On November 8, 2012, the Court entered a final judgment as to defendant Scucci: (1) permanently enjoining her from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act; (2) permanently barring her from participating in an offering of penny stock, and (3) ordering her to pay, jointly and severally with Protégé, disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $1,419,143.16, and to pay a civil penalty of $52,500.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ENTERS FINAL JUDGMENTS IN PENNY STOCK DISTRIBUTION SCHEME CHARGED BY THE SEC

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 22592 / January 14, 2013

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Christel S. Scucci, et al., Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-646-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ENTERS FINAL JUDGMENTS IN PENNY STOCK DISTRIBUTION SCHEME CHARGED BY THE SEC

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) announced today that the Honorable Roy B. Dalton, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered final judgments against each of the five defendants in this case: Christel S. Scucci (“Scucci”), her mother Karen S. Beach (“Beach”), their companies Protégé Enterprises, LLC (“Protégé”) and Capital Edge Enterprises, LLC (“Capital Edge”), and their attorney Cameron H. Linton, Esq. (“Linton”). The Commission’s complaint, filed on April 30, 2012, charged the defendants with a scheme to unlawfully acquire and sell shares of penny stock that were never registered for sale to the public, in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”).

The final judgments imposed the relief detailed below:
On September 14, 2012, the Court entered a final judgment by consent as to defendant Linton: (1) permanently enjoining him from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act, (2) permanently enjoining him from providing professional legal services to any person in connection with the offer or sale of securities pursuant to, or claiming, an exemption under Securities Act Rule 144, or any other exemption from the registration provisions of the Securities Act, including, without limitation, participating in the preparation of any opinion letter relating to such offerings, (3) permanently barring him from participating in an offering of penny stock, and (4) ordering him to pay $13,750, including disgorgement of $6,250, and a civil penalty of $7,500. Linton consented to the entry of the final judgment without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint.

In addition, Linton agreed to the issuance of a Commission order, pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, suspending him from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an attorney, based on the entry of the injunction from violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act. In the Matter of Cameron H. Linton, Esq., Exchange Act Release No. 67912, September 21, 2012.

On November 5, 2012, the Court entered final judgments by default as to defendants Beach, Capital Edge, and Protégé: (1) permanently enjoining them from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act, (2) permanently barring them from participating in an offering of penny stock, (3) ordering Beach and Capital Edge to pay, jointly and severally, disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $268,936.73, ordering each to pay a civil penalty of $30,000, and (4) ordering Protégé to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $1,419,143.16, and a civil penalty of $52,500.

On November 8, 2012, the Court entered a final judgment as to defendant Scucci: (1) permanently enjoining her from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act; (2) permanently barring her from participating in an offering of penny stock, and (3) ordering her to pay, jointly and severally with Protégé, disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $1,419,143.16, and to pay a civil penalty of $52,500. Scucci consented to the injunction and penny stock bar without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint.

For additional information, see Litigation Release No. 22352 (May 1, 2012)



http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22592.htm

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) announced today that the Honorable James D. Whittemore, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida in Tampa has entered final judgment against defendant Joseph P. Cillo (“Cillo”) of Dade City, Florida. The judgment permanently enjoins Cillo from further violations of Section 15(b)(6)(B)(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), imposes a statutory penny stock bar on him pursuant to Section 21(d)(6) of the Exchange Act, and orders that he pay disgorgement in the amount of $20,000 with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $1.124.50 within 30 days. In addition, Cillo was ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $60,000 within 30 days. Cillo consented to the final judgment without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission’s complaint.

The Complaint alleged that in November 2007, through a reverse merger with a penny-stock shell company, Cillo became the CEO and controlling shareholder of eFUEL EFN Corp. (“eFUEL”), a purported web development company then based in Tampa, Florida and listed on the OTC Market Group’s “OTC Pink” market tier (formerly the “Pink Sheets”) under the symbol “EFUL.” It further alleged that in connection with an ongoing market manipulation investigation involving eFUEL and other related entities and individuals, the SEC determined that Cillo engaged in various activities related to, and for the purpose of, issuing, trading, and inducing the purchase of eFUEL’s stock. Specifically, Cillo (1) offered and/or issued hundreds of millions of shares of eFUEL stock to third-parties as purported payment for debts and services, (2) drafted and approved multiple press releases touting the company’s business plan and development prospects, and (3) prepared, signed, and submitted periodic reports to the OTC Markets Group in order to comply with the Pink Sheets’ minimal requirements for “adequate current information.” These activities constituted violations of a 1995 Commission order which barred Cillo from participating in the offering of any penny stock.



http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2012/lr22555.htm

COURT FINES CEO CHRISTOPHER METCALF $50,000 AND IMPOSES A PENNY STOCK BAR AND OFFICER AND DIRECTOR BAR AGAINST HIM

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 22538 / November 20, 2012

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Christopher S. Metcalf, Bozidar "Bob" Vukovich, and Pantera Petroleum, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-cv-0493 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.)

