﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="../StyleSheet/rss.xsl"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Corporate &amp; Securities Law Community Securities Law</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/corpsec</link><description>Corporate &amp; Securities Law Community</description><copyright>http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/copyright.aspx</copyright><atom:link href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/corpsec/Rss.aspx?id=187" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Where Will the New Administration Take the SEC?</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/20/where-will-the-new-administration-take-the-sec.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/20/where-will-the-new-administration-take-the-sec.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Corporate+_2600_+Securities+LC/ContentImage_2D00_SECLogo.gif" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;While the SEC Chair is battling Congress to secure a
budget which approaches $2 billion the number of cases being brought by the
enforcement program is dwindling. Regardless of what budget Congress actually
gives the agency, a critical question will be how the resources are used and by
what standard success will be measured. The number of cases filed during any
given period, or even the amount of money obtained in resolved cases, is not
the critical test of effective enforcement although those metrics may stimulate
headlines. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Rather, the focus should be on the kind of cases being
brought, the statement they make in the market place and the effectiveness</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:56:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Delaware State Law Insider Trading Claim against Kohlberg Kravis Roberts &amp; Co. Allowed to Proceed</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/17/insider-trading-claim-against-kohlberg-kravis-roberts-amp-co-allowed-to-proceed.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/17/insider-trading-claim-against-kohlberg-kravis-roberts-amp-co-allowed-to-proceed.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://courts.state.de.us/opinions/download.aspx?ID=189280"&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Wall-Street_2800_Bull-2_2900_.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;In re:
Primedia, Inc., Shareholders Litigation&lt;/i&gt;,&lt;/a&gt; Cons., C.A. No. 6511-VCL (Del.
Ch. May 10, 2013) [&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00210&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20Del.%20Ch.%20LEXIS%20120" target="_blank"&gt;an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis.com
subscribers&lt;/a&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Issue Addressed&lt;/span&gt;:&amp;nbsp;
Whether insider trading claim based on state law should be allowed to proceed
despite motion to dismiss by special litigation committee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span</description><author>FPileggi@eckertseamans.com (Francis G.X. Pileggi)</author><pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 11:41:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>This Week in Securities Litigation (Week ending May 17, 2013)</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/17/this-week-in-securities-litigation-week-ending-may-17-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/17/this-week-in-securities-litigation-week-ending-may-17-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Wall-Street-4.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;Companies with China based operations were a focus this
week for the SEC. The Commission filed two financial fraud actions against
companies whose operations were in the PRC. In one there seemed to be virtually
no operations while in the other two sets of books were used to falsify revenue
while proceeds of a securities offering were diverted to the use of the
chairman and the controlling shareholder. The SEC also concluded its &amp;quot;golden
goose&amp;quot; insider trading case, settling with the two remaining defendants. And,
another defendant in the Dell insider trading case was sentenced to prison. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commission prevailed in the Second Circuit which
affirmed</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 09:26:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>City of Harrisburg Settles With SEC on Rule 10b-5 Violations</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/16/city-of-harrisburg-settles-with-sec-on-rule-10b-5-violations.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/16/city-of-harrisburg-settles-with-sec-on-rule-10b-5-violations.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_BondCertificate.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;Recently, the SEC settled with the City of Harrisburg (City)
over violations of Rule 10b-5 in connection with material misstatements and omissions
made by the City in its public statements and financial information, during a
multi-year period. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This settlement underscores the increased focus by the SEC
on state and municipal governments in connection with the trillion-dollar
municipal bond market. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The SEC alleged that the City violated Rule 10b-5 as a
result of its repeated failure to provide financial information and material
events notices. As a result of the City&amp;#39;s failure, investors only had access to
stale and misleading financial information</description><author>FoleyandLardner@placeholder.com (Foley &amp; Lardner LLP)</author><pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 18:14:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>The Dell Insider Trading Cases</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/15/the-dell-insider-trading-cases.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/15/the-dell-insider-trading-cases.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Computers.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;Anthony Chiasson, the co-founder of hedge fund Level
Global Investors, was sentenced on insider trading charges this week to serve
78 months in prison. &lt;i&gt;U.S. v. Newman, &lt;/i&gt;1-12-cr-00121 (S.D.N.Y.). Mr.
