UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 

Release No. 8820 / July 6, 2007 

INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940 

Release No. 2617 / July 6, 2007 

INVESTEMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940 

Release No. 27883 / July 6, 2007 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 

File No. 3-12678 

 

In the Matter of 

 

 

 

Haidar Capital Management, LLC, 

Haidar Capital Advisors, LLC, and 

Said N. Haidar, 

 

 

 

Respondents. 

 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

:

: 

ORDER INSTITUTING PUBLIC 

ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-ANDDESIST PROCEEDINGS, MAKING 

FINDINGS, IMPOSING A CEASEAND-DESIST ORDER, AND 

IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS, 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A OF THE 

SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, SECTIONS 

203(e) AND (f) OF THE INVESTMENT 

ADVISERS ACT OF 1940, AND 

SECTIONS 9(b) AND (d) OF THE 

INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 

1940 

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate 

and in the public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, 

and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 

(“Securities Act”), Sections 203(e) and (f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 

(“Advisers Act”) and Sections 9(b) and (d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 

(“Investment Company Act”) against Haidar Capital Management, LLC, Haidar Capital 

Advisors, LLC (collectively, Haidar Advisors), and Said N. Haidar (“Haidar”). 

II. 

In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Haidar Advisors and Haidar 

have submitted an Offer of Settlement (the “Offer”), which the Commission has 

determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other 

proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a 
party, and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the 

Commission’s jurisdiction over it and the subject matter of these proceedings, Haidar 

Advisors and Haidar consent to the entry of this Order Instituting Public Administrative 

and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Making Findings, Imposing a Cease-and-Desist 

Order, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions, Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 

1933, Sections 203(e) and (f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Sections 9(b) 

and (d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Order”), as set forth below. 

III. 

On the basis of this Order and Respondents’ Offer, the Commission finds1 that: 

Respondents

1. Haidar Capital Management, LLC, is a single member limited liability 

company formed under the laws of the State of New York. Haidar Capital Management, 

LLC served as the investment adviser for four private funds and is not registered with the 

Commission. 

2. Haidar Capital Advisors, LLC, is a single member limited liability 

company formed under the laws of the State of New York. Haidar Capital Advisors, 

LLC was the administrative or managing member of three private funds and is not 

registered with the Commission. 

3. Said N. Haidar, age 45, is a resident of New York, New York. He is the 

managing member and sole shareholder of Haidar Capital Management and Haidar 

Capital Advisors. 

Facts

4. From April 2001 to September 2003 (the “relevant period”), Haidar 

Advisors traded an average of approximately $143 million in US mutual funds and

annuities through a market timing strategy that Haidar Advisors’ traders executed.2 

During the relevant period, Haidar Advisors and Haidar violated Section 17(a)(3) of the 

Securities Act by engaging in deceptive tactics, such as using multiple accounts, utilizing 

broker-dealers who used multiple registered representative numbers and purchasing 

variable annuities, to hide Haidar Advisors’ identity from mutual funds, and otherwise 

 

1

 The findings herein are made pursuant to Respondents’ Offer of Settlement and are not binding on any 

other person or entity in this or any other proceeding. 

2

 Market timing includes: (i) frequent buying and selling of shares of the same mutual fund or (ii) buying or 

selling mutual fund shares in order to exploit inefficiencies in mutual fund pricing. Market timing, while 

not illegal per se, can harm other mutual fund shareholders because it can dilute the value of their shares, if 

the market timer is exploiting pricing inefficiencies, or disrupt the management of the mutual fund’s 

investment portfolio and can cause the targeted mutual fund to incur costs borne by other shareholders to 

accommodate frequent buying and selling of shares by the market timer. 

2 
facilitate Haidar Advisors’ market timing strategies.3

 During the relevant period, Haidar 

Advisors earned in excess of $3.3 million in management and advisory fees from its 

market timing trading.