COURT FINES CEO CHRISTOPHER METCALF $50,000 AND IMPOSES A PENNY STOCK BAR AND OFFICER AND DIRECTOR BAR AGAINST HIM

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on November 14, 2012, the Honorable Colleen McMahon, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, granted the Commission's motion for summary judgment against Defendant Christopher Metcalf, and issued a final judgment imposing a $50,000 penalty against Metcalf and barring him from participating in an offering of penny stock and from acting as an officer or director of a public company for a period of five years. Metcalf had previously consented to the entry of partial judgment against him, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Commission's complaint, filed on January 24, 2011 in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Metcalf, former President and CEO of Pantera Petroleum, Inc. ("Pantera"), and stock promoter Bozidar "Bob" Vukovich engaged in a fraudulent broker-bribery scheme designed to manipulate the market for Pantera common stock.

After considering the undisputed facts, the Court found that Metcalf "knowingly and enthusiastically engaged in a broker bribery/stock manipulation scheme involving Pantera's stock while serving as Pantera's President and CEO." The Court found a clear record of Metcalf's violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws and imposed a $50,000 civil penalty and a penny stock bar and officer and director bar against him.

For further information, please see Litigation Release Number 21824 (January 25, 2011) [Securities and Exchange Commission v. Christopher S. Metcalf, Bozidar "Bob" Vukovich, and Pantera Petroleum, Inc., Civil Action No. 11 Civ. 0493 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.)]

The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this matter.



http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2012/lr22538.htm

In addition, Austin is barred from acting as an officer or director of a public company and from participating in an offering of penny stock, and must pay a $40,000 civil penalty. Carolyn Austin must pay disgorgement of $174,471, plus prejudgment interest of $22,982. The settlements are subject to the Court’s approval.

SEC Complaint
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2012/comp22501.pdf


On September 28, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Texas-based Sunrise Solar Corporation, its former CEO Eddie D. Austin, Jr. (Austin), and his wife Carolyn Austin for their involvement in a fraudulent market manipulation scheme.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2012/lr22501.htm

On March 26, 2010, the Court entered a default as to Boock and DeFreitas and imposed permanent injunctions against future violations of the registration provisions, Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, and the antifraud provisions, Securities Act 17(a) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Court order also imposed a permanent bar against Boock and DeFreitas participating in any offering of a penny stock and a permanent bar against Boock serving as an officer or director of a publicly-traded company with a class of securities registered with the Commission.


SEC Obtains Judgments and $12.9 Million in Monetary Relief Against Three Defendants Involved in 23 Corporate Hijackings
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2012/lr22499.htm

On September 24, 2012, the Commission issued an Order in a related, settled administrative proceeding barring Gengler from associating with any broker, dealer, investment advisor, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, and from participating in any penny stock offering. The bar is based on the entry of the final judgment in SEC v. David Gengler, et al., enjoining Gengler from future violations of the antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act. Without admitting to the findings in the Commission’s Order, except as to jurisdiction and the entry of the final judgment, Gengler consented to the issuance of the Order.



http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2012/lr22494.htm

ROBERT C. PRIBILSKI - As the Division requests, Pribilski will be barred from association with any broker or dealer2 and from participating in an offering of penny stock.3


2 The Division’s request for sanctions also includes a collateral bar pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act). However, Pribilski’s misconduct antedates the July 22, 2010, effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act. Neither the Commission nor the courts have approved such retroactive application of its provisions in any litigated case, and the undersigned declines to impose the new sanction retroactively. See Koch v. SEC, 177 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Sacks v. SEC, 648 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2011).

