Posts

SEC Suspends Trading in HydroGenetics of Fort Lauderdale

HydroGenetics, Inc. of Fort Lauderdale, FL is subject to an SEC Order charging that the firm violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing shares of its stock without a registration statement being in effect, or without an applicable exemption from registration.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the temporary suspension, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), of trading in the securities of HydroGenetics, Inc. (HydroGenetics), of Fort Lauderdale, Florida at 9:30 a.m. EDT on May 2, 2012, and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 15, 2012.

The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of HydroGenetics because of questions that have been raised about the accuracy and adequacy of publicly available information about HydroGenetics because it has not filed a periodic report since its Form 10 registration statement became effective in January 2005.

According to the firm’s website, President and CEO, Charles Hansen III is responsible for day-to-day operations and leading the strategic direction of HydroGenetics, Inc.

Furthermore, the HydroGenetics website reports that the firm “recently changed its business focus from acquiring emerging alternative energy companies and incubate into revenue producing, profitable businesses… to the research and development of a high quality on demand hydrogen assist fuel cell system for internal combustion gas engines that will significantly reduce the consumption of fossil fuel through a hydrogen on demand fuel cell and for the betterment of the environment. HydroGenetics, Inc also owns HydroAxis Technologies, Inc.”

The Commission cautions brokers, dealers, shareholders, and prospective purchasers that they should carefully consider the foregoing information along with all other currently available information and any information subsequently issued by the company.

Further, brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that, pursuant to Rule 15c2-11 under the Exchange Act, at the termination of the trading suspension, no quotation may be entered unless and until they have strictly complied with all of the provisions of the rule.

Florida Securities Litigation and FINRA Arbitration

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities dispute. In addition to being an experienced securities litigation attorney, Mr. Kahn also serves as a FINRA arbitrator for individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Orlando Penny Stock Fraud: Protégé Enterprises, LLC

Florida attorney Cameron H. Linton, Esq., his clients, Christel S. Scucci and her mother Karen S. Beach, and their companies, Protégé Enterprises, LLC, and Capital Edge Enterprises, LLC were charged by the SEC with a scheme to unlawfully sell large quantities of stock in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, which generally requires that securities transactions be registered with the SEC, unless exempt.

According to the SEC, over an approximately 20-month period ending in October 2011, Scucci and her mother sold about 3.3 billion shares of purportedly unrestricted stock that they acquired through so-called debt conversion “wrap around” transactions, reaping proceeds of more than $1.5 million from the sales. The SEC alleges that Scucci and Beach were able to sell most of this stock only because Linton issued baseless legal opinions for them stating that the stock could be issued without a warning on the stock certificate limiting the transfer or sale of the security, which is commonly referred to as a “restrictive legend.” The opinion concluded that their resale was exempt from the federal registration requirements.

According to the SEC’s complaint, the transactions involved notes issued by microcap companies representing debts supposedly owed to affiliates or others often closely associated with the companies. Under the wrap around agreements, the affiliates assigned the right to collect the debts from the issuers to Protégé or Capital Edge. The wrap around agreements also purported to amend the initial debt agreements thereby allowing Protégé and Capital Edge to convert the money owed to them into shares of the issuers’ common stock at a deep discount to the prevailing market price. Protégé and Capital Edge almost always elected to receive stock from the issuers shortly after execution of the wrap around agreements, and regularly sold the stock into the public market, often for large profits, within days or weeks of acquiring it. None of the sales were registered with the SEC.

The complaint alleges that Protégé and Capital Edge paid Linton to write attorney opinion letters for them stating that the stock acquired under these wrap around agreements lawfully could be issued to them by the transfer agent without a restrictive legend and immediately sold to the public.

According to the SEC, Linton lacked any basis for the opinions he issued, which were premised on the notion that through the wrap around agreements and debt conversion, Protégé and Capital Edge could rely on a safe harbor for resale of securities held for at least one year by “tacking” the 12-month period that the affiliates claimed to have held the original debt before transferring it to Protégé and Capital Edge.

