Saturday, August 9, 2014

SEC CHARGES PENNY STOCK COMPANY WITH FRAUD IN ALLEGED SOLAR ENERGY SCAM

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
Securities and Exchange Commission v. MSGI Technology Solutions, Inc., and J. Jeremy Barbera, Civil Action No. 14-CV-5820 (S.D.N.Y.)

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced fraud charges against a penny stock company and its CEO linked to a scam artist whom the agency separately charged earlier this month.

The SEC alleges that MSGI Technology Solutions and its CEO J. Jeremy Barbera defrauded investors by touting a joint venture to develop and manage solar energy farms across the country on land purportedly owned by an electricity provider operated by Christopher Plummer. Barbera and Plummer co-authored press releases falsely portraying MSGI as a successful renewable energy company on the brink of profitable solar energy projects. However, MSGI had no operations, customers, or revenue at the time, and Plummer's company did not actually possess any of the assets or financing needed to develop the purported solar energy farms.

The SEC previously charged Plummer and a different penny stock company and CEO that similarly issued false press releases depicting a thriving business that in reality was struggling financially.

Barbera and MSGI agreed to settle the SEC's charges.

According to the SEC's complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan, in addition to co-authoring misleading press release with Plummer, Barbera himself made other material misstatements about MSGI's operations. For example, he described MSGI in press releases and on its website as an operational security company with customers all over the world, despite the fact that MSGI had long lacked the financial means to manufacture any security products on a commercial scale. Barbera also falsely claimed in press releases that another sham entity operated by Plummer had purchased MSGI's sizable outstanding debt, and he falsely touted nonexistent solar energy projects with an entity unrelated to Plummer.

The SEC's complaint charges Barbera and MSGI with violating antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The defendants have consented to the entry of final judgments permanently enjoining them from future violations of the antifraud provisions. In addition, Barbera has agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty and be permanently barred from acting as an officer or director of a public company or from participating in a penny stock offering. Barbera and MSGI neither admitted nor denied the charges. The settlement is subject to court approval.

The SEC's investigation was conducted by Justin P. Smith and George N. Stepaniuk of the New York office and supervised by Sanjay Wadhwa. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Connecticut and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

SEC CHARGES COMPUTER EQUIPMENT CO. CEO, FORMER CFO OF MISREPRESENTING STATE OF INTERNAL FINANCIAL CONTROLS

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced charges against the CEO and former CFO of a Florida-based computer equipment company for misrepresenting to external auditors and the investing public the state of its internal controls over financial reporting.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires a management’s report on internal controls over financial reporting to be included in a company’s annual report.  The CEO and CFO must sign certifications confirming they’ve disclosed all significant deficiencies to the outside auditors, reviewed the annual report, and attest to its accuracy.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that CEO Marc Sherman and former CFO Edward L. Cummings represented in a management’s report accompanying the fiscal year 2008 annual report for QSGI Inc. that Sherman participated in management’s assessment of the internal controls.  However, Sherman did not actually participate.  The Enforcement Division further alleges that Sherman and Cummings each certified that they had disclosed all significant deficiencies in internal controls to the outside auditors.  On the contrary, Sherman and Cummings misled the auditors – chiefly by withholding that inadequate inventory controls existed within the company’s Minnesota operations.  They also withheld from auditors and investors that Sherman was directing and Cummings participating in a series of maneuvers to accelerate the recognition of certain inventory and accounts receivables in QSGI’s books and records by up to a week at a time.  The improper accounting maneuvers, which rendered QSGI’s books and records inaccurate, were performed in order to maximize the amount of money that QSGI could borrow from its chief creditor.

Cummings agreed to settle the charges, and the SEC’s Enforcement Division will litigate its case against Sherman in a separate administrative proceeding.

“Corporate executives have an obligation to take the Sarbanes-Oxley disclosure and certification requirements very seriously. Sherman and Cummings flouted these regulatory requirements and misled investors and external auditors in the process,” said Scott W. Friestad, associate director in the SEC’s Enforcement Division.

According to the SEC’s orders for the administrative proceedings, QSGI’s efforts in 2008 to introduce new internal controls to the operations at its Minnesota facility largely failed.  The deficiencies existed throughout that fiscal year and continued until the company filed for bankruptcy in July 2009.  QSGI failed to design inventory control procedures that took into account the existing control environment, such as employees’ qualifications and experience levels.  For example, sales and warehouse personnel often failed to document their removal of items from inventory.  When they did prepare the paperwork, accounting personnel often failed to process it and adjust inventory in the company’s financial reporting system.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that in management representation letters and other communications with QSGI’s external auditors, Sherman and Cummings claimed they had disclosed all significant deficiencies in internal controls over financial reporting.  Yet they did not disclose or direct anyone else to disclose the ongoing inventory and accounts receivable issues, nor did they disclose the improper acceleration of recognition and the resulting falsification of QSGI’s books and records.  In fact, Sherman and Cummings withheld information from the external auditors.  Had they disclosed the deficiencies and the circumvention of inventory controls as well as the improper acceleration of accounts receivable and inventory recognition, the auditors would have changed the nature, timing, and extent of their procedures in conducting the audit of QSGI’s financial statements. 