3 Thus, he will be barred from acting as a promoter, finder, consultant, or agent; or otherwise engaging in activities with a broker, dealer, or issuer for purposes of the issuance or trading in any penny stock, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock. See Exchange Act Section 15(b)(6)(C). While the promissory notes and putative “Turkish Eurobonds” were not penny stocks within the meaning of Exchange Act Section 3(a)(51) and Rule 3a-51-1, the nature of Pribilski’s conduct in selling worthless investments to credulous investors is almost identical to that which led to the passage of the Securities Enforcement Remedies and Penny Stock Reform Act of 1990, 101 P.L. 429, 104 Stat. 931. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-617, at 19-20, reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1408.


http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2012/34-67915.pdf

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant is permanently barred from participating in an offering of penny stock, including engaging in activities with a broker, dealer, or issuer for purposes of issuing, trading, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock. A penny stock is any equity security that has a price of less than five dollars, except as provided in Rule 3a51-1 under the Exchange Act [17 C.P.R. 240.3a51-1].
VI.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant is liable for disgorgement of $86,745, representing profits gained as a result of the conduct alleged in the Complaint, together with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $24,081, for a total of $110,826. This obligation shall be deemed satisfied, on a dollar for dollar basis, by the $4,798,138 in criminal forfeiture ordered by the Court in United States v. Matthew W. Brown, Crim. Action No. 09-46-SLR (D. Del.).

Extract:
06/22/2012 30 PROPOSED CONSENT JUDGMENT of Matthew W. Brown by Securities and Exchange Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Consent of Matthew W. Brown to Final Judgment)(Kisslinger, Paul) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
Doc 30 PDF file
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/bMZbf


See also -
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76902634

The SEC hereby submits settlement documents in this action memorializing the terms of a proposed settlement reached between the SEC and defendant Steven Y. Moskowitz.

Mr. Moskowitz has consented to the entry of a judgment, in the form of the proposed Judgment included in Attachment I. The proposed Judgment would permanentlyenjoin Mr. Moskowitz from violating the provisions of the securities laws with which he was charged in the SEC's action, bar him from serving as an officer or director of a public company, and bar him from participating in an offering of penny stock. The proposed Judgment further provides that Moskowitz shall pay disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, civil penalties, and reimbursement pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in amounts to be determined by the Court at a future date, upon motion of the Commission.

06/12/2012 232 JUDGMENT in favor of U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission against Steven Moskowitz. (See Judgment for details). Ordered by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 6/1/2012. (Attachments:# 1 Consent of Steven Moskowitz). (Returned to chmbr's.) (Layne, Monique) (Entered: 06/12/2012)


Doc 232 PDF file
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/kaJVI

Doc 232-1 PDF file
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/jaJb2e

Separately, Fleishman has also consented to the entry of an order by the SEC instituting administrative proceedings pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act barring Fleishman from association with any investment adviser, broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, and from participating in any offering of a penny stock.

SEC Obtains Final Judgment on Consent Against James Fleishman

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Litigation Release No. 22358 / May 7, 2012

SEC v. Mark Anthony Longoria, et al., Civil Action No. 11-CV- 0753 (SDNY) (JSR)

SEC Obtains Final Judgment on Consent Against James Fleishman

The SEC announced that, on May 7, 2012, the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered a Final Judgment on consent as to James Fleishman in the SEC’s insider trading case, entitled SEC v. Mark Anthony Longoria, et al., 11-CV-0753 (SDNY) (JSR).

This case alleges insider trading by ten individuals and one investment adviser entity, all of whom are consultants, employees, or clients of the so-called “expert network” firm, Primary Global Research LLC (“PGR”). The SEC filed its Complaint on February 3, 2011, charging two PGR employees and four consultants with insider trading for illegally tipping hedge funds and other investors. On February 8, 2011, the SEC filed an Amended Complaint, charging a New York-based hedge fund and four hedge fund portfolio managers and analysts who illegally traded on confidential information obtained from technology company employees moonlighting as expert network consultants. The scheme netted more than $30 million from trades based on material, nonpublic information about such companies as Advanced Micro Devices, Seagate Technology and Western Digital. The charges were the first against traders in the SEC's ongoing investigation of insider trading involving expert networks.

The SEC alleged that Fleishman was a vice president of sales at PGR who facilitated the transfer of material nonpublic information from PGR consultants to PGR clients and, in certain instances, acted as a conduit by receiving material nonpublic information from PGR consultants and passing that information directly to PGR clients.

The Final Judgment entered against Fleishman permanently enjoins him from violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 and orders him liable for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains of $49,150, which is to be deemed satisfied by the order of forfeiture of $49,150 entered against Fleishman in a parallel criminal action against him. In the parallel criminal action, Fleishman was also sentenced to a 30-month term of imprisonment, which he is currently serving. In light of this, the Commission did not seek a civil penalty from Fleishman in this settlement.

