This week the market crisis continued. The Senate passed legislation to try and cure the crisis. The SEC called for additional regulatory authority and extended its emergency orders regarding short selling. Yet, the Commission’s inspector general issued a report which highly critical of the SEC’s performance in the demise of Bear Stearns.

This week, KLA-Tencor concluded a settlement of a class action based on backdated options. A potentially far-reaching decision was issued in the Southern District of New York dismissing a class action for failure to plead scienter in a case based on fraud claims tied to high risk investments. The SEC also filed three additional insider trading cases in its war on insider trading, along with two settled financial fraud cases.

The market crisis

The Commission extended its emergency short selling rules which were due to expire on October 2. The new expiration date is October 17, 2008. In a statement which noted that short selling can have a positive and negative impact on the market, the SEC extended its: temporary ban on short selling in financial companies, a temporary requirement that institutional money managers report their short sales of certain securities, its hard close rule for naked shorts and its other temporary rules which were previously discussed here.

The Commission received a letter from Congressman Edward Markey, one of the sponsors of The Market Reform Act of 1990, requesting an explanation for the repeal last year of the so-called “collar rule” by the New York Stock Exchange. The letter raises questions about the current market volatility and poses a series of questions about the SEC’s use of its authority in this regard under the 1990 Act.

The rule cited by Congressman Markey is NYSE Rule 80A – the collar rule. It restricted certain program trading when there is an up or down movement of 2% from the previous day close. The Congressman wants the SEC to explain the reason it permitted the rule to be revoked and answer a series of related questions including if “the SEC examined whether such trading strategies or practices may afford aggressive trading firms an opportunity to profit from manipulative acts or practices such as intermarket frontrunning or self-frontrunning, or use aggressive trading strategies which prey on the existing fragility of our markets?” Letter of Congressman Edward J. Markey to The Hon. Christopher Cox, Sept. 30, 2008.

Congressman Markey’s letter comes in a week when Chairman Cox acknowledged that the Consolidated Supervised Entities program created to fill in a regulatory gap that left investment bank holding companies unregulated had failed as discussed here.

At the time of that announcement, the SEC Inspector General issued a report which was highly critical of the Commission’s supervision of Bear Stearns as discussed here. In part, that report suggested that, had the Commission properly reviewed Bear Stearns’ most recent filings, the flurry of rumors which contributed to the collapse of that firm may have been avoided. This claim, of course, raises questions about theories that the giant investment bank was the victim of a bear raid which the emergency short sale rules are intended to prevent.

Nevertheless, Chairman Cox has requested that Congress give the Commission additional authority over investment company holding companies and credit default swaps as discussed here. Congress has not considered that request. The SEC may, however, get additional authority over fair value accounting if the emergency rescue plan to be taken up by the House of Representatives on Friday is enacted as discussed here. Some groups are concerned over the sections of that bill which would permit the SEC to apply FAS 157 on a case-by-case basis.

Option backdating

KLA-Tencor Corp. finalized the settlement of its option backdating class action. The court approved a settlement which included about $65 million for the class and $10 million in legal fees. Garber v. KLA-Tencor Corp., Case No. 3:06-cv-04065 (N.D. Ca. Filed June 29, 2006). Previously, the company settled an option backdating case with the SEC discussed here. SEC v KLA-Tencor Corp., Case No. C 07 3799 (N.D. Ca. July 25, 2007). A case against the former CEO of the company, Kenneth Schroeder, is pending. SEC v. Schroeder, Case No. C 07 3798 (N.D. Ca. July 25, 2007). A criminal investigation was closed.

Scienter – high risk investments

In a case which may be a forerunner to others as the market crisis continues, the court, in In re: American Express Co. Sec. Litig., 02 cv 5533 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 26, 2008), dismissed a class action securities suit for failure to plead a strong inference of scienter as required by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 127 S.Ct. 2499 (2007). The allegations in the case centered on claims that defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, facts demonstrating that the public statements of the company regarding its high yield investments were false as discussed here.

Insider trading

The SEC filed three insider trading cases this week including:

SEC v. Queri, Case No. 2:08-cv-01361 (W.D. Penn. Oct. 1, 2008) is a partially settled insider trading action brought against sixteen defendants. The action focuses on trading in advance of the June 21, 2004 announcement that Dick’s Sporting Goods would acquire Galyan’s Trading Company, Inc. in a tender offer. Following that announcement, Galyan’s stock price increased over 50%. Five of the defendants settled this action which involves multiple tippees as discussed here.

