The following is an excerpt from the SEC website:
On October 11, 2011, the SEC filed a civil enforcement action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Gregory E. Webb and InfrAegis, Inc. Webb, a 64-year-old resident of Arlington Heights, Illinois, is the Chairman, CEO, and President of InfrAegis. InfrAegis is a company based in the Chicago suburb of Elk Grove Village, Illinois and purports to make products for the homeland security market. The SEC’s Complaint charges Webb and InfrAegis with conducting a fraudulent, unregistered offering of InfrAegis stock that raised over $20 million from hundreds of investors across the country.
The SEC’s Complaint alleges that, throughout the offering, in written offering materials provided to investors, Webb and InfrAegis made false and misleading claims about InfrAegis’ commercial success, including the existence of contracts for the sale of InfrAegis’ products. For example, according to the SEC’s Complaint, Webb and InfrAegis made false and misleading statements to investors about the existence of lucrative contracts with the City of Chicago and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority that would result in billions of dollars in revenue for InfrAegis. The SEC also alleges that Webb and InfrAegis made false and misleading claims about the purported sale of a partial stake in InfrAegis for $8.7 billion, which they told investors would result in 3800% to 4000% returns on their investments. According to the Complaint, Webb personally solicited investors during conference calls in which he repeated these false and misleading claims.
Based on their conduct, the SEC alleges that Webb and InfrAegis violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC’s Complaint seeks a permanent injunction and disgorgement, plus prejudgment interest, against Webb and InfrAegis and a civil penalty against Webb.”
Saturday, October 15, 2011
SECURITY COMPANY ALLEGEDLY OFFERED UNREGISTERED SECURITIES
The following is an excerpt from the SEC website:
“On October 7, 2011, United States District Judge John G. Koeltl entered an order, consistent with a stipulated agreement between the Commission and Defendants, preliminarily enjoining Murdoch Security & Investigations, Inc. (“Murdoch”) and its two principal officers, Robert Goldstein and William Vassell from continuing an allegedly illegal, unregistered offering and sale of securities that the Commission alleges raised more than $1 million from noteholders, who were promised 22% annual interest on their investments. Judge Koeltl’s order also preliminarily enjoined Defendants Murdoch and Goldstein from further violations of certain anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws and froze certain of Defendants’ assets pending final disposition of the case.
The Commission’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that Defendants, beginning in approximately October 2010, offered and sold notes to investors by placing advertisements in the Wall Street Journal and other financial press. The Commission further alleges that Murdoch, through Goldstein, misrepresented material facts to investors about the security company, including boasts of highly lucrative overseas operations when, in fact, Murdoch lacked any international business whatsoever.
According to the Commission’s complaint, Murdoch told investors that capital was needed to finance acquisitions of additional security companies that would enhance Murdoch’s overall revenues and fund 22% interest payments to noteholders. In reality, the Commission alleges, money from new investors has been used primarily to fund interest payments to earlier investors and to pay the salaries of Defendants Goldstein and Vassell.
The Commission’s complaint charges each Defendant with violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Defendants Murdoch and Goldstein with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The Commission is seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants, and to have them return their allegedly ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and pay civil monetary penalties.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the New York District Attorney’s Office in connection with this matter.”
“On October 7, 2011, United States District Judge John G. Koeltl entered an order, consistent with a stipulated agreement between the Commission and Defendants, preliminarily enjoining Murdoch Security & Investigations, Inc. (“Murdoch”) and its two principal officers, Robert Goldstein and William Vassell from continuing an allegedly illegal, unregistered offering and sale of securities that the Commission alleges raised more than $1 million from noteholders, who were promised 22% annual interest on their investments. Judge Koeltl’s order also preliminarily enjoined Defendants Murdoch and Goldstein from further violations of certain anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws and froze certain of Defendants’ assets pending final disposition of the case.
The Commission’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that Defendants, beginning in approximately October 2010, offered and sold notes to investors by placing advertisements in the Wall Street Journal and other financial press. The Commission further alleges that Murdoch, through Goldstein, misrepresented material facts to investors about the security company, including boasts of highly lucrative overseas operations when, in fact, Murdoch lacked any international business whatsoever.
According to the Commission’s complaint, Murdoch told investors that capital was needed to finance acquisitions of additional security companies that would enhance Murdoch’s overall revenues and fund 22% interest payments to noteholders. In reality, the Commission alleges, money from new investors has been used primarily to fund interest payments to earlier investors and to pay the salaries of Defendants Goldstein and Vassell.