Separately, Fleishman has also consented to the entry of an order by the SEC instituting administrative proceedings pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act barring Fleishman from association with any investment adviser, broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, and from participating in any offering of a penny stock.





http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2012/lr22358.htm

Wolkoff also consented to be barred for five years from participating in the offering or sale of a penny stock, to disgorge all e-Smart stock he received as compensation for his sales efforts and to pay a $40,000 penalty.
[...]
And Sobol consented to be barred for five years from participating in the offering or sale of a penny stock, to disgorge all e-Smart stock in which he has a legal or beneficial interest and to pay a $30,000 penalty.

Defendants Kenneth A. Wolkoff and George Sobol Settle Charges of Securities Registration Violations in SEC Action

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 22351 / April 30, 2012

Securities and Exchange Commission v. e-Smart Technologies, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-00896-JEB (United States District Court for the District of Columbia) (Filed May 13, 2011)

Defendants Kenneth A. Wolkoff and George Sobol Settle Charges of Securities Registration Violations in SEC Action

On April 27, 2012, a final judgment was entered against Kenneth A. Wolkoff (“Wolkoff”) and George Sobol (“Sobol”) in an action filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against e-Smart Technologies, Inc. (“e-Smart”) and related individuals and entities. In that action, the Commission alleges that defendants Wolkoff and Sobol participated in an unregistered stock offering of e-Smart securities in violation of the securities registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and acted as unregistered broker-dealers in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).

Specifically, the Commission alleges that Wolkoff participated in the unregistered stock offering from April 2005 through at least June 2006, completing at least 115 transactions which brought in over $2,600,000 and sold over 26 million e-Smart shares. The Commission also alleges that Sobol participated in the unregistered stock offering from March 2005 through at least June 2006, completing at least 19 transactions which brought in over $890,000 and sold over $8.8 million e-Smart shares. During this period, neither was registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer or associated with a registered broker-dealer.

Wolkoff consented to a final judgment permanently enjoining him from violations of Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. Wolkoff also consented to be barred for five years from participating in the offering or sale of a penny stock, to disgorge all e-Smart stock he received as compensation for his sales efforts and to pay a $40,000 penalty.

Sobol consented to a final judgment permanently enjoining him from violations of Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. And Sobol consented to be barred for five years from participating in the offering or sale of a penny stock, to disgorge all e-Smart stock in which he has a legal or beneficial interest and to pay a $30,000 penalty.

The litigation against the other defendants, alleging violations of the anti-fraud, securities registration, financial reporting, books and records, and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws, is ongoing.



http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2012/lr22351.htm

Aaron M. Glasser is barred from association with a broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, transfer agent, and from participating in an offering of penny stock.

34-66858 Apr. 25, 2012 Aaron M. Glasser
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2012/34-66858.pdf

Mother Of All Saladbar Snacks! MOASS!

What a pickle!

So what does ths do for the massive MOASS that coming or so they say?

Booters Announces a new Deli Bar! Free jail snacks for recidivist offenders.

According to the complaint, Glisson, a retired auto worker and part-time restaurant worker who used the name “Deli Dog” or “Deli” in Internet chat rooms, identified potential buyers and sellers by frequenting CMKM related internet chat rooms and through referrals from past buyers and sellers. Glisson then negotiated the terms of the transaction and consummated it by exchanging money for the pertinent CMKM stock certificate. Through these practices, Glisson made a market in deregistered CMKM securities at a time when legitimate broker-dealers refused to execute such purchases or sales because of the Commission's deregistration of CMKM.

Glisson was ordered to pay $2,765,650.65 in disgorgement, which represented profits gained as a result of the conduct alleged in the complaint, together with prejudgment interest in the amount of $670,574.79. In addition, Glisson was ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1,400,000, and was permanently barred from participating in the offering of penny stock.

SEC OBTAINS $4.8 MILLION JUDGMENT AGAINST MARCO GLISSON, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH MAKING A MARKET IN DEREGISTERED SECURITIES OF CMKM DIAMONDS, INC.

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 22340 / April 23, 2012
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Marco Glisson, Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-00104

SEC OBTAINS $4.8 MILLION JUDGMENT AGAINST MARCO GLISSON, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH MAKING A MARKET IN DEREGISTERED SECURITIES OF CMKM DIAMONDS, INC.