Chiasson was convicted along with co-defendant Todd Newman, a portfolio manager
at Diamondback Capital Management LLC, by a jury last December. Mr. Newman has
been sentenced to serve 54 months in prison. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The cases some called the Dell insider trading cases,
centered on a ring which gathered inside information from company employees at
Dell Inc. and NVIDIA Corporation. Mr. Chaisson&amp;#39;s research analyst, Sam
Adondakis, along with Jesse Tortora, Jon Horvath and</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 10:37:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Motion to Dismiss Granted in Barclays LIBOR-Scandal Securities Suit </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/14/motion-to-dismiss-granted-in-barclays-libor-scandal-securities-suit.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/14/motion-to-dismiss-granted-in-barclays-libor-scandal-securities-suit.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Gavel2.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;In a May 13, 2013 order (&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://clients.oakbridgeins.com/clients/blog/vlad.pdf"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;),
Southern District of New York Judge Shira Scheindlin granted defendants&amp;#39; motion
to dismiss the LIBOR-scandal related securities suit that had been filed
against Barclays and two of its former executives following the company&amp;#39;s entry
into a massive LIBOR-related settlement last summer. The suit&amp;#39;s dismissal is
just the latest setback for claimants hoping to recover damages in connection
with the LIBOR scandal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As discussed in greater detail &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.dandodiary.com/2012/07/articles/securities-litigation/big-bank-litigation</description><author>klacroix@oakbridgeins.com (Kevin M. LaCroix)</author><pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 16:19:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Time Limits on SEC Enforcement Actions: The Supreme Court Ruling in Gabelli v. SEC</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/14/time-limits-on-sec-enforcement-actions-the-supreme-court-ruling-in-gabelli-v-sec.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/14/time-limits-on-sec-enforcement-actions-the-supreme-court-ruling-in-gabelli-v-sec.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Clock.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Supreme Court rejected the
efforts of the Securities and Exchange Commission (&amp;quot;SEC&amp;quot;) effort to
extend the five-year statute of limitations for imposing a civil penalty by
engrafting a discovery exception onto the statute. Chief Justice Roberts,
writing for a unanimous Court, held that under Section 2462 of Title 28, the
statute of limitations begins when there is a cause of action. The decision is
a straight forward reading of the statutory language. &lt;i&gt;Gabelli v. SEC, &lt;/i&gt;No.
11-1274 (S. Ct., Decided February 27, 2013) [&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00210&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20U.S.%20LEXIS%201861" target</description><author>tgorman@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 07:59:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>This Week In Securities Litigation (Week ending May 10, 2013)</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/10/this-week-in-securities-litigation-week-ending-may-10-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/10/this-week-in-securities-litigation-week-ending-may-10-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_NYStockExchange.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/i&gt;The focus this week was on the proposed SEC budget as new
SEC Chair Mary Jo White told a House subcommittee that the agency needs about a
26% increase. Part of the additional funding is to hire almost 700 new staff
members. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;SEC enforcement, in conjunction with the Manhattan U. S.