However, the complaint alleges that when Linton wrote the opinion letters, he lacked an understanding of the applicable legal principles and failed to substantiate the factual predicate for his opinions. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that in mid-2010, Linton became aware of an injunction issued in another case involving a similar scheme in which his letters were used to effectuate unregistered sales. But for Linton’s opinion letters, transfer agents would not have issued the stock to Protégé and Capital Edge so that they could quickly turn around and sell it into the public market.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Protégé, Capital Edge, Scucci and Beach violated Section 5 of the Securities Act. The complaint further alleges that Linton violated, or aided and abetted the violation of, Section 5 of the Securities Act. The SEC is seeking to have the defendants return their ill-gotten gains, pay penalties, be subject to injunctions, and be barred from participating in future penny-stock offerings. [SEC v. Christel S. Scucci, et al., Case No. 6:12-646-ORL-37-KRS (M.D. Fla.)] (SEC Litigation Release LR-22352)

Florida Securities Litigation and FINRA Arbitration

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities dispute. In addition to being an experienced securities litigation attorney, Mr. Kahn also serves as a FINRA arbitrator for individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Pay Disclosures May Await Brokers Switching Firms

Industry observers expect FINRA may soon begin requiring that highly-paid brokers who are lured from one financial services firm to a competitor must disclose any “enhanced compensation” that sweetened the employment offer. The Wall Street Journal reported on the expected move recently in an article titled “Brokers Face Pay Disclosures.”

FINRA closed comments in March on a proposed rule to require disclosure of conflicts of interest relating to recruitment compensation practices (Regulatory Notice 13-02).

At issue is what brokers must disclose when clients naturally follow them to a new firm on the basis of personal relationships, or when the broker attempts to encourage a client to move their account to the broker’s new place of employment.

The term “enhanced compensation” means compensation paid in connection with the transfer of securities employment to the recruiting firm, other than the compensation normally paid by the recruiting firm to its established registered persons. Enhanced compensation includes but is not limited to:

  • Signing bonuses
  • Upfront or back-end bonuses
  • Loans
  • Accelerated payouts
  • Transition assistance
  • Other similar payments

Investor protection is behind FINRA’s initiative. Many member firms offer significant financial incentives to recruit registered representatives to join their firms, according to FINRA, yet these compensation arrangements are not disclosed to customers when they are asked to transfer their accounts to a representative’s new firm.

Morgan Stanley, with 17,000 financial advisors, “fully supports the uniform disclosure of firms’ recruiting compensation arrangements as outlined in the Rule Proposal,” according to a firm comment letter submitted to FINRA. The University of Miami School of Law Investor Rights Clinic “supports the aims of transparency and disclosure … but would suggest certain modifications.” Click on the link to read all FINRA comment letters.

The proposed FINRA rules are intended to apply to financial services companies regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), state securities authorities, and related firms.

Exemptions are provided for compensation under $50,000 or institutional customer accounts.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

FINRA Board Authorizes Arbitration Panel Changes

The FINRA Board of Governors authorized FINRA to file with the SEC proposed amendments to FINRA Rule 12403 to simplify the panel selection rules.

Rather than requiring the customer to elect a panel selection method, parties in all customer cases with three arbitrators would have the same selection method.

Under this method, all parties would see lists of 10 chair-qualified public arbitrators, 10 public arbitrators and 10 non-public arbitrators. The rules would permit four strikes on each of the public arbitrator lists. However, any party could select an all-public arbitration panel by striking all of the arbitrators on the non-public list.

Alternatively, if the parties leave on the non-public list one or more of the same non-public arbitrators, the parties could have a majority public panel—that is two public and one non-public arbitrator.

