Search This Blog


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

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

DISGORGEMENT AND FINES ORDERED FOR COMMODITY TRADING SYSTEM PROMOTERS

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

Federal Court Orders California Defendants CTI Group, LLC, Cooper Trading, Stephen Craig Symons, and James David Kline to Pay Over $29 Million in Disgorgement and Fines for Fraudulent Sale of Automated Trading Systems

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a Consent Order for Permanent Injunction (Order) against Defendants CTI Group, LLC, a California limited liability company, Cooper Trading, a California corporation (collectively, CTI), Stephen Craig Symons of Corona del Mar, California, and James David Kline, who was a resident of Van Nuys, California, for fraudulent sales practices in connection with the sale of two automated trading systems (Trading Systems), known as Boomer and Victory.

The court’s Order stems from a CFTC Complaint filed on May 11, 2012, that charged the Defendants with the fraudulent solicitation of clients to subscribe to the Boomer and Victory Trading Systems, which were used by clients to trade E-mini Standard and Poor’s 500 Stock Index futures contracts in managed accounts (see CFTC Press Release 6266-12 and Complaint).

The Order, entered on January 22, 2014, requires Defendants CTI Group and Cooper Trading to pay $10.175 million in disgorgement and a $10 million civil monetary penalty, Symons to pay over $3.150 million in disgorgement and a $4.5 million civil monetary penalty, and Kline to pay over $275,000 in disgorgement and a $1 million civil monetary penalty. The Order further imposes permanent trading and registration bans on the Defendants and prohibits them from violating the anti-fraud and disclosure provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations, as charged.

The CFTC’s Complaint also named as Relief Defendants California companies Snonys, Inc. and Dragonfyre Magick Incorporated, which, according to the Complaint, were owned or operated by Symons and Kline, respectively. The Order provides for the disgorgement of Relief Defendants’ funds frozen pursuant to a court order that was previously entered on May 14, 2012.

The Order further finds that, since at least in or around August 2009, CTI and its agents and employees made false and misleading statements and omitted material information when soliciting clients to purchase subscriptions to CTI’s Trading Systems, including (1) how long CTI had been in business, (2) CTI’s experience developing and marketing Trading Systems, (3) the identities and professional experience of CTI’s personnel (who used fictitious names when communicating with clients), (4) the track record of CTI’s Trading Systems, (5) the past profitability of CTI’s Trading Systems, (6) the transaction costs associated with trading via CTI’s Trading Systems, and (7) the risks associated with trading futures contracts via CTI’s Trading Systems.

CTI’s salespeople, including Kline, made false statements to clients and prospective clients about CTI’s purported money-back guarantee, and Symons and Kline are liable for all of CTI’s violations because they controlled CTI and actively participated in CTI’s unlawful conduct, according to the Order.

According to the Order, funds were transferred to the Relief Defendants from CTI as a result of the Defendants’ violations of the CEA and CFTC regulations, and the Relief Defendants do not have a legitimate claim to or interest in those funds.

The CFTC thanks the National Futures Association for its assistance.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this case are R. Stephen Painter, Jr., Michael C. McLaughlin, David W. MacGregor, Lenel Hickson, Jr., and Manal M. Sultan.

CFTC Fraud Awareness Advisories & Customer Protection Information

The CFTC has issued several customer protection Fraud Advisories that provide the warning signs of fraud, including an Advisory covering Commodity Trading Systems Sold on the Internet. This Advisory states that the CFTC has seen an increase in websites that fraudulently promote commodity trading systems and advisory services and provides information designed to help customers identify this potential swindle before they invest.

Customers can file a tip or complaint to report suspicious activities or other information, such as possible violations of commodity trading laws, to the CFTC Division of Enforcement via a Toll-Free Hotline 866-FON-CFTC (866-366-2382) or an online form.

Monday, January 27, 2014

MAN SENTENCED TO PRISON FOR ROLE IN PONZI SCHEME

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

Massachusetts Resident Steven Palladino Sentenced to 10-12 Years in Prison for Role in Multi-Million Dollar Ponzi Scheme

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that, on January 21, 2014, a Massachusetts state court judge sentenced Massachusetts resident Steven Palladino to a prison term in a criminal action filed by the Suffolk County (Massachusetts) District Attorney.  The criminal action against Palladino and his company, Massachusetts-based Viking Financial Group, Inc., was initially filed in March 2013 and involves the same conduct alleged in a civil securities fraud action brought by the Commission in April 2013.  Suffolk Superior Court Judge Janet Sanders sentenced Palladino, of West Roxbury, Massachusetts, to serve a prison term of 10-12 years, followed by a probationary period of five years, and to pay restitution to victims, for crimes that he committed in connection with a Ponzi scheme perpetrated through Viking.  At the same hearing, Palladino pled guilty to criminal charges that included conspiracy, being an open and notorious thief, larceny, and larceny from elderly person(s).  Viking also pled guilty to related charges and was sentenced to a probationary period of five years and ordered to pay restitution to victims.  The Court set a further hearing for March 7, 2014 to determine, among other things, the amount of restitution to be paid to victims.

The Commission previously filed an emergency action against Viking and Palladino (collectively, “Defendants”) in federal district court in Massachusetts.  In its complaint, the Commission alleged that, since April 2011, Defendants misrepresented to at least 33 investors that their funds would be used to conduct the business of Viking – which was purportedly to make short-term, high interest loans to those unable to obtain traditional financing.  The Commission also alleged that Palladino misrepresented to investors that the loans made by Viking would be secured by first interest liens on non-primary residence properties and that investors would be repaid their principal, plus monthly interest at rates generally ranging from 7-15%, from payments that borrowers made on loans.  The complaint alleged that, in truth, Defendants made very few real loans to borrowers, and instead used investors’ funds largely to pay earlier investors and to pay for the Palladino family’s substantial personal expenses, including cash withdrawals, gambling debts, vacations, luxury vehicles and tuition.

The Commission first filed this action on April 30, 2013, seeking a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and other emergency relief – which the Court granted.  On May 15, 2013, the Court also issued an escrow order, which ordered Defendants to deposit all funds and assets in their possession into an escrow account.  The asset freeze and escrow order have remained in effect at all times since April 30, 2013 and May 15, 2013, respectively.  On July 15, 2013, the Court held that Defendants’ conduct violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.  On November 18, 2013, the Court entered orders that enjoined Defendants from further violations of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws and ordered them to pay disgorgement of $9,701,738, plus prejudgment interest of $122,370.

On September 4, 2013, the Commission filed a motion for contempt against Palladino for violations of the asset freeze and the escrow order.  The motion alleged that Palladino violated the asset freeze by transferring three vehicles that he owned (solely or jointly with his wife) into his wife’s name and using the vehicles as collateral for new loans – effectively cashing out the equity in these vehicles.  The motion also alleged that Palladino violated the escrow order by failing to deposit all cash in his possession into the escrow account.  On November 15, 2013, the Court held Palladino in contempt and ordered that he restore ownership of the vehicles that he had transferred into his wife’s name.  Subsequently, Palladino restored ownership of two of the vehicles but has failed to restore ownership of one vehicle.  As a result, the Court refused to dismiss the contempt finding against him at hearings on December 3, 2013 and January 17, 2014.  The Court has set a further hearing date of February 20, 2014 to address, among other things, whether Palladino remains in contempt.

The Commission acknowledges the continued assistance of Suffolk County (Massachusetts) District Attorney Daniel F. Conley’s Office, whose office referred Palladino’s and Viking’s conduct to the Commission.

Sunday, January 26, 2014

FINAL JUDGEMENT ENTERED AGAINST HEDGE FUND MANAGER

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
Final Judgments Entered Against Former Hedge Fund Manager and His Company

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on January 22, 2014, the Honorable Paul G. Gardephe of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered final judgments against Berton M. Hochfeld ("Hochfeld") and his wholly-owned entity Hochfeld Capital Management, L.L.C. ("HCM"), in SEC v. Hochfeld et al., 12-CV-8202. The SEC filed an emergency action in November 2012, charging Hochfeld and HCM with securities fraud for misappropriating assets and making material misstatements to investors in the Heppelwhite Fund L.P., a now defunct hedge fund. The Court previously entered judgments against Hochfeld and HCM that ordered, among other relief, injunctions and an asset freeze, and granted the Commission's motion to create a Fair Fund to compensate defrauded investors. In October 2013, the Fair Fund made initial distributions, totaling more than $6 million, to 35 former Heppelwhite investors, which represented approximately 70% of each investor's prior capital balance in the hedge fund. Pursuant to a Distribution Plan, the Fair Fund will make a second round of distributions to investors from additional funds collected, including proceeds from the sale of Hochfeld's personal assets.

