SEC Charges Medical Imaging Device Company and Its CEO with Fraud

Source- http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/2013-117.htm

Washington, D.C., June 26, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it filed fraud charges on Tuesday against Burbank, Calif.-based Imaging3, Inc., and its founder and chief executive Dean Janes for misleading shareholders about the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s view of the company’s medical device.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Janes held a conference call with investors in November 2010 after the FDA denied clearance for Imaging3, Inc. to market its proprietary scanner, which provides three-dimensional images for use in medical diagnosis. The denial was the product’s third, as the FDA denied clearance in 2008 and earlier in 2010. Even though the FDA cited concerns about the safety of the device and the quality of the images, Janes told investors that the FDA’s issues were “not substantive” and largely “administrative.”

“Shareholders have a right to trust corporate officers to tell them the truth about the business. When CEOs abuse that trust and make misstatements, innocent shareholders are victimized,” said Michele Wein Layne, Regional Director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office. “The SEC will hold corporate officers accountable for misleading shareholders.”

According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on the conference call, Janes did not discuss the issues raised by the FDA in an October 2010 letter, such as the device’s potential for over-heating, and the fact that some sample images the company submitted were “scientifically invalid and useless.”

Even when asked on the call whether any of the FDA’s concerns were “safety-related” or involved image quality, Janes said, “Nope,” and that there was “really and honestly not one question about the technology or its consistency. It just doesn’t make sense to me.”

After an investor obtained the FDA’s denial letter and posted it on an Internet blog in early 2011, Janes used his personal Facebook page in another effort to mischaracterize the denial, the SEC alleged. Janes and his company didn’t officially issue the full text of the denial letter until earlier this year, more than two years after the call to discuss it.

************************************************************************

Report Securities Fraud by Calling 1-888-985-9844 or by visiting

www.reportsecuritiesfraud.net

SEC Charges China-Based Company and CEO in Latest Cross-Border Working Group Case

Source- http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/2013-115.htm

Washington, D.C., June 20, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a China-based company and the CEO with fraudulently misleading investors about its financial condition by touting cash balances that were millions of dollars higher than actual amounts.

The case is the latest from the SEC's Cross-Border Working Group that focuses on companies with substantial foreign operations that are publicly traded in the U.S. The Working Group has enabled the SEC to file fraud cases against more than 65 foreign issuers or executives and deregister the securities of more than 50 companies.

The SEC alleges that China MediaExpress, which purports to operate a television advertising network on inter-city and airport express buses in the People's Republic of China, began falsely reporting significant increases in its business operations, financial condition, and profits almost immediately upon becoming a publicly-traded company through a reverse merger. In addition to grossly overstating its cash balances, China MediaExpress also falsely stated in public filings and press releases that two multi-national corporations were its advertising clients when, in fact, they were not. The company's chairman and CEO Zheng Cheng signed the public filings and attested to their accuracy. After suspicions of fraud were raised by the company's external auditor and an internal investigation ensued, Zheng attempted to pay off a senior accountant assigned to the case.

"Investor confidence in the representations made by publicly-traded companies is critically important to the proper functioning of our financial markets," said Antonia Chion, Associate Director in the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "China MediaExpress and Zheng falsely reported whopping increases in its cash balances and deceptively raised money from stock sales. Today's action demonstrates the Commission's commitment to policing financial fraud in the U.S. markets, regardless of whether it is perpetrated by persons who live here or abroad."

According to the SEC's complaint filed in Washington D.C., China MediaExpress became a publicly-traded company in October 2009 and began materially overstating its cash balances in press releases and SEC filings. For example, its 2009 annual report filed on March 31, 2010, reported $57 million in cash on hand when it actually had a cash balance of merely $141,000. Later that year on November 9, 2010, China MediaExpress issued a press release boasting a cash balance of $170 million at the end of the third quarter of its fiscal year. The actual cash balance was just $10 million.

According to the SEC's complaint, after China Media materially misrepresented its financial condition, its stock price tripled to more than $20 per share. At the same time, China Media received $53 million from a hedge fund pursuant to a sale of the company's preferred and common stock to that fund. Zheng was financially incentivized to misrepresent China MediaExpress' financial condition, as he had agreements to receive stock if the company met certain net income targets. For instance, when China Media met net income targets for fiscal year 2009, Zheng personally received 600,000 shares of China MediaExpress stock that were worth approximately $6 million at the time.

According to the SEC's complaint, China MediaExpress' external auditor resigned in March 2011 due to suspicions about fraudulent bank confirmations and statements. The company's audit committee then retained a law firm to conduct an internal investigation. The law firm hired a Hong Kong forensic accounting firm to assist in obtaining bank statements from China MediaExpress' banks to verify the publicly reported cash balances. The evening before a planned visit to the banks by the accounting firm's team, Zheng called a senior accountant assigned to the team and told him that he had the authorization letters necessary to obtain China MediaExpress' bank statements. He asked the accountant to meet him alone to obtain the authorization letters. During the meeting, Zheng admitted that there would be discrepancies dating back one to two years between China MediaExpress' reported and actual cash balances. Zheng offered the accountant approximately $1.5 million to "assist with the investigation." The accountant refused the offer. Approximately one month later, the bank statements were obtained, and they showed substantial discrepancies between publicly reported and actual cash balances.