Other actions from the FINRA Board’s April 18th meeting include:

  • Beginning with the next FINRA Board meeting in July, designated Board members will host a webcast immediately following the meeting to share key points with investors.
  • The Board authorized FINRA to file with the SEC proposed amendments to the Discovery Guide used in customer arbitration proceedings to provide general guidance on e-discovery issues and product cases, and to clarify existing provisions relating to affirmations.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

SEC Suspends NY Attorney Living in Boca Raton

William J. Reilly, a New York attorney residing in Boca Raton, Florida, is suspended from practicing as an attorney before the Securities and Exchange. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a judgment on April 16, 2012, enforcing an order entered by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The judgment finds that on October 27, 2009 the SEC suspended Reilly from appearing or practicing as an attorney before the SEC, with the right to apply for reinstatement after three years. In the Matter of William J. Reilly, Esq., Admin. Proc. 3-13666 (Oct. 27, 2009). The judgment further finds that a registration statement on Form S-8 filed with the SEC on June 21, 2011 incorporated as an exhibit a legal opinion letter signed by Reilly. By this conduct, Reilly knowingly violated the terms of the order suspending him from appearing or practicing before the SEC as an attorney.

The judgment entered by the court under Section 21(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires Reilly to comply with the SEC order. [SEC v. William J. Reilly, 9:11-CV-81322-DMM (S.D. Fla.)] (LR-22336)

Securities Litigation and FINRA Arbitration

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities dispute. In addition to being an experienced securities litigation attorney, Mr. Kahn also serves as a FINRA arbitrator for individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

MF Global General Counsel to Testify

A $1.6 billion shortfall in customer funds at MF Global Holdings Ltd. is the subject of a fifth investigatory hearing by the House Financial Services Committee scheduled for Wednesday, March 28th.

Laurie Ferber, MF Global’s general counsel, is expected to break her silence on the situation. “My impression throughout the afternoon and late into the evening was that the apparent deficit was a reconciliation issue and did not represent an actual shortfall in customer funds,” she plans to tell the oversight panel, according to the New York Times.

Edith O’Brien, an assistant treasurer in MF Global’s Chicago office, will also appear before the House panel but is expected to invoke her constitutional right against self-incrimination. Other expected witnesses include MF Global financial executives Christine Serwinski and Henri Steenkamp.

Congressional investigators published an email recently indicating that MF Global CEO Jon S. Corzine gave “direct instructions” to move $200 million from an MF Global account containing customer funds three days before the securities firm collapsed, despite his claims to the contrary.

At issue is MF Global’s alleged violation of rules prohibiting the mingling of customer and firm money.

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know invested funds at MF Global. In addition to being an experienced securities litigation attorney, Mr. Kahn also serves as a FINRA arbitrator for individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

FINRA Fines Citigroup Unit for Excessive Markups

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced this week that it fined Citi International Financial Services LLC, a subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc., $600,000 and ordered more than $648,000 in restitution and interest to more than 3,600 customers for charging excessive markups and markdowns on corporate and agency bond transactions, and for related supervisory violations.

According to a FINRA release:

Thomas Gira, Executive Vice President, FINRA Market Regulation, said, “FINRA is committed to ensuring that customers who purchase and sell securities, including corporate and agency bonds, receive fair prices. The markups and markdowns charged by Citi International were outside of appropriate standards for fair pricing in debt transactions, and FINRA will continue to identify and address transactions that violate fair pricing standards, regardless of whether a markup or markdown is above or below 5 percent.”

FINRA found that from July 2007 through September 2010, Citi International charged excessive corporate and agency bond markups and markdowns. The markups and markdowns ranged from 2.73 percent to over 10 percent, and were excessive given market conditions, the cost of executing the transactions and the value of the services rendered to the customers, among other factors. In addition, from April 2009 through June 2009, Citi International failed to use reasonable diligence to buy or sell corporate bonds so that the resulting price to its customers was as favorable as possible under prevailing market conditions.

During the relevant period, Citi International’s supervisory system regarding fixed income transactions contained significant deficiencies regarding, among other things, the review of markups and markdowns below 5 percent and utilization of a pricing grid for markups and markdowns that was based on the par value of the bonds, instead of the actual value of the bonds. Citi International was also ordered to revise its written supervisory procedures regarding supervisory review of markups and markdowns, and best execution in fixed income transactions with its customers.

In concluding this settlement, Citi International neither admitted nor denied the charges.