The final judgments against Hochfeld and HCM enjoin them from violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 203 and 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and order disgorgement of $1,785,332, which will be deemed satisfied by the criminal forfeiture order entered against Hochfeld in a parallel criminal case filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In the criminal case, United States v. Hochfeld, 13-CR-021, Hochfeld pled guilty to securities fraud and wire fraud. The Court sentenced Hochfeld to a two-year prison term, which he is now serving, and ordered him to pay forfeiture and restitution totaling approximately $2.9 million.


The SEC thanks the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their assistance in this matter.

Saturday, January 25, 2014

CFTC ANNOUNCES TRADE EXECUTION MANDATE FOR ADDITIONAL INTEREST RATE SWAPS

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Division of Market Oversight Announces Trade Execution Mandate for Additional Interest Rate Swaps

trueEX, LLC’s Available-to-Trade Determinations Are Deemed Certified

Washington, DC — The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC or Commission) Division of Market Oversight (Division) today announced that trueEX, LLC’s (trueEX) self-certification of available-to-trade determinations (MAT Determinations) for certain interest rate swap contracts is deemed certified.

This self-certification includes certain interest rate swap contracts made available to trade via an earlier determination that was deemed certified on January 16, 2014, as well as additional swap contracts. Under Commission regulations, the additional swaps in this MAT Determination, whether listed or offered by trueEX or any other designated contract market (DCM) or swap execution facility (SEF), will become subject to the trade execution requirement under section 2(h)(8) of the Commodity Exchange Act 30 days after certification, on February 21, 2014.

All transactions involving swaps that are subject to the trade execution requirement must be executed through a DCM or a SEF. To the extent swaps subject to the trade execution requirement are executed on a SEF, they must be executed in accordance with the execution methods prescribed by Commission regulations.

Friday, January 24, 2014

INVESTMENT BUSINESS FOUNDER ARRESTED FOR NOT COMPLYING TO SUBPOENAS

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
Subject of SEC Investigation Held in Contempt of Court and Arrested for Failing to Comply with Subpoenas

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that a Staten Island man who is the subject of an agency investigation has been held in contempt of court and arrested for failing to comply with subpoenas requiring him to produce documents and give testimony.

The SEC filed a subpoena enforcement action in federal court in Manhattan on Nov. 4, 2013, against Anthony Coronati, the founder of a business known as Bidtoask.com, which has an office in Staten Island.  According to court documents, entities controlled by Coronati solicited investments relating to the securities of sought-after private companies such as Facebook that investors hoped would later hold initial public offerings.  The SEC is investigating, among other things, whether Coronati commingled investor funds with other money in an account he controlled and used it to pay personal expenses.  Despite two SEC investigative subpoenas in 2013, Coronati has neither produced documents nor appeared for testimony.

A court order issued on Nov. 7, 2013, required Coronati to comply with the SEC subpoenas.  A court order issued on Jan. 17, 2014, found Coronati in civil contempt for ignoring the prior court order.  The contempt order requires Coronati, who repeatedly attempted to evade service, to pay $4,812 to the SEC to reimburse the agency for its costs of serving him with court papers in this proceeding.

The U.S. Marshals Service arrested Coronati today.  At a hearing held before the Honorable William H. Pauley III, the court ordered Coronati released on $50,000 bond and restricted his travel to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.  The court ordered a further hearing on Feb. 6, 2014.


Thursday, January 23, 2014

SEC ANNOUNCES FORMER PORTFOLIO MANAGER BARRED FROM INDUSTRY OVER MISREPRESENTATIONS

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
01/22/2014 09:56 AM EST

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that a former Oppenheimer & Co. portfolio manager has agreed to be barred from the securities industry and pay a $100,000 penalty for making misrepresentations about the valuation of a fund consisting of other private equity funds.

The SEC announced administrative proceedings against Brian Williamson last August based on allegations that he disseminated information falsely claiming that the reported value of the fund’s largest investment came from the portfolio manager of the underlying fund.  Williamson, who managed the fund of funds, actually had valued the investment himself at a significant markup to the value estimated by the underlying fund’s portfolio manager.  Williamson sent marketing materials to potential fund investors reporting a misleading internal rate of return that failed to deduct the fund’s fees and expenses.  Williamson also made false and misleading statements to investor consultants and others in an effort to cover up his fraud.

“Investors rely on truthful and complete disclosures about valuation methodologies and fund fees and expenses, especially when committing to a long-term private equity investment,” said Julie M. Riewe, co-chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit.  “Williamson misled prospective investors by marking up the fund’s interim valuations and concealing his role in enhancing its reported performance.”

Last year, Oppenheimer agreed to pay $2.8 million in a settlement of related charges.

The SEC’s order against Williamson finds that he willfully violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8.  Without admitting or denying the findings, Williamson consented to the order requiring him to pay a $100,000 penalty and barring him from associating with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization for at least two years.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Panayiota K. Bougiamas, Joshua M. Newville, and Igor Rozenblit of the Asset Management Unit along with Jack Kaufman and Lisa Knoop of the New York Regional Office.  The case was supervised by Valerie A. Szczepanik.  The SEC’s litigation was handled by Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Newville, and Charu Chandrasekhar.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

SEC COMMISSIONER AGUILAR'S SPEECH AT LATINOS ON FAST TRACK SYMPOSIUM

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
Making A Difference Through Public Service
 Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Latinos on Fast Track (LOFT) Symposium Hispanic Heritage Foundation Washington, DC

Jan. 15, 2014

Thank you for that kind introduction.  I am honored to be here today.  I have had the privilege of speaking at prior Latinos on Fast Track events and I’m always impressed by the quality of the participants.  Today is no exception.  Before I begin my remarks, let me issue the standard disclaimer that the views I express today are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), my fellow Commissioners, or members of the staff.

I understand that many of you are currently working in a government position, and I want to commend you for having chosen to serve the American public.  There is no nobler cause, and I know that you are already making a positive difference in other people’s lives.  I am truly inspired to see so many bright and dedicated young professionals who are committed to making a difference.  As I look around, I see the future of our country, and it is a bright one.

Today, I would like to spend my time with you discussing:

The important roles that Hispanics and Latinos play in our country’s prosperity; and
The importance of giving back to our communities and country through government service.
The Contributions of Hispanics and Latinos to U.S. Prosperity

Latinos are a heterogeneous and growing group originating from many different parts of the world.  Some of us may be recent immigrants, while others may have had ancestors who lived on American soil even before the founding of the United States.  But all of us share the same strong belief in the “American Dream” and its promise of a better life.

Latinos have a deep appreciation for the freedom, values, and opportunities offered by this great country.  These opportunities are available and they are underscored by data showing that Hispanics have made significant contributions to our economy, among other things, by starting new businesses, creating jobs, and utilizing their purchasing power as consumers.  For example: ­

Nationally, there are over three million Hispanic-owned companies with over $500 billion in revenue;[1]
New Latino entrepreneurs nearly doubled, from 10.5% to 19.5%, between 1996 and 2012;[2]
The numbers of Hispanic firms are growing more than four times faster than the overall number of U.S. firms;[3] and
If it were a nation in itself, the U.S. Hispanic market would be one of the top ten economies in the world.[4]
Clearly, Hispanic and Latino Americans have made significant progress in our country; nonetheless, there are still challenges.  I would like to highlight just a few of these challenges, as well as the progress that has been made.

Challenges Facing Hispanics and Latinos

Hispanics and Latinos continue to bear a disproportionate share of the economic hardships that sometimes destroy the fabric of our daily lives.  While I continue to be optimistic, I remain concerned that more needs to be done to address these challenges.

For example, the recent poverty data released by the U.S. Census Bureau shows that the largest group of poor children in this country are Hispanic, almost six million children in total.[5]  Similarly, last year, the Urban Institute released a report entitled, “Less than Equal: Racial Disparities in Wealth Accumulation”[6] that focused on the wide racial wealth gap between Whites and communities of color—a gap made wider by the impact of the Great Recession.

