Posts

SEC Censures UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico

/in /by

UBS PR made misrepresentations and omissions to investors involving secondary market prices and liquidity concerning 23 affiliated, non-exchange-traded closed-end funds (CEFs) in Puerto Rico, according to the SEC.

The Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 15(b) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order (Order) against UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico (UBS PR).

Based on the above, the Order censures UBS PR and requires it to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and Section 15(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and pay $11.5 million in disgorgement, $1.1 million in prejudgment interest and a $14 million penalty. UBS PR also consents to certain undertakings, including a review by an independent consultant of UBS PR’s disclosures and trading and pricing policies relating to the CEFs, implementation of the independent consultant’s recommendations and annual follow-up reviews of the implementation for a period of three years. UBS PR consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings. (Rels. 33-9318; 34-66893; File No. 3-14863)

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

/in /by

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.

Pre-IPO Facebook Fraud Halted in Miami

/in /by

Allen Weintraub, charged with an ongoing fraudulent scheme of selling securities of an investment vehicle that he falsely represented owned pre-IPO shares of Facebook, Inc., was the subject of an April 4, 2012 Order to Show Cause and Other Emergency Relief (“Order”) by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami.

The Court’s Order temporarily freezes the assets of Weintraub and certain shell companies through which he apparently operates. The order also directed Weintraub to demonstrate, among other things, why he should not be held in contempt for violating the Court’s Final Judgment in SEC v. Allen E. Weintraub and AWMS Acquisition, Inc., d/b/a Sterling Global Holdings, Case No. 11-21549-CIV-HUCK/BANDSTRA (S.D.Fla.), which was entered on January 10, 2012 (Final Judgment). The Final Judgment enjoined Weintraub from violating, among other things, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Commission’s motion for an order to show cause alleges that in February 2012, Weintraub, acting through an alias, William Lewis, and through entities named Private Stock Transfer, Inc., PST Investments III, Inc. (PST Investments), and World Financial Solutions, defrauded investors by selling them worthless shares in PST Investments. Weintraub had falsely represented that he would sell the investors pre-IPO shares of Facebook, Inc., and that PST Investments had an ownership interest in Facebook stock. The Commission’s motion also alleges that Weintraub was utilizing the website privatestocktransfer.com to perpetrate his scheme. The Court’s Order directed that this website be deactivated. The Division of Enforcement urges anyone who believes that Allen Weintraub may have recently defrauded them to contact John Rossetti, Senior Counsel, at 202-551-4819.

On December 30, 2011, the Court entered an order granting the Commission’s motion for summary judgment against Weintraub and his shell company, Sterling Global. In its Order, the Court found that Weintraub deceived the public by making false and misleading statements regarding Sterling Global’s ability to purchase and operate Eastman Kodak Company and AMR Corporation. The Court’s January 2012 Final Judgment permanently enjoined Weintraub and Sterling Global from future violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-8 thereunder, and ordered them to each pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $200,000. See Litigation Release 22225 (January 11, 2012). [SEC v. Allen E. Weintraub and AWMS Acquisition, Inc., d/b/a Sterling Global Holdings, Case No. 11-21549-CIV-HUCK/BANDSTRA (S.D.Fla.)] (LR-22343)

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.

FINRA Board Authorizes Arbitration Panel Changes

/in /by

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

/in /by

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.

SEC Charges optionsXpress in Naked Short Selling Scheme

/in /by

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged an online brokerage and clearing agency specializing in options and futures as well as four officials at the firm and a customer involved in an abusive naked short selling scheme.

The SEC’s Division of Enforcement alleges that Chicago-based optionsXpress Inc. failed to satisfy its close-out obligations under Regulation SHO by repeatedly engaging in a series of sham “reset” transactions designed to give the illusion that the firm had purchased securities of like kind and quantity. The firm and customer Jonathan I. Feldman engaged in these sham reset transactions in a number of securities, resulting in continuous failures to deliver. Regulation SHO requires the delivery of equity securities to a registered clearing agency when delivery is due, generally three days after the trade date (T+3). If no delivery is made by that time, the firm must purchase or borrow the securities to close out the failure-to-deliver position by no later than the beginning of regular trading hours on the next day (T+4).

The former chief financial officer at optionsXpress, Thomas E. Stern of Chicago, was named in the SEC’s administrative proceeding along with optionsXpress and Feldman. Three other optionsXpress officials – head of trading and customer service Peter J. Bottini and compliance officers Phillip J. Hoeh and Kevin E. Strine – were named in a separate administrative proceeding and settled the charges against them for their roles in the scheme.

