Search This Blog

Showing posts with label SEC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SEC. Show all posts

Friday, August 26, 2016

SEC CHARGES COMPANY WITH DISCLOSURE, SUPERVISORY FAILURES

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
Apollo Charged With Disclosure and Supervisory Failures
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2016-165

Washington D.C., Aug. 23, 2016 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that four private equity fund advisers affiliated with Apollo Global Management have agreed to a $52.7 million settlement for misleading fund investors about fees and a loan agreement and failing to supervise a senior partner who charged personal expenses to the funds.

An SEC investigation found that the Apollo advisers failed to adequately disclose the benefits they received to the detriment of fund investors by accelerating the payment of future monitoring fees owed by the funds’ portfolio companies upon the sale or IPO of those companies.  The lump sum payments received by the Apollo advisers essentially reduced the portfolio companies’ value prior to their sale or IPO and reduced amounts available for distribution to fund investors.

The SEC also found that one of the Apollo advisers failed to disclose certain information about interest payments made on a loan between the adviser’s affiliated general partner and five funds.  The purpose of the loan was to defer taxes on carried interest due the general partner.  The loan agreement obligated the general partner to pay interest to the funds during the course of the loan, and the funds’ financial statements disclosed that interest was accruing as an asset of the funds.  But that interest was instead ultimately allocated solely to the general partner, which made the disclosures in the financial statements misleading.

“A common theme in our recent enforcement actions against private equity firms is their failure to properly disclose fees and conflicts of interest to fund investors,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC Enforcement Division.  “Investors in Apollo funds were not adequately informed about accelerated monitoring fees and separately allocated loan interest, and therefore were unable to gauge their impact on their investments.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting the settled administrative proceeding, Apollo’s supervisory failures pertain to a then-senior partner at the firm who was twice caught improperly charging personal items and services to Apollo-advised funds and their portfolio companies.  Other than verbally reprimanding the partner and requiring repayment of improperly submitted expenses, Apollo took no further remedial or disciplinary steps on either occasion.  A firm-wide expense review eventually revealed even more personal expenses the partner improperly charged to fund clients, and this led to the partner’s separation from the firm.

“Apollo failed to take appropriate action to protect its clients upon first learning that a partner was improperly expensing personal items and services to the funds, and its failure resulted in repeated misconduct,” said Anthony S. Kelly, Co-Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit.

Apollo consented to the entry of the SEC’s order finding that it violated Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rules 206(4)-7 and 206(4)-8.  The order also finds that Apollo failed reasonably to supervise the then-partner pursuant to Section 203(e)(6) of the Advisers Act.  Apollo agreed to cease and desist from further violations without admitting or denying the findings, and must pay $37.527 million in disgorgement, $2,727,552 in interest, and a $12.5 million penalty.  Apollo agreed to distribute the disgorgement and interest amounts to affected fund investors.

The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, is being conducted by Donna Norman of the Asset Management Unit and supervised by Mr. Kelly.  A related examination of Apollo was conducted by Majid Mahmood, Michael Devaney, Mandy Poon, Igor Rozenblit, and William Delmage.

Sunday, September 29, 2013

FORMER EXECUTIVE CHARGED BY SEC WITH INSIDER TRADING BASED ON CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a former executive at Qualcomm Inc. and his former financial advisor with insider trading ahead of major announcements by the San Diego-based wireless technology company for more than a quarter-million dollars in profits.

The SEC alleges that Jing Wang, a former executive vice president and president of global business operations at Qualcomm, used a secret offshore brokerage account to make illegal trades based on confidential information that he learned on the job.  Gary Yin, a former registered representative at Merrill Lynch, helped Wang set up the account.  Yin also created a secret offshore account of his own and traded on the non-public information gleaned from Wang.  When Wang eventually realized that insider trading in the offshore accounts still may be discovered by the SEC or other regulators, he concocted a plan to conceal his trading activity by claiming the trades were made by his brother.  Wang even convinced Yin to travel to China and go over the account statements with Wang’s brother so he could explain the trades if asked by investigators.