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced that a judgment was entered on April 11, 2012 in its civil injunctive action against Marco Glisson, filed in the United States District Court of Nevada. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Glisson consented to entry of a permanent injunction against violations of the registration provisions of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, and the broker dealer registration provisions of Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Glisson was ordered to pay $2,765,650.65 in disgorgement, which represented profits gained as a result of the conduct alleged in the complaint, together with prejudgment interest in the amount of $670,574.79. In addition, Glisson was ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1,400,000, and was permanently barred from participating in the offering of penny stock.

The Commission’s complaint alleged that from December 2005 through April 2007, Glisson acted as an unregistered broker or dealer and illegally sold deregistered securities of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. CMKM's registration with the Commission was revoked and the stock delisted on October 28, 2005. According to the complaint, Glisson, a retired auto worker and part-time restaurant worker who used the name “Deli Dog” or “Deli” in Internet chat rooms, identified potential buyers and sellers by frequenting CMKM related internet chat rooms and through referrals from past buyers and sellers. Glisson then negotiated the terms of the transaction and consummated it by exchanging money for the pertinent CMKM stock certificate. Through these practices, Glisson made a market in deregistered CMKM securities at a time when legitimate broker-dealers refused to execute such purchases or sales because of the Commission's deregistration of CMKM.

See Litigation Release No. 20855/January 15, 2009, for information on the filing of the original action and a link to the Commission’s Complaint.



http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2012/lr22340.htm

Gabriel and Marco Bitran also agreed to pay $250,000 each in penalties and be barred from the securities industry, and the GMB entities will be censured.

SEC Charges Father-and-Son Hedge Fund Managers Who Agree to Pay $4.8 Million to Settle Fraud Case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2012-71

Washington, D.C., April 20, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Boston-based father-son duo of hedge fund managers and their firms with securities fraud for misleading investors about their investment strategy and past performance.

Additional Materials
SEC Order
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2012/33-9315.pdf

The SEC’s investigation found that Gabriel and Marco Bitran raised millions of dollars for their hedge funds through GMB Capital Management LLC and GMB Capital Partners LLC by falsely telling investors they had a lengthy track record of success based on actual trades using real money. In truth, the Bitrans knew the track record was based on back-tested hypothetical simulations. The Bitrans also misled investors in certain hedge funds to believe they used quantitative optimal pricing models devised by Gabriel Bitran to invest in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and other liquid securities. Instead, they merely invested the money almost entirely in other hedge funds. GMB Capital Management later provided false documents to SEC staff examining the firm’s claims in marketing materials of a successful track record.

The Bitrans agreed to be barred from the securities industry and pay a total of $4.8 million to settle the SEC’s charges.

“The Bitrans solicited investors by touting an impressive track record and a unique investment strategy, and they lied about both,” said David P. Bergers, Director of the SEC’s Boston Regional Office.

According to the SEC’s order instituting settled administrative proceedings, Gabriel Bitran founded GMB Capital Management in 2005 for the stated purpose of managing hedge funds using quantitative models he developed based on his academic optimal pricing research to trade primarily ETFs. He and his son Marco Bitran solicited potential investors with three primary selling points:

Very successful performance track records based on actual trades using real money from 1998 to the inception of the hedge funds.

The firm’s use of Gabriel Bitran’s proprietary optimal pricing model to trade ETFs.

Gabriel Bitran’s involvement as founder and portfolio manager of the funds.

The SEC’s order states that over a period of three years, the Bitrans raised more than $500 million for eight hedge funds and various managed accounts while making these misrepresentations to investors. In order to market the hedge funds, GMB Management and the Bitrans created performance track records beginning in January 1998 showing double-digit annualized return without any down years. They distributed these track records to potential investors in marketing materials, and told investors that they were based on actual trading with real money using Gabriel Bitran’s optimal pricing models. In reality, the Bitrans knew their representations were false and the track records were based on hypothetical historical investments. For two of their hedge funds, they created track records showing annualized returns of 16.2 percent and 11.7 percent with no down years, and told investors the returns were based on actual trading when in fact they were based on hypothetical historical allocations to hedge fund managers.

According to the SEC’s order, investors were misled to believe their money was being invested according to Gabriel Bitran’s unique quant strategy when in reality certain GMB hedge funds were merely investing predominantly in other hedge funds without his involvement. For example, investors in two GMB hedge funds were told that Gabriel Bitran spent 80 percent of his time managing the funds and was involved in reviewing trades in the funds on a daily basis. However, he actually had no role in the management of either fund. Both funds experienced a series of losses at the end of 2008, and GMB eventually dissolved them. When a possible financial fraud at the Petters Group Worldwide was reported in late September 2008, the two hedge funds’ investments in a fund that was entirely invested in the Petters Group became illiquid. However, GMB did not disclose to investors that it had been impacted by the Petters fraud, instead sending investors a letter stating that “a swap instrument that the Fund entered into seeking to realize a higher return on a portion of its uninvested cash” had become illiquid because “one of the parties underlying the swap instrument is currently experiencing a credit and liquidity crisis, in conjunction with other alleged factors.” Furthermore, the two GMB funds suffered significant losses in hedge funds that had invested with Bernard Madoff. These investments in funds that ultimately invested with the Petters Group and Madoff were made contrary to what GMB investors were told.

