Category: SEC News

The Problem with Selective Disclosure

If you want to see a classic case of the problems with selective disclosure take a look at the recent SEC case against Presstek, Inc. and its former CFO.

Presstek was having a bad quarter in 2006. The CFO knew that the company would be reporting bad financial performance for the quarter. The CFO told an investor that the results would be bad. The investor immediately sold its shares in Presstek. The next day Presstek publicly released its poor financial performance for the quarter.

Slam dunk.

It’s that kind of selective disclosure that the SEC was trying to prevent when it enacted Regulation FD. It is bad that some investors could preferential treatment to material information and be able to act on that information before the general public.

“This investigation related to matters that occurred prior to the changes in executive leadership which took place in 2007,” said Jeff Jacobson, Presstek’s Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. “We feel very strongly about corporate governance and we are pleased to put this legacy issue behind us.”

In addition to the $400,000 settlement with the SEC, Presstek also had to pay a $1.25 million to settle a securities class action case related to the matter.

Even though it was a straightforward violation, the question I have is: How did the SEC find out? Perhaps they noticed the spike in the selling of shares and the purchasing of puts by the investor. Perhaps somebody blew the whistle? Perhaps the company self-reported?

Sources:

Another Charge in Madoff Fraud

The SEC has charged Daniel Bonventre, Madoff’s Director of Operations, with securities fraud.

“According to the SEC’s complaint, Bonventre was responsible for the firm’s general ledger and financial statements that were materially misstated because they did not reflect the manner in which investor funds were maintained and used. Bonventure ensured that BMIS financial reports did not reflect the firm’s massive liabilities to investors or the corresponding assets received from investors. To hide the fact that BMIS normally operated at a significant loss, the firm used more than $750 million in investor funds to artificially improve reported revenue and income.

The SEC alleges that Bonventre also helped Madoff, his lieutenant Frank DiPascali, Jr., and others orchestrate lies to investors and regulators when investment advisory operations at BMIS came under review. With Bonventre’s assistance, they made serial misrepresentations to external reviewers by manufacturing reams of false reports and data.”

…

This is the SEC’s seventh enforcement action in the Madoff fraud since the scheme collapsed in December 2008. The Commission previously charged Madoff and BMIS, DiPascali, and auditors David G. Friehling and Friehling & Horowitz CPAs, P.C., who have all pleaded guilty to criminal charges related to their conduct. The SEC also charged certain feeder funds with committing securities fraud, and charged two computer programmers at Madoff’s firm for their roles in covering up the scheme.

Sources:

SEC Press Release – SEC Charges Madoff’s Director of Operations with Falsifying Accounting Records and Siphoning Investor Funds

SEC Decides to Think Further About IFRS

The Securities and Exchange Commission voted to issue a statement that lays out its position regarding global accounting standards. They want to make it clear that “the Commission continues to believe that a single set of high-quality globally accepted accounting standards would benefit U.S investors.”

By 2011, the SEC will decide whether to incorporate IFRS into the U.S. financial reporting system, and if so, when and how. In trying to reach a decision, the SEC has published a Work Plan. It has six key areas:

  • Sufficient Development and Application of IFRS for the U.S. Domestic Reporting System
    • Comprehensiveness
    • Auditabilitity and Enforceability
    • Consistent and High-Quality Application
  • The Independence of Standard Setting for the Benefit of Investors
  • Investor Understanding and Education Regarding IFRS
  • Examination of the U.S. Regulatory Environment that Would Be Affected by a Change in Accounting Standards
  • The Impact on Issuers, Both Large and Small, Including Changes to Accounting Systems, Changes to Contractual Arrangements, Corporate Governance Considerations, and Litigation Contingencies
  • Human Capital Readiness

Certainly it would be better to have a single universal accounting standard. But is IFRS better than GAAP, worse than GAAP, or just different?

Sources:

SEC Commissioner is a Blog Commenter

So you write a blog post about the fiduciary duty of financial service providers to their clients. Actually, the real story is about the lack of fiduciary duty that brokers have to their customers. Then an SEC Commissioner chimes in.