First, we need to examine the growing racial wealth gap and fully understand why it matters.  The authors of the report described wealth this way:  “Wealth isn’t just money in the bank, it’s insurance against tough times, tuition to get a better education and a better job, savings to retire on, and a springboard into the middle class.  In short, wealth translates into opportunity.”[7]

Regrettably, there is a significant wealth gap between the races.  By 2010, the average wealth of White families was roughly over a half-million dollars higher than the average wealth of Black and Hispanic families.[8]  It is particularly important to note that Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to own homes and have retirement accounts than Whites, so they miss out on these traditionally powerful wealth-building vehicles.

While the recent Great Recession had a devastating impact on all communities, the impacts were much more devastating on communities of color.  Between 2007 and 2010, Hispanic families lost 44% of their average wealth, while African-American families lost 31%, and White families lost 11% of their average wealth.[9]

Lower home values contributed considerably to significant wealth loss among Hispanics.[10]  As described by the Urban Institute:

“[M]any Hispanic families bought homes just before the recession.  Because they started with higher debt-to-asset values, the sharp decline in housing prices meant an even sharper cut in Hispanics’ wealth.  As a result, they were also more likely to end up underwater or with negative home equity.  Between 2007 and 2010, Hispanics saw their home equity cut in half…”[11]

While the Great Recession did not cause the wealth disparities between Whites and minorities, it did exacerbate them.[12]  It is clear that more needs to be done to facilitate basic wealth accumulation in communities of color, especially within the Hispanic community.  This is important because more wealth translates into greater opportunities.

Progress Made by Hispanics

Despite these challenges, however, Hispanics and Latinos have made tremendous progress in this country.  As a group, we may be a minority in this country, but we have made major contributions.  Hispanic and Latino Americans have been leaders of our nation for a very long time.  We take pride in Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina Supreme Court Justice; Nobel Prize winner Luis Alvarez; and civil rights activist César Chávez;  just to name a few.[13]  During the National Hispanic Heritage Month in 2012, President Barack Obama had this to say about the progress made by Hispanics:

“Hispanics have helped shape our communities and expand our country, from laboratories and industry to board rooms and classrooms.  They have led movements that pushed our country closer to realizing the democratic ideals of America’s founding documents, and they have served courageously as members of our Armed Forces to defend those ideals at home and abroad.  Hispanics also serve as leaders throughout the public sector, working at the highest levels of our government and serving on our highest courts.”[14]

We have indeed served our Nation well.  We must continue this good work and prepare the next generation to do the same.

There is some great news on this front.  The recent data on college enrollment and unemployment rates of Hispanics looks promising.  For example, in 2012, and for the first time, the number of 18- to 24-year-old Hispanics enrolled in college exceeded two million, reaching a record 16.5% share of all college enrollments.[15]  This milestone represents not just population growth, but also increasing high school graduation rates, which this year hit a record 76.3%.[16]  Moreover, a report by the Pew Research Center found that a record 69% of all Hispanic-American high school graduates in the class of 2012 enrolled in a two-year or four-year college that fall.[17]  That is a college enrollment rate higher than that of White high school graduates.[18]  A recent report from the Department of Labor added more good news: the unemployment rate for Hispanics and Latino men and women age 20 years and older has improved since 2012, from 8.1% to 7.9% for men in 2013, and from 10.3% to 8.7% for women.[19]

These achievements represent individual talent, hard work, and determination.  But I also know that, for every young person who worked hard and achieved success, there are many proud parents, brothers and sisters, teachers, and community mentors who offered support, encouragement, and served as positive role models.  Because of this, it is important for all us to give back to our families, communities, and country.  As our country’s next generation of Americans, our Nation’s future is in your hands.  I urge you to continue to contribute to the success of our Nation, as it forges ahead into the future to face the challenges and demands of the 21st Century.[20]

Government Service

Obviously, one way to give back to our country is through government service, and it is encouraging to see so many of you here today who have made that choice.  Indeed, I have made that choice three times—once right after law school, once when President George W. Bush asked me to serve as an SEC Commissioner, and again when President Barack Obama asked me to serve another term as an SEC Commissioner.

My desire to enter public service started a long time ago with my arrival to the United States.  As some of you may know, I was born in Cuba.  I came to this country with my nine-year-old brother when I was only six years old.  Our parents sent us here because they feared for our safety when Fidel Castro seized control of the Cuban government.  Like thousands of Cuban children who arrived in the United States as refugees, we did not have any means of financial support.  I arrived in America with little more than the clothes I was wearing and did not speak a word of English.  But through the generosity that is one of the hallmarks of the American public, and our own determination to meet our challenges, my brother and I not only survived—we thrived.

In my case, I was able to pay my way through college and law school by taking on jobs ranging from being a stock boy in a yarn store to loading baggage and cargo into airplanes at the Miami International Airport.  It is a long way from the hot tarmac of the airport in Miami to the halls of our Nation’s capital, but I carry those experiences with me.  I know how hard Americans work just to survive in this country.

I have now been a lawyer for over 30 years, starting out as a staff attorney at the SEC, later working as a law firm partner in various international law firms, and then as general counsel and executive of one of the world’s largest global asset managers.

However, it’s not just about having a career and making money.  Even when I was focused on building my professional career, I also found it important to give back to my community by becoming involved in many community organizations.  I have found it particularly rewarding to become active with organizations that worked to improve the lives of minorities and the underserved.[21]  I encourage you do to the same.  Giving time and effort to your communities can bring a great deal of personal satisfaction.

It was my need to give back that led me to say “yes” to serving as a Commissioner at the SEC.  Moreover, my professional career had given me a deep respect and admiration for the importance of the SEC.  As many of you know, the SEC is an independent federal agency that oversees our Nation’s capital markets—the world’s largest and most complex market for stocks, bonds, and other types of investment securities.  I expect that most of you, and many people you know, in one way or another, benefit from the work of the SEC.  The SEC’s work is vital because many Americans invest directly in publicly traded companies or put their hard-earned money into pension funds, mutual funds, college savings plans, and 401(k)s.  They do this to support their families, pay for their children’s education, and plan for their retirement.  Because of the importance of the capital markets to the prosperity and security of American families, the SEC’s role as the markets’ “watchdog” is vital to our country’s future.  I have found my work at the SEC to be both rewarding and meaningful.

I expect that many of you feel the same way about your jobs.  No matter what you do in government, I hope that you have a long, proud, and rewarding career.  Let me read you a quote from our late President John F. Kennedy about government service:

“Let every public servant know, whether his post is high or low, that a man’s rank and reputation … will be determined by the size of the job he does, and not by the size of his staff, his office or his budget.  Let it be clear that [we] recognize[] the value of dissent and daring -- that we greet healthy controversy as the hallmark of healthy change.  Let the public service be a proud and lively career.  And let every man and woman who works in any area of our national government, in any branch, at any level, be able to say with pride and with honor in future years: ‘I served the United States Government in that hour of our nation’s need.’”[22]

Conclusion

There’s very little that I can say to top that—so I will end my remarks where I began.  I am delighted to be here.  Organizations like the Hispanic Heritage Foundation—and the LOFT programs—help support and produce the next generation of Hispanic and Latino leaders, and this, in turn, strengthens our families, our communities, and our country.

Hispanic and Latino Americans have faced great challenges living in this great country, but the progress made shows that we have the resolve to achieve the American Dream.  Although I know that it will take a lot of hard work and perseverance, my faith in the American Dream and the boundless opportunities offered by this country make me optimistic that your future—and our future—is bright.

Thank you for everything that you do, and thank you for having me here today.


[1] “The Latino Coalition 2013 Small Business Summit Reaches New Heights and Showcases the Impact of Small Business to the U.S. Economy,” The Wall Street Journal (May 6, 2013), available at  http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130506-902461.html?mod=googlenews_wsj .

[2] Robert W. Fairlie, “Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity 1996-2012,” Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation (April 2013), p. 9, available at h http://www.kauffman.org/~/media/kauffman_org/research%20reports%20and%20covers/2013/04/kiea_2013_report.pdf .

[3] Id.

[4] The Nielsen Company, “State of the Hispanic Consumer:  The Hispanic Market Imperative” (Quarter 2, 2012), http://es.nielsen.com/site/documents/State_of_Hispanic_Consumer_Report_4-16-FINAL.pdf .

[5] Children’s Defense Fund, Child Poverty in America 2012:  National Analysis (Sept. 17, 2013), available at http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/child-poverty-in-america-2012.pdf .