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know invested in corporate or agency bond transactions sold by the Citi International Financial Services unit of Citigroup, Inc. In addition to being an experienced securities litigation attorney, Mr. Kahn also serves as a FINRA arbitrator for individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Rengan Rajaratnam Charged in Galleon Insider Trading

The SEC today charged Rajarengan “Rengan” Rajaratnam for his role in the massive insider trading scheme spearheaded by his older brother Raj Rajaratnam and hedge fund advisory firm Galleon Management.

The SEC alleges that from 2006 to 2008, Rengan Rajaratnam repeatedly received inside information from his brother and reaped more than $3 million in illicit gains for himself and hedge funds that he managed at Galleon and Sedna Capital Management, a hedge fund advisory firm that he co-founded. In addition to illegally trading on inside tips, Rengan Rajaratnam was an active participant in his brother’s scheme to cultivate highly placed sources and extract confidential information for an unfair advantage over other traders.

“Our complaint against Rengan Rajaratnam tells a sad tale of a man who followed his brother down an illegal path of greed to its inevitable conclusion,” said George S. Canellos, Acting Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

Sanjay Wadhwa, Senior Associate Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office, added, “Rengan Rajaratnam profited handsomely from his brother’s insider trading activities, and he may have believed he wouldn’t have to pay a price for his involvement. But now he is learning the true cost of his participation in the most expansive insider trading scheme ever perpetrated.”

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York today announced criminal charges against Rengan Rajaratnam.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan, Rengan Rajaratnam repeatedly received valuable insider tips from his brother that he used for illegal trading in the securities of Polycom, Hilton Hotels, Clearwire Corporation, Akamai Technologies, and AMD. For example, in July 2007, he made substantial profits trading Hilton stock in his personal account based on a timely insider trading tip from Raj Rajaratnam that Hilton was about to be taken private. Rengan Rajaratnam quickly loaded up on Hilton stock, and the price of Hilton shares jumped more than 25 percent after the news became public. Rengan Rajaratnam cashed in his recently acquired position for an illicit profit of more than $675,000.

According to the SEC’s complaint, after Raj Rajaratnam tipped him about an upcoming transaction involving Clearwire Corporation in March 2008, Rengan Rajaratnam complained to his brother that certain nonpublic information they had used to begin accumulating a position in Clearwire stock was about to be reported by the media before they could establish a larger position. Rengan Rajaratnam nevertheless profited by more than $100,000 in his personal brokerage account and more than $230,000 for Galleon hedge funds based on trades in Clearwire securities.

The SEC’s complaint charges Rengan Rajaratnam with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint seeks a final judgment permanently enjoining Rajaratnam from future violations of these provisions of the federal securities laws, ordering him to disgorge his ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and ordering him to pay financial penalties.

The SEC has now charged 33 defendants in its Galleon-related enforcement actions, which have exposed widespread and repeated insider trading at numerous hedge funds and by other traders, investment professionals, and corporate insiders located throughout the country. The insider trading occurred in the securities of more than 15 companies for illicit gains totaling more than $96 million.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Craig Berkman of Florida Charged in Facebook Securities Fraud

Craig Berkman, a former Oregon gubernatorial candidate who now lives in Florida, allegedly raised at least $13.2 million from 120 investors by selling membership interests in limited liability companies that he controlled.

The SEC charges that Berkman defrauded investors by claiming special access to pre-IPO stock in Facebook, LinkedIn, Groupon, and Zynga. Instead of purchasing shares on investors’ behalf as promised, Berkman misused their investments to make Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors, fund personal expenses, and pay off claims against him in a bankruptcy case.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division also charged John B. Kern of Charleston, S.C., for his participation in the fraud as legal counsel to some of Berkman’s companies. When investors in Berkman’s phony Facebook fund began questioning what happened to their money after Facebook’s IPO occurred, Kern falsely assured them that their money was used to purchase pre-IPO Facebook stock being held for them by unnamed counterparties.

“Berkman blatantly capitalized on the market fervor preceding highly anticipated IPOs of Facebook and other social media companies to fleece investors whose cash flow he treated like an ATM to fund his own living expenses and pay court-ordered claims to victims of his past misdeeds,” said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.