The Commission’s complaint charges each Defendant with violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Defendants Murdoch and Goldstein with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The Commission is seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants, and to have them return their allegedly ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and pay civil monetary penalties.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the New York District Attorney’s Office in connection with this matter.”
Friday, October 14, 2011
SEC ALLEGES FORMER BANK EXECUTIVES MISLEAD INVESTORS DURING BANKING CRISIS
The following excerpt is from the SEC website:
“Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged former bank executives with misleading investors about mounting loan losses at San Francisco-based United Commercial Bank during the height of the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009.
The SEC alleges that the bank’s former chief executive officer Thomas Wu, chief operating officer Ebrahim Shabudin, and senior officer Thomas Yu concealed losses on loans and other assets from the bank’s auditors, causing the bank’s public holding company UCBH Holdings Inc. (UCBH) to understate 2008 operating losses by at least $65 million (approximately 50 percent). A few months later, continued declines in the value of the bank’s loans led the bank to fail, and the California Department of Financial Institutions closed the bank and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. United Commercial Bank was one of the 10 largest bank failures of the recent financial crisis, causing a loss of $2.5 billion to the FDIC’s insurance fund.
“Today’s charges reflect an all too familiar pattern – corporate executives once seen as rising stars embrace deception to avoid losses and conceal negative news, with investors and the FDIC insurance fund left to pick up the pieces,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “But accountability for these executives begins today.”
Marc Fagel, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office, added, “This investigation shows how federal regulators can work together to ferret out fraud by the guardians of financial institutions entrusted to deal honestly with public investors.”
According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in San Francisco, UCBH and its subsidiary United Commercial Bank grew rapidly, doubling in size after an initial public offering in 1998. It was the first U.S. bank to acquire a bank in the People’s Republic of China, and Wu was considered a rising star in the banking industry. By 2009, however, Wu found himself at the helm of a bank on the brink of failure.
The SEC alleges that Wu, Shabudin, and Yu deliberately delayed the proper recording of loan losses, and each committed securities fraud by making false and misleading statements to investors and UCBH’s independent auditors. During December 2008 and the first three months of 2009 as the company prepared its 2008 financial statements, Wu, Shabudin, and Yu were aware of significant losses on several large loans. Among other things, these executives allegedly learned about dramatically reduced property appraisals and worthless collateral securing the loans, yet they repeatedly hid this information from UCBH’s auditors and investors.
The SEC’s complaint also alleges that the bank’s former chief financial officer Craig On acted negligently by misleading the company’s outside auditors and aiding the filing of false financial statements. On agreed to settle the SEC charges without admitting or denying the allegations. He will be permanently enjoined from violating certain antifraud, reporting, record-keeping, and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws and will pay a $150,000 penalty. On also consented to an administrative order suspending him from appearing or practicing before the SEC as an accountant, with a right to apply for reinstatement after five years.
The litigation against the other defendants is ongoing.
Lloyd Farnham, Michael Fortunato, Jason Habermeyer, and Cary Robnett of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office conducted the SEC’s investigation. The SEC’s litigation will be handled by Lloyd Farnham and Robert Mitchell.
The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California today announced parallel criminal charges against former employees of the bank, and the FDIC announced enforcement actions against 13 individuals for violations of federal banking regulations.
The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the FDIC, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), FDIC’s Office of Inspector General, and Office of Inspector General for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.”
“Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged former bank executives with misleading investors about mounting loan losses at San Francisco-based United Commercial Bank during the height of the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009.
The SEC alleges that the bank’s former chief executive officer Thomas Wu, chief operating officer Ebrahim Shabudin, and senior officer Thomas Yu concealed losses on loans and other assets from the bank’s auditors, causing the bank’s public holding company UCBH Holdings Inc. (UCBH) to understate 2008 operating losses by at least $65 million (approximately 50 percent). A few months later, continued declines in the value of the bank’s loans led the bank to fail, and the California Department of Financial Institutions closed the bank and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. United Commercial Bank was one of the 10 largest bank failures of the recent financial crisis, causing a loss of $2.5 billion to the FDIC’s insurance fund.
“Today’s charges reflect an all too familiar pattern – corporate executives once seen as rising stars embrace deception to avoid losses and conceal negative news, with investors and the FDIC insurance fund left to pick up the pieces,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “But accountability for these executives begins today.”
Marc Fagel, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office, added, “This investigation shows how federal regulators can work together to ferret out fraud by the guardians of financial institutions entrusted to deal honestly with public investors.”