The SEC's complaint charges Zheng and China MediaExpress with violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint charges China MediaExpress with violations of the reporting, books and records, and internal control provisions, and charges Zheng with violating the SEC's rules prohibiting lying to auditors and making false certifications required under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The complaint seeks financial penalties, permanent injunctions, disgorgement, and an officer and director bar against Zheng.

************************************************************************

Report Securities Fraud by Calling 1-888-985-9844 or by visiting

www.reportsecuritiesfraud.net

San Diego-Based Promoter in Penny Stock Scheme

Source- http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/2013-114.htm

Washington, D.C., June 18, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a penny stock promoter in the San Diego area for fraudulently arranging the purchase of $2.5 million worth of shares in a penny stock company in an attempt to generate the false appearance of market interest and induce other investors to purchase the stock.

The SEC alleges that David F. Bahr of Rancho Santa Fe, Calif., artificially increased the trading price and volume of iTrackr Systems stock when he conspired with a purported businessman with access to a network of corrupt brokers. What Bahr didn’t know was that the purported businessman was actually an undercover FBI agent. During a test run of their arrangement, Bahr paid a $3,000 kickback in exchange for the initial purchase of $14,000 worth of iTrackr shares.

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California today filed criminal charges against Bahr.

“Bahr tried to artificially inflate the price and volume of iTrackr shares to the detriment of retail investors who wouldn’t have known the real story behind the flurry of market activity,” said Michele Wein Layne, Director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Office. “Working with criminal authorities, we were able to stop Bahr’s misconduct before he could seriously impact the markets and harm investors.”

The SEC also has issued an order to suspend trading in iTrackr securities.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in San Diego, Bahr set out to give the markets a false impression of supply and demand in iTrackr stock where none actually existed. He coordinated the purchase of iTrackr shares so the stock price could remain high enough for him to effectively promote it at a later date and artificially inflate the price even higher. Bahr arranged for the dissemination of promotional material that overstated the likelihood of iTrackr’s success and future profits.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Bahr connected with the undercover agent in November 2012 and was told that that he represented a group of registered representatives who had trading discretion over certain client accounts. In exchange for a 30 percent kickback, the brokers could arrange to purchase iTrackr stock through their customers’ accounts and hold the shares for up to a year in order to avoid sales that might decrease iTrackr’s stock price. Bahr agreed to pay the kickback and sought the purchase of 10 million iTrackr shares at an average of 25 cents per share for a total of $2.5 million. Bahr agreed not to disclose the kickback to any iTrackr investors.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Bahr agreed to a test run involving the purchase of modest amounts of iTrackr stock on the open market, and Bahr would then pay a small commission. During the first week of December 2012, a total of 135,000 iTrackr shares were purchased, which represented approximately 32 percent of iTrackr’s trading volume during that time.

Bahr was then informed that the test purchases totaled approximately $14,000, and he owed a $4,000 commission. Bahr paid $3,000 through a wire transfer, and he asked another person to pay the remaining $1,000.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Bahr violated Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint seeks financial penalties, a penny stock bar, and a permanent injunction against Bahr.

************************************************************************

Report Securities Fraud by Calling 1-888-985-9844 or by visiting

www.reportsecuritiesfraud.net

SEC Charges Duncan MacDonald and Gloria Solomon in Ponzi Scheme At Dallas-Based Medical Insurance Company

Source- http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/2013-113.htm

Washington, D.C., June 17, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two executives at a Dallas-based medical insurance company with operating a $10 million Ponzi scheme that victimized at least 80 investors.

The SEC alleges that Duncan MacDonald and Gloria Solomon solicited investments for Global Corporate Alliance (GCA) by promoting it as a proven business with a strong track record of generating revenue from the sale of limited-benefit medical insurance. In reality, GCA was merely a start-up company with no operating history and virtually no revenue. As they raised investor funds, MacDonald and Solomon used proceeds from new investors to pay returns to existing investors. Once they couldn’t find any new investors, MacDonald and Solomon used a stall campaign of purported excuses to delay making any further payments to investors.

“MacDonald and Solomon raised millions of dollars by lying to investors about their company’s business and history and their planned use of investor funds,” said David Woodcock, Director of the SEC’s Fort Worth Regional Office. “When they could no longer fuel their Ponzi scheme with money from new victims, they told more lies in a failed effort to prevent their scheme from unraveling sooner.”

David Peavler, Associate Director of the SEC’s Fort Worth Regional Office, added, “MacDonald and Solomon created fake monthly statements to falsely portray GCA as a thriving health insurance company successfully enrolling thousands of premium-paying policyholders each month. In reality, they never had more than 40 policyholders, and half of those were GCA’s own employees.”

