In answer to your question, I would speculate that the SEC considers the level of employees participation in the company. But, recall that the SEC investigation is still ongoing and other company employees still might be involved in other infractions. I would also point out that the Wells Notice provided to the Company (not Monterosso) included the phrase, "that the staff of the SEC intends to recommend to the Commission that it bring a civil action against the Company." There are violations listed in the company's Wells Notice that aren't accounted for in the charges brought against Monterosso and Vargas.
To answer your other question, I believe that the SEC's intent is to protect future shareholders. They have no desire to punish current shareholders, but can protect others from being taken by a scam if they feel fraud is taking place. In addition, there is the issue of companies continuing to finance their fraud through new offerings (which further dilutes the shareholder value) with a fraudulent prospectus. Are you saying that the SEC should keep such companies open and allow the fraud to continue so as not to hurt current shareholders? That would be the same as allowing a fraudulent charity to continue operations so as not to hurt the feelings of past contributors. It's a caveat emptor world out in the pennies. There's a tort system to address past victims.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
