Blog Posts Tagged With Enforcement Action

Subscribe to Enforcement Action RSS Feed

In re LendingClub Asset Management, LLC, f/k/a LC Advisors, LLC, et al. (A.P. Sept. 28, 2018, Settled)

Action against Respondents, an investment adviser, its former CEO, and its former CFO, for alleged Investment Advisers Act violations in connection with the fraudulent use of money from private funds.  According to the SEC, Respondent adviser, through Respondent CEO, caused one of its private funds to purchase interests in risky loans in order to benefit Respondent adviser.  The SEC alleges that these purchases did not comply with the procedures provided in Respondent adviser’s Form ADV. 
Continue Reading

In re Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (A.P. Sept. 28, 2018, Settled)

Action against Respondent, a broker-dealer, for alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the handling of orders by Respondent’s now defunct Retail Execution Services business.    According to the SEC, despite advertising its access to “dark pool” liquidity in marketing materials, Respondent executed few held orders in “dark pools”.  The SEC further alleges that Respondent failed to disclose that retail customers would not receive price improvement on non-reportable orders and, contrary to claims to customers, Respondent routed
Continue Reading

In re COR Clearing, LLC (A.P. Sept. 28, 2018, Settled)

Action against Respondent, a clearing firm, in connection with alleged failure to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) for sales of penny stock shares. The SEC alleges that some customers of Respondent’s introducing broker-dealers deposited significant amounts of penny stocks, sold them into the market, and withdrew the proceeds from their accounts.  According to the SEC, Respondent did not file SARs with respect to some of these transactions.  Respondent has agreed to pay an $800,000 civil
Continue Reading

In re Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., et al. (A.P. Sept. 28, 2018, Settled)

Action against Respondents, a corporation, its former CEO and Director, and its former CFO, for alleged failure to disclose an increased risk that Respondent company may not meet a financial projection.  Respondent company has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $34.5 million.  Respondents former CEO and former CFO have each agreed to pay a civil penalty of $160,000.

SEC Order 

SEC Press Release
Continue Reading

In re Stryker Corporation (A.P. Sept. 28, 2018, Settled)

Action against Respondent, a medical technology corporation, for alleged violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal accounting controls provisions.  According to the SEC, Respondent was unable to detect improper transactions and potential improper payments for sales in China, India, and Kuwait due to inadequate internal accounting controls, and Respondent’s Indian subsidiary maintained incomplete and inaccurate books and records.  Respondent has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $7.8 million.

SEC Order 

SEC Press
Continue Reading

SEC v. Nutra Pharma Corp., et al. (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2018, Contested)

Action against Defendants, a microcap issuer, its CEO, and one of its consultants, for alleged material misstatements, sales of unregistered securities, manipulative trading, and failure to submit required filings.  According to the SEC, Defendant issuer and Defendant CEO published several press releases falsely implying that Defendant issuer was selling its product internationally and expanding and improving its facilities.  The SEC further alleges that Defendant CEO’s manipulative trading created the illusion of active trading and inflated
Continue Reading

In re Mota Group, Inc. and Mota “Michael” Faro (A.P. Sept. 28, 2018, Settled)

Action against Respondents, a drone company and its founder, for the alleged filing of inaccurate financial statements in connection with Respondent company’s planned IPO.  The SEC alleges that information given by Respondents to an auditing firm about a distribution agreement was inaccurate, which caused the recognition of excessive revenue.  Respondent company has agreed to withdraw and certify the withdrawal the registration statement at issue.  Respondent founder has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $10,000.
Continue Reading

In re COR Clearing, LLC (A.P. Sept. 28, 2018, Settled)

Action against Respondent, a clearing firm, in connection with alleged failure to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) for sales of penny stock shares. The SEC alleges that some customers of Respondent’s introducing broker-dealers deposited significant amounts of penny stocks, sold them into the market, and withdrew the proceeds from their accounts. According to the SEC, Respondent did not file SARs with respect to some of these transactions. Respondent has agreed to pay an $800,000 civil
Continue Reading