[6] “Less than Equal: Racial Disparities in Wealth Accumulation,” by Signe-Mary Mckernan, Caroline Ratcliffe. Eugene Steuerle, and Sisi Zhang, Urban Institute (April 2013), available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412802-Less-Than-Equal-Racial-Disparities-in-Wealth-Accumulation.pdf . (hereinafter, “Racial Disparities in Wealth Accumulation”).

[7] Id at 1.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Hispanic Household Wealth Fell by 66% from 2005 to 2009, The Toll of the Great Recession. Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project (July 26, 2011).

[11] Supra note 6 at 2-3.

[12] Id. at 2.

[13] Hispanic Heritage month, available at  http://hispanicheritagemonth.gov/index.html (last visited Nov. 20, 2013); The Official Web Site of the Nobel Prize, The Nobel Prize in Physics 1968: Luis Alvarez, available at  http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1968/alvarez-bio.html (last visited Nov. 20, 2013); Cesar Chavez Foundation. About Cesar, available at  http://www.chavezfoundation.org/_page.php?code=001001000000000&page_ttl=About+Cesar&kind=1 (last visited Nov. 20, 2013).

[14] The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Presidential Proclamation – National Hispanic Heritage Month, 2012 (Sept. 14, 2012), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/14/presidential-proclamation-national-hispanic-heritage-month-2012.

[15] Richard Fry and Mark Hugo Lopez, Hispanic Student Enrollments Reach New Highs in 2011, Pew Hispanic Center (Aug. 20, 2012), p.4, available at http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/08/Hispanic-Student-Enrollments-Reach-New-Highs-in-2011_FINAL.pdf .

[16] Id., p.5 (represents percentage of Hispanic youths, ages 18-24, with a high school diploma or GED).  From 1970 to 2010, high school graduation rates for Hispanic Americans almost doubled (from 32.1% to 62.9%), and four-year college graduation rates more than tripled (from 4.5% to 13.9%). U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012, Table 229 Educational Attainment by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1970 to 2010, available at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0229.pdf.

[17] Richard Fry and Paul Taylor, “High School Drop-out Rate at Record Low, Hispanic High School Graduates Pass Whites in Rate of College Enrollment,” PewResearch Hispanic Center (May 9, 2013),  http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/05/09/hispanic-high-school-graduates-pass-whites-in-rate-of-college-enrollment/ .

[18] Id.

[19] U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release:  Table A-3. Employment status of the Hispanic or Latino population by sex and age (Sept. 6, 2013) (last visited Nov. 20, 2013), available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t03.htm.

[20] National Public Radio program broadcast, “College-Bound Latino Students at New High” (Aug. 22, 2012), transcript available at http://www.npr.org/2012/08/22/159777934/college-bound-latino-students-at-new-high .  (James Montoya, College Board:  “… we cannot underestimate the essential role that Latinos in the U.S. will play in reaching our national goal of 55 to 60 percent of young Americans 25 to 34 having a college degree. … to keep the U.S. as a leader in an increasingly global economy …”

[21] I am also concerned about the overall lack of diversity in federal civilian employment.  As of September 2012, the total number of employees in executive branch agencies was about 2.1 million.  However, minorities represented only 34.1% of the employees, with Hispanics representing only 5.8%.  See Office of Personnel Management, Data, Analysis & Documentation, Federal Employment Reports: Executive Branch Employment by Gender and Race/National Origin (Sept. 2002-Sept. 2012), available at http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/executive-branch-employment-by-gender-and-racenational-origin/.  The lack of diversity in the federal workforce is resulting in the exclusion of many qualified Hispanics and Latinos.

[22] Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union (11), Public Papers of the President: John F. Kennedy (Jan. 30, 1961), available at  http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/Ready-Reference/JFK-Quotations.aspx#P .

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

COURT ORDERS $1.5 MILLION IN SANCTIONS IN FOREX FRAUD CASE

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
Federal Court in Texas Orders $1.5 Million in Sanctions against Defendant Mark E. Rice for Fraudulent Forex Scheme

Washington, DC — The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) obtained a federal court Order requiring Defendant Mark E. Rice, of Sugar Land, Texas, to pay $827,000 in restitution and a $673,000 civil monetary penalty to settle CFTC charges related to fraudulent solicitation and misappropriation of customer funds to trade leveraged off-exchange foreign currency contracts (forex). The Consent Order of Permanent Injunction, entered on January 13, 2014, by Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, also imposes permanent trading and registration bans against Rice and prohibits him from violating provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act, as charged.

The Consent Order stems from a CFTC Complaint filed on June 29, 2011, against Rice and Rice’s company, Financial Robotics, Inc. (see CFTC Press Release 6067-11).

The Order finds that, from June 2008, Rice operated a fraudulent scheme that solicited approximately $1.7 million from one individual to trade leveraged off-exchange forex contracts. According to the Order, Rice falsely told his customer, among other things, that his investment was “risk free” and insured against loss and that the return of his principal was guaranteed. The Order further finds that Rice misappropriated at least $576,000 of his customer’s funds by transferring the money to unrelated Rice-controlled companies and, thereafter, spending at least $404,000 of those funds for Rice’s personal and business expenses.

The CFTC’s litigation continues against Financial Robotics, Inc.

The CFTC thanks the National Futures Association, the British Virgin Islands Financial Services Commission, The Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets, and the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority for their assistance.

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this case are Kevin S. Webb, Michelle S. Bougas, James H. Holl, III, and Gretchen L. Lowe.

Monday, January 20, 2014

EXECUTIVES CHARGED BY SEC WITH FALSIFYING FINANCIAL RECORDS

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SEC Charges Former Senior Executives of Public Company Subsidiary with Falsifying Financial Records and Circumventing Internal Controls

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on January 14, 2014, the Commission filed a civil injunctive action in federal district court Milwaukee, Wisconsin, charging Christopher Hohol (“Hohol”) and Brian Poshak (“Poshak”), formerly the senior vice president for operations and the  controller, respectively, of Veolia Special Services (“Special Services”), a fourth-tier United States subsidiary of Veolia Environnement S.A. (“Veolia”), a multinational utilities and environmental services company, with falsifying books, records, and accounts and circumventing internal controls in order to overstate Special Services’ earnings before taxes (“EBT”) over a period of at least three years.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that beginning no later than January 2008 and continuing through February 2011, Hohol, who was the most senior executive at Special Services, and Poshak, among other things, made and caused others to make false accounting entries in Special Services’ general ledger, including entries for fictitious revenue accruals, and entries that improperly reclassified expenses as inventory and improperly reclassified expenses (such as rental equipment, including industrial tools and diving gear) as prepaid assets, in order to artificially increase Special Services’ monthly EBT to meet internal financial performance projections and create the false appearance that Special Services consistently was profitable.  The complaint further alleges that both Hohol and Poshak signed monthly certifications falsely verifying the accuracy of Special Services’ financial information and efficacy of Special Services’ internal controls.  The complaint also alleges that Poshak forged invoices and other documents to support the false accounting entries and to conceal the scheme.  According to the complaint, as a result of Hohol’s and Poshak’s misconduct, Special Services overstated its EBT by a total of approximately $64 million.  The complaint also alleges that, as a result of their misconduct, Hohol and Poshak received $136,000 and $28,000, respectively, in ill-gotten bonus payments that were triggered by the inflated financial performance of Special Services.  The complaint further alleges that the false financial information provided by Special Services was reported up through several intermediate subsidiaries and, ultimately, was consolidated into the parent company’s publicly disclosed financial statements, which were filed with and furnished to the Commission.

The complaint charges Hohol and Poshak with violating Section 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder, and aiding and abetting Veolia’s violations of Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Hohol and Poshak have consented to the entry of final judgments that permanently enjoin them from violating Exchange Act Section 13(b)(5) and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder, and aiding and abetting violations of Exchange Act Section 13(b)(2)(A).  Hohol also has agreed to disgorge $106,000, and Poshak has agreed to disgorge $28,000, together with prejudgment interest in the amount of $3,500.  The settlements, which are subject to court approval, take into account Hohol's and Poshak’s current financial condition.