Attorney&amp;#39;s Office, brought a kickback action involving payments to an official
of an Argentinian bank by employees of a New York brokerage firm. The
Commission also brought its first action against a City based on statements not
contained in the financing papers. In conjunction with that proceeding the
agency also issued a Section 21(a) report cautioning city officials regarding
their statements</description><author>dougesten.lnc@gmail.com (LexisNexis Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 16:59:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Plaintiffs Seek Approval of $153M Securities Settlement with Fannie Mae, KPMG</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/10/plaintiffs-seek-approval-of-153m-securities-settlement-with-fannie-mae-kpmg.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/10/plaintiffs-seek-approval-of-153m-securities-settlement-with-fannie-mae-kpmg.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Corporate+_2600_+Securities+LC/ContentImage_2D00_StockExchangeBoard.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) Lead plaintiffs in a
securities class action lawsuit against Fannie Mae and accounting firm KPMG LLP
on May 7 asked a federal judge to approve a $153 million settlement that would
end the lawsuit, which was brought in 2004 (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;In re:&amp;nbsp; Fannie Mae
Securities Litigation&lt;/span&gt;, No. 04-01639, D. D.C.; See July 2009, Page 24).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lead plaintiffs Ohio Republic Retirees System and State
Teachers Retirement System of Ohio filed their motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The lead plaintiffs originally filed</description><author>timothy.raub@lexisnexis.com (Timothy Raub)</author><pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 07:57:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>SEC Reaches Settlement With City over Federal Securities Law Violations</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/07/sec-reaches-settlement-with-city-over-federal-securities-law-violations.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/07/sec-reaches-settlement-with-city-over-federal-securities-law-violations.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_BondCertificate.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:6px;margin-right:6px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) The Securities and Exchange
Commission and the City of Harrisburg, Pa., have agreed to a cease-and-desist
order preventing the city from continuing its violation of federal securities
laws in connection with statements it made both publicly and in financial documents
regarding the city&amp;#39;s failure to comply &amp;quot;with written undertakings executed by
the City in the form of Continuing Disclosure Certificates,&amp;quot; the SEC said in
its order, filed May 6 (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;In the Matter of the City of Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania&lt;/span&gt;, No. 3-15316, SEC).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The SEC alleges that the city violated Section 10(b</description><author>timothy.raub@lexisnexis.com (Timothy Raub)</author><pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 16:17:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Bank of America to Pay $1.7B to Settle Mortgage-Backed Securities Claims</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/07/bank-of-america-to-pay-1-7b-to-settle-mortgage-backed-securities-claims.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/07/bank-of-america-to-pay-1-7b-to-settle-mortgage-backed-securities-claims.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Corporate+_2600_+Securities+LC/ContentImage_2D00_StockCertificates.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;NEW YORK - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) Bank of America Corp. (BoA) will
pay nearly $1.7 billion to MBIA Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries to settle
claims in New York State court that BoA misrepresented the investment quality
of and risk associated with certain mortgage-backed securities (MBS) it sold to
MBIA, according to press releases issued by both parties May 6 (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;MBIA
Insurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 602825-2008,
N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the MBIA press release, MBIA and
subsidiaries MBIA Insurance Corp. and National Public Finance Guarantee Corp.
(collectively, MBIA</description><author>timothy.raub@lexisnexis.com (Timothy Raub)</author><pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 14:59:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>The New SEC Chair Charts a Course for the Agency</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/06/the-new-sec-chair-charts-a-course-for-the-agency.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/06/the-new-sec-chair-charts-a-course-for-the-agency.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_ChartACourse.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;Commentators have speculated since the appointment of
Mary Jo White as SEC Chair that there would be a new emphasis on enforcement.
Ms. White&amp;#39;s remarks during her Senate confirmation hearings about unrelenting
enforcement bolstered that view. Yet her recent remarks suggest perhaps another
focus. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;[W]e are not alone in the global regulatory space . . .