SEC v. Thomas Carter Ronk (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2018, Contested)

SEC v. Thomas Carter Ronk (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2018, Contested) – Action against Defendant individual for alleged market manipulation schemes in connection with unregistered offerings of securities in two microcap companies.  According to the SEC, Defendant made false statements about the companies’ business prospects and potential revenue projections as part of a scheme to increase the companies’ share prices and induce investors to purchase shares.  The SEC also alleges that Defendant misled investors about trading
Continue Reading

In re Unal Patel and Amish Patel (A.P. Sept. 28, 2018, Settled)

Action against Respondents, a CPA and a doctor, for allegedly trading while in possession of confidential information regarding an impending acquisition. According to the SEC, Respondent CPA received material nonpublic information from a friend who learned of an acquisition through his employer. The SEC alleges that Respondent CPA shared the confidential information with Respondent doctor, and both Respondents purchased call options in the target company while in possession of the confidential information. Respondent CPA has
Continue Reading

SEC v. Bryan R. Ziegenfuse (E.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 2018, Settled)

Action against Defendant, a former mortgage loan servicing company vice president, for alleged insider trading. The SEC alleges that Defendant learned of his employer’s planned acquisition of another company and received emails regarding the merger prior to the public announcement. According to the SEC, Defendant used a family member’s account to purchase shares and options before the announcement of the acquisition and while in possession of the material nonpublic information. The SEC further alleges that
Continue Reading

CFTC v. Lucrative Pips Corporation and Kevin Perry (N.D. Ga. Sept. 28, 2018, Contested)

Action against Defendants, a company and its founder and CEO, for alleged commodity fraud and misappropriation related to a scheme in certain off-exchange forex contracts.  According to the CFTC, Defendants falsely represented their trading strategy and returns while soliciting customers and lost or misappropriated the funds obtained from investors.

CFTC Press Release
Continue Reading

In re Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (A.P. Sept. 28, 2018, Settled)

Action against Respondent, a broker-dealer, for alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the handling of orders by Respondent’s now defunct Retail Execution Services business.  According to the SEC, despite advertising its access to “dark pool” liquidity in marketing materials, Respondent executed few held orders in “dark pools”. The SEC further alleges that Respondent failed to disclose that retail customers would not receive price improvement on non-reportable orders and, contrary to claims to customers, Respondent routed
Continue Reading

CFTC v. John Doe 1 a/k/a Morgan Hunt dba Diamonds Trading Investment House and John Doe 2 aka Kim Hecroft dba First Options Trading (N.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2018, Contested)

Action against Defendants for alleged fraudulent scheme to solicit Bitcoin.  According to the CFTC, Defendants misappropriated customer funds after making false or misleading representations or omissions about their planned investment of funds in forex contracts, binary options, and diamonds. The CFTC further alleges that Defendants forged account statements and documents and impersonated a CFTC investigator.

CFTC Press Release
Continue Reading

CFTC v. TFS-ICAP, LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2018, Contested)

Action against Defendants, an interdealer broker joint venture, its Global Head of Emerging Markets FX Options, and its CEO, in connection with alleged deception of clients through the use of fake bids, offers, and trades in the forex options market.  The CFTC alleges that senior managers encouraged or knowingly allowed the misconduct to continue and that Defendant CEO knew or had reason to know of the practices but failed to take steps to prevent them.
Continue Reading

In re Michael Leibowitz (A.P. Sept. 28, 2018, Settled)

Action against Respondent, Chairman of the Board of an interdealer foreign exchange options broker, for alleged failure to diligently supervise forex options trades by the emerging options desk.   According to the CFTC, brokers engaged in fake bids, offers, and trades to misrepresent the level of liquidity and encourage customers to trade.  The CFTC further alleges that senior managers had reason to know that this practice was ongoing and that Respondent failed to implement any policies
Continue Reading

CFTC v. EOX Holdings LLC and Andrew Gizienski (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2018, Contested)