According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in San Francisco, UCBH and its subsidiary United Commercial Bank grew rapidly, doubling in size after an initial public offering in 1998. It was the first U.S. bank to acquire a bank in the People’s Republic of China, and Wu was considered a rising star in the banking industry. By 2009, however, Wu found himself at the helm of a bank on the brink of failure.
The SEC alleges that Wu, Shabudin, and Yu deliberately delayed the proper recording of loan losses, and each committed securities fraud by making false and misleading statements to investors and UCBH’s independent auditors. During December 2008 and the first three months of 2009 as the company prepared its 2008 financial statements, Wu, Shabudin, and Yu were aware of significant losses on several large loans. Among other things, these executives allegedly learned about dramatically reduced property appraisals and worthless collateral securing the loans, yet they repeatedly hid this information from UCBH’s auditors and investors.
The SEC’s complaint also alleges that the bank’s former chief financial officer Craig On acted negligently by misleading the company’s outside auditors and aiding the filing of false financial statements. On agreed to settle the SEC charges without admitting or denying the allegations. He will be permanently enjoined from violating certain antifraud, reporting, record-keeping, and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws and will pay a $150,000 penalty. On also consented to an administrative order suspending him from appearing or practicing before the SEC as an accountant, with a right to apply for reinstatement after five years.
The litigation against the other defendants is ongoing.
Lloyd Farnham, Michael Fortunato, Jason Habermeyer, and Cary Robnett of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office conducted the SEC’s investigation. The SEC’s litigation will be handled by Lloyd Farnham and Robert Mitchell.
The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California today announced parallel criminal charges against former employees of the bank, and the FDIC announced enforcement actions against 13 individuals for violations of federal banking regulations.
The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the FDIC, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), FDIC’s Office of Inspector General, and Office of Inspector General for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.”
Thursday, October 13, 2011
OIL COMPANY PLEADS GUILTY
October 12, 2011
• Sour crude oil was stored in a tank that was not properly placed into service and remained in the tank after the roof sank;
• A continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) designed to measure the hydrogen sulfide levels in refinery emissions was not working properly.
The following excerpt is from an EPA e-mail:
"WASHINGTON — Pelican Refining Company LLC, pleaded guilty today to felony violations of the Clean Air Act and to obstruction of justice charges in federal court in Lafayette, La., announced Stephanie A. Finley, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Louisiana and Ignacia S. Moreno, assistant attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice, and Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
“Facilities that operate in our backyards have a responsibility to follow our nation's environmental laws, like the Clean Air Act, which is designed to protect the air we breathe and the local environment,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Today’s guilty plea shows that businesses that choose to ignore these critical safeguards and put their employees and the public at risk will face serious consequences.”
“Pelican had demonstrated a manifest disregard for accepted practices that are designed to protect human health and the environment,” said Assistant Attorney General Moreno. “Today, Pelican faces significant penalties for its egregious violations of its Clean Air Act permit and for submitting false information to state officials.”
If the court sentences according to the terms in today’s plea agreement, Pelican will pay $12 million in criminal penalties, including $2 million in community service payments that will go toward various environmental projects in Louisiana, including air pollution monitoring. It would mark the largest ever criminal fine in Louisiana for violations of the Clean Air Act. Pelican would also be banned from future refinery operations unless and until it implements an environmental compliance plan, which includes external auditing by independent firms and oversight by a court appointed monitor.
In pleading guilty, officials of Pelican, headquartered in Houston and operating a refinery in Lake Charles, La., admitted that the company had violated numerous aspects of its permit to operate. The violations were discovered during a March 2006 inspection by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which identified numerous unsafe operating conditions. Pelican also pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for submitting materially false deviation reports to LDEQ, the agency that administers the federal Clean Air Act in Louisiana.
Pelican has admitted to the following:
“Facilities that operate in our backyards have a responsibility to follow our nation's environmental laws, like the Clean Air Act, which is designed to protect the air we breathe and the local environment,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Today’s guilty plea shows that businesses that choose to ignore these critical safeguards and put their employees and the public at risk will face serious consequences.”
“Pelican had demonstrated a manifest disregard for accepted practices that are designed to protect human health and the environment,” said Assistant Attorney General Moreno. “Today, Pelican faces significant penalties for its egregious violations of its Clean Air Act permit and for submitting false information to state officials.”
