UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 89657 / August 25, 2020

ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT

Release No. 4162 / August 25, 2020

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-19928

In the Matter of

HOWARD HIDESHIMA, 

Respondent.

CORRECTED ORDER INSTITUTING 

CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 21C OF THE 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, 

MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING A 

CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER 

I.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate that ceaseand-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against Howard Hideshima (“Hideshima” or 

“Respondent”). 

II.

In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has 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 him and the subject matter of these 

proceedings, which are admitted, and except as provided herein in Section V, Respondent consents 

to the entry of this Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order

(“Order”), as set forth below.
2

III.

On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds1that: 

Summary

1. Howard Hideshima, the former Chief Financial Officer of Super Micro Computer, 

Inc. (“Super Micro”), engaged in improper accounting and caused internal accounting controls 

failures, which resulted in Super Micro systematically prematurely recognizing and reporting 

revenue and understating expenses from at least fiscal year (”FY”) 2015 through FY 2017. 

2. Hideshima pressed employees to maximize end-of-quarter revenue, without 

devising and maintaining sufficient internal accounting controls to record revenue in conformity 

with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). Hideshima was on notice that

Super Micro employees engaged in a number of improper practices to accelerate revenue 

recognition and reporting, and he failed to adequately address the internal accounting control 

failures and stop these practices going forward. 

3. Hideshima also was responsible for certain accounting decisions that did not 

conform with GAAP. For example, Super Micro improperly recognized and reported revenue (a) 

upon a large shipment at quarter-end, when Hideshima was informed that Super Micro sent the 

wrong goods to a customer and had to perform significant work for months after the shipment to 

address the problem, (b) for sales to a large Super Micro distributor upon shipment, when 

Hideshima received information indicating that the revenue should have been recognized when 

Super Micro received payment from the distributor; and (c) upon shipment to certain overseas 

customers, despite Hideshima authorizing employees to hold bills of lading and thus preventing the 

customers from taking possession of the goods as a means to ensure payment.

4. In addition, Hideshima knew that Super Micro was misusing its cooperative 

marketing program to pay a variety of unrelated expenses and, in certain instances, he proposed 

that co-op funds be used for non-marketing purposes, which caused Super Micro to understate

these expenses. Furthermore, Hideshima implemented practices that caused Super Micro to overvalue inventory and under-state expenses by failing to reduce inventory and record an associated 

expense when Super Micro no longer held the inventory for sale.

5. From at least FY 2015 through FY 2017, Hideshima signed, and/or approved, 

annual, quarterly and current reports with the Commission that contained materially misstated 

financial statements.

2

 

 

1 The findings herein are made pursuant to Respondent’s Offer of Settlement and are not 

binding on any other person or entity in this or any other proceeding. 

2 Hideshima signed each of Super Micro’s quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and annual 

reports on Form 10-K beginning with the period ended September 30, 2014 through the 

period ended March 31, 2017 containing materially misstated financial statements. 
3

6. Hideshima’s conduct violated certain internal accounting controls and books and 

records provisions under the Exchange Act, and caused Super Micro’s reporting, books and 

records, and internal accounting control violations. 

Respondent

7. Howard Hideshima, age 60, was the Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice 

President of Super Micro from 2006 through 2018. Among other things, Hideshima was 

responsible for designing and implementing the company’s internal accounting controls. 

Hideshima approved and signed all of the company’s annual and quarterly reports at issue. He also 

reviewed and approved current reports. He previously held senior financial positions at other 

private and public companies. He holds Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in accounting. 

Hideshima is not a Certified Public Accountant. 

Related Entity

8. Super Micro is a global producer of computer servers and equipment, incorporated 

in Delaware, with its principal place of business in San Jose, California. Super Micro’s securities 

are registered under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act. The company’s fiscal year ends on June 

30th. Super Micro’s shares currently trade on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. Because of 

Super Micro’s pervasive accounting, reporting and internal accounting control issues, Super Micro 

was unable to file periodic reports for nearly two years and, as a result, trading in the company’s 

stock was suspended in August 2018 and the stock was then delisted from March 2019 through 

January 2020.