Action against Defendants, an introducing broker and one of its associated persons, for alleged misuse of material nonpublic information related to their customers.  According to the CFTC, Defendant associated person provided a friend with confidential customer information and executed trades for his friend’s account while in possession of that information.  The CFTC also alleges that Defendant broker failed to maintain certain required records, diligently supervise its employees, and institute policies and procedures to monitor trading
Continue Reading

SEC v. Carlos I. Uresti and Stanley P. Bates (W.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2018, Partially Settled and Partially Contested)

Action against Defendants, a former CEO and former state senator who served as counsel, broker, and escrow agent to the CEO’s company, in connection with alleged securities fraud.  According to the SEC, Defendant CEO founded a company to buy and sell sand for hydraulic fracking.  The SEC alleges that Defendants misrepresented to investors the potential profits and security of investments in the  company and showed investors an altered and inflated bank statement.  The SEC further
Continue Reading

In re LendingClub Asset Management, LLC, f/k/a LC Advisors, LLC, et al. (A.P. Sept. 28, 2018, Settled)

Action against Respondents, an investment adviser, its former CEO, and its former CFO, for alleged Investment Advisers Act violations in connection with the fraudulent use of money from private funds. According to the SEC, Respondent adviser, through Respondent CEO, caused one of its private funds to purchase interests in risky loans in order to benefit Respondent adviser. The SEC alleges that these purchases did not comply with the procedures provided in Respondent adviser’s Form ADV.
Continue Reading

In re Putnam Investment Management, LLC and Zachary Harrison (A.P. Sept. 27, 2018, Settled)

Action against Respondents, an investment adviser and a former portfolio manager and RMBS trader, in connection with alleged preferential treatment of select advisory clients.  According to the SEC, Respondent manager executed prearranged RMBS cross trades with broker-dealers, informing some clients that the securities would be repurchased the next day at a slightly higher price.  The SEC alleges that Respondent manager’s arrangement was preferable for some clients over others and that Respondent adviser failed to supervise
Continue Reading

SEC v. Goldsky Asset Management, LLC and Kenneth Grace (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2018, Contested)

Action against Defendants, an investment adviser and its owner, for alleged false and misleading statements on its website and in SEC filings.  According to the SEC, Defendant adviser’s hedge fund did not employ an auditor, prime broker, or custodian, despite Defendant adviser’s representations on its Forms ADV.  The SEC also alleges that Defendant adviser falsely represented that it managed more in discretionary assets than it actually did and Defendant adviser’s website misstated its past returns.
Continue Reading

SEC v. Salix Pharmaceutical, Ltd. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2018, Settled); SEC v. Adam C. Derbyshire (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2018, Settled)

Actions against Defendants, a pharmaceutical company and its former CFO, for alleged material misstatements and omissions to investors and analysis.  According to the SEC, Defendants provided misleading information on inventory levels of Defendant company’s drugs and failed to disclose the effect of the excess supply on future earnings.  Defendant CFO has agreed to pay $558,534 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $494,836.  Defendant company has agreed to be enjoined from future
Continue Reading

 SEC v. Elon Musk (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2018, Settled); SEC v. Tesla, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2018, Settled)

Action against Defendants, a car company and its CEO and former Chairman, in connection with a series of allegedly false and misleading Twitter communications by Defendant CEO.  According to the SEC, Defendant CEO tweeted to followers that, subject to a shareholder vote, Defendant company had secured sufficient funding to go private at a higher price than its trading price.  The SEC alleges that Defendant CEO knew that the transaction was not definite and that he
Continue Reading

In re Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras (A.P. Sept. 27, 2018, Settled)

Action against Respondent, an oil and gas company, for misleading investors in connection with an alleged corruption scheme.  According to the SEC, some of Respondent’s former senior executives, in conjunction with Respondent’s contractors and suppliers, raised the cost of infrastructure projects in order to receive kickbacks which were then paid to foreign politicians and political parties who had helped the senior executives obtain their titles with Respondent.  The SEC further alleges that the former executives
Continue Reading

LexBlog