If the court sentences according to the terms in today’s plea agreement, Pelican will pay $12 million in criminal penalties, including $2 million in community service payments that will go toward various environmental projects in Louisiana, including air pollution monitoring. It would mark the largest ever criminal fine in Louisiana for violations of the Clean Air Act. Pelican would also be banned from future refinery operations unless and until it implements an environmental compliance plan, which includes external auditing by independent firms and oversight by a court appointed monitor.
In pleading guilty, officials of Pelican, headquartered in Houston and operating a refinery in Lake Charles, La., admitted that the company had violated numerous aspects of its permit to operate. The violations were discovered during a March 2006 inspection by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which identified numerous unsafe operating conditions. Pelican also pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for submitting materially false deviation reports to LDEQ, the agency that administers the federal Clean Air Act in Louisiana.
Pelican has admitted to the following:
• Pelican had no company budget, no environmental department and no environmental manager;
• In order to comply with a permit issued under the Clean Air Act, the refinery was required to use certain key pollution prevention equipment, but that equipment was either not functioning, poorly maintained, improperly installed, improperly placed into service and/or improperly calibrated;
• It was a routine practice for over a year to use an emergency flare gun to re-light the flare tower at the refinery which was designed to burn off toxic gasses and provide for the safe combustion of potentially explosive chemicals; because the pilot light was not functioning properly, employees would take turns trying to shoot the flare gun to relight the explosive gasses;
• It was a routine practice for over a year to use an emergency flare gun to re-light the flare tower at the refinery which was designed to burn off toxic gasses and provide for the safe combustion of potentially explosive chemicals; because the pilot light was not functioning properly, employees would take turns trying to shoot the flare gun to relight the explosive gasses;
• Sour crude oil was stored in a tank that was not properly placed into service and remained in the tank after the roof sank;
• A caustic scrubber designed to remove hydrogen sulfide from emissions was bypassed; and
• A continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) designed to measure the hydrogen sulfide levels in refinery emissions was not working properly.
Byron Hamilton, the Pelican vice-president who oversaw operations at the Lake Charles refinery since 2005 from an office in Houston pleaded guilty on July 6, 2011, to negligently placing persons in imminent danger of death and serious bodily injury as a result of negligent releases at the refinery. Hamilton faces up to one year in prison and a $200,000 fine for each of the two Clean Air Act counts.
The government’s investigation of the Pelican Refinery is continuing. Under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, crime victims are afforded certain statutory rights, including the opportunity to attend all public hearings and provide input to the prosecution. Any person adversely impacted is encouraged to learn more about the case and the Crime Victims’ Rights Act or you may contact the Victim Witness Coordinator for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana.
The criminal investigation is being conducted by the EPA Criminal Investigation Division in Baton Rouge and the Louisiana State Police, with assistance from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. The case is being prosecuted by U.S. Attorney Stephanie Finley, Richard A. Udell, Senior Trial Attorney of the Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, Trial Attorney Christopher Hale with the Environmental Crimes Section."
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
JAPANESE COMPANY PLEADS GUILTY TO PRICE-FIXING
The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:
“WASHINGTON – A Japanese freight forwarder has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $1.84 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix certain fees in connection with the provision of freight forwarding services for air cargo shipments from Japan to the United States, the Department of Justice announced today.
According to a charge filed today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, MOL Logistics (Japan) Co. Ltd. engaged in a conspiracy with others to fix and impose certain freight forwarding service fees, including fuel surcharges and various security fees, charged to customers for services provided in connection with air freight forwarding shipments of cargo shipped by air from Japan to the United States from about September 2002 until at least November 2007.
Under the plea agreement, which is subject to court approval, MOL Logistics has also agreed to cooperate with the department’s ongoing antitrust investigation.
The department said that MOL Logistics and its co-conspirators carried out the conspiracy by, among other things, agreeing during meetings and discussions to coordinate and impose certain freight forwarding service fees and charges on customers purchasing freight forwarding services for cargo shipped by air from Japan to the United States. As part of the conspiracy, MOL Logistics and its co-conspirators levied freight forwarding service fees in accordance with the agreements reached and engaged in meetings and discussions for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon freight forwarding service fees.
Freight forwarders manage the domestic and international delivery of cargo for customers by receiving, packaging, preparing and warehousing cargo freight, arranging for cargo shipment through transportation providers such as air carriers, preparing shipment documentation, and providing related ancillary services.