According to the SEC’s order, during an SEC examination of GMB Capital Management, the firm produced a document that the Bitrans claimed was a real-time record of Gabriel Bitran’s trades since 1998. In fact, the document was false and created solely for the purpose of responding to the SEC staff’s request for the books and records that supported GMB’s performance claims.

The GMB entities and the Bitrans neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings in settling the charges. They agreed to pay disgorgement of $4.3 million. Gabriel and Marco Bitran also agreed to pay $250,000 each in penalties and be barred from the securities industry, and the GMB entities will be censured. The SEC’s order requires the Bitrans and the GMB entities to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 204, 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rules 204-2(a)(16) and 206(4)-8 thereunder.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Kerry Dakin, Kevin Kelcourse, and Kathleen Shields of the Boston Regional Office. Paul Prata, Elizabeth Ward, and Milton Pepin of the Boston Regional Office worked on the SEC’s examination. Stuart Jackson of the SEC’s Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation assisted in the investigation.

# # #



http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2012/2012-71.htm

Todd further consented to be barred for ten years from acting as an officer or director of a public company, and to pay disgorgement of $165,000, constituting his salary and bonus for the relevant quarter, together with prejudgment interest thereon of $138,162.24 totaling $303,162.24, and a $110,000 penalty.

FORMER GATEWAY CFO SETTLES SEC FRAUD ACTION

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 22335 / April 18, 2012

Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No. 3381 / April 18, 2012
Securities and Exchange Commission v. John J. Todd, Robert D. Manza, and Jeffrey Weitzen, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 03 CV 2230 BEN

FORMER GATEWAY CFO SETTLES SEC FRAUD ACTION

On April 10, 2012, a final judgment was entered against John J. Todd, a former CFO of Gateway, Inc. Todd consented to entry of the final judgment without admitting or denying the allegations made by the Securities and Exchange Commission that he engaged in fraud and other violations of the federal securities laws in connection with Gateway’s recognition of revenue in the third quarter of 2000. This concludes the litigation of this action, brought in 2003 against three former officers of Gateway.

The SEC alleged that Todd falsely represented Gateway’s financial condition in the third quarter of 2000 in order to meet financial analysts’ earnings and revenue expectations. Among other transactions, the SEC alleged that Todd caused Gateway to record $47.2 million in revenue from a one-time sale of fixed assets to Gateway’s third-party information technology services provider in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and that Todd, then Gateway’s CFO, caused Gateway to recognize an additional $21 million in revenue from an incomplete sale of computers to a second entity, also in violation of GAAP. The SEC alleged that absent either of these transactions, Gateway would not have met analysts’ expectations with regard to its third quarter revenue.

Todd consented to a final judgment permanently enjoining him from violations of the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and from violations of SEC Rule 13b2-2, which prohibits making misrepresentations and omissions of material fact to company auditors, as well as from aiding and abetting the issuer reporting provisions of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. Todd further consented to be barred for ten years from acting as an officer or director of a public company, and to pay disgorgement of $165,000, constituting his salary and bonus for the relevant quarter, together with prejudgment interest thereon of $138,162.24 totaling $303,162.24, and a $110,000 penalty.

Previously, on March 7, 2007, a jury had rendered a unanimous verdict finding Todd and defendant Robert D. Manza, Gateway’s former controller, liable for fraud, making false representations to auditors, aiding and abetting issuer reporting violations and other violations following a three week trial. On May 30, 2007, the Honorable Roger T. Benitez overturned the jury verdict as to the fraud and certain other claims. The SEC appealed that ruling, as well as the District Court’s prior August 1, 2006, grant of summary judgment to Gateway’s former CEO, Jeffrey Weitzen, dismissing the SEC’s case as to Weitzen. On June 23, 2011, the Ninth Circuit reversed those rulings and remanded the matter to the District Court. On January 25, 2012, the Court entered final judgments against Weitzen and Manza pursuant to their consents. [LR 22244 (January 31, 2012.]



http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2012/lr22335.htm

Frequent visits to Booters can cause liver spots.