Facts

A. Premature Revenue Recognition and Reporting

9. In determining whether to recognize and report revenue during the relevant period,

GAAP required public companies to consider whether (1) the revenue is realized or realizable; and 

(2) the revenue is earned. Consistent with GAAP, Super Micro’s revenue recognition policy, 

which Hideshima was responsible for enforcing and interpreting, indicated that revenue is realized 

and earned when all of the following criteria are met: (a) persuasive evidence of an arrangement 

exists; (b) delivery has occurred or services have been rendered; (c) the seller’s price to the buyer is 

fixed or determinable; and (d) collectability is reasonably assured.

10. Hideshima pressed employees to maximize revenue at the end of quarters—

typically sending dozens of emails to salespeople and other executives at the end of each quarter to 

 

Hideshima approved the Company’s current reports on Form 8-K, announcing the 

financial and operational results for each of these periods, along with the current report 

filed on August 3, 2017, announcing results for the year ended June 30, 2017, which also 

contained materially misstated financial information.
4

try to increase sales—but failed to devise and maintain sufficient internal accounting controls with 

respect to proper revenue recognition. For instance, Super Micro’s revenue recognition policy, for 

which Hideshima was responsible, delegated responsibility for identifying sales terms that may 

affect revenue recognition to salespeople. Yet Hideshima failed to directly or indirectly provide

revenue recognition training to salespeople. Hideshima also adopted policies, and was on notice of 

the recording and reporting of certain transactions, that were not in accordance with GAAP. As a 

result, during the period from at least FY 2015 through the end of FY 2017, Super Micro 

systemically recognized, recorded in its books and records, and reported revenue prematurely by 

engaging in a the following improper practices.

Premature Revenue Recognition Prior to Customer Delivery

11. Super Micro engaged in a number of transactions where it recognized revenue prior 

to customer delivery in order to maximize revenue at the end of quarters. In certain instances, 

Super Micro employees sent goods to warehouses or other storage facilities controlled by third 

parties at quarter-end and paid for the storage fees until the goods were delivered to its customer. 

In other instances, Super Micro asked its freight forwarders to hold the goods until the date that the 

customer was prepared to accept the goods, rather than ship and deliver them on the date agreed to 

with the customer. There also were instances where Super Micro recorded revenue although goods 

remained at its own warehouse.

12. In all of these transactions and other similar transactions, Super Micro improperly 

recorded revenue upon shipment from its own facility or, in a few instances, before the goods even 

left its facility. Recognizing the revenue was not in conformity with GAAP.

13. On multiple occasions, Hideshima received information indicating that revenue was

being recognized prior to customer delivery, but he failed to put in place sufficient internal 

accounting controls to address the issue and stop these practices going forward, resulting in the 

premature recording and reporting of revenue.

Improper Recognition of Revenue Upon Shipment of Goods Without Customer Authorization

14. Super Micro—at the end of quarters—shipped goods on multiple occasions prior to 

the delivery dates agreed with, or specified by, its customers in order to record and recognize the 

revenue prior to quarter-end. Hideshima failed to put in place sufficient internal accounting 

controls to address this practice.

15. At the end of the second quarter of FY 2017, for example, a distributor customer 

indicated that over $250,000 of goods could not be shipped absent its authorization. A Super 

Micro employee still shipped the goods before quarter-end. The customer’s representative 

complained that “no one can command you to process [our] order w/o our permission.” Hideshima 

was informed that the goods were shipped without this customer’s authorization, and that lower 

level Super Micro employees misrepresented to the customer that the goods were at the warehouse

when, in fact, they had already been shipped. Even after receiving this information, Hideshima 
5

failed to put sufficient internal accounting controls in place to address employees’ shipment of 

goods without customer authorization. 

16. The recognition of revenue when goods were shipped in contravention of customer 

instructions did not conform with GAAP. 

