INVESTMENT ADVISER AND REPLATED COMPANIES CHARGED WITH SECURITIES FRAUD BY SEC

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SEC Charges Atlanta-Based Investment Adviser Representative and Related Companies with Securities Fraud

On September 11, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed an emergency action seeking a temporary restraining order and other emergency relief in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia, charging Paul Marshall (Marshall), a state-registered investment adviser representative, and three Atlanta-based companies that he owned and controlled - Bridge Securities, LLC, Bridge Equity, Inc. (collectively, the Bridge Entities) and FOGFuels, Inc. (FOGFuels) - with violations of the federal securities laws for misappropriating client funds.

According to the Commission's complaint, since at least 2011, Marshall, an investment adviser representative of the Bridge Entities, misappropriated at least $2 million from advisory clients. In its complaint, the Commission alleges that Marshall instructed clients, some of whom were elderly, to transfer funds to bank accounts under his control for purported investment in various securities, including mutual funds. Instead, Marshall used those client funds to pay personal expenses, including luxury vacations and private school tuition for his children. The complaint further alleges that Marshall concealed his fraud by providing advisory clients with fabricated account statements.

Additionally, the Commission's complaint alleges that Marshall, currently the majority owner and Managing Director of purported alternative fuel company FOGFuels, misappropriated $100,000 from an advisory client who invested in that company.

The Commission's complaint alleges that, through their misconduct, Marshall, the Bridge Entities, and FOGFuels violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and that Marshall and FOGFuels violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. Finally, the complaint alleges that Marshall and the Bridge Entities violated Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

On September 11, 2013, the Honorable Timothy C. Batten, Sr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, granted the Commission's request for emergency relief, issuing an order temporarily restraining Marshall, the Bridge Entities and FOGFuels from further securities laws violations, freezing their assets, preventing the destruction of documents, requiring an accounting, and expediting discovery. The Court also set a hearing date of September 20, 2013 for the Commission's request for a preliminary injunction. The Commission's complaint also seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. Those claims will be adjudicated at a later date.

EXECUTIVES ARRESTED FOR ALLEGEDLY INFLATING CORPORATE EARNINGS

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Two Former Senior Executives of Arthrocare Corp. Arrested in $400 Million Securities Fraud Scheme


WASHINGTON – Two former senior executives of Austin, Texas-based ArthroCare Corp., a publicly traded medical device company, were arrested this morning in Morristown, N.J. and Orange County, Calif., for their alleged roles in a scheme to defraud the company’s shareholders and members of the investing public by falsely inflating ArthroCare’s earnings by tens of millions of dollars, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Robert Pitman for the Western District of Texas. The department said that the loss to the company’s shareholders and the investing public was more than $400 million.

　

A 16-count indictment was unsealed today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against John Raffle, the former senior vice president of strategic business units of ArthroCare and David Applegate, the former senior vice president in charge of ArthroCare’s spine division. Raffle was arrested in Morristown and Applegate was arrested in Orange County.

　

The indictment, which was originally returned on Aug. 21, 2012, charges Raffle and Applegate with one count of conspiracy to commit wire, mail and securities fraud; four counts of wire fraud; eight counts of mail fraud; and three counts of securities fraud. The indictment also seeks forfeiture of assets held by Raffle and Applegate.

　

"The indictment unsealed today alleges that these senior corporate executives participated in a scheme to artificially inflate their company’s stock prices, cheating shareholders and the investing public out of hundreds of millions of dollars," said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. "The Criminal Division will continue to vigorously pursue those who defraud American investors."

　

According to the indictment, between in or about December 2005 through in or about December 2008, Raffle, Applegate and other senior executives and employees of ArthroCare allegedly inflated falsely ArthroCare’s sales and revenue through a series of end-of-quarter transactions involving several of ArthroCare’s distributors. According to court documents, Raffle and Applegate determined the type and amount of product to be shipped to distributors based on ArthroCare’s need to meet Wall Street analyst forecasts, rather than distributors’ actual orders. Raffle, Applegate and others then allegedly caused ArthroCare to "park" millions of dollars worth of ArthroCare’s medical devices at its distributors at the end of each relevant quarter. ArthroCare would then report these shipments as sales in its quarterly and annual filings at the time of the shipment, enabling the company to meet or exceed internal and external earnings forecasts.

