in the event of a G-SIFI resolution."

SEC ANNOUNCES ASSET FREEZE RELATED TO ALLEGED PONZI SCHEME INVOLVING U.S.-NEW ZEALAND COMPANIES

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced an emergency asset freeze to halt a Ponzi scheme involving U.S. and New Zealand-based companies peddling sham investment opportunities ranging from a bank trading program to kidney dialysis clinics.

The SEC alleges that Christopher A.T. Pedras, who has residences in Turlock, Calif., and New Zealand, misled his initial investors into believing they were investing in a profitable trading platform in which his company served as an intermediary between global banks.  When Pedras and his companies encountered difficulty paying the promised 4 to 8 percent monthly returns, they began steering investors to a different investment program to purportedly increase the value of their investment by 80 percent by funding kidney dialysis clinics in New Zealand.  Pedras’s business partner Sylvester M. Gray II and lead sales representative Alicia Bryan helped him solicit investors for both programs, and the money was never invested as promised.  Earlier investors were paid supposed returns with funds received from newer investors, and Pedras stole more than $2 million and spent another $1.2 million on sales agents.

“Rather than conducting any legitimate business activity, Pedras and his partners were simply operating a Ponzi scheme that was ultimately doomed to collapse,” said Michele Wein Layne, director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office.  “This emergency action stops them from fraudulently raising any more money from U.S. investors.”

According to the SEC’s complaint unsealed late Friday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Pedras raised more than $5.6 million from at least 50 investors in the U.S. since July 2010 by selling securities in two phases.  Pedras, Gray, and Bryan first solicited investors for their Maxum Gold Small Cap Trade Program in which Pedras’s company Maxum Gold purportedly serves as the intermediary between banks that can’t legally trade with each other directly, so they use Maxum Gold’s trade platform to do so indirectly.  Maxum Gold purports to share portions of the trading profits with investors. 

The SEC alleges that the Ponzi scheme shifted gears earlier this year when Pedras and others began promoting the FMP Renal Program to Maxum Gold investors.  They characterized it as an investment in a New Zealand company called FMP Medical Services Limited that would be publicly traded and operate kidney dialysis clinics in New Zealand.  Investors were told if they converted their Maxum Gold investments into the FMP Renal Program, they would instantly realize an 80 percent increase in the value of their investment.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Pedras and Bryan routinely communicate with investors via email and also conduct investor conference calls.  Pedras has falsely claimed that Maxum Gold has been doing business for 15 to 20 years with more than 6,000 clients and has been making regular payments to investors.  Pedras conducted at least one in-person seminar at Paramount Studios in Los Angeles.  Investments were falsely touted as risk-free and investor funds were not maintained safely in escrow accounts as described to investors.

The SEC alleges that the Ponzi scheme paid investors more than $2.4 million in “returns” using new investor money.  Pedras stole more than $2 million from investors in the form of cash withdrawals, car and retail purchases, and transfers of investor funds to his various companies.  Approximately $1.2 million in sales commissions were paid to a small network of sales agents who sold the investments to U.S. investors.

According to the SEC’s complaint, during at least one conference call, Pedras advised investors not to respond if contacted by the SEC.  He characterized SEC investor questionnaires as “fake” and stated that the SEC’s investigation was motivated by a “personal vendetta” against him.

The SEC’s complaint charges Pedras, Gray, Bryan and the Maxum Gold and FMP entities with violations 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.  Pedras and Bryan also are charged with violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, and they and Pedras’s companies are charged with violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act.  The Honorable Gary Feess granted the SEC’s request for a temporary asset freeze against Maxum Gold, FMP, and Pedras.  Judge Feess’s order prohibits the destruction of documents and requires the defendants to provide accountings.  A court hearing has been scheduled for November 8. 
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by J. Cindy Eson, Peter F. Del Greco, and Dora Zaldivar of the Los Angeles office.  The SEC’s litigation will be led by Amy Longo and Karen Matteson.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the New Zealand Financial Markets Authority.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

CFTC PROPOSES RULE REGARDING MEMBERSHIP IN REGISTERED FUTURES ASSOCIATION

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

CFTC Issues Proposed Rule to Require All Registered Introducing Brokers, Commodity Pool Operators, and Commodity Trading Advisors to Become and Remain Members of a Registered Futures Association

Washington, DC —The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) proposed a rule today to amend its regulations to require that all persons registered with the Commission as introducing brokers (IBs), commodity pool operators (CPOs), and commodity trading advisors (CTAs) become and remain members of at least one registered futures association (RFA). Currently, the National Futures Association (NFA) is the only RFA.