Tara Siegel Bernard writes for New York Times blog, Bucks: Making the Most of Your Money. On February 16 her post was Will You Be My Fiduciary? Her proposal was to arm consumers with fiduciary rights, regardless of what the law says. Merely ask our provider to sign a fiduciary pledge so they have a contractual obligation to be a fiduciary.

Perhaps to her surprise, she got a comment from Elisse Walter, Commissioner, Securities and Exchange Commission:

This well-written, easy-to-understand proposal captures the way that all financial professionals should treat investors. It recognizes that all financial professionals should be subject to a fiduciary duty. And in a simple and straightforward way it articulates the scope of the duty and cuts through what has become non-productive debate on this issue.

This articulation allows us to move on to another critical issue: financial professionals are unfortunately subject to different obligations when they are performing virtually identical services for investors. For example, a person cannot start a brokerage firm unless she demonstrates to a securities regulator that she has the expertise and operational capacity to engage in the type of business she proposes to start. No equivalent process exists for investment advisers. And, the law requires an adviser to disclose to his client the full range of circumstances where their interests may conflict, while the law governing brokerage firms does not impose that blanket obligation.

These are only two examples of the obligations that should be harmonized. I’m ready to see us get on with that work.

According to a message I got from Mark Story, the SEC’s Director of New Media, it’s only the second time that a senior-level SEC official has commented in a public forum.

The first was when former SEC Chairman Christopher Cox commented on a blog post by Jonathan Schwartz: Sunlight on a Cloudy Day….

It looks like an SEC Commissioner posts a blog comment every three and half years. Plan ahead for 2013.

Actually, I’m surprised that the SEC Commissioners have commented at all. I recognize that high-level government officials have to be much more cautious about what they say in a public forum. They run into a similar problem with the dissemination of information that public companies have with Regulation FD. Surprisingly (or not), that just so happens to be the subject of that first SEC comment.

SEC Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change

Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission voted to provide public companies with interpretive guidance on existing disclosure requirements as they apply to business or legal developments relating to the issue of climate change. The SEC has now released the text of the guidance:
Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change

Those who are fired up about global warming will be quickly underwhelmed by the guidance. At its most basic it merely reminds public companies that they need “to consider climate change and its consequences as they prepare disclosure documents to be filed with us and provided to investors.”

The guidance claims that it will does not create any new disclosure requirements. Given the increased regulation of emissions, cap and trade, and insurance company adjustments, companies need to disclose the potential impact of these changes on the future prospects of the company.

I expect we will see a new section in the annual filings this spring, some interesting reading and some inflammatory news reports.

The globe image is by Jackl under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 in Wikimedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_warming_ubx.svg.png

The SEC and Climate Change

Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission voted to provide public companies with interpretive guidance on existing disclosure requirements as they apply to business or legal developments relating to the issue of climate change.

Chairman Mary Schapiro pointed out in her speech that the SEC is not commenting or opining on the issue of climate change; rather the guidance is intend to “provide clarity and enhance consistency” to help companies decide what does and does not need to be disclosed.

There has been a fair amount of discussion, mostly because climate change is such a lightning rod issue. I think most people, even Republicans, have agreed that the planet is going through some fairly rapid climate change. The debate has shifted to how much of it is caused by man and what we can do to slow climate change. But not the SEC: “We are not opining on whether the world’s climate is changing, at what pace it might be changing, or due to what causes.” If they are going to regulate, they should at least admit that there is climate change.

Maybe they should take a trip to McCarty Glacier in Alaska.

Image from Global Warming Art under CC-BY-SA

As with most SEC rules, the press release was short on details and we are still waiting for the actual interpretive notice to see what will be required.

Sources:

The globe image is by Jackl under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 in Wikimedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_warming_ubx.svg.png

SEC’s New Enforcement Cooperation Initiative

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced a new initiative encouraging cooperation. They put on a big media blitz. Big enough that they even allowed me to ask a question of SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami.

For the first time, the SEC set out how it will evaluate whether, how much, and in what manner to credit cooperation, to serve as an incentive to report violations and cooperate fully and promptly in enforcement cases.