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas has filed criminal charges against MacDonald and Solomon.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Dallas, MacDonald set out in 2008 to start an insurance company that would market medical insurance to large groups. He tried for months to find a single investor to fund the company’s initial capital needs, but was unsuccessful. Meanwhile, MacDonald and Solomon began spending money on the business before raising any capital. They hired employees, heavily marketed the program, and secured a sponsorship agreement with a large national membership group. MacDonald was GCA’s president and chairman, and Solomon was chief administrative officer.

The SEC alleges that when unable to land a major investor, MacDonald fractionalized his efforts and sought individual investors who could contribute smaller amounts. When pitching GCA to investors as well as brokers assisting him in identifying investors, MacDonald significantly misrepresented the history and state of his business. Besides misleading investors to believe there were more than 100,000 premium-paying members, MacDonald misrepresented that GCA had previously sold a portion of its revenue stream from paying members to a Chinese hedge fund. GCA had no relationships with a Chinese hedge fund or any other institutional investors.

According to the SEC’s complaint, MacDonald and Solomon began fabricating enrollment numbers to make it appear that GCA was enrolling new members each month. They created a so-called “Monthly Overage Disbursement Statement” that purported to show the monthly member enrollments and cancellations. The statements were meant to look as if they were generated from a database, but they were actually made in Excel and populated by Solomon. These monthly statements were provided to the brokers by MacDonald and Solomon so they could be used to induce investments from potential investors and serve as the basis for payments to existing investors. At MacDonald’s direction, Solomon was primarily responsible for making the monthly payments to investors based on the false enrollment numbers. In reality, these were Ponzi payments rather than revenues from policyholders.

The SEC alleges that by the time the scheme collapsed, GCA had raised nearly $10 million from investors and returned about $2 million to investors in the form of Ponzi payments. MacDonald and Solomon each took around $1 million of investor funds, and spent the remaining investor funds on various business-related expenses until GCA’s accounts were left with a negative balance. After investor money was gone and GCA could no longer make monthly payments to investors, MacDonald and Solomon spent the next year concocting various reasons to investors about why they could not make payments. Meanwhile, MacDonald was pursuing alternative means of financing the company and redeeming the investors, but no more money ever came.

The SEC’s complaint charges MacDonald and Solomon with securities fraud and conducting an unregistered securities offering while acting as unregistered broker-dealers. The SEC seeks various relief for investors including disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, financial penalties, and permanent injunctions.

************************************************************************

Report Securities Fraud by Calling 1-888-985-9844 or by visiting

www.reportsecuritiesfraud.net

SEC Charges Revlon with Misleading Shareholders in Going Private Transaction

Source- http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/2013-110.htm

Washington, D.C., June 13, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged cosmetics and beauty care manufacturer Revlon with violating federal securities laws when the company misled shareholders during a "going private transaction."

Going private transactions can occur in many forms and typically involve the company delisting and deregistering its stock and cashing out their shareholders so the company or a private equity firm can acquire all of the outstanding shares. An SEC investigation found that during a voluntary exchange offer to satisfy a significant debt to its controlling shareholder, Revlon engaged in "ring fencing" that deprived its independent board members from knowing critical information: the transaction's consideration had been deemed inadequate by a third party who evaluated whether current and former employees invested in Revlon common stock through the company's 401(k) plan could exchange their shares.

Revlon agreed to settle the SEC's charges and pay an $850,000 penalty.

"Going private transactions create opportunities for shareholder abuse and can have coercive effects on minority shareholders," said Antonia Chion, Associate Director in the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "By erecting informational barriers, Revlon kept critically important information from its board and, in turn, misled investors."

According to the SEC's order instituting settled administrative proceedings, controlling shareholder MacAndrews and Forbes (M&F) asked Revlon in 2009 to offer minority shareholders the option to exchange their common stock shares on a one-for-one basis for preferred shares with certain financial characteristics. The exchanged shares would then be provided to M&F to pay down Revlon's debt. The trustee administering Revlon's 401(k) plan decided that 401(k) members could tender their shares only if a third-party financial adviser made an "adequate consideration determination," which involved assessing whether the value of the preferred stock 401(k) members would receive was at least equal to the fair market value of the exchanged common stock shares. The third-party financial adviser ultimately found that the consideration offered in the transaction was inadequate for tendering 401(k) shareholders.

The SEC's order finds that Revlon did not want to disclose the third-party financial adviser's view on the adequacy of the transaction's consideration. In an attempt to avoid a potential disclosure obligation, the company engaged in what one employee termed as "ring fencing" to avoid receiving the adequate consideration determination from the third-party adviser:
Revlon amended the trust agreement it had with the trustee to ensure that the trustee would not share the adequate consideration determination with Revlon.
Revlon ensured that it was not a party to any engagement letter concerning the adequate consideration determination.
Revlon directed the trustee to inform Revlon of its decision whether to allow 401(k) members to tender their shares without any reference to the adequate consideration determination.
In a notice sent to the 401(k) members and publicly filed as an exhibit to the exchange offer documents, Revlon removed the explicit term "adequate consideration" and replaced it with citations to ERISA statutes.

