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

In re Davis Ramsey (A.P. Sept. 27, 2018, Settled)

Action against Respondent, a futures trader, for alleged scheme to influence the prices of futures contracts on two exchanges.  According to the CFTC, Respondent engaged in futures market transactions to improve binary contracts positions he held that were traded on Nadex.  Respondent has agreed to pay disgorgement of $250,636.25 and a civil penalty of $325,000.

CFTC Press Release 

CFTC Order
Continue Reading

CFTC v. 1pool Ltd. and Patrick Brunner (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2018, Contested)

Action against Defendants, an online trading platform company and its CEO and owner, in connection with alleged illegal retail commodity transactions, failure to register as a Futures Commission Merchant, and failure to implement procedures to prevent money laundering.  According to the CFTC, Defendants failed to conduct certain transactions in compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act, and Defendant company, through Defendant CEO and others, acted as a Futures Commission Merchant by soliciting or taking orders for
Continue Reading

SEC v. 1pool Ltd. a/k/a 1Broker and Patrick Brunner (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2018, Contested)

Action against Defendants, a securities dealer and its CEO, in connection with alleged illegal offer and sale of security-based swaps funded with bitcoins.  According to the SEC, customers did not need to meet thresholds required by the securities laws to purchase security-based swaps on Defendant’s dealer’s platform.  The SEC alleges that Defendant also failed to register as a security-based swaps dealer and did not execute transactions on a registered national exchange.

SEC Press Release
Continue Reading

CFTC v. Timothy J. Atkinson, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2018, Contested); et al.

CFTC v. Timothy Joseph Atkinson, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2018, Contested); CFTC v. Ronald Montano, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2018, Contested); In re Grayson Brookshire (A.P. Sept. 27, 2018, Settled); In re Antonio Giacca (A.P. Sept. 27, 2018, Settled); In re Travis Stephenson (A.P. Sept. 27, 2018, Settled); In re Justin Blake Barrett (A.P. Sept. 27, 2018, Settled); In re Shmuel Pollen (A.P. Sept. 27, 2018, Settled); In re William Earl Berry and
Continue Reading

SEC v. Timothy J. Atkinson, et al. (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2018, Partially Settled and Partially Contested); SEC v. Ronald C. Montano, et al. (M.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2018, Partially Settled and Partially Contested); SEC v. Justin Blake Barrett and Grayson Brookshire (W.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2018, Settled)

Actions against Defendants, ten individuals and two companies, in connection with alleged scheme to entice investors to create brokerage accounts and invest in binary options.  According to the SEC, Defendants’ marketing videos promised large returns to investors who opened binary options accounts using certain software.  The SEC alleges, however, that these videos were false and that marketers were paid for each new funded account.  Seven defendants have agreed to pay a combined $4.1 million in
Continue Reading

SEC v. NL Technology, LLC, et al. (S.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2018, Partially Settled and Partially Contested)

Action against Defendants, an electronics sale and repair company, its president, and his business partner, in connection with an alleged Ponzi scheme.  According to the SEC, Defendants raised funds from investors by falsely informing them that the money would be used for an electronics import business and promising high returns in a short period of time.  The SEC alleges that the wholesale business did not exist and that Defendants used the money for  personal expenses
Continue Reading

LexBlog