Improper Recognition of Revenue Upon Shipment to a Large Super Micro Customer Where the 

Parties’ Shipping Terms Required Revenue to Be Recognized Upon Delivery

17. From at least 2014 through 2017, purchase orders submitted by a large Super Micro

customer specified “FOB Destination” as the shipping terms. Sales with FOB Destination 

shipping terms are not realized or earned until delivery has occurred at the customer-designated 

location and title to the goods has passed to the customer. Hideshima received information 

indicating that the purchase orders contained FOB Destination terms. Under GAAP, revenue with 

FOB Destination terms should ordinarily be recognized upon Super Micro’s delivery to the 

customer.

18. Many shipments to this customer occurred near the end of quarters. During most 

quarters over the relevant period, Super Micro’s employees sent emails to the customer’s 

employees, purporting to change the shipping terms to “ex works”, which generally means that the 

goods and title would pass to the customer when picked up at Super Micro’s warehouse. The 

emails purporting to change the shipping terms, however, were often sent to the customer after the 

goods had been shipped and the quarter had ended. Indeed, in many instances, the purported 

change in terms occurred after the customer had already received the goods—i.e., after the 

question of who would bear the risk of loss while the goods were in transit was moot. 

19. Hideshima received information indicating that Super Micro employees were 

routinely sending emails to purportedly change the shipping terms with this customer. He also 

received information indicating that, in at least one instance, Super Micro employees sought to 

recognize revenue upon shipment to this customer where the purchase order stated FOB 

Destination shipping terms and Super Micro had not yet received an email from the customer 

purporting to change the terms more than one month after quarter end. 

20. In addition to the problems with the timing of emails purporting to change shipping 

terms with this customer, the emails were insufficient to override the customer’s purchase order 

terms and conditions and allow for both the transfer of title, and risk of loss, at the point of 

shipment under GAAP. 

21. In light of the information Hideshima received, he should have known that 

recognition of revenue upon shipment to this customer was not appropriate under GAAP, and 

instead should have been recognized upon delivery to the customer.

22. From FY 2015 through FY 2017, Super Micro prematurely recognized more than 

$45 million in revenue in connection with sales to this customer. 
6

Improper Recognition of Revenue Before Obtaining Customer Acceptance 

23. A number of Super Micro’s agreements with customers included acceptance 

clauses, meaning that customer acceptance was a condition of the customer’s obligation to pay for 

the goods. Under GAAP, revenue is considered to be earned when the seller has substantially 

accomplished what it must do to be entitled to the revenue. Accordingly, where an agreement 

contains a substantive customer acceptance clause, permitting customers to return the goods if they 

did not meet the customer’s specifications, revenue generally should not be recognized until Super 

Micro received confirmation of customer acceptance, the customer acceptance provision lapsed,

or, alternatively, Super Micro received payment from the customer. Hideshima was aware that

certain customers had acceptance clauses and understood that, under GAAP, revenue could not be 

recognized absent customer acceptance or payment. 

24. Super Micro’s internal accounting control for tracking customers with acceptance 

clauses, and for determining whether those clauses had been satisfied was lacking for two reasons. 

First, there was no adequate process to identify customers with acceptance clauses. Acceptance 

clauses included in purchase orders or other transactional documents that evidenced the 

arrangements that Super Micro had with its customers were identified on an ad hoc basis by 

operations and sales employees who did not receive proper training or guidance on this topic from 

Hideshima or anyone else at Super Micro. Second, even in instances where Super Micro was 

aware of customer acceptance provisions, the determination of whether the condition was satisfied 

was reached haphazardly. The decision was typically based on discussions between members of 

the finance group and sales personnel who did not receive any relevant training from Hideshima or 

anyone else at Super Micro. As a result, Super Micro recognized revenue in connection with 

numerous sales before it received customer acceptance. Hideshima oversaw the design and 

implementation of this internal accounting control.

Improper Recognition of Revenue Upon Shipment of Goods That Were Incomplete or MisAssembled

25. Super Micro also improperly recognized revenue for products that it sold where 

employees knew the goods were incomplete or mis-assembled at the time of shipment. The goods 

were shipped to customers at the end of quarters and Super Micro improperly recognized the 

revenue before quarter-end. 