Haidar Advisors Used Multiple Trading Entities and Accounts to Hide Their 

Identities 

5. During the relevant period, Haidar Advisors, at Haidar’s direction, created 

eight new wholly owned subsidiaries for two parent hedge funds (collectively, the “Haidar 

Advisors Affiliates”) to execute mutual fund trades. These wholly owned subsidiaries had 

unique tax identification numbers but included the same investors as the parent hedge fund 

and shared a bank account with the parent hedge fund. When a mutual fund family 

identified Haidar Advisors or the Haidar Advisors Affiliates as a market timer and blocked 

them from trading, Haidar Advisors continued timing the mutual fund family through 

another Haidar Advisors Affiliate or account, thereby concealing its identity from the 

mutual fund family. By September 2003, Haidar Advisors had opened in excess of 100 

accounts at more than 20 broker-dealers. Through these efforts, Haidar Advisors avoided 

detection by the mutual funds and continue executing market timing trades in mutual 

funds that had imposed “block notices” to restrict their market timing activities.4

6. Haidar Advisors’ Confidential Offering Memoranda for its various hedge 

funds confirm that Haidar Advisors used multiple accounts and entities and annuity 

contracts to execute trades in mutual funds that had previously imposed restrictions on 

Haidar Advisors due to market timing. In pertinent part, the Offering Memoranda, in a 

section entitled “Limitations on Switching Strategies,” states: 

The future success of [Haidar Advisors’] trading strategy depends 

on several different factors. Primary among these factors is the 

continued availability of the free and unlimited switching option 

within a family of funds. [Haidar Advisors] may utilize special 

purpose vehicles . . . and purchase annuity contracts to maintain or 

increase such availability. Fund families have been slowly 

restricting the availability of the exchange privilege, and this trend 

is expected to continue. In addition, there is no assurance that 

[Haidar Advisors] will be able to continue to utilize special 

 

3

 On November 30, 2001, Haidar’s outside counsel provided him with a research memorandum relating to 

his mutual fund market timing strategy. Specifically, the memorandum addressed Haidar Advisors’ use of 

multiple shareholder accounts under the same shareholder name and accounts for the benefit of one person 

but traded under separate d/b/a accounts or traded using subsidiaries. In pertinent part, Haidar Advisors’ 

counsel concludes that its “research has not uncovered a fact pattern whereby (i) the SEC has sought to 

impose a penalty against an adviser or (ii) a mutual fund has sued a shareholder, in each case for markettiming activities where a person that has been precluded from trading mutual fund shares because of 

market-timing then sets up an account under a new name but with the same beneficial owners.” 

4

 Block notices restricted market timing trading by, among other things, prohibiting future trades in specific 

accounts, by particular registered representatives or by broker-dealer and typically included a statement 

concerning the mutual fund’s aversion to market timing. 

3 
purpose vehicles or annuity contracts . . . to trade mutual fund 

shares. 

7. Haidar managed the overall operations of Haidar Advisors, including the 

creation of the Haidar Advisors Affiliates and the opening of brokerage accounts and the 

transfer of funds among the Haidar Advisors-affiliated entities. Haidar personally signed 

all of the applications for new tax identification numbers, all account opening documents 

and all wire transfer letters authorizing Haidar Advisors’ broker-dealers to move Haidar 

Advisors’ money to accounts that had not yet been blocked by the mutual funds. 

Use of Multiple Registered Representative Numbers to Circumvent Block Notices 

8. Many mutual funds also identified market timers by tracking the number 

broker-dealers assigned to their registered representatives (i.e., registered representative 

numbers). In an effort to hide their identities and circumvent block notices imposed by 

the mutual funds, some registered representatives at broker-dealers used by Haidar 

Advisors, at Haidar Advisors direction, used multiple registered representative numbers 

to execute Haidar Advisors’ market timing trades. In setting up Haidar Advisors’ 

accounts at various broker-dealers, Haidar Advisors’ traders discussed the use of 

alternative registered representative numbers to evade block notices and considered the 

broker-dealers’ ability to execute trades using multiple registered representative numbers 

in evaluating prospective broker-dealer relationships. 

Haidar Advisors Traded In Amounts That Were More Likely To Avoid Mutual 

Fund Scrutiny

9. Haidar Advisors employed structured trading strategies to further disguise 

its timing activities from blocking mutual funds. Specifically, Haidar Advisors divided 

large trades, using the Haidar Advisors Affiliates, into several smaller trades in an effort 

to “fly under the radar” of mutual funds that detected timers by monitoring trades with 

high dollar values. Haidar Advisors monitored the dollar amount that attracted attention 

from the mutual fund compliance personnel and traded in dollar amounts under that 

threshold in order to avoid mutual fund scrutiny. In each instance, no legitimate purpose 

required Haidar Advisors to structure the trades in that manner because the accounts and 

Haidar Advisors Affiliates included the same investors and employed the same trading 

strategy. 

