Financial Enforcement Actions | Week of June 20 to June 26

Enforcement Report Jun 20 -26 feat

UK-FCA

3 Enforcement Documents

£0.00 in Fines

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Redcentric PLC
Violation: The Authority has found that Redcentric committed market abuse by publishing false information about its net debt and holdings of cash and cash equivalents in November 2015 and June 2016... Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: John Joseph Cullen
Violation: Mr Cullen is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that Mr Cullen is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether Mr Cullen managed his business in such a way as to ensure that his affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner... Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Net Direct Car Sales Limited
Violation: NCSL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that NCSL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether NCSL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner... Read More

FTC

4 Enforcement Documents

$0.00 in Fines

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Physician’s Technology, LLC, a corporation, Willow Labs, LLC, a corporation, David Sutton, individually and as an officer of Physician’s Technology, LLC, and Ronald Shapiro, individually and as an officer of Physician's Technology, LLC, and Willow Labs, LLC.
Violation: Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, the FTC has reason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about to violate laws enforced by the Commission because, among other things, Defendants engaged in their unlawful acts and practices repeatedly over a period of more than five years, continued their unlawful acts or practices despite knowledge of complaints that advertising claims for Willow Curve were not substantiated and were inconsistent with claims for which FDA cleared it, and continued advertising a risk-free, money-back guarantee for Willow Curve with knowledge that they could not honor such promises, and continued such deceptive advertising after they learned that the FTC was investigating them in August 2017 until at least June 2019... Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Tri Star Energy, LLC; Hollingsworth Oil Company, Inc.,; C & H Properties, Mr. Ronald L. Hollingsworth,
Violation: The Acquisition described in Paragraph 7, if consummated, would constitute a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45. 17. The Asset Purchase Agreement entered into by Tri Star Energy, LLC, and Hollingsworth constitutes a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45... Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Eldorado Resorts, Inc., a corporation; and Caesars Entertainment Corporation, a corporation.
Violation: The agreement described in Paragraph 4 constitutes a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and the acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45. WHEREFORE, THE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Federal Trade Commission on the twenty-fifth day of June, 2020, issues its Complaint against said Respondents. By the Commission, Commissioner Chopra dissenting, Commissioner Slaughter not participating... Read More

CFPB

4 Enforcement Documents

$35,000.00 in Fines

Penalties: $35,000.00
Respondent: Harbour Portfolio Advisors, LLC; National Asset Advisors, LLC; and National Asset Mortgage, LLC
Violation: When consumers called NAA or NAM to complain about errors on their consumer reports relating to their financing with Harbour, they were sometimes told that they had to file a dispute with the consumer-reporting agency. These representations were inaccurate and constituted deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act... Read More

FINRA

14 Enforcement Documents

$4,158,619.34 in Fines

Penalties: $30,000.00
Respondent: WestPark Capital, Inc.
Violation: From July 1, 2015 through September 30, 2018 (the "review period"), the firm, based on a sample, submitted 130 inaccurate Reportable Order Events ("ROEs") and over-reported 188 ROEs to the Order Audit Trail System ("OATS") in violation of FINRA Rules 7450 and 2010... Read More

Penalties: $250,000.00
Respondent: Moors & Cabot, Inc.
Violation: Moors violated Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-10 thereunder (“SEA Rule 10b-10”), NASD Rule 2230 (for conduct prior to June 17, 2011), FINRA Rule 2232(a) (for conduct on or after June 17, 2011) and FINRA Rule 2010... Read More

Penalties: $35,000.00
Respondent: BNY Mellon Capital Markets, LLC.
Violation: From April 1, 2011 through March 15, 2018 (the "review period"), BNY failed to submit accurate minimum denomination and maximum interest rates to the MSRB's Short-Term Obligation Rate Transparency )"SHORT") System in 54,270 instances, as was required by MSRB Rule G-34... Read More