Sunday, January 19, 2014

BURGER KING STOCK INSIDE TRADER ORDERED TO PAY $5.6 MILLION

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
Former Stockbroker Ordered to Pay $5.6 Million for Insider Trader in Burger King Stock

The Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a final judgment against a former registered representative who misappropriated material nonpublic information from his customer and used it to trade Burger King Holding, Inc.'s ("Burger King") securities and tip others before the company's September 2, 2010 announcement that it was being acquired by a New York private equity firm.

On January 7, 2014, the SEC obtained a final judgment against Waldyr Da Silva Prado Neto ("Prado"), a citizen of Brazil formerly employed by Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC in Miami. Prado learned about the impending acquisition from one of his customers who invested in a fund managed by the private equity firm that was used to acquire Burger King. Prado misused the confidential information to illegally trade in Burger King securities for $175,000 in illicit profits, and he tipped others living in Brazil and elsewhere.

The final judgment entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on the SEC's motion for a default judgment, permanently enjoins Prado from violating Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3 thereunder. The judgment orders Prado to disgorge $397,110 in ill-gotten gains from the illegal Burger King trading plus prejudgment interest of $41,622. Prado is also ordered to pay $5,195,500 in penalties.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

TWO COMPANIES TO PAY $500,000 FOR CALL COTTON REPORTING VIOLATIONS

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
CFTC Orders Multigrain SA and Agricola Xingu SA to Pay $500,000 for Call Cotton Reporting Violations

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today issued an Order filing and settling charges against Multigrain SA (Multigrain) and Agricola Xingu SA (Agricola Xingu), Brazil-based companies that produce and trade cotton and other agricultural products, for failing to comply with their legal obligation as reportable traders to submit weekly Form 304 Reports that show their call cotton purchases and sales.

The CFTC Order explains that CFTC Regulations specifically require cotton merchants and dealers that hold or control at least 100 cotton futures positions, the reportable level for cotton futures contracts under CFTC Regulations, to file CFTC Form 304 Reports that show their call cotton purchases and sales as of the close of business Friday, and no later than two business days following the date of the report. According to the Order, call cotton refers to physical cotton bought or sold, or contracted for purchase or sale, at a price to be fixed later based on a specified delivery month’s futures price. As stated in the Order, the CFTC uses information it gathers from CFTC Form 304 Reports in its weekly Cotton On-Call Reports, published with other Market Reports on the CFTC website at www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/CottonOnCall/index.htm.

The CFTC Order finds that on at least 24 occasions between January 1, 2013 and October 31, 2013, Multigrain and Agricola Xingu held or controlled at least 100 cotton futures positions, but failed to file CFTC Form 304 Reports as required, either by failing to file Form 304 Reports or filing Form 304 Reports late.

The CFTC Order requires Multigrain and Agricola Xingu to jointly pay a $500,000 civil monetary penalty and prohibits them from committing future violations of the CFTC Regulation requiring reports pertaining to cotton call purchases and sales, as charged. The Order also requires Multigrain and Agricola Xingu to adopt internal controls that are reasonably designed to ensure that they comply fully with enhanced written procedures they have adopted regarding future compliance with the CFTC cotton reporting Regulation.

Consistent with this filing, the CFTC issued a market advisory on May 8, 2013 to remind cotton market participants of their ongoing obligation to comply in a timely manner with applicable reporting obligations. See CFTC Staff Advisory No. 13-14 (Obligation of Reportable Market Participants to File CFTC Form 304 Reports for Call Cotton in a Timely Manner as Required by Commission Regulation 19.02) (May 8, 2013).

Friday, January 17, 2014

FINAL JUDGEMENTS ENTERED FOR ALLEGED INSIDER TRADING OF NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
Court Enters Final Judgment Against Officer, Broker and Relief Defendant Broker-Dealer in Settlement of Insider Trading Charges

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that, pursuant to settlement agreements, the Honorable Thomas L. Ludington of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan entered final judgments on January 13, 2014 against defendants Mack D. Murrell and Charles W. Adams, and relief defendant Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (Raymond James) in the SEC's insider trading case, SEC v. Mack D. Murrell, et al., Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-12856 (E.D. Mich.). The final judgments permanently enjoin Murrell and Adams from violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Murrell was ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $367,250 and is prohibited from acting as an officer or director of a publicly traded company. Adams was ordered to disgorge $64,450, plus prejudgment interest of $13,285, and to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $107,046.Raymo Jndames was ordered to disgorge $373,497 plus prejudgment interest of $8,692. Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, Murrell, Adams, and Raymond James consented to the entry of the final judgments.

The SEC charged Murrell, who was the Vice President of Information Systems for The Dow Chemical Company (Dow), with unlawfully tipping material, non-public information to his long-time friend, David A. Teekell, in advance of Dow's July 10, 2008 announcement of its acquisition of Rohm & Haas Co. The SEC also charged Teekell and Adams, Teekell's broker at Raymond James, with trading on the confidential information. Teekell previously settled the SEC's charges.Raymond James was charged as a relief defendant because profits from certain trades by Teekell were held in its firm account.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

COURT ORDERS INTRODUCING BROKER TO PAY FINE FOR RECORD-KEEPING VIOLATIONS

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
Federal Court in Illinois Orders Chicago-based Introducing Broker New World Holdings, LLC to Pay $50,000 to Settle Record-Keeping Violation Action

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) obtained a federal court Order against Defendant New World Holdings, LLC (NWH) of Chicago, Illinois, requiring NWH to pay a $50,000 civil monetary penalty for destroying business records and failing to diligently supervise employees.

The Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, entered by U.S. District Court Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the Northern District of Illinois on January 8, 2014, also permanently prohibits NWH from violating the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC Regulations, as charged in the Complaint filed against NWH and two other Defendants on July 22, 2010 (see CFTC Press Release 5861-10). NWH is registered with the CFTC as an Introducing Broker and Commodity Trading Advisor.

The Order finds that, beginning on or about March 10, 2006, NWH introduced an account in the name of Idylic Solutions Pty Ltd. (Idylic) to a Futures Commission Merchant. In addition to the Idylic account, NWH introduced a number of other accounts from the same individuals who opened the Idylic account, or associated with them, including but not limited to accounts in the name of Unifund, Ltd., 888 Management, Inc., Secured Bond, Ltd., and Sagacity, Ltd. (collectively referred to as the “Pooled Accounts”). Deposits into the Idylic account and the Pooled Accounts in the aggregate exceeded $21 million throughout the relevant period, according to the Order.

NWH failed to retain all of the business records related to the Idylic account and Pooled Accounts, relating to NWH’s business of dealing in commodity futures, commodity options, and cash commodities, including but not limited to emails that were prepared in the course of its business of dealing in commodity futures, and further failed to keep said records for a period of five years from the date thereof, according to the Order.

The CFTC appreciates the assistance of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in this matter.

CFTC staff members responsible for this case are Eugene Smith, Elizabeth N. Pendleton, Michael Amakor, Timothy J. Mulreany, and Paul Hayeck.


Wednesday, January 15, 2014

COMPANY, OWNERS CHARGED IN OFF-EXCHANGE FINANCED TRANSACTIONS

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

CFTC Charges Florida-Based Vertical Integration Group LLC and Its Owners, Richard V. Morello and Junior Alexis, with Engaging in Illegal, Off-exchange Commodity Transactions

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it filed a civil injunctive enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Vertical Integration Group LLC (Vertical) of Lake Worth, Florida, its owner, Richard V. Morello of Lake Worth, Florida, and Junior Alexis of Boynton Beach, Florida. The CFTC Complaint charges the Defendants with engaging in illegal, off-exchange financed transactions in precious metals with retail customers.

The CFTC Complaint alleges that from July 16, 2011, and continuing through at least February 2013, the Defendants solicited retail customers to buy physical precious metals in off-exchange leveraged transactions. Specifically, the CFTC alleges that customers paid Vertical a portion of the purchase price for the metals, and Vertical financed the remainder of the purchase price, while charging the customers interest on the amount purportedly loaned to customers.

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act), a financed transaction such as those conducted by Vertical is an illegal off-exchange transaction unless it results in actual delivery of metal within 28 days. The CFTC Complaint alleges that with regard to the financed transactions, Vertical’s customers never took delivery of the precious metals they purportedly purchased.

The CFTC further alleges that when Vertical engaged in these illegal transactions they were acting as a dealer for metals merchant Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC (Hunter Wise), whom the CFTC charged with fraud and other violations in federal court in Florida on December 5, 2012 (see CFTC Press Release 6447-12). As alleged in the CFTC Complaint against Hunter Wise and in the Complaint in this case, neither Vertical, nor Hunter Wise actually purchased or held metal on the customers’ behalf.