&amp;quot; Ms. White declared in her first formal remarks as SEC Chair. Addressing the
Investment Company Institute General Membership Meeting in Washington, D.C. on
May 1, 2013 Ms. White focused on what she called &amp;quot;Regulation in a Global
Financial System,&amp;quot; In her remarks the new SEC Chair painted</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 10:54:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>This Week In Securities Litigation (Week ending May 3, 2013)</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/03/this-week-in-securities-litigation-week-ending-may-3-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/03/this-week-in-securities-litigation-week-ending-may-3-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Wall-Street-3.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;The FCPA continued to be a focus this week. Another
Alstrom executive was added to a pending criminal prosecution in a superseding
indictment charging FCPA violations and money laundering. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In court the Commission prevailed in the D.C. Circuit as
well as the district court. In the Circuit Court the Commission secured the
dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of a suit challenging Exchange Act Section
13(q) and the related rules. Those provisions require the disclosure of certain
payments made to foreign governments relating to the commercial development of
oil, natural gas, or minerals. In the district court the agency prevailed on a
summary judgment motion in</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 17:30:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>The “No Knowledge” Defense In A Criminal Securities Fraud Case</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/01/the-no-knowledge-defense-in-a-criminal-securities-fraud-case.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/05/01/the-no-knowledge-defense-in-a-criminal-securities-fraud-case.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_SeeNoEvil.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;Can a defendant plead guilty to criminal securities
fraud, get a presentence report with a sentencing guideline recommendation of
121-151 months and avoid prison? Bryan Behrens tried. He failed, although his
sentence was considerably less than the guideline calculation. &lt;i&gt;U.S. v.
Behrens, &lt;/i&gt;No. 11-3482 (8&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; Cir. Filed April 25, 2013). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bryan Behrens pleaded guilty to one count of securities
fraud in violation of Exchange Act Section 10(b). Previously he owned and
operated 21&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Century Financial Group, Inc. It was a life insurance
agency and financial investment advisory business which he expanded into
National Investments. Inc. That business</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 16:13:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Advisen Reports on First Quarter 2013 Corporate and Securities Litigation</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/30/advisen-reports-on-first-quarter-2013-corporate-and-securities-litigation.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/30/advisen-reports-on-first-quarter-2013-corporate-and-securities-litigation.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_CourtHouse.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During the first quarter of 2013, new corporate and
securities lawsuits and regulatory enforcement actions increased slightly
compared to the fourth quarter of 2012 but remained well below annual averages
over the last two years, according to a new report from Advisen, the insurance
information firm. The April 2013 report, which can be found &lt;a href="http://corner.advisen.com/pdf_files/QuarterlyD&amp;amp;O_ClaimsTrends_2013Q1.pdf"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;,
is entitled &amp;quot;D&amp;amp;O Claims Trends: 1Q 2013,&amp;quot; notes that &amp;quot;if the first quarter
is any indication, it appears that this downward trend may continue throughout
2013.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reeders reviewing the Advisen report will want to be very</description><author>klacroix@oakbridgeins.com (Kevin M. LaCroix)</author><pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:41:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>SEC Charges City and its Underwriter With Fraud</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/30/sec-charges-city-and-its-underwriter-with-fraud.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/30/sec-charges-city-and-its-underwriter-with-fraud.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Wall-Street-2.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;The City of Victorville California, Assistant City
Manager Keith Metzler, deal underwriter and broker Newcomb &amp;amp; Dedios or KND
and its principle Jeffrey Kinsell were named as defendants by the Commission in
a suit alleging fraud in connection with the sale of municipal bonds. The city
airport authority, Southern California Logistics Airport Authority, two
executives at KND and an affiliate of the firm were also named as defendants. &lt;i&gt;SEC
v. City of Victorville, &lt;/i&gt;Case No. EDCV 13-776 (C.D. Cal. Filed April 29,
2013).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Over a two year period beginning in 2006 the Airport
Authority, created to redevelop a 132 acre tract of land around a former Air