The SEC's order finds that Revlon's ring-fencing conduct resulted in various materially misleading disclosures to its shareholders. For example, Revlon represented in its offering documents that the board's process was full, fair, and complete in determining the fairness of the exchange offer. In reality, the process was compromised because Revlon's board was unable to consider the adequate consideration determination as part of its process to evaluate and ultimately approve the offer. Thus, Revlon's shareholders were deprived of the opportunity to receive revised, qualified, or supplemental disclosures, including any that might have informed them of the adequate consideration determination.

The SEC's order finds that Revlon violated Section 13(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 13e-3(b)(1)(iii), which prohibits issuers and their affiliates in going private transactions from directly or indirectly engaging in any act, practice, or course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit. The SEC's order requires Revlon to cease and desist from committing or causing these violations and any future violations. Without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, Revlon agreed to the settlement and financial penalty.

************************************************************************

Report Securities Fraud by Calling 1-888-985-9844 or by visiting

www.reportsecuritiesfraud.net

SEC Announces More Charges in Massive Kickback Scheme to Secure Business of Venezuelan Bank

Source- http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/2013-109.htm

Washington, D.C., June 12, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the former head of the Miami office at brokerage firm Direct Access Partners (DAP) for his role in a massive kickback scheme to secure the bond trading business of a state-owned Venezuelan bank.

The SEC charged four individuals last month who enabled the global markets group at DAP to generate more than $66 million in revenue from transaction fees related to fraudulent trades they executed for Banco de Desarrollo Económico y Social de Venezuela (BANDES). A portion of this revenue was illicitly paid to the Vice President of Finance at BANDES, who authorized the fraudulent trades.

The SEC alleges that as managing partner of the global markets group, Ernesto Lujan was an integral participant in the wide-ranging fraudulent scheme that included sham arrangements to hide the kickback payments and route money to the BANDES official through shell corporations. Lujan and others charged in the scheme deceived DAP's clearing brokers, executed internal wash trades, interpositioned another broker-dealer in the trades to conceal their role in the transactions, and engaged in massive roundtrip trades to pad their revenue.

"For a scheme this bold to succeed, it required the sneaky collaboration of several individuals including the head of the Miami office," said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC's New York Regional Office. "Lujan and the others may have believed they were covering their tracks, but the SEC's exam and enforcement teams unraveled their fraud."

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York announced criminal charges against Lujan.

The SEC's amended complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan charges Lujan and the other defendants with fraud and seeks final judgments that would require them to return ill-gotten gains with interest and pay financial penalties.

************************************************************************

Report Securities Fraud by Calling 1-888-985-9844 or by visiting

www.reportsecuritiesfraud.net

Chicago Board Options Exchange Charged for Regulatory Failures

Source- http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/2013-107.htm

Washington, D.C., June 11, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) and an affiliate for various systemic breakdowns in their regulatory and compliance functions as a self-regulatory organization, including a failure to enforce or even fully comprehend rules to prevent abusive short selling.

CBOE agreed to pay a $6 million penalty and implement major remedial measures to settle the SEC's charges. The financial penalty is the first assessed against an exchange for violations related to its regulatory oversight. Previous financial penalties against exchanges involved misconduct on the business side of their operations.

Self-regulatory organizations (SROs) must enforce the federal securities laws as well as their own rules to regulate trading on their exchanges by their member firms. In doing so, they must sufficiently manage an inherent conflict that exists between self-regulatory obligations and the business interests of an SRO and its members. An SEC investigation found that CBOE failed to adequately police and control this conflict for a member firm that later became the subject of an SEC enforcement action. CBOE put the interests of the firm ahead of its regulatory obligations by failing to properly investigate the firm's compliance with Regulation SHO and then interfering with the SEC investigation of the firm.

According to the SEC's order instituting settled administrative proceedings, CBOE demonstrated an overall inability to enforce Reg. SHO with an ineffective surveillance program that failed to detect wrongdoing despite numerous red flags that its members were engaged in abusive short selling. CBOE also fell short in its regulatory and compliance responsibilities in several other areas during a four-year period.

"The proper regulation of the markets relies on SROs to aggressively police their member firms and enforce their rules as well as the securities laws," said Andrew J. Ceresney, Co-Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "When SROs fail to regulate responsibly the conduct of their member firms as CBOE did here, we will not hesitate to bring an enforcement action."

Daniel M. Hawke, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division's Market Abuse Unit, added, "CBOE's failures in this case were disappointing. The public depends on SROs to provide a watchful eye on their exchanges and market activities occurring through them. They must have strong compliance cultures and adequate and dedicated compliance resources to ensure that they do not stray from their bedrock obligation to provide rigorous self-regulation."

