The SEC partially settled what is perhaps one of its more unusual insider trading cases. It involved defendants who posed as portfolio managers who then induced investment bankers to entrust them which inside information that was then used to trade. SEC v. Fishoff (D.N.J. Filed June 3, 2015).

The defendants in the action are Steven Fishoff, Paul Petrello, Ronald Cohernin and Steven Constantin along with entities controlled by the individual defendants engaged in an insider trading scheme. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Mr. Fishoff, and the other individual defendants posed as portfolio managers and induced investment bankers to bring them “over the wall” and share confidential information regarding pending secondary offerings. In each instance there were assurances that the information would remain confidential. In breach of their duty, the defendants traded on the information, shorting the shares. The scheme also included trading in advance of certain positive corporate news announcements regarding confidential negotiations between two large pharmaceutical companies. Overall the defendants had in excess of $4.4 million in profits. The complaint alleges violations of Securities Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 105.

Mr. Petrello consented, and the court entered, a permanent injunction prohibiting him and two related entities from future violations of Securities Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 105. It also precluded Mr. Petrello and the two entities from participating in secondary securities offerings in a certain manner. Questions regarding disgorgement and penalties were not resolved. The action remains pending against the other defendants.

The U.S. Attorney for New Jersey filed parallel criminal charges. Earlier this month Mr. Petrello pleaded guilty in that action. See Lit. Rel. No. 23474 (February 24, 2016).

Tagged with: ,

The Commission filed two administrative proceedings this week. One centers on false entries made in the books and records of a broker dealer. It will be set for hearing. In the Matter of Jason Maiher, Adm. Proc. File No. 3-17126 (February 23, 2016). The other centers on the misuse of the Section 3(a)(10) exemption and the sale of unregistered securities. It settled. In the Matter of IBC Funds, LLC, Adm. Proc. File No. 3-17125 (February 19, 2016).

Jason Maiher

Jason Maiher was the CFO of KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. from April 2007 through November 2011. KeyBanc Capital Markets is a registered broker dealer that is a subsidiary of KeyCorp., a financial services company.

Mr. Maiher was primarily responsible for maintaining the financial records of the broker dealer. In that capacity he submitted the firm’s Annual Audited Report to the Commission and oversaw the filing of its monthly FOCUS Reports with FINRA and furnishing them to the SEC. He also certified the general ledger balance sheet information after the close each month under firm policy.

Beginning at some point prior to January 2011 Respondent directed that unsubstantiated “plug” entries be made to one or more accounts in the broker’s general ledger. This was undertaken to complete the monthly close.

The plug entries caused the firms financial records to be inaccurate. Specifically, the monthly FOCUS reports were inaccurate. In addition, the annual audited report for the year ended December 31, 2011stated that the prior period financial statements included unsubstantiated assets of over $13.6 million and omitted liabilities of over $4.3 million. The firm’s write-off of the unsubstantiated assets and accrual of the unrecorded liabilities resulted in a restatement of net income that caused a 78% reduction. The Order alleges violations of Exchange Act Section 17(a)(1). The proceeding will be set for hearing.

IBC Funds

IBC Funds is a financial services company engaged in microcap financing. Under its business model IBC purchased outstanding claims from creditors of microcap issuers and then settled them in Section 3(a)(10) exchanges. Over about two years, beginning in mid 2013, the firm entered into more than 50 separate financing transactions and received securities from microcap issuers. IBC received discounted shares which it liquidated without registering as a broker-dealer as required by Exchange Act Section 15(a).

In four transactions the firm also violated Section 5 of the Securities Act. This is because the 3(a)(10) exemption is not available where certain terms and conditions of the settlement are not presented to the court for consideration at a fairness hearing or where provisions are misrepresented to the court. This occurred on four occasions. For example, in one instance the company fabricated the debt involved. In another instance the creditor and issuer were affiliates and the proceeds received from IBC were used to provide consideration to the company and its CEO. Under these circumstances the exemption is not available.

To resolve the proceeding the firm consented to the entry of a cease and desist order based on the Sections cited in the Order and to a censure. It also agreed to pay disgorgement of $2,200,000, prejudgment interest and a penalty of $250,000.

Program: The Second Annual Dorsey Enforcement Forum will be held on Wednesday February 24, 2016 beginning at 1:00 p.m. Three panels of experts will discuss: 1) Trends in SEC enforcement; 2) FERC and CFTC market manipulation actions; and 3) Current developments in Financial Services Regulatory Enforcement. The program will be video cast, webcast and live in Washington, D.C. at the Willard Office building, 1455 Pennsylvania Ave. Lunch will be available beginning at noon; open bar at the conclusion of the program. No charge but registration is required (here) or if attending in person by emailing my assistant at Romodan.Hanan@dorsey.com

Tagged with: , , ,