The Commission is proposing new Section 170.17 to address recent changes to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Commission’s authority to regulate swaps. Currently, under Sections 170.15 and 170.16 of the Commission’s regulations, all registered futures commission merchants (FCMs), swap dealers (SDs) and major swap participants (MSPs) are required to become members of NFA. However, there is no mandatory membership requirement for other registrants. Through the interaction of the Commission’s rules and NFA Bylaw 1101, any IB, CPO or CTA required to be registered with the Commission that desires to conduct business directly with an FCM, SD, or MSP must become a member of NFA, and derivatively, must ensure that it conducts business only with those IBs, CPOs or CTAs that also are NFA members. However, due to the unique nature of swap transactions, it may be possible for certain IBs, CPOs or CTAs to not be captured by the intersection of Sections 170.15 or 170.16 and NFA Bylaw 1101, and therefore, it may be possible for these Commission registrants to serve clients without becoming members of NFA. The Commission intends the proposed rule to avoid this possibility.

The comment period for the proposed rule will remain open for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

CFTC COMMISSIONER CHILTON'S STATEMENT ON POSITION LIMITS MEETING

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
“At Last”

Statement of Commissioner Bart Chilton, Dodd-Frank Meeting on Position Limits

November 5, 2013

For two reasons, this is a significant day for me.  I am reminded of that great Etta James song, At Last.

The first reason is that, at last, we are considering what I believe to be the signal rule of my tenure here at the Commission; I’ve been working on speculative position limits since 2008. The second reason today is noteworthy is that this will be my last Dodd-Frank meeting.  Early this morning, I sent a letter to the President expressing my intent to leave the Agency in the near future. I’ve waited until now—today—to get this proposed rule out the door, and now—at last—with the process coming nearly full circle, I can leave. It’s with incredible excitement and enthusiasm that I look forward to being able to move on to other endeavors.

With that, here is a bit of history on the position limits journey that has led us, and me, to this day.  The early spring of 2008 was a peculiar time at the Commission.  None of my current colleagues were here.  I and my colleagues at that time watched Bear Stearns fail. We had watched commodity prices rise as investors sought diversified financial havens.  When I asked Commission staff about the influence of speculation on prices, some said speculative positions couldn’t impact prices.  It didn’t ring true, and as numerous independent studies have confirmed since, it was not true.

I began urging the Commission to implement speculative position limits under our then-existing authority.  And I was, at that time, the only Commissioner to support position limits.  Given the concerns, I urged Congress to mandate limits in legislation. A Senate bill was blocked on a cloture vote that summer, but late in the session, the House actually passed legislation.  Finally, in 2010, as part of the Dodd-Frank law, Congress mandated the Commission to implement position limits by early in 2011.

Within the Commission, I supported passing a rule that would have complied with the time-frame established by Congress—by any other name—federal law. A position limits rule was proposed in January of 2011 and finally approved in November.

In September 2012, literally days before limits were to be effective, a federal district court ruling tossed the rule out, claiming the CFTC had not sufficiently provided rationale for imposing the rule.  We appealed and I urged us to address the concerns of the court by proposing and quickly passing another new and improved rule.  I thought and hoped that we could move rapidly.  After months of delay and deferral, it became clear: we could not.

But today—at last—more than three years since Dodd-Frank’s passage, we are here to take it to the limits one more time.

Thankfully, we have it right in the text before us. The Commission staff has ultimately done an admirable job of devising a proposed regulation that should be unassailable in court, good for markets and good for consumers.

I thank everyone who has worked upon the rule: Steve Sherrod, Riva Adriance, Ajay Sutaria, Scott Mixon, Mary Connelly, and many others for their good work.

In addition, I especially thank Elizabeth Ritter, my Chief of Staff, Nancy Doyle, and also Salman Banaei who has left the Agency for greener pastures. I thank them for their tireless efforts on the single most important, and perhaps to me the most frustrating, policy issue of my tenure with the Commission. I have had the true honor of working with Elizabeth since prior to my confirmation. I would be remiss if I did not reiterate here what I have often said; nowhere do I believe there is a brighter, smarter, more knowledgeable and hard-working derivatives counsel. She has served the public and me phenomenally well. Thank you, Elizabeth.

And finally to my colleagues, past and present, my respect to those whom we have been unable to persuade to vote with us on this issue, and my thanks to those who will vote in support of this needed and mandated rule. At last!

Thank you.

ADDRESS OF CFTC CHAIRMAN GENSLER AT 5TH ANNUAL FINANCIAL REGULATORY REFORM SYMPOSIUM

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
A New Marketplace

Keynote Address of Chairman Gary Gensler at the 5th Annual Financial Regulatory Reform Symposium at George Washington University

October 31, 2013

Thank you, Art, for that kind introduction. I also would like to thank George Washington University for the invitation to speak today.