The court also barred Reynolds, Page, Fischer, RSMR, Page, and Page Properties for seven years, and Offill permanently, from participating in the offer or sale of penny stocks.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 22334/ April 17, 2012

SEC v. Phillip W. Offill, Jr., et al.,
Civil Action No. 07-CV-1643-D (N.D. Tex. filed Sept. 26, 2007)

PENNY STOCK PROMOTERS ENJOINED AND BARRED

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) announced that on April 10, 2012, the Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas enjoined Ryan M. Reynolds of Dallas, TX, Timothy T. Page of Malibu, CA, Steven Fischer of Bonita Springs, FL, Phillip W. Offill, Jr., a Dallas attorney, RSMR Capital Group Inc. (RSMR), Page Properties LP, and ATN Enterprises LLC from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Commission’s complaint alleged that these individuals and entities violated the securities laws by acting as underwriters engaged in a scheme to evade the securities registration requirements by offering and selling the securities of one or more of six companies when no registration statements were filed or in effect to provide information to public investors. The six companies issued penny stocks, which are defined as equity securities trading at a price of less than five dollars per share, and the defendants initiated public trading in the over-the-counter market under the following trading symbols: American Television & Film Company (ATFT), Ecogate, Inc. (ECGT), Media International Concepts, Inc. (MEIC), Vanquish Productions, Inc. (VQPI), Auction Mills, Inc. (AUML), and Custom Designed Compressor Systems, Inc. (CUPY).

The court also barred Reynolds, Page, Fischer, RSMR, Page, and Page Properties for seven years, and Offill permanently, from participating in the offer or sale of penny stocks. In addition, the court enjoined Reynolds, RSMR, Page, and Page Properties from violating Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by engaging in the securities transaction without registering as brokers or dealers with the Commission. The court also ordered the defendants to pay disgorgement totaling $12,219,468 of profits from their unregistered securities sales plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties of $120,000 each. In addition, the court ordered relief defendants Timothy Barham and his company Ballad Enterprises, Inc. of Henderson, Tennessee, and Bellatalia LP, a company owned by Reynolds, to disgorge funds they received from the defendants’ illegal stock sales. The Commission’s claims for remedies against Shane Mullholand and his company Dissemination Services LLC remain to be resolved. The court previously enjoined Arizona attorney, David Stocker and his company Curtis-Case Inc. for their violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act, and barred them from participating in penny stock sales.

[SEC v. Offill, et al., No. 07-cv-1643 (N.D. Tex.)] (LR 20302, Sept. 27, 2007); [U.S. v. Stocker, No. 1:09CR118 (E.D. Va.)] (LR 20944, Mar. 11, 2009).



http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2012/lr22334.htm

The Commission has previously obtained a permanent injunction against Li from future violations of, among other things, the antifraud, reporting, books and records, internal controls, and misrepresentation to auditor provisions of the federal securities laws. The Court also imposed an officer and director bar against Li.

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 22324 / April 9, 2012

Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No. 3379 / April 9, 2012

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. JAMES LI (A/K/A CHING HUA LI), THOMAS CHOW (A/K/A MAN KIT CHOW), ROGER KAO (A/K/A CHAO CHUN KAO), CHRISTOPHER LIU (A/K/A CHI LEI LIU), AND WAYNE A. PRATT, Civil Action No. CV-11-1712-PHX-SRB (SRB) (D. Ariz.) (Filed Aug. 30, 2011)

FORMER SYNTAX-BRILLIAN CORP. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ORDERED TO PAY MORE THAN $11 MILLION FOR INSIDER TRADING AND FINANCIAL FRAUD

On April 4, 2012, Judge Susan R. Bolton of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona entered a final judgment against James Li, the former Chief Executive Officer and Director of Syntax-Brillian Corporation (“Syntax”), a developer of high-definition LCD televisions based in Tempe, Arizona. The Court ordered Li to pay disgorgement of $1,673,481, prejudgment interest of $575,472.93, an insider trading penalty of $4,540,443, and a civil penalty of $4,810,000 for his role in the financial fraud scheme. The Commission has previously obtained a permanent injunction against Li from future violations of, among other things, the antifraud, reporting, books and records, internal controls, and misrepresentation to auditor provisions of the federal securities laws. The Court also imposed an officer and director bar against Li.