According to the SEC's order, CBOE moved its surveillance and monitoring of Reg. SHO compliance from one department to another in 2008, and the transfer of responsibilities adversely affected its Reg. SHO enforcement program. After that transfer, CBOE did not take action against any firm for violations of Reg. SHO as a result of its surveillance or complaints from third parties. Reg. SHO requires the delivery of equity securities to a registered clearing agency when delivery is due, generally three days after the trade date (T+3). If no delivery is made by that time, the firm must purchase or borrow the securities to close out that failure-to-deliver position by no later than the beginning of regular trading hours on the next day (T+4). CBOE failed to adequately enforce Reg. SHO because its staff lacked a fundamental understanding of the rule. CBOE investigators responsible for Reg. SHO surveillance never received any formal training. CBOE never ensured that its investigators even read the rules. Therefore, they did not have a basic understanding of a failure to deliver.

According to the SEC's order, CBOE received a complaint in February 2009 about possible short sale violations involving a customer account at a member firm. CBOE began investigating whether the trading activity violated Rule 204T of Reg. SHO. However, CBOE staff assigned to the case did not know how to determine if a fail existed and were confused about whether Reg. SHO applied to a retail customer. CBOE closed its Reg. SHO investigation later that year.

The SEC's order found that not only did CBOE fail to adequately detect violations and investigate and discipline one of its members, but it also took misguided and unprecedented steps to assist that same member firm when it became the subject of an SEC investigation in December 2009. CBOE failed to provide information to SEC staff when requested, and went so far as to assist the member firm by providing information for its Wells submission to the SEC. The CBOE actually edited the firm's draft submission, and some of the information and edits provided by CBOE were inaccurate and misleading. The SEC brought its enforcement action against the firm in April 2012, and an administrative law judge recently rendered an initial decision in that case.

According to the SEC's order, CBOE had a number of other regulatory and compliance failures at various times between 2008 and 2012. CBOE failed to adequately enforce its firm quote and priority rules for certain orders and trades on its exchange as well as rules requiring the registration of persons associated with its proprietary trading members. CBOE also provided unauthorized "customer accommodation" payments to some members and not others without applicable rules in place, resulting in unfair discrimination. And CBOE and affiliate C2 Options Exchange failed to file proposed rule changes with the SEC when certain trading functions on their exchanges were implemented.

The SEC's order finds that CBOE violated Section 19(b)(1) and Section 19(g)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act as well as Section 17(a) and Rule 17a-1 when it failed to promptly provide information requested by the SEC that the exchange kept in the course of its business, including information related to the member firm that was under SEC investigation for Reg. SHO violations. CBOE and C2 agreed to settle the charges without admitting or denying the SEC's findings. CBOE agreed to pay $6 million, accept a censure and cease-and-desist order, and implement significant undertakings. C2 also agreed to a censure and cease-and-desist order and significant undertakings.

************************************************************************

Report Securities Fraud by Calling 1-888-985-9844 or by visiting

www.reportsecuritiesfraud.net

SEC Charges Top Officials At Investment Adviser in Scheme to Hide Theft From Pension Fund of Detroit Police and Firefighters

Source- http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/2013-106.htm

Washington, D.C., June 10, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the leader of a Detroit-based investment adviser for stealing nearly $3.1 million from the pension fund that the firm manages for the city's police officers and firefighters so he could buy two strip malls in California. The SEC charged four other top officials at the firm for helping him try to cover up the theft.

The SEC alleges that Chauncey C. Mayfield, who is the founder, president, and CEO of MayfieldGentry Realty Advisors, took the money from the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit without obtaining permission. He used it to purchase the shopping properties and title them in the name of a MayfieldGentry affiliate. Other executives at MayfieldGentry gradually became aware that Mayfield had siphoned money away from their biggest client. Rather than come clean about the theft and risk losing the sizeable business the firm received from the pension fund, MayfieldGentry officials instead devised a plan to secretly repay the pension fund by cutting costs at the firm and selling the strip malls. Their plan ultimately failed when MayfieldGentry could not raise enough capital to put the stolen amount back into the pension fund.

Mayfield and his firm agreed to settle the charges by paying back the stolen amount.

"Mayfield stole pension money from Detroit's retired police officers, firefighters, and surviving spouses and children to buy strip malls," said Andrew Ceresney, Co-Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "To make matters worse, other senior officers at the firm joined together with him to cover up his deceitful and grave betrayal of trust, all for the purpose of keeping the client."

The other MayfieldGentry executives charged in the SEC's complaint are chief financial officer Blair D. Ackman, chief operating officer Marsha Bass, chief investment officer W. Emery Matthew, and chief compliance officer and general counsel Alicia M. Diaz.