According to the SEC’s order, the misconduct occurred from at least October 2008 to March 2010. In September 2011, optionsXpress became a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Charles Schwab Corporation.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that the sham reset transactions impacted the market for the issuers. For example, from Jan. 1, 2010 to Jan. 31, 2010, optionsXpress customers including Feldman accounted for an average of 47.9 percent of the daily trading volume in one of the securities. In 2009 alone, the optionsXpress customer accounts engaging in the activity purchased approximately $5.7 billion worth of securities and sold short approximately $4 billion of options. In 2009, Feldman himself purchased at least $2.9 billion of securities and sold short at least $1.7 billion of options through his account at optionsXpress.

According to the SEC’s order, by engaging in the alleged misconduct, optionsXpress violated Rules 204 and 204T of Regulation SHO; Feldman willfully violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 10b-21 thereunder; optionsXpress and Stern caused and willfully aided and abetted Feldman’s violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 10b-21 thereunder; and Stern caused and willfully aided and abetted optionsXpress’ violations of Rules 204 and 204T.

In the separate settled administrative proceeding, Bottini, Hoeh, and Strine consented to a cease-and-desist order finding that they caused optionsXpress’ violations of Rules 204 and 204T of Regulation SHO and ordering them to cease-and-desist from committing or causing violations of Rules 204. They neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings. (Rel. 34-66814; File No. 3-14848 and 33-9313; File No. 3-14848)

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.

Goldman Sachs Lacked Adequate Policies for Research “Huddles”

/in /by

Goldman agreed to pay a $22 million penalty and consent to a censure, a cease-and-desist order, and undertakings to settle SEC charges that the firm lacked adequate policies and procedures to address risks associated with weekly “huddles.” Huddles were a practice where Goldman’s stock research analysts met to provide their best trading ideas–frequently material, nonpublic information about upcoming research changes–to firm traders and later passed them on to a select group of top clients.

Goldman also agreed to review and revise its written policies and procedures to correct the deficiencies identified by the SEC. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) also announced today a settlement with Goldman for supervisory and other failures related to the huddles.

The Commission’s Order finds that from 2006 to 2011, Goldman held weekly huddle meetings in each of its research sectors, sometimes attended by sales personnel, in which analysts discussed their top short-term trading ideas and traders discussed their views on the markets. Beginning in 2007, Goldman began a program known as the Asymmetric Service Initiative (ASI), in which analysts shared information and trading ideas from the huddles with select clients. The huddles and ASI were extensive undertakings by Goldman and were created with the goals of improving the profitability of the firm’s traders and generating increased commission revenues from ASI clients.

Research analysts were made aware of the importance of huddles and ASI to Goldman and to their own evaluations and potentially their compensation. The huddle program created a serious and substantial risk that analysts could share material, nonpublic information concerning upcoming changes to their published research with ASI clients and the firm’s traders. The risks were further increased by the fact that many of these clients and traders were frequent, high-volume traders. Despite those risks, Goldman failed to establish adequate policies or adequately enforce and maintain its existing policies, to prevent the misuse of material, nonpublic information concerning upcoming changes to its research.

The Order also finds that Goldman conducted limited surveillance of trading ahead of research changes, but did not perform any surveillance specifically related to huddles. Furthermore, Goldman’s surveillance of trading ahead of research changes was not reasonably designed to ensure that analysts were not prematurely disclosing material research changes to firm traders and clients, either through the huddles, ASI or otherwise.

In 2003, Goldman paid a $5 million civil penalty and disgorgement and interest totaling more than $4.3 million to settle SEC charges that, among other violations, Goldman violated Section 15(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) by failing to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, nonpublic information obtained from outside consultants concerning U.S. Treasury 30-year bonds. In re Goldman Sachs & Co., Exchange Act Rel. No. 48436 (Sept. 4, 2003). Goldman settled the SEC’s 2003 proceeding without admitting or denying the findings.

The Order issued today finds that Goldman willfully violated Section 15(g) of the Exchange Act (previously Section 15(f)). The Commission censured the firm and ordered it to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 15(g) of the Exchange Act.

Goldman was ordered to pay a civil money penalty of $22 million, $11 million of which shall be deemed satisfied upon payment by Goldman of an $11 million civil penalty to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in a related proceeding.

In addition, Goldman agreed to complete a comprehensive review of the policies, procedures, and practices relating to the findings of the Order, and to adopt, implement and maintain practices and written policies and procedures consistent with the findings of the Order and the recommendations contained in the comprehensive review. In June 2011, Goldman entered into a consent order relating to huddles and ASI with the Massachusetts Securities Division (Docket No. 2009-079).