According to the SEC’s Complaint, from at least June 2006 through April 2008, Li and other members of Syntax’s senior management engaged in a complex scheme to overstate Syntax’s revenues and earnings and artificially inflate its stock price. As a result, Syntax reported false and misleading financial statements beginning in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, through the fiscal first quarter ended September 30, 2007. The scheme included the creation of fictitious sales and shipping documents and coordinating the circular transfer of funds among and between Syntax, its primary manufacturer in Taiwan, and its purported distributor in Hong Kong to make it appear that fake invoices were being paid.

The Court previously ordered defendant Thomas Chow to pay disgorgement of $10,370,317, prejudgment interest of $2,567,483, an insider trading penalty of $30,849,951, and a civil penalty of $4,680,000 for his role in the financial fraud scheme, as well as permanently enjoining him from violating the federal securities laws. The Court also issued permanent injunctions against defendants Roger Kao, Christopher Liu, Wayne Pratt, and Robert Chiu, and imposed monetary sanctions. In addition, the Commission obtained officer and director bars against Chow, Liu, and Pratt, and issued an administrative order suspending Pratt and Chiu from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant with the right to reapply after five years.

On March 5, 2012, the Commission, pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), revoked the registration of each class of Syntax’s securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act.

For more information about this case, please see Litigation Release Nos. 22075 (August 31, 2011) and 22243 (January 30, 2012), and Administrative Proceeding File Nos. 3-14549 (September 14, 2011), 3-14780 (February 27, 2012), and 3-14784 (March 5, 2012).





http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2012/lr22324.htm

Crushed.

Over Ice.

Van also consented to a district court order to permanently bar him from serving as a public company officer or director,...

SEC Settles Fraud Charges Against Silicon Valley Man

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2012-57

Washington, D.C., April 9, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Silicon Valley man who raised millions for two Internet start-ups by falsely promising investors that his companies were on the verge of undergoing successful initial public offerings and were well on their way to becoming the “next Google.”

Additional Materials
SEC Complaint
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2012/comp-pr2012-57.pdf

The SEC alleges that Benedict Van, of San Jose, Calif., lured investors into web-based start-ups hereUare, Inc. and eCity, Inc. by falsely telling them that the companies would go public within a matter of months and generate millions in quick returns. In truth, Van had no plans to take the companies public and relied solely on investor funds to stay in business. Ultimately, when investor funds ran out by the end of 2008, Van was forced to shut down operations.

“Van played on the hopes of investors, tricking them into believing that his companies were on the verge of becoming the next Silicon Valley success stories,” said Marc Fagel, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office. “Investors should be wary of pitches promising IPO riches from companies with minimal operations and track records.”

According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in the Northern District of California, Van raised more than $6.2 million from investors for hereUare in 2007 and 2008, and raised $880,000 in investor funds for eCity in 2008. In presentations to prospective investors, chiefly in homes in Sacramento and Stockton, Van held himself out as a wealthy venture capitalist with prior IPO experience. Van told prospective investors that the companies had lucrative deals and patents, and that he had retained Goldman Sachs and an international law firm to help take the companies public within six months. According to the SEC, all of these representations were false.

The SEC’s complaint charges Van and hereUare violated the antifraud and registration provisions of U.S. securities laws, and charges eCity with violations of the antifraud provisions. Van, hereUare, and eCity have agreed to settle the charges against them without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations and have consented to permanent injunctions. Van also consented to a district court order to permanently bar him from serving as a public company officer or director, and hereUare has consented to an administrative proceeding order deregistering its stock with the Commission. The SEC waived any financial payment against Van based on his demonstrated inability to pay.

Jennifer J. Lee and Jina L. Choi of the San Francisco Regional Office conducted the SEC’s investigation.

###

For more information about this enforcement action, contact:

Marc J. Fagel
Regional Director, SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office
(415) 705-2449

Michael S. Dicke
Associate Director, SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office
(415) 705-2458

###



http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2012/2012-57.htm

I ORDER that, pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Daniel J. Burns is barred from association with a broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, and transfer agent, and from participating in an offering of penny stock.


34-66738 Apr. 4, 2012 Daniel J. Burns
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2012/34-66738.pdf

In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to impose the sanctions agreed to in Respondent Grant M. Carroll’s Offer.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
Pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, Respondent Carroll be, and hereby is:
barred from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization; and
barred from participating in any offering of a penny stock, including: acting as a promoter, finder, consultant, agent or other person who engages in activities with a broker, dealer or issuer for purposes of the issuance or trading in any penny stock, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock.

34-66739 Apr. 4, 2012 Grant M. Carroll
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin.shtml