In its continuing litigation, the CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties, restitution, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction against further violations of the federal commodities laws, as charged.

The CFTC Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this action are Michelle Bougas, Alan I. Edelman, Alison Wilson, Michael Solinsky, Charles Marvine, and Gretchen L. Lowe.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

CFTC CHAIRMAN WETJEN MAKES STATEMENT ON BUDGET

FROM:  CFTC 

Acting Chairman Mark Wetjen Statement on CFTC Budget

January 14, 2014
Acting Chairman Mark Wetjen today made the following statement on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) budget in the omnibus appropriations bill:
“I am pleased that the House and Senate have agreed to an appropriations bill that includes $215 million for the CFTC,” Wetjen said. “This increase means the CFTC will be better equipped to fulfill our mission – ensuring the derivatives markets work for market participants and the public. This funding level is a step in the right direction, and we will continue working with Congress to secure resources that match our new responsibilities to provide oversight for the vast derivatives markets.”

SEC PRIORITIES FOR EXAMINATIONS IN 2014

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced its examination priorities for 2014, which cover a wide range of issues at financial institutions, including investment advisers and investment companies, broker-dealers, clearing agencies, exchanges and other self-regulatory organizations, hedge funds, private equity funds, and transfer agents.

“We are publishing these priorities to highlight areas that we perceive to have heightened risk,” said Andrew J. Bowden, Director of the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations.  “This document, along with our Risk Alerts and other public statements, help us to increase transparency, strengthen compliance, and inform the public and the financial services industry about key risks that we are monitoring and examining.”

The examination priorities address market-wide issues and those specific to particular business models and organizations.  The market-wide priorities include fraud detection and prevention, corporate governance and enterprise risk management, technology controls, issues posed by the convergence of broker-dealer and investment adviser businesses and by new rules and regulations, and retirement investments and rollovers.

Based on program area, the priorities include:

For investment advisers and investment companies -- advisers who have never been previously examined, including new private fund advisers, wrap fee programs, quantitative trading models, and payments by advisers and funds to entities that distribute mutual funds.

For broker-dealers -- sales practices and fraud, issues related to the fixed-income market, and trading issues, including compliance with the new market access rule
For market oversight -- risk-based examinations of securities exchanges and FINRA, perceived control weakness at exchanges, and pre-launch reviews of new exchange applicants.

For transfer agents -- timely turnaround of items and transfers, accurate recordkeeping and safeguarding of assets.

For clearing agencies designated as systemically important -- conduct annual examinations as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, and pre-launch reviews of new clearing agency applicants.

The priorities listed for 2014 are not exhaustive and may be adjusted throughout the year in light of ongoing risk assessment activities.  They were selected by senior exam staff and managers and other SEC divisions and offices in consultation with the chair and other commissioners, based on a variety of information and risk analytics, including:

Tips, complaints and referrals, including from whistleblowers and investors
Information reported by registrants in required filings with the SEC
Information gathered through examinations conducted by the SEC and other regulators
Communications with other U.S. and international regulators and agencies
Industry and media publications
Data maintained in third party databases
Interactions outside of examinations with registrants, industry groups, and service providers

Monday, January 13, 2014

FDIC AND FRB RELEASE PUBLIC SECTIONS OF RESOLUTION PLANS FOR LARGE BANK HOLDING COMPANIES

FROM:  FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 
Agencies Release Public Sections of Resolution Plans
The Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) on Friday made available the public portions of resolution plans for 116 institutions that submitted plans for the first time in December 2013, the latest group to file resolution plans with the agencies.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires that bank holding companies (and foreign companies treated as bank holding companies) with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more and nonbank financial companies designated for enhanced prudential supervision by the Financial Stability Oversight Council periodically submit resolution plans to the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC. Each plan must describe the company’s strategy for rapid and orderly resolution in the event of material financial distress or failure of the company, and include both a public and confidential section.

Companies subject to the resolution plan requirement filed their initial resolution plans on a staggered schedule. The 116 companies whose initial resolution plans were due by December 31, 2013, are those that generally have less than $100 billion in qualifying nonbank assets.
Two groups of institutions have already filed resolution plans. The first group, generally those bank holding companies with $250 billion or more in qualifying nonbank assets, submitted initial plans in July 2012 and their second annual plans in October 2013. The second group, generally those with $100 billion or more, but less than $250 billion, in qualifying nonbank assets, submitted their initial plans in July 2013. The group that was required to file their initial plans last month represents the third group of filers.

The public portions for the 116 companies’ resolution plans, as well as those of institutions that filed previously, are available on the Federal Reserve and FDIC websites.

In addition, the FDIC released the public sections of the recently filed resolution plans of 22 insured depository institutions. The majority of these insured depository institutions are subsidiaries of bank holding companies that concurrently submitted resolution plans. The insured depository institution plans are required by a separate regulation issued by the FDIC. The FDIC’s regulation requires a covered insured depository institution with assets greater than $50 billion to submit a plan under which the FDIC, as receiver, might resolve the institution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

The public portions for the 22 covered insured depository institutions are available on the FDIC website.

Sunday, January 12, 2014

SEC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR LEAVING

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Myron Marlin will be leaving the SEC after nearly five years as communications director, serving under chairs Mary Jo White, Elisse B. Walter, and Mary L. Schapiro.

Since joining the SEC in March 2009, Mr. Marlin coordinated communications strategy on a range of significant issues including the agency’s landmark policy of seeking admissions in certain enforcement settlements and major rulemakings stemming from the Dodd-Frank Act and the JOBS Act.

“Myron is an extraordinary professional and advisor,” said Chair White.  “His substantial knowledge of the agency, judgment, and keen sense of effective communications have been invaluable to me.  I will miss him and his counsel greatly.”

Mr. Marlin said, “It has been an incredible privilege for me to serve under three chairs and alongside so many talented and dedicated public servants who perform work that is so crucial to investors and our nation’s economic well-being.  I am honored to have been at the SEC during a period of such intense rulemaking, record enforcement activity, and regulatory reform.”

Prior to joining the SEC, Mr. Marlin worked for a communications consulting firm.  Previously as director of public affairs at the U.S. Department of Justice, he received the Edmund J. Randolph Award for outstanding service.  Prior to working at the Department of Justice, he was an associate at a law firm in New York.  Mr. Marlin received his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and his law degree from American University.

Saturday, January 11, 2014

OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL SECURITIES ISSUES GUIDANCE FOR MARKET PARTICIPANTS

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that its Office of Municipal Securities has issued interpretive guidance to address questions from market participants regarding the implementation of new final SEC rules requiring municipal advisors to register with the SEC.

The staff guidance, in the form of answers to frequently asked questions, or FAQs, covers topics including:

the advice standard, including the general information exclusion and the treatment of business promotional materials used by underwriters
the request for proposals-request for qualifications exemption
the exemption for independent municipal advisors
the exclusion for registered investment advisers
the underwriter exclusion, including engagements as underwriters
issuance of municipal securities and post-issuance advice
remarketing agent services
opinions by citizens in public discourse
the effective date of the final rules and the compliance period for using the final registration forms
State and local governments frequently use paid advisors to help them decide how and when to issue municipal securities and how to invest proceeds from the sales.  The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act required these advisors to register with the SEC like other market intermediaries.  The SEC’s final rule was adopted in September 2013.  Presently, more than 1,100 municipal advisors are registered with the SEC under a temporary registration regime.  The SEC staff may provide periodic updates to the interpretive guidance issued today.

Friday, January 10, 2014

SEC FILES ACTIONS INVOLVING THE UNDERREPORTING OF THE COST FOR WALNUTS

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") filed separate actions against Diamond Foods, Inc. ("Diamond"), a San Francisco-based snack food company, and its former chief executive officer (CEO) Michael Mendes, and its former chief financial officer (CFO) Steven Neil for their roles in an accounting scheme to falsify walnut costs in order to boost earnings and meet estimates by stock analysts.

According to the Commission's complaints against former CFO Steven Neil and Diamond, which were filed in federal court in San Francisco, Neil directed the effort to fraudulently underreport money paid to walnut growers by delaying the recording of payments into later fiscal periods. In internal e-mails, Neil referred to these commodity costs as a "lever" to manage earnings in Diamond's financial statements. By manipulating walnut costs, Diamond correspondingly reported higher net income and inflated earnings to exceed analysts' estimates for fiscal quarters in 2010 and 2011. After Diamond restated its financial results in November 2012 to reflect the true costs of acquiring walnuts, the company's stock price slid to just $17 per share from a high of $90 per share in 2011.