　

According to the indictment, ArthroCare’s distributors agreed to accept shipment of millions of dollars of product in exchange for substantial, upfront cash commissions, extended payment terms and the ability to return product, as well as other special conditions, allowing ArthroCare to inflate falsely its revenue by tens of millions of dollars. ArthroCare did not disclose the conditions of the purported sales to investors.

　

The indictment further alleges that Raffle, Applegate and others used DiscoCare, a privately owned Delaware corporation, as one of the distributors to cover shortfalls in ArthroCare’s revenue. According to the indictment, ArthroCare shipped product to DiscoCare that far exceeded DiscoCare’s needs at Raffle and Applegate’s direction.

　

According to court documents, between the fourth quarter of 2005 and the fourth quarter of 2007, ArthroCare reported more than $37 million in revenue in its publicly filed financial statements based on purported sales to DiscoCare. However, during the same time period, DiscoCare’s actual net cash payments to ArthroCare for the products were less than $50,000. Court documents further allege that, to conceal the fact that DiscoCare owed ArthroCare a substantial amount of money on unused inventory, Raffle and Applegate caused ArthroCare to acquire DiscoCare on Dec. 31, 2007.

　

According to the indictment, in the third quarter of 2007, Raffle and Applegate began a new program at ArthroCare, called "Son of DRS." Under the Son of DRS program, ArthroCare allegedly shipped medical devices from its sports division to its customers free of charge and recorded the revenue once DiscoCare had been invoiced for the product. According to court documents, DiscoCare never was required to pay ArthroCare for any of the product DiscoCare purportedly purchased under the Son of DRS program because ArthroCare acquired DiscoCare before any payments came due. The indictment alleges that, between August and November 2007, Raffle and Applegate caused ArthroCare to falsely report more than $7 million in revenue in its publicly filed financial statements based on purported sales to DiscoCare under this program.

　

According to court documents, between December 2005 and December 2008, ArthroCare’s shareholders held more than 25 million shares of ArthroCare stock. On July 21, 2008, after ArthroCare announced publicly that it would be restating its previously reported financial results from the third quarter 2006 through the first quarter 2008 to reflect the results of an internal investigation, the price of ArthroCare shares dropped from $40.03 to $23.21 per share. The drop in ArthroCare’s share price caused an immediate loss in shareholder value of more than $400 million.

　

Upon conviction, Raffle and Applegate face a maximum prison sentence of five years for the conspiracy charge and 20 years for each count of mail and wire fraud. Raffle and Applegate also face a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison for each securities fraud count.

　

An indictment is merely a charge, and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

　

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant Chief Benjamin D. Singer and Trial Attorney Henry P. Van Dyck of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section. This case was investigated by the FBI’s Austin Field Office.

FORMER PUBLIC COMPANY CEO CHARGED BY SEC WITH FRAUD

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Charges Former Public Company CEO with Fraud
　
On August 9, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging that Ronald D. Brooks committed securities fraud while serving as CEO and chairman of Standard Oil Company USA, Inc., a purported energy company headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Brooks signed and certified Standard Oil’s initial disclosure statement filed with the Pink OTC Markets and made available to investors through that market’s website. Brooks represented in the disclosure statement that he had no prior criminal convictions. In fact, however, Brooks has three prior felony convictions, two for securities violations. The SEC therefore alleges that Brooks defrauded Standard Oil’s investors. The complaint charges Brooks with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks a permanent injunction, a civil monetary penalty, an officer-and-director bar, and a penny-stock bar.

LATVIAN TRADER, INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES CHARGED IN ALLEGED BROKERAGE ACCOUNT HIJACKING SCHEME

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

January 26, 2012
“The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a trader in Latvia for conducting a widespread online account intrusion scheme in which he manipulated the prices of more than 100 NYSE and Nasdaq securities and caused more than $2 million in harm to customers of U.S. brokerage firms.