Force base</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:19:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>SEC Secures $2.7 Million Judgment Against Broker and Others</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/29/sec-secures-2-7-million-judgment-against-broker-and-others.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/29/sec-secures-2-7-million-judgment-against-broker-and-others.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Wall-Street-1.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;The Commission prevailed on a motion for summary judgment
against a brokerage firm, its principle and a former managing director,
ultimately securing judgments of over $2.7 million. &lt;i&gt;SEC v. Constantin, &lt;/i&gt;Civil
Action No. 11-CV-4642 (S.D.N.Y. Filed July 6, 2011). This is one of what may be
an increasing number of actions involving brokers and market professionals
defrauding their clients. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;i&gt;Constantin &lt;/i&gt;case was brought against Windham
Securities, its owner and principal Joshua Constantin, and former firm managing
director Brian Solomon. The complaint centers on an alleged fraud in connection
with a private placement. Specifically, the defendants raised</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:45:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Zeek Receiver Blasts Objections to Claims Process </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/29/zeek-receiver-blasts-objections-to-claims-process.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/29/zeek-receiver-blasts-objections-to-claims-process.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_ZeekRewardsLogo_2800_PonziScheme_2900_.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&amp;quot;Hundreds of thousands of Zeek victims have waited
patiently for months as the Receiver has completed the work necessary to
provide an easy to use, fair and efficient claims process. &amp;nbsp;But yet again,
it appears that counsel pursuing their own agenda has come forward to delay and
raise the costs of the Receiver moving forward in the best interest of all Zeek
victims.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The court-appointed receiver tasked with recovering
assets for victims of the $600 million ZeekRewards Ponzi scheme addressed
objections to his proposal for the establishment of a claims process,
dismissing the objections as meritless and questioning the underlying</description><author>jordan.maglich@gmail.com (Jordan D. Maglich)</author><pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:14:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Will Obstacles Deter the SEC's Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program? </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/26/will-obstacles-deter-the-sec-s-dodd-frank-whistleblower-program.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/26/will-obstacles-deter-the-sec-s-dodd-frank-whistleblower-program.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Whistle.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;Whistleblower information may be one of the SEC&amp;#39;s &amp;quot;most
effective weapons in its new enforcement arsenal,&amp;quot; but the agency&amp;#39;s
whistleblower program &amp;quot;faces challenges on many fronts,&amp;quot; according to an April
23, 2013 &lt;i&gt;New York Times Dealbook&lt;/i&gt; article entitled &amp;quot;Hazy Future for
Thriving S.E.C. Whistle-Blower Effort&amp;quot; (&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/hazy-future-for-s-e-c-s-whistle-blower-office/?ref=business"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).
As evidence of the whistleblower program&amp;#39;s promise that article cites several
&amp;quot;previously undisclosed&amp;quot; enforcement actions that whistleblower information
have triggered or aided</description><author>klacroix@oakbridgeins.com (Kevin M. LaCroix)</author><pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:57:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>This Week In Securities Litigation (Week ending April 26, 2013)</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/26/this-week-in-securities-litigation-week-ending-april-26-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/26/this-week-in-securities-litigation-week-ending-april-26-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Wall-Street_2800_Bull-2_2900_.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;George Canellos and Andrew Ceresney, two former
colleagues in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney&amp;#39;s Office, became the first
Co-Directors of the SEC&amp;#39;s Enforcement Division. The Division also secured a
ruling this week which will permit its subpoena enforcement action against the
PRC based affiliate of Deloitte to move forward. The ruling may set the stage
for a precedent setting clash of U.S and PRC law on the question of whether
audit work papers for a U.S. registered issuer based in the PRC and audited by
a firm there are available to the SEC. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commission resolved an FCPA case this week in
conjunction with the DOJ. For the first time the</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:26:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>SEC’s Action Seeking PRC Audit Papers Moves Forward</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/25/sec-s-action-seeking-prc-audit-papers-moves-forward.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/25/sec-s-action-seeking-prc-audit-papers-moves-forward.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_FinancialAudit.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;The SEC&amp;#39;s action seeking to compel the production of
documents from the Chinese affiliate of Deloitte and Touche is moving toward
resolution. The Court rejected a request by the audit firm for a stay pending
the resolution of a Commission administrative proceeding which is based on
similar issues. &lt;i&gt;SEC v. Deloitte Touche Tohmasu CPA, Ltd., &lt;/i&gt;Civil Action