Penalties: $3,100,000.00
Respondent: SG Americas Securities, LLC, Newedge USA, LLC, (n/k/a SG Americas Securities, LLC
Violation: This AWC relates to violations by both SGAS and Newedge. From 2012 to 2019, Newedge and SGAS submitted approximately 8,400 inaccurate blue sheets to FINRA, misreporting information on approximately 4.2 million transactions. Therefore, SGAS violated FINRA Rules 8211, 8213, and 2010... Read More

Penalties: $15,000.00
Respondent: Ryan M. Davis
Violation: From April 2015 until January 2019 (the "Relevant Period"), Davis engaged in undisclosed outside business activities away from the Firm. Specifically, from at least the start of the Relevant Period, Davis established and/or participated in the operations of five business entities created to invest in cryptocurrencies, and one entity to trade commodity futures, without providing prompt notice to his employer firm. By engaging in business activities without providing written notice to his employer firm, Davis violated FINRA Rules 3270 and 2010... Read More

Penalties: $5,000.00
Respondent: Eric Lowell Small
Violation: Between May 2014 and November 2017 (the "Relevant Period"), Respondent failed to timely amend his Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer ("Form U4") to disclose a bankruptcy and two tax liens totaling approximately $33,000 (the "Liens"), in violation of Article V, Section 2(c) of the FINRA. By-Laws and FINRA Rules 1122 and 2010... Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Sandlapper Securities, LLC Trevor Lee Gordon, Jack Charles Bixler
Violation: The firm’s chief executive officer and president breached their fiduciary duties to an investment fund and caused an affiliate entity to act as an unregistered securities dealer, and the member firm and chief executive officer failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures and failed to supervise the firm’s registered representatives... Read More

Penalties: $50,000.00
Respondent: Exane, Inc.
Violation: From August 1, 2015 through present (the “review period”), Exane failed to establish a system of risk management controls and supervisory procedures reasonably designed to manage the financial, regulatory, and other risks of its business... Read More

Penalties: $5,000.00
Respondent: Michael N. Catoggio
Violation: From November 1, 2014 through. July 31, 2016 (the "Relevant Period"), Catoggio, in his capacity as AMLCO, failed to establish and implement an anti-money laundering ("AML") compliance program reasonably designed to detect and cause the reporting of potentially suspicious activity relating to transactions involving the deposit and liquidation of low-priced securities.' As a result, Catoggio violated FA Rules 3310(a) and 2010... Read More

Penalties: $5,000.00
Respondent: Micah W. Patterson
Violation: Between June and November 2017, Patterson engaged in an undisclosed and unapproved private securities transaction in the amount of $30,644. Patterson’s conduct violated FINRA Rules 3280 and 2010... Read More

Penalties: $5,000.00
Respondent: Benard Gann
Violation: In May 2018, Gann placed an unauthorized trade in a customer’s account on one occasion, in violation of FINRA Rule 2010... Read More

Penalties: $658,619.34
Respondent: J.P. Morgan Securities LLC
Violation: During the period January 1, 2014 to May 24, 2016 (the "Relevant Period"), the Firm failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance  with its obligations under the applicable FINRA rules in connection with its sale of volatility-linked exchange traded products ("Volatility ETPs")... Read More

SEC

17 Enforcement Documents

$247,484,807.17 in Fines

Penalties: $233,925,000.00
Respondent: Novartis AG
Violation: Novartis violated Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, which requires issuers that have a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act and issuers with reporting obligations pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act to make and keep books, records, and accounts which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect their transactions and disposition of their assets. [15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(A)]. As a result of the conduct described above Novartis violated Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, which requires issuers that have a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act and issuers with reporting obligations pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act to devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that (i) transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; (ii) transactions are recorded as necessary (I) to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles or any other criteria applicable to such statements, and (II) to maintain accountability for assets; (iii) access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; and (iv) the recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences. [15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(B)]... Read More

Penalties: $596,000.00
Respondent: Dain F. Stokes
Violation: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) against Dain F. Stokes (“Stokes” or “Respondent”)... Read More