The SEC also instituted related administrative proceedings today against four electronic trading firms and eight executives charged with enabling the trader’s scheme by allowing him anonymous and unfiltered access to the U.S. markets.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in San Francisco, Igors Nagaicevs broke into online brokerage accounts of customers at large U.S. broker-dealers and drove stock prices up or down by making unauthorized purchases or sales in the hijacked accounts. This occurred on more than 150 occasions over the course of 14 months. Nagaicevs – using the direct, anonymous market access provided to him by various unregistered firms – traded those same securities at artificial prices and reaped more than $850,000 in illegal profits.

According to the SEC’s orders instituting administrative proceedings against the four electronic trading firms, they allowed Nagaicevs to trade through their electronic platforms without first registering as brokers. Each of the trading firms provided him online access to trade directly in the U.S. markets through an account held in the firm’s name. These firms gave Nagaicevs a gateway to the U.S. securities markets while circumventing the protections of the federal securities laws, including requirements for brokers to maintain and follow adequate procedures to gather information about customers and their trading.

The electronic trading firms and individuals named in the SEC’s administrative proceedings are:

Alchemy Ventures, Inc. of San Mateo, Calif.
Mark H. Rogers, the firm’s president, who lives in San Carlos, Calif.
Steven D. Hotovec, the firm’s vice president, who lives in Redwood City, Calif.

KM Capital Management, LLC of Philadelphia
Joshua A. Klein, the firm’s founder and co-owner, who lives in Philadelphia
Yisroel M. Wachs, the firm’s co-owner, who lives in Philadelphia

Zanshin Enterprises, LLC of Boise, Idaho
Frank K. McDonald, managing member of the firm, who lives in Boise
Richard V. Rizzo, an associate of the firm, who lives in Oceanside, N.Y.

Mercury Capital of La Jolla, CA
Lisa R. Hyatt, the firm’s president, who lives in Escondido, Calif.
Douglas G. Frederick, an associate of the firm, who lives in Brighton, Mich.
Mercury Capital, Hyatt, and Rizzo each agreed to a settlement in which they consented to SEC orders finding that they willfully committed or aided and abetted and caused violations of Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). Hyatt and Rizzo each agreed to pay a $35,000 penalty.

The SEC’s administrative action will determine whether the non-settling trading firms and principals willfully violated Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, or whether the non-settling principals willfully aided and abetted and caused violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, and what sanctions, if any, are appropriate as a result. The SEC’s complaint alleges that Nagaicevs violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.”

SEC GOES AFTER FORMER WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC. FOR ALLEGED FRAUD

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

“On January 9, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) filed a civil injunctive action against three former executives of WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (“WellCare”), a managed care services company that administers federal government-sponsored health care programs. According to the Commission’s complaint, from 2003 to 2007, Todd Farha, former Chief Executive Officer, Paul Behrens, former Chief Financial Officer, and Thaddeus Bereday, former General Counsel, (collectively, “the Defendants”), devised and carried out a fraudulent scheme that deceived the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) and the Florida Healthy Kids Corporation (“Healthy Kids”) by improperly retaining over $40 million in health care premiums the company was statutorily and contractually obligated to spend on certain health care services or reimburse to the state agencies. As a result of the scheme, WellCare recorded the retained amount as revenue, which materially inflated its net income and diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) in its public financial statements.

As alleged in the complaint, WellCare received premiums from AHCA and Healthy Kids that WellCare was required, by contract and by statute, to spend on certain eligible health care services for low-income plan participants. If WellCare spent less than a certain percentage of the premiums on eligible health care services, it was required to refund some or all of the difference to the State of Florida. According to the complaint, the Defendants devised a scheme to evade the state’s regulatory framework and fraudulently retain the premiums by, among other methods, funneling the premiums through an internal subsidiary and by applying administrative and other non-allowable expenses in their calculation of money spent on health care services. In total, through their fraudulent conduct, the complaint alleges that WellCare reduced the refunds it paid to AHCA by approximately $35 million and to Healthy Kids by approximately $6 million.
The excess premiums retained by the Defendants went straight to WellCare’s bottom line. WellCare materially misstated its net income and EPS in filings with the Commission and in quarterly and annual earnings releases from 2004-2006 and the first two quarters of 2007. On January 26, 2009, WellCare filed its Form 10-K for 2007 and restated its financial results for those time periods. The Restatement reduced WellCare’s reported net income and EPS by approximately 14% for fiscal year (“FY”) 2004, 9% for FY 2005, 13% for FY 2006, and 9% for the first quarter of FY 2007.