Haidar Advisors Used Variable Annuities to Disguise Their Identities

10. Haidar Advisors conducted market timing using variable annuity 

contracts.5 Variable annuities were an attractive vehicle for Haidar Advisors to use to 

 

5

 Variable annuities are insurance contracts which typically invest the cash premiums in mutual fund shares 

and which typically offer access to multiple mutual funds. Variable annuities are securities and insurance 

companies offer their variable annuity products through prospectuses filed with the Commission, which 

may describe the insurance companies’ policies on market timing. As with market timing of mutual funds, 

market timing through variable annuities can result in increased expense to, and cause dilution in, the 

underlying mutual fund portfolios. Additionally, market timing through variable annuities may harm not 

4 
gain market timing capacity because issuers of variable annuities aggregate trades in their 

contracted fund complexes and transmit the trades on a net basis. Thus, trading through 

variable annuity contracts can hide the identity of timers, facilitating their timing.6

 

11. In addition to using variable annuities to conceal its identity from the 

mutual funds, Haidar Advisors also engaged in deceptive conduct to facilitate its variable 

annuity trading. Specifically, when variable annuity contracts were restricted for 

excessive trading, Haidar Advisors would surrender the contract and continue market 

timing in the same variable annuities’ mutual fund sub-accounts, using a different 

variable annuity contract purchased in the name of a different Haidar Advisors Affiliate 

or using a different account number.7

 

Violations of the Federal Securities Laws

12. As a result of the conduct described above, Haidar Advisors and Haidar 

willfully committed violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, which prohibits 

engaging in any transaction, practice or course of business, in the offer or sale of 

securities, directly or indirectly, which would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the 

purchaser.8

 

Cooperation by Haidar Advisors and Haidar

13. In determining to accept the Offer, the Commission considered 

cooperation afforded the Commission staff by the Respondents. 

Undertakings

 Respondents have undertaken to: 

14. Haidar Advisors shall, within 120 days of the date of this Order, retain an 

independent compliance consultant (“Independent Compliance Consultant”), not 

unacceptable to the staff of the Commission, to conduct a review of Haidar Advisors’ 

policies and procedures reasonably designed to detect and prevent violations of the 

federal securities laws related to trading of open-end investment companies that are 

registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Mutual Funds”); (ii) recommend 

any additional policies and procedures which, on the basis of its review, the consultant 

 only investors holding the same variable annuity, but also other investors in the underlying mutual funds 

being timed, such as investors in variable annuities issued by other insurance companies. 

6

 Haidar Advisors also favored annuity trading because: (i) the annuity structure enabled Haidar Advisors 

to switch between fund families in a single day, and (ii) Haidar Advisors believed that the annuity fund 

families were contractually obligated to accept the trades. 

7

 Haidar Advisors purchased multiple annuity contracts, naming its own employees as annuitants, but 

Haidar Advisors funded the contracts, and all profits from the trading were for Haidar Advisors’ benefit. 

8

 “Willfully” as used in this Order means intentionally committing the act which constitutes the violation. 

Cf. Wonsover v. SEC, 205 F.3d 408, 414 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Tager v. SEC, 344 F.2d 5, 8 (2d Cir. 1965). 

5 
believes are reasonably designed to ensure that Haidar Advisors complies with federal 

securities laws, relating to the trading of those Mutual Funds; and (iii) submit to the 

Commission staff, within 30 days of the completion of the review, a report outlining the 

results of the Independent Compliance Consultant’s review, and what recommendations, 

if any, the Independent Compliance Consultant made. In conjunction with the 

Independent Compliance Consultant’s review: 

(a) Haidar Advisors shall adopt the recommendations of the 

Independent Compliance Consultant; provided, however, that within 60 

days of the completion of the review, Haidar Advisors shall in writing 

advise the Independent Compliance Consultant and the staff of the 

Commission of any recommendations that it considers to be unnecessary 

or inappropriate. With respect to any recommendations that it considers to 

be unnecessary or inappropriate, Haidar Advisors need not adopt that 

recommendation at that time but shall propose in writing an alternative 

policy, procedure or system designed to achieve the same objective or 

purpose. As to any recommendation on which Haidar Advisors and the 

Independent Compliance Consultant do not agree, such parties shall 

attempt in good faith to reach an agreement within 90 days of the 

completion of the review. In the event that Haidar Advisors and the 

Independent Compliance Consultant are unable to agree on an alternative 

proposal acceptable to the staff of the Commission, Haidar Advisors will 

abide by the determinations of the Independent Compliance Consultant. 