Diamond Foods agreed to pay $5 million to settle the SEC's charges. Former CEO Michael Mendes, who allegedly should have known that Diamond's reported walnut cost was incorrect at the time he certified the company's financial statements, also agreed to settle charges against him. The SEC's litigation continues against Neil.

According to the Commission's complaints filed against Neil and Diamond, one of the company's significant lines of business involves buying walnuts from its growers and selling the walnuts to retailers. With sharp increases in walnut prices in 2010, Diamond encountered a situation where it needed to pay more to its growers in order to maintain longstanding relationships with them. Yet Diamond could not increase the amounts paid to growers for walnuts, which was its largest commodity cost, without also decreasing the net income that Diamond reports to the investing public. And Neil was facing pressure to meet or exceed the earnings estimates of Wall Street stock analysts.

The Commission alleges that while faced with competing demands, Neil orchestrated a scheme to have it both ways. He devised two special payments to please Diamond's walnut growers and bring the total yearly amounts paid to growers closer to market prices, but improperly excluded portions of those payments from year-end financial statements. Instead of correctly recording the costs on Diamond's books, Neil instructed his finance team to consider the payments as advances on crops that had not yet been delivered. By disguising the reality that the payments were related to prior crop deliveries, Diamond was able to manipulate walnut costs in its accounting to hit quarterly targets for earnings per share (EPS) and exceed estimates by analysts. For instance, after adjusting the walnut cost in order to meet an EPS target for the second quarter of 2010, Diamond went on to tout its record of "Twelve Consecutive Quarters of Outperformance" in its reported EPS results during investor presentations.

The Commission further alleges that Neil misled Diamond's independent auditors by giving false and incomplete information to justify the unusual accounting treatment for the payments. Neil personally benefited from the fraud by receiving cash bonuses and other compensation based on Diamond's reported EPS in fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

In a separate settled administrative proceeding filed today against former CEO Michael Mendes, the Commission found that Mendes should have known that Diamond's reported walnut cost was incorrect because of information he received at the time, and that he omitted facts in certain representations to Diamond's outside auditors about the special walnut payments. Mendes agreed to pay a $125,000 penalty to settle the charges without admitting or denying the allegations. Mendes already has returned or forfeited more than $4 million in bonuses and other benefits he received during the time of the company's fraudulent financial reporting.

The Commission's complaint against Diamond alleges that Diamond violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), and Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Diamond has consented to the entry of a permanent injunction against future violations of the relevant federal securities laws, and the imposition of a $5 million penalty.

The Commission's complaint against CFO Neil alleges that Neil violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2, and Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and aided and abetted Diamond's violations of 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. The complaint against Neil seeks a permanent injunction, civil penalties, an officer and director bar, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and relief pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

The cease and desist order against CEO Mendes alleges that he directly violated Sections 17(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Securities Act, Exchange Act Rules 13a-14, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2, and caused Diamond's violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13. Without admitting or denying the factual findings, Mendes has consented to the entry of a cease and desist order against committing violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Securities Act, Exchange Act Rules 13a-14, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2, and causing Diamond's violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13, and the imposition of a $125,000 penalty. The Commission's order against Mendes noted that he already has returned to Diamond or has forfeited over $4 million in bonuses and other benefits he received during the time of the company's fraudulent financial reporting.

The Commission took into account Diamond's cooperation with the SEC's investigation and its remedial efforts once the fraud came to light. The penalties collected from Diamond and Mendes may be distributed to harmed investors if SEC staff determines that a distribution is feasible.

Thursday, January 9, 2014

COURT FINDS ERIC ARONSON LIABLE FOR OPERATING A PONZI SCHEME

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

District Court Finds Eric Aronson Liable for Operating a Ponzi Scheme, Issues Permanent Injunctions Against Remaining Individual Defendants and Grants Other Relief

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that U.S. District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff has ruled that Defendant Eric Aronson violated the antifraud and other provisions of the federal securities laws. In addition, the Court entered orders of permanent injunctions against Defendants Vincent Buonauro and Fredric Aaron and further imposed officer and director and penny stock bars against Aaron. Furthermore, the Court ordered Aronson's wife, Relief Defendant Caroline Aronson, to disgorge the ill-gotten gains she received from her husband.

The Commission's Complaint, filed in October 2011, alleged that, from 2006 to 2010, PermaPave Industries and its affiliates raised more than $26 million from the sale of promissory notes and "use of funds" agreements to over 140 investors. Eric Aronson, Vincent Buonauro and others told investors that there was a tremendous demand for the product - permeable paving stones - and that investors would be repaid from the profits generated by guaranteed product sales. In reality, there was little demand for the product, and defendants used investors' money to make "interest" and "profit" payments to earlier investors and to fund management's lavish lifestyles. In addition, shortly after an affiliate of PermaPave Industries acquired a majority stake in Interlink-US-Network, Ltd., Eric Aronson, Fredric Aaron - who was the attorney for Eric Aronson and the entity defendants - and others issued a press release stating that a company that had never heard of Interlink intended to invest $6 million in Interlink.

On August 6, 2013, the Court granted in part the Commission's motion for summary judgment. Finding that the Commission proved an "almost endless fraud" with evidence that Eric Aronson and others raised millions from investors, misappropriated the funds raised, and then converted the investments several times over to delay and ultimately avoid repayment, the Court ruled that Eric Aronson, age 45 and resident of Syosset, New York, violated Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Subsequently, on December 11, 2013, the Court granted the Commission's motion for reconsideration of the Court's summary judgment order and ruled that Eric Aronson also violated Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act by aiding and abetting Interlink's violations of Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 13(a) and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20 and 13a-11. Relief for these violations will be determined at a later date.

The Court also granted summary judgment on the Commission's claim for disgorgement against Caroline Aronson, age 43 and resident of Syosset, New York. On December 23, 2013, the Court issued a final judgment ordering Caroline Aronson to pay the full disgorgement amount sought, $296,262.

Also on December 23, 2013, the Court issued judgments as to Vincent Buonauro, age 42 and resident of West Islip, New York, and Fredric Aaron, age 49 and resident of Plainview, New York. Vincent Buonauro agreed to consent to the judgment as to him, which enjoins him from violating Securities Act Sections 5 and 17(a) and Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 15(a) and Rule 10b-5. Fredric Aaron also agreed to consent to the judgment as to him, which enjoins him from violating Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and from aiding and abetting violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-11. The judgment as to Fredric Aaron also imposes five year officer and director and penny stock bars. The Commission's claims for monetary relief against Vincent Buonauro and Fredric Aaron will be determined at a later date.

The Commission's civil action also continues against Relief Defendant Deborah Buonauro. The Court previously issued final judgments against all entity defendants and entity relief defendants on January 19, 2012 and against Defendant Robert Kondratick on October 17, 2012.


Tuesday, January 7, 2014

SEC ANNOUNCES NEW CHIEF OF ENFORCEMENT DIVISION FOR INVESTIGATING COMPLEX FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Michael J. Osnato, Jr. has been named chief of the Enforcement Division unit that conducts investigations into complex financial instruments.

Mr. Osnato, who joined the SEC staff in 2008 and has served as an assistant director in the New York Regional Office since 2010, has played a key role in a number of significant SEC enforcement actions.  For instance, Mr. Osnato helped spearhead the SEC’s case against JPMorgan Chase & Co. and two former traders for fraudulently overvaluing a complex trading portfolio in order to hide massive losses, and the subsequent action in which the bank admitted that it violated federal securities laws.

Mr. Osnato will now lead a Complex Financial Instruments Unit that is comprised of attorneys and industry experts working in SEC offices across the country to investigate potential misconduct related to asset-backed securities, derivatives, and other complex financial products.  The unit was created along with four other specialized enforcement units in 2010, and was formerly known as the Structured and New Products Unit.

“Michael is a natural leader who brings keen investigative instincts and exceptional judgment to his work,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, co-director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “He has been a valuable part of our efforts to punish misconduct related to complex financial instruments, and we are pleased that he will bring his considerable talents and skills to the unit.”