Five years ago, the U.S. economy was in a free fall.

Five years ago, the swaps market was at the center of the crisis.

Five years ago, middle-class Americans lost their jobs, their pensions and their homes in the worst crisis since the Great Depression.

Five years ago, the swaps market contributed to the financial system failing the real economy. Thousands of businesses closed their doors.

President Obama gathered the G-20 leaders in Pittsburgh in 2009. They committed to bringing the swaps market into the light through transparency and oversight.

The President and Congress in 2010 gave the task of implementing swaps market reform to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and security-based swaps market reform to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Congress essentially mandated a complete overhaul of the derivatives market – to a New Marketplace.

Now, through the CFTC’s 65 final rules, orders and guidances this New Marketplace is a reality – benefitting investors, consumers and businesses.

Today’s New Marketplace means there are bright lights of transparency shining though this $400 trillion market.

Today’s New Marketplace means there are robust safety measures in place that didn’t exist in 2008.

These reforms are based on time-tested ideas.

Since Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations, economists have consistently written about how the broad public benefits from the access and competition transparency brings to a market.

As we have since Adam Smith’s days, we prosper from our market-based economy.

But it is only through a standard set of common-sense rules of the road that we lower uncertainty, level the playing field and protect against abuses.

Transparency

Significant new transparency is the foremost change in this New Marketplace.

There has been a real paradigm shift.

Since early this year, the public can see the price and volume of each swap transaction as it occurs. This is across the entire market, regardless of product, counterparty, or whether it’s a standardized or customized transaction.

This information is free of charge and available on the Internet, like a modern-day tickertape.

Also beginning earlier this year, regulators are able to see the details on each of the transactions and positions that are in this $400 trillion swaps marketplace. We’re able to see those details for each of the 1.8 million transactions in the data repositories. We can filter this information and see what individual financial institutions are doing in the marketplace.

This new window into the market is an enormous change since 2008.

Further, starting this month, the public – for the first time – is benefitting from new transparency, access and competition on swap trading platforms.

Once fully phased in, market participants will benefit from seeing competitive prices before they enter into a transaction.

This is because swap execution facilities (SEFs) are required to provide all market participants – dealers and non-dealers alike – with impartial access, once again following Adam Smith’s observations on how to benefit the economy.

Requiring trading platforms to be registered and overseen by regulators was central to the New Marketplace reforms President Obama and Congress included in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). They expressly repealed exemptions, such as the so-called “Enron Loophole,” for unregistered, multilateral swap trading platforms.

Seventeen SEFs are temporarily registered. This again is truly a paradigm shift – a transition from a dark to a lit market. It’s a transition from a mostly dealer-dominated market to one where others have a greater chance to compete.

Clearing

The second fundamental change of this New Marketplace is central clearing.

Clearinghouses stand between buyers and sellers of derivative contracts, protecting them in case one of them goes bankrupt. Clearinghouses lower risk and promote access for market participants. They have worked since the 1890s in the futures market but were not widely used in the swaps marketplace – until now.

Last week, 80 percent of new interest rate swaps were brought into central clearing. That compares to only 21 percent in 2008. Going from a 21 percent market share to an 80 percent market share in any business would deserve some attention.

Given that clearing was still being phased in over the course of this year, in total over $190 trillion of the approximately $340 trillion market facing interest rate swaps market, or 57 percent, was cleared as of last week.

Swap Dealer Oversight

The third fundamental change of this New Marketplace is that swap dealers are now being regulated for their swaps activity.

Prior to these reforms – though one needs a license to be a stockbroker – the largest, most sophisticated financial dealers in the world weren’t required to have any special license for their swaps dealing activity. AIG’s downfall was a clear example of what happens with no registration or licensing requirement for such dealers.

Congress understood this and mandated that swap dealer registration was a critical part of this New Marketplace. Today, we have 88 swap dealers registered. This group includes the world’s 16 largest financial institutions in the global swaps market, commonly referred to as the G16 dealers. It also includes a number of energy swap dealers.

All of these registered dealers now have to comply with new business conduct standards for risk management, sales practices, recordkeeping and reporting.

International Coordination on Swap Market Reform

In the New Marketplace, the far-flung operations of U.S. enterprises are covered under reform.

Congress was clear in the Dodd-Frank Act that we had to learn the lessons of the 2008 crisis. Money and risk knows no geographic border.

AIG nearly brought down the U.S. economy because it guaranteed the losses of a Mayfair branch operating under a French bank license in London.

Lehman Brothers had 3,300 legal entities, including a London affiliate that was guaranteed here in the United States, and it had 130,000 outstanding swap transactions.