(b) Haidar Advisors shall, after 18 months from the date of this Order, 

require the Independent Compliance Consultant (i) to conduct an 

additional review to determine whether Haidar Advisors adopted the 

above recommendations and whether Haidar Advisors’ policies and 

procedures are reasonably effective in maintaining Haidar Advisors’ 

compliance with federal and state securities laws, and (ii) submit to the 

Commission’s staff, within 30 days of the review, a report outlining the 

results of the review. 

(c) The Independent Compliance Consultant’s compensation and 

expenses shall be borne by Haidar Advisors. The Respondents shall 

cooperate fully with the Independent Compliance Consultant with access 

to their files, books, records, and personnel as reasonably requested for the 

reviews. 

(d) Haidar Advisors shall require that the Independent Compliance 

Consultant, for the period of the engagement and for a period of two years 

from completion of the engagement, not enter into any employment, 

consultant, attorney-client, auditing or other professional relationship with 

Haidar Advisors, or any of its present or former affiliates, directors, 

officers, employees, or agents acting in their capacity as such. Haidar 

Advisors shall require that any firm with which the Independent 

Compliance Consultant is affiliated in performance of his or her duties 

6 
under the Order not, without prior written consent of the staff of the 

Commission, enter into any employment, consultant, attorney-client, 

auditing or other professional relationship with Haidar Advisors, or any of 

Haidar Advisors’ present or former affiliates, directors, officers, 

employees, or agents acting in the capacity as such for the period of the 

engagement and for a period of two years after the engagement. 

15. Respondents shall retain, within 30 days of the entry of the Order, the 

services of an independent distribution consultant (“Independent Distribution 

Consultant”) not unacceptable to the staff of the Commission. Respondents shall pay up 

to $50,000 of the compensation and expenses of the Independent Distribution Consultant. 

Such compensation and expenses shall include, without limitation, (i) the compensation 

of a tax administrator for the preparation of tax returns and/or for seeking any IRS 

rulings; (ii) the payment of taxes; and (iii) the payment of any distribution or consulting 

services as may be reasonably required by the Independent Distribution Consultant. 

Thereafter, the Independent Distribution Consultant’s compensation or expenses shall be 

deducted from any amounts of disgorgement or penalty paid by the Respondents pursuant 

to this Order and any investment returns or interest earned thereon. The Respondents 

shall cooperate fully with the Independent Distribution Consultant, including providing 

access to their files, books, records, and personnel as reasonably requested for the review. 

Respondents shall require the Independent Distribution Consultant to develop a 

Distribution Plan for the distribution of the total disgorgement and penalty ordered in 

Paragraph IV.D. of this Order, and any interest or earnings thereon, according to a 

methodology developed in consultation with Respondents and acceptable to the staff of 

the Commission. 

(a) Respondents shall require the Independent Distribution Consultant 

to submit to Respondents and the staff of the Commission the Distribution 

Plan no more than 150 days after the entry of the Order. 

(b) The Distribution Plan developed by the Independent Distribution 

Consultant shall be binding unless, within 210 days after the date of the 

entry of the Order, Respondents or the staff of the Commission, advises, in 

writing, the Independent Distribution Consultant of any determination or 

calculation from the Distribution Plan that it considers to be inappropriate 

and states in writing the reasons for considering such determination or 

calculation inappropriate. 

(c) With respect to any calculation with which Respondents or the 

staff of the Commission do not agree, such parties shall attempt in good 

faith to reach an agreement within 240 days of the date of the entry of the 

Order. In the event that Respondents and the staff of the Commission are 

unable to agree on an alternative determination or calculation, the 

determinations of the Independent Distribution Consultant shall be 

binding. 

7 
(d) Within 175 days of the date of entry of this Order, Respondents 

shall require that the Independent Distribution Consultant submit the 

Distribution Plan for the administration and distribution of disgorgement 

and penalty funds pursuant to Rule 1101 [17 C.F. R. § 201.1101] of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice. Following a Commission order 

approving a final plan of distribution, as provided in Rule 1104 [17 C.F.R. 

§ 201.1104] of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, Respondents shall 

require that the Independent Distribution Consultant, with Respondents, 

take all necessary and appropriate steps to administer the final plan for 

distribution of disgorgement and penalty funds. 

(e) Respondents shall require that the Independent Distribution 

Consultant, for the period of the engagement and for a period of two years 

from completion of the engagement, not enter into any employment, 

consultant, attorney-client, auditing or other professional relationship with 

Respondents, or any of its present or former affiliates, directors, officers, 

employees, or agents acting in their capacity as such. Respondents shall 

require that any firm with which the Independent Distribution Consultant 

is affiliated in performance of his or her duties under the Order not, 

without prior written consent of the staff of the Commission, enter into 

any employment, consultant, attorney-client, auditing or other professional 

relationship with Respondents, or any of Respondents’ present or former 

affiliates, directors, officers, employees, or agents acting in the capacity as 

such for the period of the engagement and for a period of two years after 

the engagement. 