In the SEC’s action, Goldman admits to the factual findings to the extent those findings are also contained in Section V of the Massachusetts Consent Order, but otherwise neither admits nor denies the SEC’s findings. (Rel. 34-66791; File No. 3-14845)

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.

SEC Charges George Elia of Oakland Park with Fraud

/in /by

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged that a South Florida investment manager defrauded investors by making false claims about his investment track record and providing bogus account statements that reflected fictitious profits.

In the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the SEC alleges that since 2005, George Elia and International Consultants & Investment Group Ltd. Corp., pulled in at least $11 million from investors by falsely claiming annual returns as high as 26%, and that Elia transferred more than $2.5 million of investor funds to two entities he controlled, Elia Realty, Inc., and 212 Entertainment Club, Inc.

Elia, age 67, and until recently a resident of Oakland Park, Florida, told investors that he had extensive experience in day trading stocks and exchange-traded funds, but his trading resulted in losses or only marginal gains, and the quarterly account statements he sent to clients overstated their returns, the SEC alleged.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Elia typically met and pitched prospective investors over meals at expensive restaurants in and around Fort Lauderdale. The SEC said his clients typically came to him through word-of-mouth referrals among friends and relatives. A significant number of the victims of his scheme were members of the gay community in Wilton Manors, Florida.

“Elia’s blatant fraud and cruel deceptions have wrecked the lives of investors and their families,” said Eric I. Bustillo, Regional Director of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office. “This is a sad lesson that investors must always be skeptical of claims of high and steady investment returns, even when the manager is recommended by trusted friends or members of one’s own community.”

In a parallel criminal case, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida announced that Elia was indicted on April 5 on one count of wire fraud.

The SEC alleges that Elia and ICIG operated through an informal “Investor Funding Club” and through funds including Vision Equities Fund II, LLC and Vision Equities Fund IV, LLC. It alleges that Elia sent one investor a statement for the first three quarters of 2009, showing returns of 3.48%, 3.48%, and 3.52% respectively. The SEC alleges the statement was false and misleading because the returns exceeded Elia’s trading gains for the period. In at least one instance, the SEC alleges Elia reassured an investor by showing him falsified statements that grossly overstated account balances.

The SEC’s complaint charges that Elia and ICIG violated antifraud provisions of U.S. securities laws and that Elia aided and abetted violations by the firms. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions against Elia and ICIG, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus pre-judgment interest, and civil penalties. The complaint also named Elia Realty, Inc. and 212 Club Entertainment, Inc. as relief defendants.

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know did business with George Elia. 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.

SEC Approves Social Media for Financial Disclosure

/in /by

Public companies can now use social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter to announce key information in compliance with Regulation Fair Disclosure (Regulation FD), says the SEC, as long as investors are notified of company communication plans.

Regulation FD applies to social media and other emerging means of communication used by public companies the same way it applies to company websites, according to the SEC. The announcement clarifies that company communications made through social media channels could constitute selective disclosures and, therefore, require careful Regulation FD analysis.

“One set of shareholders should not be able to get a jump on other shareholders just because the company is selectively disclosing important information,” said George Canellos, Acting Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Most social media are perfectly suitable methods for communicating with investors, but not if the access is restricted or if investors don’t know that’s where they need to turn to get the latest news.”

Regulation FD requires companies to distribute material information in a manner reasonably designed to get that information out to the general public broadly and non-exclusively. It is intended to ensure that all investors have the ability to gain access to material information at the same time.

The SEC’s report of investigation stems from an inquiry the Division of Enforcement launched into a post by Netflix CEO Reed Hastings on his personal Facebook page stating that Netflix’s monthly online viewing had exceeded one billion hours for the first time. Netflix did not report this information to investors through a press release or Form 8-K filing, and a subsequent company press release later that day did not include this information. Neither Hastings nor Netflix had previously used his Facebook page to announce company metrics, and they had never before taken steps to alert investors that Hastings’ personal Facebook page might be used as a medium for communicating information about Netflix. Netflix’s stock price had begun rising before the posting, and increased from $70.45 at the time of the Facebook post to $81.72 at the close of the following trading day.

The SEC did not initiate an enforcement action or allege wrongdoing by Hastings or Netflix. Recognizing that there has been market uncertainty about the application of Regulation FD to social media, the SEC issued the report of investigation pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The report of investigation explains that although every case must be evaluated on its own facts, disclosure of material, nonpublic information on the personal social media site of an individual corporate officer — without advance notice to investors that the site may be used for this purpose — is unlikely to qualify as an acceptable method of disclosure under the securities laws. Personal social media sites of individuals employed by a public company would not ordinarily be assumed to be channels through which the company would disclose material corporate information.

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.

Rengan Rajaratnam Charged in Galleon Insider Trading

/in /by

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.