SEC v. Abed, Case No. C-0804548 (N.D. Ca. Sept. 30, 2008) is a settled insider trading action against the President and CEO of Genesis Microchip, Inc., Ellas Antoun, and his friend Samir Abed. This case centers on the acquisition of Genesis, a manufacturer of flat panel TVs, by STMicroelectronics, Geneva Switzerland. Following the execution of a letter of intent, Mr. Antoun purchasing shares of Genesis. He also told his long time friend, Mr. Abed, about the deal in confidence. Nevertheless, Mr. Abed also purchased shares. Following the announcement of the deal the shares of Genesis increased about 57%. Both defendants consented to permanent injunctions and orders requiring the payment of disgorgement, prejudgment interest and penalties as also discussed here.

SEC v. Leone, Civil Action No. 3-08-cv-1686 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2008) is a settled insider trading case against defendants Randolph Leone and Randall Wall. It is based on the acquisition of Watsco, Inc. by ACR Group. Each defendant is alleged to have acquired inside information about the deal from a different source. Mr. Leone, according to the complaint, overheard a telephone conversation between his wife and her sister, the wife of ACR’s general counsel, about the deal and traded. Mr. Wall learned about the deal from his supervisor who had learned about it in confidence from a Watsco senior vice president. After he learned about the deal Mr. Wall purchased shares of ACR on which he made a profit after the deal announcement of about $6,200. Both defendants consented to the entry of injunctions and orders requiring the payment of disgorgement, prejudgment interest and penalties as discussed here.

Financial fraud

The SEC filed two settled financial fraud case this week.

SEC v. The Penn Traffic Company, Civil Action No. 08 Civ. 01035 (N.D. N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008). There, the Commission alleged two fraudulent schemes. Under one, the company prematurely recognized promotional allowances. Under a second, the company used fraudulent entries and/or adjustment to help a subsidiary meet earnings goals. The case was settled with a consent to a permanent injunction and the agreement of the company to certain undertakings as discussed here.

SEC v. Wevodau, 08-Civ-8348 (S.D.N.Y. Filed Sept. 30, 2008) is the latest in a series of actions related to BISYS Group, Inc. Mr. Wevodau, the former vice president of finance for the Insurance and Education Services group at that company participated in a scheme by which BSYS Group overstated its income by about $180 million, largely as a result of fraud in the insurance group. The case was resolved with a consent injunction and an order requiring the payment of disgorgement, prejudgment interest and a penalty totaling $225,000 as also discussed here.

As the market crisis continues, Congress went back to work with the Senate passing the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. At its, core the bill is essentially the one which the House failed to pass earlier in the week – with a few additions.

Two little noticed provisions are Sections 132 and 133, which represent a significant and potentially far-reaching intrusion by Congress into the process by which accounting principles are formulated and implemented. Section 132 gives the SEC the authority to “suspend … Statement Number 157 of the Financial Accounting Standards Board for any issuer … or with respect to any class or category of transaction if the Commission determines that it is necessary or appropriate ….” Critical to this provision is the fact that it gives the SEC the authority to suspend FAS 157 on a case-by-case basis as well as for all. Many critics of the statement contend that fair value accounting has contributed at least in part to the current market crisis.

Section 133 directs the SEC to prepare a study on the application of FAS 157 and report to Congress within 90 days. The study is to include an analysis of the effects of the standard on financial institutions, its impact on bank failures in 2008, the process used by the FASB in developing accounting standards, the “advisability and feasibility of modifications to such standards,” and alternatives to FAS 157. The report is to include whatever administrative and legislative recommendations the SEC deems appropriate.

This provision was added to the bill just one day after the SEC staff and the FASB staff issued clarifying guidance on the application of FAS 157. That guidance focused questions concerning difficult or illiquid markets as discussed here. Many considered that guidance an easing of the FAS 157 requirements.

The SEC’s War On Insider Trading Continues

The focus on insider trading continued this week with the Commission filing three new cases. Two involve multiple tippees, one of which raises questions about how each element of tipping will be established. In two, the settlements reflect cooperation, according to the Commission.

SEC v. Queri, Case No. 2:08-cv-01361 (W.D. Penn. Oct. 1, 2008) is a partially settled insider trading action brought against sixteen defendants. The action focus on trading in advance of the June 21, 2004 announcement that Dick’s Sporting Goods would acquire Galyan’s Trading Company, Inc. in a tender offer. Following that announcement Galyan’s stock price increased over 50%.