“Wang violated his duty as an insider to protect confidential information when he made timely illegal trades ahead of major announcements to the detriment of other Qualcomm shareholders who did not have the same information,” said Michele Wein Layne, Director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office.  “Wang and Yin went to extraordinary lengths to conceal their trading and cover it up afterwards, but despite their expansive efforts they still wound up in law enforcement’s crosshairs.”

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California today announced criminal charges against Wang and Yin.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Wang and Yin became friends in 2005 as members of the same church.  When Wang learned that Yin was a financial advisor at Merrill Lynch, he asked Yin to manage his money and opened a number of brokerage accounts at the firm’s San Diego branch office.  Each account was disclosed to Qualcomm because, as a company officer, Wang was restricted in his ability to trade Qualcomm stock and required to pre-clear all Qualcomm trades with the company.

The SEC alleges that in early 2006, Wang approached Yin about hiding cash transactions.  Yin suggested that Wang create an entity registered in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) and use the name of a non-U.S. citizen family member as the beneficial owner.  Then he could open a brokerage account in the newly created entity’s name.  Yin then helped Wang set up a secret account in the name of a BVI company called Unicorn Global Enterprises, and Wang’s older brother was listed as the owner.  Yin similarly created his own BVI-registered entity named Pacific Rim and put it in his mother-in-law’s name.  Yin opened a Merrill Lynch brokerage account for Pacific Rim and used it to hide funds that he was using for investments.

The SEC alleges that Wang and Yin used their secret offshore accounts to trade on material, non-public information that Wang learned as an executive at Qualcomm.  In early 2010, Wang was aware that Qualcomm executives were planning a board proposal to increase Qualcomm’s quarterly dividends and request authority to initiate a stock repurchase program.  Qualcomm informed Wang and all executives that they would not be permitted to trade Qualcomm stock.  On March 1, Wang attended a Qualcomm board meeting where the quarterly dividend increase and stock repurchase were approved.  Wang immediately instructed Yin to use all of the funds in the offshore Unicorn account to purchase Qualcomm stock.  Yin knew that Wang did not pre-clear these trades and realized that the purchase was out of character for Wang because he previously never purchased Qualcomm stock on the open market in his Merrill Lynch accounts.  Within the hour of executing the trades for Wang, Yin himself bought Qualcomm stock on the basis of the material, non-public information.  The stock price increased 6.7 percent after Qualcomm publicly announced the quarterly cash dividend and stock repurchase program.  Wang and Yin profited when they sold all of their shares.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Wang used the funds from that sale to conduct insider trading again – this time in the shares of San Jose-based Atheros Communications, which was the highly confidential target of a planned acquisition by Qualcomm. Wang was regularly briefed on the transaction internally tabbed as “Project Tango” to protect its confidentiality.  Wang instructed Yin to sell all of his Qualcomm stock in the Unicorn account on Dec. 2, 2010, and prepare to buy as many shares of Atheros stock as possible with the funds in that account.  He told Yin that he was leaving on a trip to China and would contact him to execute the Atheros trade.  On December 6, Wang attended a Qualcomm board meeting in Hong Kong and a resolution was passed to pursue the acquisition. Wang learned that Qualcomm planned to acquire Atheros at $45 per share.  Wang and Yin immediately communicated several times through phone calls and a text message, and Wang then purchased the maximum number of shares he could purchase with the existing funds in the Unicorn account at prices between $34 and $35 per share.  At Wang’s encouragement, Yin also purchased Atheros stock for himself in his offshore account.  When the news became public in early January, Atheros stock increased more than 20 percent.  Yin sold all of his Atheros shares in the Pacific Rim account on January 12, and Wang sold his Atheros shares in the Unicorn account on January 25.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Wang took his next insider trading step merely four minutes after selling the Atheros stock, using the proceeds to purchase Qualcomm shares in advance of a company announcement that it would raise its revenue and earnings guidance for the 2011 fiscal year.  Wang had learned the confidential information prior to the board meeting he attended in Hong Kong, where Qualcomm’s better-than-expected first quarter financial performance was further discussed.  Wang learned that Qualcomm planned to announce its earnings results on January 26, and thus purchased his Qualcomm shares the day before the announcement.  After Qualcomm issued a press release to announcing its positive first quarter results, Qualcomm’s stock increased 5.9 percent.