16. Respondents undertake to cooperate fully with the Commission in any and 

all investigations, litigations or other proceedings relating to or arising from the matters 

described in this Order. In connection with such cooperation, Respondents have 

undertaken: 

(a) To produce, without service of a notice or subpoena, any and all 

documents and other information reasonably requested by the 

Commission’s staff; 

(b) To use their best efforts to cause their employees to be interviewed 

by the Commission’s staff at such times as the staff reasonably may direct; 

(c) To use their best efforts to cause their employees to appear and 

testify truthfully and completely without service of a notice or subpoena in 

such investigations, depositions, hearings or trials as may be requested by 

the Commission’s staff; 

(d) That in connection with any testimony of Haidar Advisors to be 

conducted at deposition, hearing or trial pursuant to a notice or subpoena, 

Haidar Advisors and Haidar: (i) agrees that any such notice or subpoena 

for Haidar Advisors employees and officers appearance and testimony 

8 
may be served by regular mail on its counsel, Ropes & Gray, LLP, attn: 

Richard Marshall, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036-

8704; and (ii) agrees that any such notice or subpoena for Haidar Advisor 

appearance and testimony in an action pending in a United States District 

Court may be served, and may require testimony, beyond the territorial 

limits imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 

(e) To make best efforts to produce to the Independent Distribution 

Consultant documents sufficient to identify all Mutual Funds (as defined 

in paragraph 14 above) in which Haidar Advisors executed trades in its 

private funds during the relevant period. 

17. For good cause shown, the Commission's staff may extend any of the 

procedural dates set forth above. 

IV.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public 

interest to impose the sanctions specified in Respondents’ Offer. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

A. Respondents Haidar Capital Management and Haidar Capital Advisors are hereby 

censured; 

B. Respondents shall cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and 

any future violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act; 

C. Respondents shall comply with the undertakings specified in Paragraphs 14 and 

15 above; and 

D. Respondents shall pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil money 

penalties as follows: 

1. Within 30 days of the entry of this Order, Respondents, jointly and 

severally, shall pay disgorgement of $3,300,000, prejudgment 

interest of $1,180,000 and a civil penalty in the amount of 

$100,000. 

a. Such payments shall be: (i) made by United States postal 

money order, certified check, bank cashier's check or 

bank money order; (ii) made payable to the Securities 

and Exchange Commission; (iii) hand-delivered or 

mailed to the Office of Financial Management, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, Operations 

Center, 6432 General Green Way, Stop 0-3, Alexandria, 

VA 22312; and (iv) submitted under cover letter that 

identifies Respondents, the file number of these 

9 
proceedings, a copy of which cover letter and money 

order or check shall be sent to Katherine Addleman, 

Associate Regional Administrator, Securities and 

Exchange Commission, Burnett Plaze, Suite 1900, 801 

Cherry Street, Unit 18, Fort Worth, Texas 76107. 

b. Pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 

2002, a Fair Fund shall be established for the funds 

described in Section IV.D.1 above. Regardless of 

whether any such Fair Fund distribution is made, 

amounts ordered to be paid as civil money penalties 

pursuant to this Order shall be treated as penalties paid 

to the government for all purposes, including all tax 

purposes. To preserve the deterrent effect of the civil 

penalty, Respondents agree that they shall not, after 

offset or reduction in any Related Investor Action based 

on Respondent’s payment of disgorgement in this action, 

further benefit by offset or reduction of any part of 

Respondents’ payment of a civil penalty in this action 

(“Penalty Offset”). If the court in any Related Investor 

Action grants such a Penalty Offset, Respondents agree 

that they shall, within 30 days after entry of a final order 

granting the Penalty Offset, notify the Commission’s 

counsel in this action and pay the amount of the Penalty 

Offset to the United States Treasury or to a Fair Fund, as 

the Commission directs. Such a payment shall not be 

deemed an additional civil penalty and shall not be 

deemed to change the amount of the civil penalty 

imposed in this proceeding. For purposes of this 

paragraph, a “Related Investor Action” means a private 

damages action brought against Respondents by or on 

behalf of one or more investors based on substantially 

the same facts that are the subject of the Commission’s 

Findings in the Order. 

 

By the Commission. 

Nancy M. Morris 

 Secretary 

 

10