Penalties: $1,550,000.00
Respondent: SG Americas Securities, LLC
Violation: "SGAS failed to furnish complete and accurate records to the Commission staff that were requested by the Commission in its blue sheet requests. Therefore, SGAS willfully violated the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17a-4(j) thereunder by failing to furnish promptly true and complete trading information as requested by Commission staff over a period of almost five years. 1 In addition, SGAS willfully violated Exchange Act Rule 17a-25 by failing to submit electronically certain securities transaction information to the Commission through the EBS system in response to requests made by the Commission... Read More

Penalties: $1,156,767.17
Respondent: Todd Lahr and Thomas Megas
Violation: Defendant is permanently restrained and enjoined from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)] in the offer or sale of any security by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly: (a) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (b) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission of a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser... Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Michael Douglas Billings and Mdb Group, LLC
Violation: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against Michael Douglas Billings (“Billings”) and MDB Group, LLC (“MDB Group”) (collectively, “Respondents”)... Read More

Penalties: $1,750,000.00
Respondent: Trinity Capital Corporation
Violation: "On September 28, 2015, the Commission issued separate, but related, settled cease-and-desist orders (collectively, the “Orders”) against Trinity Capital Corporation (“Trinity” or the “Respondent”) 1 and William C. Enloe (“Enloe”)2 (collectively, the “Respondents”). The proceedings resulted from Trinity, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Los Alamos National Bank’s (the “Bank”), failure to properly account for its loan portfolio during 2010, 2011, and the first two quarters of 2012, and failure to account properly for its other real estate owned in 2011. As a result of the conduct, Trinity violated Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rules 10b-5, 13a-1, 13a-13, and 12b20 thereunder, as well as Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”)... Read More

Penalties: $457,040.00
Respondent: Eran Eyal and UnitedData, Inc. d/b/a/ "Shopin, "
Violation: Defendant is permanently restrained and enjoined from violating, directly or indirectly, Section lO(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule l0b-5 promulgated thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.l0b-5], by using any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security: (a) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (b) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person... Read More

Penalties: $8,000,000.00
Respondent: Vereit, Inc.
Violation: As a result of the conduct described above, ARCP violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, which prohibits fraudulent conduct in connection with the offer or sale of securities, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, which prohibit fraudulent conduct in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Also, as a result of the conduct described above, ARCP violated Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-11, and 13a-13, which require every issuer of a security registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act to file with the Commission information, documents, and quarterly reports as the Commission may require, and mandate that periodic reports contain such further material information as may be necessary to make the required statements not misleading. In addition, as a result of the conduct described above, ARCP violated Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, which requires all reporting companies to make and keep books, records, and accounts which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect their transactions and dispositions of their assets... Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Gregg D. Caplitz, et al.
Violation: The court previously entered a final judgment against Caplitz on February 14, 2020, permanently enjoining Caplitz from violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers of 1940. The SEC also previously barred Caplitz from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization. Caplitz pled guilty to criminal charges based on substantially the same conduct... Read More

Penalties: $50,000.00
Respondent: Matthew Ledvina, Esq.
Violation: In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds that Ledvina has been convicted of a felony within the meaning of Rule 102(e)(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that Matthew Ledvina is forthwith suspended from appearing or practicing before the Commission pursuant to Rule 102(e)(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice... Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: BKS Advisors LLC
Violation: On May 31, 2019, the Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority, published a Notice of Proposed Plan of Distribution and Opportunity for Comment (“Notice”),1 pursuant to Rule 1103 of the Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans (“Commission’s Rules”).2 The Notice advised interested persons that they could obtain a copy of the Proposed Plan of Distribution (“Proposed Plan”) from the Commission’s public website or by submitting a written request to Nancy Chase Burton, United States Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-5876. The Notice also advised that all persons desiring to comment on the Proposed Plan could submit their comments, in writing, within 30 days of the Notice. The Commission received no comments on the Proposed Plan during the comment period. On July 25, 2019, the Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority, issued an order approving the Proposed Plan,3 and posted the approved Plan of Distribution (the “Plan”)... Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Gregory Alan Smith
Violation: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) against Gregory Alan Smith (“Smith” or “Respondent”)... Read More

X