MOL Logistics is charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum $100 million fine for corporations. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
Including MOL Logistics, 13 companies have agreed to plead guilty and nearly $100 million in criminal fines have been obtained as a result of the Antitrust Division’s ongoing freight forwarding investigation. On Sept. 28, 2011, six companies – Kintetsu World Express Inc.; Hankyu Hanshin Express Co. Ltd.; Nippon Express Co. Ltd.; Nissin Corporation; Nishi-Nippon Railroad Co. Ltd.; and Vantec Corporation – agreed to plead guilty for their roles in a conspiracy to fix and impose certain freight forwarding service fees charged to customers for services provided in connection with air freight forwarding shipments of cargo shipped by air from Japan to the United States from about September 2002 until at least November 2007.
Today’s charge is the result of a joint investigation into the freight forwarding industry being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s National Criminal Enforcement Section, the FBI’s Washington Field Office and the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General.”
“WASHINGTON – A Japanese freight forwarder has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $1.84 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix certain fees in connection with the provision of freight forwarding services for air cargo shipments from Japan to the United States, the Department of Justice announced today.
According to a charge filed today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, MOL Logistics (Japan) Co. Ltd. engaged in a conspiracy with others to fix and impose certain freight forwarding service fees, including fuel surcharges and various security fees, charged to customers for services provided in connection with air freight forwarding shipments of cargo shipped by air from Japan to the United States from about September 2002 until at least November 2007.
Under the plea agreement, which is subject to court approval, MOL Logistics has also agreed to cooperate with the department’s ongoing antitrust investigation.
The department said that MOL Logistics and its co-conspirators carried out the conspiracy by, among other things, agreeing during meetings and discussions to coordinate and impose certain freight forwarding service fees and charges on customers purchasing freight forwarding services for cargo shipped by air from Japan to the United States. As part of the conspiracy, MOL Logistics and its co-conspirators levied freight forwarding service fees in accordance with the agreements reached and engaged in meetings and discussions for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon freight forwarding service fees.
Freight forwarders manage the domestic and international delivery of cargo for customers by receiving, packaging, preparing and warehousing cargo freight, arranging for cargo shipment through transportation providers such as air carriers, preparing shipment documentation, and providing related ancillary services.
MOL Logistics is charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum $100 million fine for corporations. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
Including MOL Logistics, 13 companies have agreed to plead guilty and nearly $100 million in criminal fines have been obtained as a result of the Antitrust Division’s ongoing freight forwarding investigation. On Sept. 28, 2011, six companies – Kintetsu World Express Inc.; Hankyu Hanshin Express Co. Ltd.; Nippon Express Co. Ltd.; Nissin Corporation; Nishi-Nippon Railroad Co. Ltd.; and Vantec Corporation – agreed to plead guilty for their roles in a conspiracy to fix and impose certain freight forwarding service fees charged to customers for services provided in connection with air freight forwarding shipments of cargo shipped by air from Japan to the United States from about September 2002 until at least November 2007.
Today’s charge is the result of a joint investigation into the freight forwarding industry being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s National Criminal Enforcement Section, the FBI’s Washington Field Office and the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General.”
Sunday, October 9, 2011
MISTATEMEMTN OF REVENUES HURT PEOPLE SEC ANNOUNCED IN FINAL JUDGMENT IN AOL TIME WARNER CASE
The following excerpt is from the SEC website:
September 29, 2011
“The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that, on September 6, 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a settled final judgment against J. Michael Kelly, the former Chief Financial Officer of AOL Time Warner Inc. and that on July 19, 2010, the district court entered a settled final judgment against Joseph A. Ripp, the former Chief Financial Officer of the AOL Division of AOL Time Warner, in SEC v. John Michael Kelly, Steven E. Rindner, Joseph A. Ripp, and Mark Wovsaniker, Civil Action No. 08 CV 4612 (CM)(GWG) (S.D.N.Y. filed May 19, 2008).
The final judgments resolve the Commission’s case against Kelly and Ripp. The Commission’s complaint alleges that, from at least mid-2000 to mid-2002, AOL Time Warner overstated the company’s online advertising revenue with a series of round-trip transactions. The complaint further alleges that the defendants participated in this effort and that their actions contributed to this overstatement. Online advertising revenue was a key measure by which analysts and investors evaluated the company.
Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Kelly consented to entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from future violations of Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and ordering him to pay disgorgement of $200,000 and a civil penalty of $60,000. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Ripp consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from future violations of Rule 13b2-1 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and from aiding and abetting violations of Exchange Act Section 13(b)(2)(A) and ordering him to pay disgorgement of $130,000 and a civil penalty of $20,000.