According to the SEC's complaint filed in federal court in Detroit, Mayfield took the money from a trust account for the pension fund in 2008. The stolen money could have provided a year of benefits for more than 100 retired police officers, firefighters, and surviving spouses and children. Shortly thereafter, Mayfield told Ackman about the misappropriation, and by May 2011 the other principals at MayfieldGentry were aware of the misdeed. They proceeded to hide the theft by affirmatively misleading the pension fund.

The SEC alleges that during a critical budget meeting with fund trustees in 2011, Diaz stressed MayfieldGentry's success in generating a cash return for the pension fund. He stated that "the cash we deliver at the end of the day is the ultimate testimony in terms of what we do." Diaz touted a projection that MayfieldGentry would remit $4.96 million to the pension fund in 2012. Diaz never told the pension fund trustees that the cash remittance would be reduced by more than 60 percent once the stolen money was taken into account. At the same meeting, Matthews claimed that MayfieldGentry had achieved a benchmark-beating 6.8 percent return for the pension fund. He didn't explain that the 6.8 percent return would be materially impacted by the $3.1 million theft.

According to the SEC's complaint, MayfieldGentry and its executives continued to cover up the theft until they finally informed the pension fund on the evening before the SEC filed a complaint against Mayfield and his firmin May 2012 for their participation in a "pay-to-play" scheme involving the former mayor and treasurer of Detroit. Upon learning of the theft, the pension fund promptly terminated its relationship with MayfieldGentry.

The SEC's complaint alleges that MayfieldGentry and Chauncey Mayfield violated Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Ackman, Bass, Matthews, and Diaz aided and abetted those violations. Mayfield and his firm agreed to pay disgorgement in the amount of $3,076,365.88 and be permanently enjoined from violating Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act. They neither admit nor deny the allegations in the settlement, which is subject to court approval. In a parallel criminal matter, Mayfield is awaiting sentencing in connection with his guilty plea for participation in the pay-to-play scheme.

************************************************************************

Report Securities Fraud by Calling 1-888-985-9844 or by visiting

www.reportsecuritiesfraud.net

SEC Charges Whittier Trust and Fund Manager in Insider Trading Investigation Into Expert Networks

Source- http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/2013-105.htm

Washington, D.C., June 7, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a South Pasadena, Calif.-based wealth management company and a former fund manager with insider trading on non-public information about technology companies. The charges are the agency’s latest in its ongoing investigation into expert networks and hedge fund trading.

The SEC alleges that Whittier Trust Company and fund manager Victor Dosti participated in an insider trading scheme involving the securities of Dell, Nvidia Corporation, and Wind River Systems. Dosti generated profits and avoided losses for funds he managed at Whittier Trust by trading on confidential information that he obtained from Danny Kuo, a Whittier Trust fund manager who Dosti supervised. Kuo was charged by the SEC in January 2012 and is currently cooperating with the investigation.

Whittier Trust and Dosti agreed to pay nearly $1.7 million to settle the charges.

“Time and again, Dosti received what he knew was inside information from Kuo and traded on it to generate illicit gains for the funds he managed,” said Sanjay Wadhwa, Senior Associate Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office. “Now, he and Whittier Trust join a long list of insider trading perpetrators who have been held accountable by the SEC for their transgressions.”

The SEC has charged more than three dozen individuals and firms in enforcement actions arising out of its expert networks investigation, which has uncovered widespread insider trading at several hedge funds and other investment advisory firms. The first series of charges were brought in 2011.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Dosti used non-public information obtained from employees at Dell and Nvidia to trade in advance of five quarterly earnings announcements in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Dosti reaped profits and avoided losses of more than $475,000 for Whittier Trust funds. Dosti also made $247,000 in illicit profits for Whittier Trust funds by trading Wind River stock based upon detailed information that Kuo obtained from an Intel employee about Intel’s confidential negotiations to acquire Wind River in 2009.

The SEC’s complaint charges Whittier Trust and Dosti with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. Whittier Trust agreed to pay disgorgement of $724,051.62 plus prejudgment interest of $75,296.00 and a penalty of $724,051.62. Dosti agreed to pay disgorgement of $77,900.00 plus prejudgment interest of $2,951.43, and a penalty of $77,900.00. The settlements are subject to court approval and would permanently enjoin Whittier Trust and Dosti from future violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Whittier Trust and Dosti neither admit nor deny the SEC’s charges. The SEC acknowledges the cooperation of Whittier Trust in the investigation.

************************************************************************

Report Securities Fraud by Calling 1-888-985-9844 or by visiting

www.reportsecuritiesfraud.net

SEC Freezes Assets of Thailand-Based Trader for Insider Trading Ahead of Smithfield Foods Acquisition Announcement

Source- http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/2013-102.htm

Washington, D.C., June 6, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced an emergency court order to freeze the assets of a trader in Bangkok, Thailand, who made more than $3 million in profits by trading in advance of last week's announcement that Smithfield Foods agreed to a multi-billion dollar acquisition by China-based Shuanghui International Holdings.