The SEC will have some new cooperation tools at its disposal:

  • Cooperation Agreements — Formal written agreements in which the Enforcement Division agrees to recommend to the Commission that a cooperator receive credit for cooperating in investigations or related enforcement actions if the cooperator provides substantial assistance such as full and truthful information and testimony.
  • Deferred Prosecution Agreements — Formal written agreements in which the Commission agrees to forego an enforcement action against a cooperator if the individual or company agrees, among other things, to cooperate fully and truthfully and to comply with express prohibitions and undertakings during a period of deferred prosecution.
  • Non-prosecution Agreements — Formal written agreements, entered into under limited and appropriate circumstances, in which the Commission agrees not to pursue an enforcement action against a cooperator if the individual or company agrees, among other things, to cooperate fully and truthfully and comply with express undertakings.

One thing that came out of my discussion with Khuzami (I’m not sure I should call him Rob.) is that the SEC is looking towards the Department of Justice and criminal prosecutions on how to use these tools. But the SEC, as a civil enforcement agency, is not used to having the benefit of these tools.

Plus, the enforcement division can only make a recommendation to the Commission with a cooperation agreement. The Commission can ignore the cooperation and still bring down its full hammer on a someone even if they are a whistle blower and cooperating with the enforcement division. The cooperation message I was hearing from the SEC did not give me the warm fuzzies.

Nonetheless, the new tools should encourage cooperation and be beneficial to SEC Enforcement. For individuals, they have the prospect that they may not be prosecuted. Companies may also induced by being able to avoid the filing of the typical SEC complaint, with pages and pages of misconduct.

To publicize the new cooperation initiative, the SEC even assembled a new Enforcement Cooperation Initiative website. The best publicity will be an individual or company benefiting from cooperation.

Sources:

Questions and Answers with Robert Khuzami

After the news conference announcing the Rearrangement of its Enforcement Program, the Securities and Exchange Commission offered a group of bloggers the chance to ask questions to Robert Khuzami, the Director of Enforcement. (It must have felt like Obi-Wan stepping into the cantina full of low-life scoundrels.)

The blogging participants:

Mr. Khuzami let us know that the specialized units and cooperation initiatives came out of the self-assessment they conducted last year. Now that the heads of the new units have been made, those heads will start filling out their ranks.

Bruce started off questions by asking for more information on the new Office of Market Intelligence. This unit is combining two existing units, Market Surveillance and Internet Enforcement. It sounds like this will be a big source of information flow for the SEC with lots of complaints and charges coming in one place, getting filtered and sent to the right people for the appropriate action.

I asked about the creation of the new specialized units which are great for expertise, but may push information into silos. Mr. Khuzami pointed out that one of the current problems is that information is currently too diffuse across the SEC. There is a going to be hybrid approach. Not everything is going to end up in these units. He thinks expertise is very important. These units are going to be national in scope, so the people will spread out across the regional offices.

Laura Richman wanted to know if the SEC Commissioners are going to be comfortable with the new cooperation protocols. The enforcement division can only make a recommendation. It’s up to the Commission to decide whether to prosecute or settle. (This is unlikely to give the warm fuzzies to someone who is thinking about acting as a whistleblower or a company cooperating with an issue.)

Todd Sullivan was surprised that the cooperation initiatives were not already available to the SEC. Mr. Khuzami pointed out that criminal prosecutions have used cooperation strategies for a long time. It’s a new concept to civil proceedings.

Cate wanted to know if the SEC could develop the experience or tools to differentiate between proprietary trading versus market making. The SEC wants better information.

Francine wanted to know if the SEC will step up its enforcement actions against the accounting firms. Timeliness is key. If there is a long time between the misconduct and the prosecution, then there is a lost opportunity to stop others by setting an example.

Mr. Khuzami pointed out the SEC has been through a tough year but his group wants to use their professional skills and do good work. He thinks the Division is coming together and moving forward in a positive direction.

I want to thank Mark Story, the SEC’s Director of New Media, for inviting me to the press conference and Rob (I think I can call him that now) for taking the time to talk with us.

SEC Rearranges its Enforcement Program

The Securities and Exchange Commission reorganized its enforcement division. Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami announced a new program announced the creation of new units.