Among other SEC enforcement actions under Mr. Osnato’s purview have been charges against four former investment bankers and traders at Credit Suisse Group in a scheme to overstate the prices of $3 billion in subprime bonds, and actions related to operators of the Reserve Primary Fund.

“I am honored and gratified to have this opportunity to lead the Complex Financial Instruments Unit,” said Mr. Osnato.  “The unit has targeted fraud in some of the most challenging areas of the markets, and I look forward to working with the many talented professionals in the unit to keep the Enforcement Division on the cutting edge of today’s financial markets.”

Prior to joining the SEC enforcement staff, Mr. Osnato worked at Shearman & Sterling LLP and later at Linklaters LLP in New York.  He earned his bachelor’s degree from Williams College and his law degree from Fordham Law School.

Monday, January 6, 2014

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT ON JANET YELLEN'S CONFIRMATION AS FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Statement by the President on the Confirmation of Janet Yellen as Chair of the Federal Reserve

With the bipartisan confirmation of Janet Yellen as the next Chair of the Federal Reserve, the American people will have a fierce champion who understands that the ultimate goal of economic and financial policy making is to improve the lives, jobs and standard of living of American workers and their families. As one of our nation’s most respected economists and a leading voice at the Fed for more than a decade – and Vice Chair for the past three years – Janet helped pull our economy out of recession and put us on the path of steady growth. Janet is committed to the Fed’s dual mandate of keeping inflation in check while also addressing our most important economic challenge by reducing unemployment and creating jobs. And she understands that fostering a stable financial system will help the overall economy and protect consumers. I am confident that Janet will stand up for American workers, protect consumers, foster the stability of our financial system, and help keep our economy growing for years to come.

CFTC COMMISSIONER O'MALIA'S DISSENTING STATEMENT ON NON-U.S. SWAP DEALERS

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
Dissenting Statement by Commissioner Scott D. O’Malia

Request for Comment on Application of Commission Regulations to Swaps Between Non-U.S. Swap Dealers and Non-U.S. Counterparties Involving Personnel or Agents of the Non-U.S. Swap Dealers Located in the United States

January 2, 2014

If you thought that the Commission’s approach last year regarding cross-border issues resulted in an unsound rulemaking process, the start of 2014 is no better.

Today’s announcement of the request for comment on a staff Advisory abrogates the Commission’s fundamental legal obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and provides another example of the Commission’s unsound rule implementation process.

Making matters worse, today’s request for comment is completely outside the scope of the cross-border Guidance and the Exemptive Order as the Commission did not address the issue relating to swaps negotiated between non-U.S. swap dealers (“SDs”) and non-U.S. counterparties acting through agents of the non-U.S. SDs located in the United States. This is simply a strategic move by the Commission to try to duck blame for consistently circumventing the fundamental tenets of the APA and failing to adhere faithfully to the express congressional directive to limit the extraterritorial application of the Dodd-Frank Act to foreign transactions that “have a direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United States.”1

Moreover, I question why the Commission has decided to request comment on a narrow issue of the extraterritorial application of Dodd-Frank, while essentially ignoring the dozens of comments already filed as part of the Commission’s cross-border Exemptive Order.2 Simply requesting comment on a staff Advisory does not endorse the validity of the cross-border Guidance or the staff Advisory issued based on the Guidance.

Additionally, I have serious concerns with the evolving jurisdictional application of the Commission’s authority over cross-border trades. It appears based on the staff Advisory, that the Commission is applying a “territorial” jurisdiction test to elements of a trade between non-U.S. entities. To better understand the legal underpinnings of this position, I have included several additional questions to be considered as part of the overall comment file. It is my hope that public comments will provide greater clarity regarding our cross-border authority and identify areas where we must harmonize global rules with our international regulatory partners in the near future. It makes no sense to apply guidance or staff advisories that do not enjoy the full support and authority provided through rulemakings based on the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”).

Looking forward into this year, the CFTC needs to do away with the reflexive rule implementation process via staff no-action and advisories that are not voted on by the Commission. It should be the goal of the Commission to develop rules that adhere to the APA and ensure proper regulatory oversight, transparency and promote competition in the derivatives space.

In this regard, I would like to seek additional comment on the following points:

1. Please provide your views on whether Covered Transactions with non-U.S. persons who are not guaranteed or conduit affiliates of U.S. persons meet the direct and significant test under CEA section 2(i).3  Please provide a detailed analysis of any such view and its effect on other aspects of the Commission’s cross-border policy, if any. Would your view change depending on whether a non-U.S. SD is a guaranteed affiliate or a conduit affiliate of a U.S. person?

2. CEA section 2(a)(1)4 provides for the general jurisidiction of the Commission. Please provide your views on whether Covered Transactions with non-U.S. persons who are not guaranteed or conduit affiliates of U.S. persons fall within the Commission’s jurisdiction under CEA section 2(a)(1) or any other provision of the CEA providing for Commission jurisdiction. Please provide a detailed analysis of any such view and its effect on other aspects of the Commission’s cross-border policy, if any. Would your view change depending on the nature of the non-U.S. SD (i.e., whether it is a guaranteed affiliate or a conduit affiliate of a U.S. person)?

3. To the extent that Covered Transactions fall within the Commission’s jurisdiction, should a non-U.S. SD be required to comply with all, or only certain, Transaction-Level Requirements? Please provide a detailed analysis of any such view and its effect on other aspects of the Commission’s cross-border policy, if any. Would your view change depending on the nature of the non-U.S. SD (i.e., whether it is a guaranteed affiliate or a conduit affiliate of a U.S. person)?

4. In the open meeting to consider the cross-border final guidance and cross-border phase-in exemptive order, I asked about the Commission’s enforcement and legal authority under the cross-border guidance. The Commission’s General Counsel replied, “[T]he guidance itself is not binding strictly. We couldn’t go into court and, in a count of the complaint, list a violation of the guidance as an actionable claim.”5 If the Commission adopts the staff Advisory as Commission policy (and not through the rulemaking process), please provide your views on the Commission’s ability to enforce such policy.

Sunday, January 5, 2014

CFTC MOVES ON COMMENT REQUEST REGARDING NON-U.S. SWAP DEALERS

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
CFTC Approves Request for Comment on Application of Commission Regulations to U.S. Activities of Non-U.S. Swap Dealers

Washington, DC — The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) today approved the issuance of a notice of request for public comment on a staff advisory regarding the applicability of certain Commission regulations to the activity in the United States of registered, non-U.S. swap dealers when entering into swaps with non-U.S. persons.

The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the November 14, 2013 staff advisory 13-69 in view of the complex legal and policy issues involved. Comments must be received within 60 days after publication of the notice in the Federal Register.

Friday, January 3, 2014

CFTC & FERC SIGN MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING INVESTIGATIONS AND SURVEILLANCE

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

January 2, 2014

FERC, CFTC Sign MOUs on Jurisdiction and Information Sharing

Washington, DC — The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have signed two Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to address circumstances of overlapping jurisdiction and to share information in connection with market surveillance and investigations into potential market manipulation, fraud or abuse. The MOUs allow the agencies to promote effective and efficient regulation to protect energy market competitors and consumers.

The jurisdiction MOU sets out a process under which the agencies will notify each other of activities that may involve overlapping jurisdiction and coordinate to address the agencies’ regulatory concerns. The new information sharing MOU establishes procedures through which the agencies will share information of mutual interest related to their respective market surveillance and investigative responsibilities, while maintaining confidentiality and data protection. In support of the new information sharing MOU, CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler and FERC Acting Chairman Cheryl LaFleur also agreed that the agencies will work together to share appropriate data relating to financial markets for gas and electricity on an ongoing basis.

“These memoranda will further strengthen FERC’s ability to perform its market oversight and enforcement responsibilities,” said Acting Chairman LaFleur. “As FERC’s role in overseeing the competitive energy markets has grown since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, our need to coordinate with the CFTC is increasingly important. I appreciate Chairman Gensler’s work on these agreements and look forward to continued cooperation between our agencies.”

“I’m so pleased that with Acting Chairman LaFleur, our two agencies have been able to enter into these Memoranda of Understanding,” said CFTC Chairman Gensler. “These memoranda will help lead to better protection of the nation’s energy markets and increase cooperation between the agencies.”

Congress directed the CFTC and FERC to develop the MOUs as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The agencies have been operating under a 2005 MOU that allowed information exchange related to oversight or investigations.