No. 11-mc-512 (D.D.C. Ruling dated April 22, 2013 (&amp;quot;subpoena enforcement
action&amp;quot;). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;The subpoena enforcement action&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;i&gt;: &lt;/i&gt;The
subpoena enforcement action seeks an order requiring the production of PRC
based audit work papers held by Deloitte Touche Tohmasu relating the audit</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:16:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Ponzi Scheme Defendants Agree to Pay $55M in Investment Club Action</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/25/ponzi-scheme-defendants-agree-to-pay-55m-in-investment-club-action.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/25/ponzi-scheme-defendants-agree-to-pay-55m-in-investment-club-action.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_2D00_Money_2600_Handcuffs.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) A federal judge in
Florida on April 24 signed consent orders in which defendants agreed to pay
nearly $55 million to end a suit in which the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC) alleged that they orchestrated a $28 million Ponzi scheme to
defraud investment clubs (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Philip
Milton, et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 10-80738, S.D. Fla.).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;U.S. Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley of the Southern District of
Florida signed the supplemental consent orders.&amp;nbsp; The first supplemental
consent order requires Trade LLC managing member Philip Milton to pay $10.8
million in restitution</description><author>michael.lello@lexisnexis.com (Michael J. Lello)</author><pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:26:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>What is Regulation FD and Does it Prohibit the Use of Social Media? </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/24/what-is-regulation-fd-and-does-it-prohibit-the-use-of-social-media.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/24/what-is-regulation-fd-and-does-it-prohibit-the-use-of-social-media.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_2D00_SocialMedia.gif" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;Regulation Fair Disclosure&lt;/a&gt; (known as &amp;quot;Regulation FD&amp;quot;) was
enacted in 2000 by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the &amp;quot;SEC&amp;quot;) to
prohibit selective disclosure of material non-public information by the public
companies or persons acting on their behalf to a selected group of outsiders
(often market professionals, analysts or major investors) where it is
reasonably foreseeable that they would trade on that information before it is
made available to the general public. The Regulation requires that if such
selective disclosure has been made, then the company must promptly disclose that
same information</description><author>arina.shulga@gmail.com (Arina Shulga)</author><pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:38:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Utah Man Pleads Guilty To Running Two Separate Ponzi Schemes </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/23/utah-man-pleads-guilty-to-running-two-separate-ponzi-schemes.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/23/utah-man-pleads-guilty-to-running-two-separate-ponzi-schemes.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_2D00_Money_2800_Shredded_2900_.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;A Utah man agreed to &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://7thspace.com/headlines/435923/wayne_reed_ogden_pleads_guilty_to_wire_and_securities_fraud.html"&gt;plead
guilty&lt;/a&gt; for his involvement in two separate Ponzi schemes - while on parole
for a previous conviction for a third Ponzi scheme - that took in more than $30
million from investors. &amp;nbsp;Wayne Ogden, of Koosharem, Utah, was convicted
earlier this year for his role in one of the Ponzi schemes, and in a deal with
authorities, agreed to plead guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of
securities fraud in exchange for a recommended 10-year sentence to be served
concurrently in both cases. &amp;nbsp;As part of the deal, Ogden</description><author>jordan.maglich@gmail.com (Jordan D. Maglich)</author><pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:57:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>This Week In Securities Litigation (Week ending April 19, 2013)</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/22/this-week-in-securities-litigation-week-ending-april-19-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/blogs/corporateandsecuritieslawblog/archive/2013/04/22/this-week-in-securities-litigation-week-ending-april-19-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Wall-Street-4.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;The Second Circuit&amp;#39;s pending decision in the Commission&amp;#39;s
&lt;i&gt;Citigroup &lt;/i&gt;market crisis case continues to loom as Judge Marreno approved
the over $600 million insider trading settlement involving SAC Capital -
conditioned on the outcome of &lt;i&gt;Citigroup. &lt;/i&gt;New Chairman Mary Jo White&amp;#39;s
former partner, Andrew Ceresney, is rumored to be on the way to becoming the
Director of the Division of Enforcement, according to a report from Thomson
Reuters. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The FCPA seems to be back, with the Commission and the
DOJ announcing settled cases tied to an earlier investigation. The Commission
also settled with one of the individuals in its corruption action against</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:35:00 -0400</pubDate></item></channel></rss>