According to the SEC’s orders, Sherman and Cummings signed a Form 10-K and Sherman signed a Form 10-K/A each containing the false management’s report on internal controls over financial reporting.  And each signed certifications required under Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in which they falsely represented that they had evaluated the report and disclosed all significant deficiencies to the auditors. 

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Sherman violated Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2.  Sherman also is charged with causing QSGI’s violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B). 

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Cummings consented to a cease-and-desist order finding that he willfully violated Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2.  The order also finds that he caused QSGI’s violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B).  Cummings agreed to pay a $23,000 penalty, and to be barred from serving as an officer and director of a publicly traded company for five years.  Cummings also agreed to be suspended for at least five years from practicing as an accountant on behalf of any publicly traded company or other entity regulated by the SEC.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Victor Tabak, Ryan Farney, and Bertram Braganza, under the supervision of Nina B. Finston.  Mr. Farney, Mr. Tabak, and Ms. Finston will handle the litigation against Sherman with assistance from Britt Biles.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

HP TO PAY $32.5 MILLION FOR ALLEGED OVER-BILLING OF USPS

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Friday, August 1, 2014
Hewlett-Packard Company Agrees to Pay $32.5 Million for Alleged Overbilling of the U.S. Postal Service

The Justice Department announced today that Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) has agreed to pay $32.5 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act that HP overcharged the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for products between October 2001 and December 2010.  HP is a manufacturer and vendor of information technology products and services headquartered in Palo Alto, California.

“Protecting the federal procurement process from false claims is central to the mission of the Department of Justice,” said Assistant Attorney General Stuart F. Delery for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “We will continue to ensure that when the government purchases commercial products, it receives the prices to which it is entitled.”

The United States alleged that under a contract between HP and the USPS, HP overcharged USPS by failing to comply with pricing terms of the contract, including a requirement that HP provide prices that were no greater than those offered to HP customers with comparable contracts.  The United States also alleged that HP made misrepresentations during the negotiation of the contract regarding its pricing and its plans to ensure it would provide the required most favored customer pricing.

“The Major Fraud Investigations Division (MFID) within the Postal Service Office of Inspector General fully investigates those contractors who wrongly take advantage of the Postal Service,” said Thomas Frost, MFID's Special Agent in Charge.  “The Postal Service and the public must have complete confidence in the procurement process and MFID will continue to work diligently to make that happen.”

This matter was jointly investigated by the U.S. Postal Service, Office of the Inspector General and the Department of Justice’s Civil Division.  The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability.

Sunday, August 3, 2014

CFTC CHARGES J.P. MORGAN SUBSIDIARY WITH SUBMITTING INACCURATE LARGE TRADER REPORTS

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
CFTC Charges J.P. Morgan Securities LLC with Repeatedly Submitting Inaccurate Large Trader Reports and Imposes a $650,000 Civil Monetary Penalty

Washington, DC - The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today issued an Order filing and simultaneously settling charges against J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (JPMS), a wholly-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and a CFTC-registered Futures Commission Merchant (FCM), for submitting inaccurate reports to the CFTC relating to the required reporting of positions held by certain large traders whose accounts are carried by JPMS. The reporting violations occurred despite the CFTC notifying JPMS of numerous errors in its reports. The CFTC Order requires JPMS to pay a $650,000 civil monetary penalty to address its unlawful conduct.

The reports are known as the “large trader” reports and are used by the CFTC in order to evaluate potential market risks and monitor compliance with CFTC requirements.

CFTC Director of Enforcement Aitan Goelman commented: “The large trader reports are vital to the CFTC’s role in monitoring market behavior and are important to members of the public, many of whom rely on that information in forming trading strategies. Therefore, submission of accurate and reliable data to the CFTC is essential. The CFTC will be vigilant in enforcing these rules in order to ensure the integrity of the regulatory structure and to maintain transparency in the markets.”

The CFTC Order specifically finds that since at least 2012, the CFTC was notifying JPMS about errors in its large trader reports, which increased in frequency throughout the year. CFTC Regulations require FCMs to submit information on a daily basis for certain large traders, such as the number of open futures or options positions; the number of delivery notices issued or stopped; and the number of Exchange For Related Positions (EFRPs). In December 2012, the CFTC notified JPMS that the on-going problems were unacceptable. JPMS, relying on its third-party vendor that generated the reports for JPMS, assured CFTC staff that the problems would be resolved on or before the end of January 2013. However, JPMS continued to submit large trader reports that contained hundreds of errors throughout the period from February 1, 2013 to February 2014.

Accordingly, the CFTC Order finds that JPMS violated Section 4g(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), 7 U.S.C. § 6g(a) (2012), and CFTC Regulation 17.00(a)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 17.00(a)(1) (2013), with respect to its large trader reporting of delivery notices and EFRPs in connection with futures positions.

In addition to imposition of the $650,000 civil monetary penalty, the CFTC ordered JPMS to submit a certified statement of compliance within 120 days of the entry of the CFTC Order stating that it has completed enhancements to its systems and procedures related to reporting of delivery notices and EFRPs, and has tested such systems and procedures to ensure that they now comply with the requirements of the CEA and CFTC Regulations.

The CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this matter are Allison Baker Shealy, George H. Malas, and Paul G. Hayeck, with assistance from CFTC Office of Data and Technology staff Jorge Herrada, Margaret Sweet, Howard Rosen, Marshall Horn, and Yolonda Herron.