The SEC alleges that Wang made more than $244,000 in illegal profits through the insider trading scheme, and Yin realized gains of more than $27,000.  Wang eventually realized that his illegal trading may be detected by Merrill Lynch or others.  Wang first asked Yin to delete records of the trades in the Unicorn account, but because they were permanent records in Merrill Lynch’s systems they could not be erased.  Around January 2012, Wang directed Yin to establish a new BVI corporation named Clearview Resources and open a new account at Merrill Lynch to which they transferred the insider trading proceeds in the Unicorn account to further distance Wang from the suspicious trades.  A few months later, Wang informed Yin that the trades may have been detected because the SEC had subpoenaed his e-mails.  So Wang devised a cover story and convinced Yin if ever questioned to say that the Atheros trades were made by Wang’s brother.  Because Yin had never communicated with Wang’s brother, Wang instructed him to travel to China with the Unicorn account statements and review the trades with his brother so he could explain the trading if asked.  Yin did so in May 2012.  To further hide Wang’s ownership of the Unicorn account and his link to the Atheros trades, Yin removed the Unicorn account from Wang’s “household” in Merrill Lynch’s computer system in July 2012. “Householding” is a function used by Merrill Lynch to link related accounts.

The SEC's complaint charges Wang, who lives in Del Mar, Calif., with violating Sections 10(b) and 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 16a-3.  Yin, who lives in San Diego, is charged with violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  The SEC’s complaint seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, financial penalties, and permanent injunctions.  The SEC also seeks an officer-and-director bar against Wang.

The SEC’s investigation has been conducted by Ann C. Kim, Wendy E. Pearson, Nina Yamamoto, and Finola H. Manvelian of the Los Angeles Regional Office.  The SEC’s litigation will be led by Sam Puathasnanon.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

SEC STOPS HEDGE FUND MANAGER FROM COMMITTING ALLEGED FRAUD

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SEC Halts Fraud by Ohio-Based Hedge Fund Manager

On August 13, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed an emergency action charging Anthony J. Davian and his Richfield, Ohio-based asset management firm with defrauding investors in hedge funds they manage. A federal district court granted the SEC's motion for emergency relief, halting the fraud.

The SEC alleges that since 2011 Davian, a 34-year old resident of Copley, Ohio, has raised more than $1.5 million from investors by promoting Davian Capital Advisors, LLC as a highly successful investment management firm that manages a portfolio of profitable hedge funds. The SEC further alleges that Davian and Davian Capital misappropriated at least $1 million in investor proceeds and used the funds to pay for personal expenses such as the purchase of a luxury home and automobile for Davian.

According to the SEC's complaint, filed in federal district court, since 2011 Davian has raised at least $1.5 million from investors in several private funds managed by Davian Capital. Davian provided investors with marketing materials touting the funds' supposedly high returns and profitable trading strategies. The returns and profits described in the marketing materials were fictitious. Davian misappropriated most of the money received from investors and used the investors' funds to pay for personal expenses. For example, Davian pressured three individuals to invest $225,000 into his private funds, telling them that if they acted fast he would give them a break on his firm's management fees. Immediately upon receiving the investors' proceeds on July 5, 2013, Davian used the funds to pay for the construction of his residence.