The nature of modern finance is that financial institutions commonly set up hundreds, or even thousands, of legal entities around the globe. When a run starts on any part of an overseas affiliate or branch of a modern financial institution, risk crosses international borders. Any one of the legal entities can take down the entire company.

The CFTC, coordinating closely with global regulators, completed guidance on the cross-border application of the Dodd-Frank Act in July. Swaps market reform covers transactions between non-U.S. swap dealers and guaranteed affiliates of U.S. persons, as well as swaps between two guaranteed affiliates.

The guidance embraces the concept of substituted compliances, or relying on another country’s rules when they are comparable and comprehensive.

Earlier this month, the guaranteed affiliates and branches of U.S. persons were required to come into central clearing. Further, hedge funds and other funds whose principal place of business is in the United States or that are majority owned by U.S. persons are required to clear as well. No longer will a hedge fund with a P.O. Box in the Cayman Islands for its legal address be able to skirt the important reforms Congress put in place.

Benchmark Interest Rates

The CFTC has changed the way the world thinks about benchmark interest rates.

LIBOR and Euribor are critical reference rates for global futures and swaps markets. In the U.S., LIBOR is the reference rate for 70 percent of the futures market and more than half of the swaps market. It is the reference rate for more than $10 trillion in loans.

Unfortunately, through five settlements against banks, we have seen how the public trust can be violated through bad actors readily manipulating benchmark interest rates.

I wish I could say that this won’t happen again, but I can’t.

LIBOR and Euribor are not sufficiently anchored in observable transactions. Thus, they are basically more akin to fiction than fact. That’s the fundamental challenge so sharply revealed by Rabobank this week and our four prior cases.

These five instances of benchmark manipulative conduct highlight the critical need to find replacements for LIBOR and Euribor – replacements truly anchored in observable transactions.

Though addressing governance and conflicts of interest regarding benchmarks is critical, that will not solve the lack of transactions in the market underlying these benchmarks.

That is why the work of the Financial Stability Board to find alternatives and consider potential transitions to these alternatives is so important. The CFTC looks forward to continuing to work with the international community on much-needed reforms.

Resources

The CFTC is basically done with rulewriting, the first significant compliance dates have passed and the New Marketplace is here. We’ve brought the largest and most significant enforcement cases in the Commission’s history.

These successes, however, should not be confused with the agency having sufficient people and technology to oversee these markets.

One of the greatest threats to well-functioning, open, and competitive swaps and futures markets is that the agency tasked with overseeing them is not sized to the task at hand.

At 674 people, we are only slightly larger than we were 20 years ago. Since then though, Congress gave us the job of overseeing the $400 trillion swaps market, which is more than 10 times the size of the futures market we oversaw just four years ago. Further, the futures market itself has grown fivefold since the 1990s.

We need people to examine the clearinghouses, trading platforms, clearing members and dealers.

We need surveillance staff to actually swim in the new data pouring into the data repositories.

We need lawyers and analysts to answer the many hundreds of questions that are coming in from market participants about implementation.

We need sufficient funding to ensure this agency can closely monitor for the protection of customer funds.

And we need more enforcement staff to ensure this vast market actually comes into compliance, and to go after bad actors in the futures and swaps markets.

The President has asked for $315 million for the CFTC. This year we’ve been operating with only $195 million.

Worse yet, as a result of continued funding challenges, sequestration and a required minimum level Congress set for the CFTC’s outside technology spending, the CFTC already has shrunk 5 percent, and just last week, was forced to notify employees that they would be put on administrative furlough for up to 14 days this year.

I recognize that Congress and the President have real challenges with regard to our federal budget. I believe, though, that the CFTC is a good investment for the American public. It’s a good investment to ensure the country has transparent and well-functioning markets.

Conclusion

Thank you again for inviting me to speak today; I’m pleased to say it’s my fifth time speaking at GW. In the past, I’ve spoken about the need for swaps market reform. Today, I’m glad to tell you that the New Marketplace is a reality.

This marketplace also has significant new protections for customer funds, as well as significantly more transparency for asset managers, known as commodity pool operators.

I’ll close with this: swaps market reform also is a key component in ensuring that when the next financial firm fails, that the financial system is not too interconnected, too complex or too in the shadows to prevent the firm from having the freedom to fail.

After World War II, my dad took his $300 mustering-out pay and started what became the family business. He knew that if he didn’t make payroll, nobody was going to bail him out.

If he were alive, he would say it shouldn’t be any different for banks and other large financial institutions. That’s what Congress said, as well, in passing Dodd-Frank financial reform. Companies, large and small, should be free to innovate, to grow, and, yes, to fail without taxpayer support.

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.