Sanjay Wadhwa, Senior Associate Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office, added, “Lawyers and others who help shady operators commit fraud in the securities markets will be held accountable for their supporting roles. Kern was duty-bound to look out for investors’ best interests, but instead he was actively colluding with Berkman to prevent investors from discovering the fraud.”

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

According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings, Berkman raised at least $13.2 million from 120 investors by selling membership interests in limited liability companies that he controlled. Berkman defrauded investors in three different sets of offerings. He falsely told the first set of investors he would use their money to acquire pre-IPO shares of several social media companies. He misled the second set of investors into believing that their money would be used to purchase pre-IPO shares of Facebook or acquire a company that held pre-IPO Facebook shares. In the third offering, Berkman falsely told investors that he would use their money to fund various new large-scale technology ventures.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Berkman misappropriated virtually all investor funds that he raised. He did use $600,000 to purchase a small interest in an unrelated fund that had acquired pre-IPO Facebook stock, however that purchase did not provide any company affiliated with Berkman with ownership of Facebook shares. One of Berkman’s companies nevertheless used a forged letter about that investment to falsely represent to investors that it owned nearly a half-million shares of Facebook stock. Upon discovering the forgery, the fund informed Berkman that it was immediately terminating and liquidating his company’s interest, leaving it without even an indirect interest in Facebook shares.

The SEC’s order details a recidivist history for Berkman. The Oregon Division of Finance and Securities issued a cease-and-desist order and $50,000 fine against Berkman in 2001 for offering and selling convertible promissory notes without a brokerage license to Oregon residents. In June 2008, an Oregon jury found Berkman liable in a private action for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion of investor funds, and misrepresentation to investors arising from Berkman’s involvement with a series of purported venture capital funds known as Synectic Ventures. The court entered a $28 million judgment against Berkman. In March 2009, Synectic filed an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition against Berkman in Florida for his unpaid debts arising from the 2008 court judgment. The parties to the bankruptcy proceeding reached a settlement with Berkman.

According to the SEC’s order, instead of using his own money to satisfy these past claims, Berkman spent more than $5.4 million in funds from investors in his pre-IPO offerings to make the payments in the bankruptcy settlement. Berkman also made $4.8 million in Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors in the pre-IPO scheme, falsely telling some of them that they had made money on their investment when in reality he never purchased shares for them. Berkman used approximately $1.6 million of investor money to make large cash withdrawals and pay his own dining and travel expenses.

According to the SEC’s order, three months after Facebook’s IPO transpired, Kern wrote and signed a memorandum addressed to concerned investors in Berkman’s purported Facebook fund. Kern’s memorandum stated that a counterparty has “repeatedly affirmed that it has the requisite [Facebook] shares and reconfirmed to us that we have the securities interests to which we subscribed.” Kern knew this statement was false because the “counterparty” had told Kern that it was terminating Berkman’s company’s interest in the fund because of the forged letter. Kern received nearly $300,000 out of the offering proceeds.

The SEC’s order alleges that Berkman and his affiliated entities committed and caused violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and that Kern caused and aided and abetted the violations. The administrative proceedings will determine whether a cease-and-desist order should be issued and what, if any, remedial action or financial sanctions are appropriate and in the public interest.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Business Opportunity Fraud: Warning Signs

Investors are wise to be aware of business opportunity fraud. A former con artist advises “fast no’s and slow yes’s” when being asked to invest in a business opportunity. Watch this video to see how get-rich-quick schemes frequently proliferate during an economic downturn. 

Warning signs of business opportunity fraud are promises that sound too good to be true, including:

  • You can earn lots of money
  • I’ll show you how to build your business
  • You will be able to work from home

The FTC recommends that prospective investors always ask for a written disclosure document before paying any money. If the sponsoring organization makes claims of high revenue levels, you can also request an “earnings claim” document.

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has been the victim of business opportunity fraud or securities fraud. Mr. Kahn is an experienced fraud and litigation attorney. He is also a FINRA arbitrator in securities disputes among individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.