The SEC alleges that Badin Rungruangnavarat purchased thousands of out-of-the-money Smithfield call options and single-stock futures contracts from May 21 to May 28 in an account at Interactive Brokers LLC. Rungruangnavarat allegedly made these purchases based on material, nonpublic information about the potential acquisition, and among his possible sources is a Facebook friend who is an associate director at an investment bank to a different company that was exploring an acquisition of Smithfield. After profiting from his timely and aggressive trading, Rungruangnavarat sought to withdraw more than $3 million from his account on June 3.

"The speed in which we were able to bring this emergency action exemplifies the talent, tenacity, and commitment that the SEC staff brings to bear every day to keep our markets fair and investors safe," said Andrew Ceresney, Co-Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement.

Merri Jo Gillette, Director of the SEC's Chicago Regional Office, added, "As alleged in our complaint, not only did the defendant trade out of the money Smithfield call options, he further pumped up his profits by purchasing single-stock futures, thereby reaping a total unrealized return on his investment of 3,400 percent in the span of eight days. We will act quickly and decisively to uncover and take action against insider trading no matter where the trader resides or what types of securities are used to profit from nonpublic information."

According to the SEC's complaint filed under seal yesterday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Smithfield publicly announced on May 29 that Shuanghui agreed to acquire the company for $4.7 billion, which would represent the largest-ever acquisition of a U.S. company by a Chinese buyer. Smithfield, which is headquartered in Smithfield, Va., is the world's largest pork producer and processor. Following the announcement, Smithfield stock opened nearly 25 percent higher than the previous day's closing price.

The SEC obtained the emergency court order late yesterday on an ex parte basis. The order freezes the proceeds of Rungruangnavarat's securities purchases, grants expedited discovery, and prohibits Rungruangnavarat from destroying evidence.

The SEC's complaint alleges that Rungruangnavarat violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition to the emergency relief, the SEC is seeking disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, a financial penalty, and a permanent injunction.

************************************************************************

Report Securities Fraud by Calling 1-888-985-9844 or by visiting

www.reportsecuritiesfraud.net

SEC Charges Penny Stock Company and CEO for Illegal Stock Offering and Insider Trading

Source- http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/2013-100.htm

Washington, D.C., June 5, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a microcap company that was ensnared in an SEC trading suspension proactively targeting questionable penny stocks, and also charged the CEO who illicitly profited from selling his shares while investors were unaware of the company’s financial struggles.

The SEC alleges that Laidlaw Energy Group and its CEO Michael B. Bartoszek sold more than two billion shares of Laidlaw’s common stock in 35 issuances to three commonly controlled purchasers at deep discounts from the market price. Laidlaw did not register this stock offering with the SEC, and no exemptions from registration were applicable. Bartoszek knew that the purchasers were dumping the shares into the market usually within days or weeks of the purchases to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits. Laidlaw’s $1.2 million in proceeds from these transactions was essentially the sole source of funds for the company’s operations during most of its existence. Laidlaw, which is based in New York City, purports to be a developer of facilities that generate electricity from wood biomass.

The SEC alleges that these transactions diluted the value of shares previously purchased by common investors in the market, who were not told about the huge blocks of cheap stock Laidlaw was selling. Investors also were not aware that Laidlaw relied on these transactions to fund its operations entirely. The SEC suspended trading in Laidlaw stock in June 2011.

“Registration violations are often at the core of microcap fraud and we will vigorously pursue these violations wherever we find them.” said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan, Bartoszek violated insider trading laws when he personally sold more than 100 million shares of Laidlaw common stock from December 2009 to June 2011, and he made more than $318,000 in profits. Bartoszek was in possession of material, non-public information while making these trades on the basis of his insider knowledge about Laidlaw’s poor financial condition, the illegal fire sale of more 80 percent of Laidlaw’s stock, and adverse developments about Laidlaw’s business prospects. As a result of the volume of Bartoszek’s sales and the lack of current, publicly available information about the company, these sales also violated the registration requirements of the federal securities laws.

The SEC further alleges that Laidlaw and Bartoszek made subsequent false statements about the ownership of Laidlaw shares in SEC filings to register certain common stock following the trading suspension. Laidlaw and Bartoszek misled investors to believe that the purchasers of the two billion unregistered shares had acquired them to hold as an investment in the company. The filings falsely represented that these purchasers were the current “beneficial owner” of more than 80 percent of Laidlaw’s common stock, an assertion that only could have been true if the purchasers had not sold any of their Laidlaw stock. In fact, as Laidlaw and Bartoszek knew, the purchasers had long ago dumped all of the stock.

The SEC’s complaint charges Laidlaw and Bartoszek with violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint also charges Bartoszek with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and secondary liability under Sections 20(a) and 20(e) of the Exchange Act for Laidlaw’s violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The SEC seeks disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, financial penalties, and injunctive relief, and is seeking penny stock and officer and director bars against Bartoszek.