The Commission’s complaint also alleges that, after setting their fraudulent scheme in motion, the Defendants sold approximately 1.6 million WellCare shares into the public market for gross proceeds of approximately $91 million. The Commission alleges that the Defendants sold these shares on the basis of the material, nonpublic information that they were conducting a fraudulent scheme that impacted WellCare’s financial results, caused false and misleading statements, and imperiled the Company’s business relationship with the State of Florida. According to the complaint, the Defendants sold the shares pursuant to 10b5-1 trading plans that were created and amended in bad faith, and through three public stock offerings conducted while the scheme was ongoing.

Based on the conduct alleged in the complaint, the Commission charges that each of the Defendants violated antifraud provisions Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and also violated Exchange Act Section 13(b)(5) and Exchange Act Rule 13b2-1. All of the Defendants are also charged with aiding and abetting WellCare’s violations of reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions, namely, Sections (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. Bereday is charged with aiding and abetting Farha’s and Behrens’ violations of antifraud provisions Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act. Finally, Farha and Behrens are charged with violating Exchange Act Rules 13b2-2 and 13a-14, and Section 304(a) of Sarbanes-Oxley, which requires that the CEO or CFO of a company that restates its financial results to reimburse the company any incentive-based or equity-based compensation received and any profits realized from the sale of the company’s stock during the 12-month period following initial issuance of the misleading financial statements.

As to each Defendant, the Commission is seeking a judgment permanently enjoining them from violating the provisions of the securities laws specified above, civil penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and officer and director bars. As to Farha and Behrens, the Commission seeks reimbursement of incentive-based and equity-based compensation pursuant to Section 304(a) of Sarbanes-Oxley.

In conducting its investigation, the Commission acknowledges assistance from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

FORMER EXECS AT FREDDIE MACK AND FANNIE CHARGED BY SEC WITH ALLEGED SECURITIES FRAUD

The following excerpt is from the Securities and Exchange Commission website:

“Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged six former top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) with securities fraud, alleging they knew and approved of misleading statements claiming the companies had minimal holdings of higher-risk mortgage loans, including subprime loans.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac each entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Commission in which each company agreed to accept responsibility for its conduct and not dispute, contest, or contradict the contents of an agreed-upon Statement of Facts without admitting nor denying liability. Each also agreed to cooperate with the Commission's litigation against the former executives. In entering into these Agreements, the Commission considered the unique circumstances presented by the companies' current status, including the financial support provided to the companies by the U.S. Treasury, the role of the Federal Housing Finance Agency as conservator of each company, and the costs that may be imposed on U.S. taxpayers.

Three former Fannie Mae executives - former Chief Executive Officer Daniel H. Mudd, former Chief Risk Officer Enrico Dallavecchia, and former Executive Vice President of Fannie Mae's Single Family Mortgage business, Thomas A. Lund - were named in the SEC's complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The SEC also charged three former Freddie Mac executives — former Chairman of the Board and CEO Richard F. Syron, former Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer Patricia L. Cook, and former Executive Vice President for the Single Family Guarantee business Donald J. Bisenius — in a separate complaint filed in the same court.
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division. "These material misstatements occurred during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions' exposure to subprime loans, and misled the market about the amount of risk on the company's books. All individuals, regardless of their rank or position, will be held accountable for perpetuating half-truths or misrepresentations about matters materially important to the interest of our country's investors."

The SEC is seeking financial penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with interest, permanent injunctive relief and officer and director bars against Mudd, Dallavecchia, Lund, Syron, Cook, and Bisenius. Both lawsuits allege that the former executives caused the federal mortgage firms to materially misstate their holdings of subprime mortgage loans in periodic and other filings with the Commission, public statements, investor calls, and media interviews. The suit involving the Fannie Mae executives also includes similar allegations regarding Alt-A mortgage loans. The suit against the former Fannie Mae executives alleges they made misleading statements — or aided and abetted others — between December 2006 and August 2008. The former Freddie Mac executives are alleged to have made misleading statements — or aided and abetted others - between March 2007 and August 2008.