First, the SEC are expanding the whisteblower program. They are calling it a “cooperation program.”

Then there are five new units in the enforcement division.

Asset Management Unit

The unit specializing in asset managers, including hedge funds and private-equity firms, is set to be jointly run by Bruce Karpati, who has run the agency’s hedge-fund working group for the past several years, and Robert Kaplan, another SEC veteran.

Mr. Karpati was founder and head of the SEC’s Hedge Fund Working Group, and has served as Assistant Regional Director for the New York Regional Office of the SEC. Earlier, he was a Branch Chief and Attorney in the Division of Enforcement at the agency. Previously, Mr. Karpati was an Associate at Dechert LLP in Washington, D.C..

Mr. Kaplan has served as Assistant Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. He previously held positions as Assistant Chief Litigation Counsel and Senior Counsel/Staff Attorney in the Division. Earlier, he was an Associate with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP in New York.

Market Abuse Unit

Daniel Hawke, head of the Philadelphia office, was selected to run the market abuse unit, which will focus on insider-trading and market-manipulation cases.

Mr. Hawke is Director of the SEC’s Philadelphia Regional Office. He joined the SEC’s Philadelphia office as Associate Regional Director, and previously served in the Washington, D.C. office as Branch Chief and Staff Attorney in the Enforcement Division. Earlier, he was a Litigation Partner at Tucker, Flyer & Lewis LLP in Washington, D.C.

Structured and New-products Unit

Kenneth Lench will run the structured and new-products unit, which will focus on derivatives and newly developed products.

Mr. Lench has served as Assistant Director, Branch Chief, Assistant Chief Counsel, and Senior Counsel/Staff Attorney with the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. Earlier, he was a Senior Attorney with the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, and an Associate with Sills Cummis P.C. in Newark, N.J.  (Mr. Lench I have the same college/law school combination:  J.D. from Boston University School of Law, and a B.A. from Brandeis University.)

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit

Cheryl Scarboro will be named chief of the agency’s unit that investigates foreign bribery by corporations.

Ms. Scarboro has served as Associate Director, Assistant Director, Deputy Assistant Director, and Staff Attorney in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. She also was Counsel to SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, Jr.. Earlier, she was an Associate at Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan LLP in Washington, D.C.

Municipal-Securities and Public Pension Unit

Elaine Greenberg, a veteran of the Philadelphia office, has been tapped to run the municipal-securities unit. This will also include the new focus on pay-to-play.

Ms. Greenberg is the Associate Regional Director of the Philadelphia Regional Office of the SEC and has served as the Co-Chair of the Division’s national Municipal Securities Working Group. Earlier, she was Assistant Regional Director, Branch Chief, and Staff Attorney in the Philadelphia office.

Beyond these five new units there are two other initiatives.

Office of Market Intelligence

The SEC also created a new Office of Market Intelligence that will assume the responsibilities of the Internet enforcement unit and add new duties, such as handling tips and referrals. Tom Sporkin will lead this office.

Cooperation

The SEC also wants to encourage greater cooperation from individuals and companies in the agency’s investigations and enforcement actions. The new cooperation tools, not previously available in SEC enforcement matters, include:

  • Cooperation Agreements — Formal written agreements in which the Enforcement Division agrees to recommend to the Commission that a cooperator receive credit for cooperating in investigations or related enforcement actions if the cooperator provides substantial assistance such as full and truthful information and testimony.
  • Deferred Prosecution Agreements — Formal written agreements in which the Commission agrees to forego an enforcement action against a cooperator if the individual or company agrees, among other things, to cooperate fully and truthfully and to comply with express prohibitions and undertakings during a period of deferred prosecution.
  • Non-prosecution Agreements — Formal written agreements, entered into under limited and appropriate circumstances, in which the Commission agrees not to pursue an enforcement action against a cooperator if the individual or company agrees, among other things, to cooperate fully and truthfully and comply with express undertakings.

Sources:

SEC News Conference on its Enforcement Program

Bruce Carton of Securities Docket, Francine McKenna of Re: The Auditors and I are attending the SEC’s news conference virtually and taking notes using the CoverItLive tool embedded below.