According to the SEC’s complaint Joseph J. Queri, Jr., senior vice president of real estate at Dick’s Sporting Goods, kicked off a long chain of tipping. Mr. Queri, Jr. is alleged to have tipped his close friend Gary Gosson and his father, Joseph Queri, Sr. This set off a series of tips:

• Mr. Gosson is alleged to have tipped six of his friends including Alan Johnston;

• Mr. Johnston is alleged to have tipped family members and friends;

• Mr. Queri Sr. is alleged to have tipped five of his friends including James Jerome, Gino Ferraro, Thomas Heller, Felix Crisafulli and Kyle Kaczowski;

• Mr. Jerome in is alleged to have tipped Brandt England;

• Mr. Kaczowski tipped two friends;

• Mr. Ferraro tipped his son-in-law and defendant Franko Marretti; and

• Mr. Marretti tipped his business colleague.

The trading of all of these defendants yielded profits of $620,000.

Five defendants settled. Each consented to permanent injunctions prohibiting future violations of the antifraud and tender offer provisions. In addition, consent orders were entered requiring: Mr. Queri Sr. to pay disgorgement of $2,600 and prejudgment interest of about $700, jointly and severally with Mr. Ferraro (which whom he is alleged to have shared profits) and a civil penalty of $105,647; Mr. Ferraro to pay disgorgement of about $13,000 and prejudgment interest along with a civil penalty of about $22,0000; Mr. Crisafulli to pay disgorgement of about $13,300 plus prejudgment interest and a civil penalty equal to the amount of his disgorgement; Mr. Heller to pay disgorgement of about $7,600 plus prejudgment interest and a penalty equal to the amount of his disgorgement; and Mr. Santaro to pay disgorgement of about $18,700 and prejudgment interest along with a penalty equal to his disgorgement. See also SEC v. Joseph Queri Jr., Case No. 2:08-cv-21367 (W.D. Penn. Oct. 1, 2008).

In SEC v. Abed, Case No. C-0804548 (N.D. Ca. Sept. 30, 2008), the Commission filed a settled insider trading action against the President and CEO of Genesis Microchip, Inc., Ellas Antoun, and his friend Samir Abed. This case centers on the acquisition of Genesis, a manufacturer of flat panel TVs, by STMicroelectronics of Geneva Switzerland. After the execution of a letter of intent, Mr. Antoun began purchasing shares of Genesis in brokerage accounts of a relative and friend. He also told his long time friend, Mr. Abed, about the deal in confidence. Nevertheless, Mr. Abed also purchased shares. Following the announcement of the deal the shares of Genesis increased about 57%.

Both defendants consented to the entry of a permanent injunction. In addition, Mr. Antoun agreed to pay about $37,000 in disgorgement, prejudgment interest and a penalty which approximated his trading profits. Mr. Abed also agreed to disgorge his trading profits of about $53,000 along with prejudgment interest. Mr. Abed consented to a penalty of $25,000. The Commission acknowledged the cooperation of Mr. Abed.

Finally, in SEC v. Leone, Civil Action No. 3-08-cv-1686 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2008) the Commission filed a settled insider trading case against defendants Randolph Leone and Randall Wall. In this case, which is based on the acquisition of Watsco, Inc. by ACR Group, each defendant is alleged to have acquired inside information about the deal from a different source. The complaint claims that Mr. Leone overheard a telephone conversation between his wife and her sister, the wife of ACR’s general counsel, about the deal. Subsequently he traded in ACR stock and, following the announcement, made abut $7,800 in illicit profits.

Mr. Wall learned about the deal from his supervisor who, in turn, had learned about the deal in confidence from a Watsco senior vice president. After he learned about the deal Mr. Wall purchased shares of ACR on which he made a profit after the deal announcement of about $6,200.

Both defendants settled with the Commission by consenting to the entry of permanent injunctions prohibiting future violations of the antifraud and tender offer provisions and to orders requiring the trading profits be disgorged along with prejudgment interest. In addition, Mr. Leone agreed to pay a penalty of about $3,900 while Mr. Wall agreed to pay penalty equal to his trading profits. The settlement with Mr. Leone reflected the fact that he voluntarily came forward before being contacted by the SEC and cooperated with the staff to resolve the matter.