The SEC filed an action against Davian and Davian Capital in federal district court in Akron, Ohio on August 13, alleging that they violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The Commission requested emergency relief, including a temporary restraining order and asset freeze. That same day, the Court granted the emergency relief requested by the SEC. In addition to emergency relief, the SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and financial penalties from Davian and Davian Capital.

Monday, April 22, 2013

MAN SENTENCED TO MORE THAN 8 YEARS PRISON, MUST PAY OVER $3.1 MILLION RESTITUTION

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
"Bob" Hancher Sentenced to Over 8 Years in Prison and Ordered to Pay Restitution of Over $ 3.1 Million

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that on March 27, 2013, in a criminal action brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Iowa, the Honorable Mark W. Bennett sentenced Lowell Gene "Bob" Hancher to 97 months in prison on one count of wire fraud and one count of securities and commodities fraud and ordered Hancher to pay $3,139,232 in restitution to his victims. Judge Bennett also ordered Hancher to be placed on five years of supervised released following the completion of his prison sentence. [USA v. Lowell Gene Hancher (a/k/a "Bob" Hancher), Case No. 12-CR-4090, USDC, N.D. Iowa].

The $3.1 million restitution amount includes funds that Hancher stole from investors in a fraudulent stock offering he led on behalf of Scott Contracting, Inc., a Colorado construction company, and funds that Hancher misappropriated from Cycle Country Accessories Corporation, an Iowa manufacturer of accessories for all-terrain vehicles and golf carts, while serving as a member of Cycle Country's board of directors and audit committee.

In January 2011, the SEC filed a civil injunctive action against Hancher for defrauding the Scott Contracting investors, misappropriating funds from Cycle Country and engaging in a manipulative stock trading scheme involving shares of a third company. On January 19, 2011, Judge Bennett in the Northern District of Iowa entered an order permanently enjoining Hancher from violating or aiding and abetting violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the antifraud and books and records provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and ordering him to pay disgorgement plus prejudgment interest of $2,988,405 and a civil penalty of $130,000. Hancher consented to the entry of the order which also barred him from serving as an officer or director of a public company or participating in a penny stock offering. On May 18, 2011, the SEC also barred Hancher from associating with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent or nationally recognized statistical rating organization.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

SEC ALLEGES PRIME BANK SCHEME INVOLVING NEARLY $2 MILLION IN INVESTMENTS


FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
May 8, 2012
SEC Charges Arizona Resident with Securities Fraud
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) filed a civil injunctive action in Atlanta, Georgia on May 8, 2102, alleging that Gerald D. Kegley (“Kegley”) and the company he operates, Prism Financial Services, LLC (“Prism”), participated in a fraudulent “Prime Bank” scheme that violated the antifraud and securities and broker dealer registration provisions of the federal securities laws.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that from at least April 8, 2010 through at least August 20, 2010, the defendants were directly responsible for introducing six individuals, who invested $1.95 million, to the fraudulent scheme. The complaint alleges that in furtherance of the scheme, the defendants forwarded misrepresentations made by others to investors. These misrepresentations included: 1) that investors could draw upon bank issued guarantees worth millions of dollars without having to repay the withdrawn funds; and 2) that investor funds would be held in escrow until the bank guarantees were issued. The complaint alleges that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that both of these representations were false because no such bank guarantees existed and investor funds were misappropriated immediately upon receipt.

Defendants also misrepresented that they would be paid commissions only once the investor received the bank guarantee. In fact, defendants were paid commissions relatively soon after the investors transferred the money. Defendants further told investors that they had previously worked on a successful bank guarantee program. Defendants, however, had actually reported this purportedly successful bank guarantee program to the Federal Bureau of Investigation because they believed it was a fraud.

In its Complaint, the Commission alleges that the defendants violated Sections 5(a) and (c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Commission also alleges that defendants aided and abetted violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

a href="http://gan.doubleclick.net/gan_click?lid=41000613802101859&pubid=21000000000397724">Furniture Event - Save up to 50% at officemax.com