The SEC's complaint against the former Fannie Mae executives alleges that, when Fannie Mae began reporting its exposure to subprime loans in 2007, it broadly described the loans as those "made to borrowers with weaker credit histories," and then reported — with the knowledge, support, and approval of Mudd, Dallavecchia, and Lund — less than one-tenth of its loans that met that description. Fannie Mae reported that its 2006 year-end Single Family exposure to subprime loans was just 0.2 percent, or approximately $4.8 billion, of its Single Family loan portfolio. Investors were not told that in calculating the Company's reported exposure to subprime loans, Fannie Mae did not include loan products specifically targeted by Fannie Mae towards borrowers with weaker credit histories, including more than $43 billion of Expanded Approval, or "EA" loans.
Fannie Mae's executives also knew and approved of the decision to underreport Fannie Mae's Alt-A loan exposure, the SEC alleged. Fannie Mae disclosed that its March 31, 2007 exposure to Alt-A loans was 11 percent of its portfolio of Single Family loans. In reality, Fannie Mae's Alt-A exposure at that time was approximately 18 percent of its Single Family loan holdings.

The misleading disclosures were made as Fannie Mae's executives were seeking to increase the Company's market share through increased purchases of subprime and Alt-A loans, and gave false comfort to investors about the extent of Fannie Mae's exposure to high-risk loans, the SEC alleged.

In the complaint against the former Freddie Mac executives, the SEC alleged that they and Freddie Mac led investors to believe that the firm used a broad definition of subprime loans and was disclosing all of its Single-Family subprime loan exposure. Syron and Cook reinforced the misleading perception when they each publicly proclaimed that the Single Family business had "basically no subprime exposure." Unbeknown to investors, as of December 31, 2006, Freddie Mac's Single Family business was exposed to approximately $141 billion of loans internally referred to as "subprime" or "subprime like," accounting for 10 percent of the portfolio, and grew to approximately $244 billion, or 14 percent of the portfolio, as of June 30, 2008.

The SEC's complaint alleges that Mudd violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rules 10b-5(b) and 13(a)14(a) thereunder, and Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"); and that Mudd aided and abetted Fannie Mae's violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5(b), 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder. The SEC complaint also alleges that Dallavecchia violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act and aided and abetted Fannie Mae's violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5(b), 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder. Finally, the SEC complaint alleges that Lund aided and abetted Fannie Mae's violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5(b), 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder.
The SEC's complaint alleges that Syron and Cook violated Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder and Securities Act Section 17(a)(2); that Syron violated Exchange Act Rule 13a-14; and that Syron, Cook and Bisenius aided and abetted violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(b), 12b-20 and 13a-13 thereunder.
The SEC's investigation of Fannie Mae was conducted by Senior Attorneys Natasha S. Guinan, Christina M. Marshall, Liban Jama, Mona L. Benach, and Associate Chief Accountant, Peter Rosario, under the supervision of Assistant Director Charles E. Cain, and Associate Director Stephen L. Cohen. Sarah Levine and James Kidney will lead the SEC's litigation efforts.”