************************************************************************

Report Securities Fraud by Calling 1-888-985-9844 or by visiting

www.reportsecuritiesfraud.net

Fortune 200 Company Charged for Accounting Deficiencies

Source- http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/2013-99.htm

Washington, D.C., June 3, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Bellevue, Wash.-based commercial truck manufacturer and a subsidiary for various accounting deficiencies that clouded their financial reporting to investors in the midst of the financial crisis.

The SEC alleges that PACCAR’s internal accounting controls included ineffective procedures that kept the company from adhering to various accounting rules. PACCAR failed to report the operating results of its aftermarket parts business separately from its truck sales business as required under segment reporting requirements, which are in place to ensure that investors gain the same insight into a company as its executives. PACCAR and its subsidiary also failed to provide complete information about their respective loan and lease portfolios, and PACCAR overstated some loan and lease originations and collections at two foreign subsidiaries in its statement of cash flows.

PACCAR and its subsidiary PACCAR Financial Corp. agreed to settle the SEC’s charges.

“Companies must continually and diligently monitor their internal accounting systems to ensure that the information they are providing investors is accurate and consistent with relevant accounting guidance,” said Michael S. Dicke, Associate Regional Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office. “The deficient controls and procedures at PACCAR caused inconsistencies in its financial reporting and kept investors and regulators from seeing the company through the eyes of management.”

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Seattle, PACCAR is a Fortune 200 company that designs, manufactures, and distributes trucks and related aftermarket parts that are sold worldwide under the Kenworth, Peterbilt, and DAF nameplates. From 2008 through the third quarter of 2012, PACCAR failed to report the results for its parts business as a separate segment from its truck sales as required under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). For example, PACCAR’s 2009 annual report showed $68 million in income before taxes for its truck segment. However, PACCAR documents and board materials reviewed by senior executives depicted the trucks business with a $474 million loss and the parts business with $542 million profit to arrive at the net income before taxes of $68 million. By at least 2008, PACCAR should have been reporting aftermarket parts as a separate segment in its SEC filings, but failed to do so until year-end 2012.

The SEC’s complaint further alleges that PACCAR and PACCAR Financial Corp. failed to maintain accurate books and records regarding their impaired loans and leases, causing them to improperly identify and disclose loans and leases for impairment. As a result, they understated the amounts of their impaired receivables and the specific reserve associated with the receivables in footnotes to their respective 2009 Form 10-K filings. PACCAR understated the amount of its impaired receivables by 65 percent and the amount of the specific reserve associated with the receivables by 78 percent. PACCAR Financial Corp. understated the amounts by 64 percent and 37 percent. As a result of these deficiencies, PACCAR also made inaccurate statements to the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance regarding its processes for calculating the specific reserves on its impaired receivables.

According to the SEC’s complaint, PACCAR also overstated equal and offsetting amounts in two lines within its statement of cash flows in the second and third quarters of 2009. PACCAR identified these errors during the first quarter of 2010 and reported corrected figures in its second and third quarter filings in 2010.

The SEC’s complaint charges PACCAR with violations of the reporting, books and records and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws, and charges PACCAR Financial Corp. with violations of the books and records and internal control provisions. Without admitting or denying the charges, they agreed to the entry of a permanent injunction and PACCAR agreed to pay a $225,000 penalty. The settlement, which is subject to court approval, takes into account that PACCAR and PACCAR Financial Corp. have implemented a number of remedial measures to enhance their internal accounting controls and improve their compliance with GAAP.

************************************************************************

Report Securities Fraud by Calling 1-888-985-9844 or by visiting

www.reportsecuritiesfraud.net

Robert J. Vitale Charged with Lying to SEC Investigators

Source- http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/2013-96.htm

Washington, D.C., May 30, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that the subject of an enforcement inquiry in Florida has has been criminally charged for obstructing justice and lying to SEC investigators looking into his real estate securities offerings to investors.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida has filed criminal charges against former broker and securities fraud recidivist Robert J. Vitale, who lives in Lauderdale-by-the Sea. According to the criminal information filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the SEC issued subpoenas to Vitale and his investment company Realty Acquisitions & Trust in order to identify investor funds and assets related to the securities offerings. The SEC investigators subpoenaed Vitale for all related bank records and took his sworn testimony.

The criminal information alleges that Vitale lied about the existence of two separate bank accounts that he did not disclose to the SEC. Specifically, Vitale deposited $100,000 into a bank account in Fort Lauderdale under the name of “B.L. Inc.” in the days preceding his testimony to SEC investigators in June 2012. Vitale then did not disclose the existence of the account to the SEC when asked under oath.

Vitale was previously charged by the SEC several years ago for participating in a pump-and-dump market manipulation scheme. Vitale later settled the charges in federal district court and was barred from the brokerage industry.

************************************************************************

Report Securities Fraud by Calling 1-888-985-9844 or by visiting

www.reportsecuritiesfraud.net