Steven E. Rindner and Mark Wovsaniker remain as defendants in the Commission’s action.”
September 29, 2011
“The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that, on September 6, 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a settled final judgment against J. Michael Kelly, the former Chief Financial Officer of AOL Time Warner Inc. and that on July 19, 2010, the district court entered a settled final judgment against Joseph A. Ripp, the former Chief Financial Officer of the AOL Division of AOL Time Warner, in SEC v. John Michael Kelly, Steven E. Rindner, Joseph A. Ripp, and Mark Wovsaniker, Civil Action No. 08 CV 4612 (CM)(GWG) (S.D.N.Y. filed May 19, 2008).
The final judgments resolve the Commission’s case against Kelly and Ripp. The Commission’s complaint alleges that, from at least mid-2000 to mid-2002, AOL Time Warner overstated the company’s online advertising revenue with a series of round-trip transactions. The complaint further alleges that the defendants participated in this effort and that their actions contributed to this overstatement. Online advertising revenue was a key measure by which analysts and investors evaluated the company.
Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Kelly consented to entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from future violations of Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and ordering him to pay disgorgement of $200,000 and a civil penalty of $60,000. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Ripp consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from future violations of Rule 13b2-1 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and from aiding and abetting violations of Exchange Act Section 13(b)(2)(A) and ordering him to pay disgorgement of $130,000 and a civil penalty of $20,000.
Steven E. Rindner and Mark Wovsaniker remain as defendants in the Commission’s action.”
ORACLE WILL PAY NEARLY $200 MILLION TO SETTLE FALSE CLAIMS ALLEGATIONS
The following is an excerpt from the Department of Justice website:
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Oracle Agrees to Pay U.S. $199.5 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Lawsuit
Largest False Claims Act Settlement Obtained by General Services Administration
WASHINGTON – Oracle Corp. and Oracle America Inc. have agreed to pay $199.5 million plus interest for failing to meet their contractual obligations to the General Services Administration (GSA), the Justice Department announced today. This is the largest False Claims Act settlement that the GSA has ever obtained. Oracle, which is based in Redwood City, Calif., develops, manufactures, markets, distributes and services database and middleware software, applications software and hardware systems.
This settlement relates to a contract Oracle entered into in 1998 to sell software licenses and technical support to government entities through GSA’s Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) program. The MAS program provides the government and other GSA-authorized purchasers with a streamlined process for procurement of commonly used commercial goods and services. To be awarded a MAS contract, and thereby gain access to the broad government marketplace and the ease of administration that comes from selling to hundreds of government purchasers under one central contract, contractors must agree to disclose commercial pricing policies and practices, and to abide by the contract terms.
The settlement resolves allegations that, in contract negotiations and over the course of the contract’s administration, Oracle knowingly failed to meet its contractual obligations to provide GSA with current, accurate and complete information about its commercial sales practices, including discounts offered to other customers, and that Oracle knowingly made false statements to GSA about its sales practices and discounts. The settlement further resolves allegations that Oracle knowingly failed to comply with the price reduction clause of its GSA contract by not disclosing to GSA discounts Oracle gave to its commercial customers when they were higher than the discounts that Oracle had disclosed to GSA, and by failing to pass those discounts on to government customers. Because of these allegedly fraudulent dealings, the United States alleges that it accepted lower discounts and ultimately paid far more than it should have for Oracle products.
“Companies that in engage in unlawful or fraudulent practices to secure government business undermine the integrity of the procurement process and create an unfair advantage against the majority of companies that are playing by the rules,” said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. “Resolutions like this one – the largest GSA false claims settlement in history – demonstrate our commitment to ensure taxpayers are not overpaying for the products and services they receive.”
“To get access to hundreds of government purchasers, companies participating in the Multiple Award Schedule program must disclose their best prices,” said Neil H. MacBride, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. “Today’s agreement shows that we are committed to protecting taxpayer money by ensuring that these companies live up to their end of the bargain.”
“It’s more important now than ever before to make sure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on higher prices,” said U.S. GSA Inspector General Brian Miller. “We will not let contractors victimize the taxpayers by hiding their best prices.”
The settlement resolves a lawsuit filed on behalf of the U.S. government by former Oracle employee, Paul Frascella, who will receive $40 million as his share of the recovery in the case. Under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, private citizens can bring lawsuits on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery obtained by the government.
This settlement was the result of a coordinated effort by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia and GSA’s Office of Inspector General in investigating the allegations and litigating the case.
The Justice Department’s total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 exceed $7.8 billion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)