SEC FILES CHARGES AGAINST DEFUNCT SOYO GROUP, INC. FOR SECURITIES FRAUD

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:
December 2, 2011
“The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) announced today that it filed charges against three individuals who participated in a securities fraud scheme at Soyo Group, Inc. (“Soyo”), a now defunct California-based consumer electronics and computer parts company.
The Commission’s civil injunctive complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 29, 2011, alleges that between January 2007 and November 2008, Soyo, through the actions of its chief financial officer, Nancy Shao Wen Chu, and members of her accounting staff, Elizabeth Tsang and Eric Jon Strasser, misled Soyo’s investors, primary lending bank, and auditor by materially overstating Soyo’s net revenues and understating its liabilities. According to the complaint, Chu and Tsang caused Soyo to book over $47 million in fraudulent sales revenues arising from at least 120 fictitious transactions with 21 customers, resulting in Soyo materially overstating its net revenues in its periodic filings by amounts ranging from 14.4 to 76.8 percent. The complaint also alleges that in order to obtain additional bank financing for Soyo and keep its existing line of credit from defaulting, Chu misled Soyo’s investors, primary lending bank, and auditor regarding a $6 million debt-for-equity transaction with a Soyo vendor that was never completed. The complaint further alleges that Strasser, a consultant who prepared Soyo’s filings with the Commission, was alerted to the falsity of the debt-for-equity transaction disclosures, but he failed to correct the misstatements or inform Soyo’s auditor prior to the next quarter’s filing.
The Commission’s complaint alleges that, as a result of their conduct, Chu and Tsang violated, and unless enjoined, will continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and that Strasser aided and abetted an antifraud violation. The complaint also alleges that Chu violated, and unless enjoined, will continue to violate Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and is liable as a control person for Soyo’s antifraud violations. As part of this action, the Commission seeks against each of the defendants an injunction against future violations of the provisions set forth above, disgorgement, pre-judgment interest, third tier civil money penalties and, as to Chu, an officer and director bar.”

MF GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

"Washington, D.C., Oct. 31, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission today made the following joint statement:
"For several days, the SEC, CFTC and other regulators had been closely monitoring developments affecting MF Global, Inc., a jointly registered futures commission merchant and broker-dealer, in anticipation of a transaction that would include the transfer of customer accounts to another firm. Early this morning, MF Global informed the regulators that the transaction had not been agreed to and reported possible deficiencies in customer futures segregated accounts held at the firm. The SEC and CFTC have determined that a SIPC-led bankruptcy proceeding would be the safest and most prudent course of action to protect customer accounts and assets.
SIPC announced today that it is initiating the liquidation of MF Global under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA)."

TOP MANAGEMENT AND FIRM GETS CHARGED BY SEC FOR VIOLATION OF ANTI-FRAUD LAWS

The following is an excerpt from the SEC website:
“On October 4, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a complaint in United States District Court for the Northern District of New York charging StratoComm Corporation, its CEO Roger D. Shearer, and its former Director of Investor Relations, Craig Danzig, with violating the antifraud provisions of the securities laws and with illegally selling securities in unregistered transactions. On October 3, 2011, the SEC filed a complaint in United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that attorney Stewart A. Merkin, StratoComm’s outside counsel, also committed securities fraud.
The SEC’s complaint filed in Albany, New York alleges that StratoComm, acting at Shearer’s direction and with Danzig’s assistance, issued and distributed public statements falsely portraying the company as actively engaged in the manufacture and sale of telecommunications systems for use in underdeveloped countries, particularly Africa. In reality, the company had no product and no revenue. The SEC’s complaint also alleges that StratoComm, Shearer and Danzig sold investors approximately $3 million worth of StratoComm stock in unregistered transactions. Shearer used much of that money for his own purposes, including paying a substantial part of the restitution he owed in connection with his guilty plea in a prior criminal proceeding.
The SEC’s complaint charges StratoComm with violations of 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. It charges Shearer with violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, aiding and abetting StratoComm’s violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and with being liable as a control person for StratoComm’s violations. The SEC’s complaint charges Danzig with violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act, with violating Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, and with aiding and abetting StratoComm’s violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC’s complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of unlawful proceeds plus prejudgment interest, and a financial penalty from all defendants. It also seeks an order prohibiting Shearer from serving as an officer or director of a public company and prohibiting Shearer and Danzig from participating in the offering of a penny stock.
The SEC’s complaint filed in Miami, Florida alleges that Merkin wrote four attorney representation letters for posting on the website of Pink Sheets LLC and its successor, Pink OTC Markets, Inc. In those letters Merkin disclaimed knowledge of any investigation into possible violations of the securities laws by StratoComm or any of its officers or directors. However, the SEC’s complaint also alleges that Merkin was representing StratoComm and several individuals in connection with the SEC’s investigation at the time. Nevertheless, in order that StratoComm’s shares would continue to be quoted, the SEC’s complaint alleges that Merkin falsely stated that to his knowledge StatoComm was not under investigation. The SEC’s complaint charges Merkin with violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. It seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement of unlawful proceeds plus prejudgment interest, a financial penalty, and an order prohibiting Merkin from participating in the offering of a penny stock.”