26. Because Super Micro had not satisfied all of the necessary elements to recognize 

revenue under GAAP, Super Micro prematurely recognized revenue in many instances. 

27. Hideshima did not put in place sufficient internal accounting controls to address this 

improper practice and, in at least one instance, he failed to reverse the recognition of revenue after 

he was on notice that Super Micro sent the wrong goods to a customer and had to perform 

significant work in the subsequent months to address the problem. 

28. Specifically, Super Micro sent a $4 million order to a new customer towards the 

end of the fourth quarter of FY 2016. Hideshima was involved in negotiating the transaction. 

While the goods were in transit, the customer informed Super Micro that the product included a 
7

wrong component. As a result of the error, the products were shipped to a warehouse where they 

remained until Super Micro corrected the error. Super Micro employees were required to spend 

significant time and effort over the following nearly two months to resolve the issue. Hideshima 

was informed of these facts, and therefore he should have known it was improper to recognize the 

sale at the end of FY 2016 under GAAP. 

Improper Recognition of Revenue Upon Shipment to a Large Super Micro Distributor 

29. Super Micro had a distributor customer to which it sold hundreds of millions of 

dollars in products from FY 2015 to FY 2017. The distributor, however, was consistently unable 

to pay within its payment terms—its payables were often multiple months past due. 

30. On several occasions, Hideshima was informed of the distributor’s inability to pay 

within payment terms and that the distributor’s ability to pay was tied to its receipt of funds from 

its own customers (i.e., end-customers). 

31. In light of these facts, under GAAP, Super Micro was required to recognize revenue 

when it received payments from its distributor customer. Nevertheless, from FY 2015 through FY 

2017, Hideshima approved Super Micro’s recognition of more than $150 million in total revenue 

from this customer at the time of shipment.

Improper Recognition of Revenue While Holding Customers’ Bills of Lading

32. Hideshima instituted a practice where Super Micro improperly recognized revenue 

while holding certain customers’ bills of lading. When Super Micro shipped goods to certain 

countries—primarily Russia and other Eastern European countries—Super Micro requested that 

the freight forwarders return the bills of lading to it. Super Micro then held the bills of lading until 

it received payment (either partial or in full) from its customers. 

33. A bill of lading is a shipping document that allows a customer to clear products 

through customs. Absent a bill of lading, a customer ordinarily cannot take possession of the 

goods. Super Micro’s practice was meant to ensure that Super Micro was paid by customers that 

had not paid in advance. 

34. In instances where Super Micro prevented customers from taking possession of 

goods until payment was received, revenue was not realized or realizable at the time of shipment

under GAAP. Accordingly, Hideshima should have known that revenue should not have been 

recognized.

Failure to Properly Account for Extended Warranties

35. Super Micro offered its customers the ability to purchase extended warranties on its 

products. At times, these warranties were purchased separately from the cost of Super Micro 

products and listed separately on invoices. With respect to certain types of products sold by Super 

Micro, however, customers received an extended warranty covering periods ranging from one to 

five years beyond the standard warranty, the cost for which was built into the price of the hardware 
8

products purchased. These warranties were not explicitly listed in the invoice, purchase order or 

any other documents provided to accounting. 

36. Hideshima should have known that in order to properly account for extended 

warranties, there needed to be a system facilitating accounting personnel’s receipt of information 

about any extended warranties sold by Super Micro. Yet, until 2015, Hideshima did not put into 

place any internal accounting control or process to identify products that included embedded 

warranties. Hideshima also failed to train, or have others train, salespeople and members of the 

operations team on how to identify embedded warranties. 

37. Under GAAP, companies must account for revenue as earned, which for extended 

warranties is ratably over the duration of the warranty term. Super Micro, instead, recognized all 

of the extended warranty revenue upfront as a result of Hideshima’s failure to put in place a 

sufficient internal accounting control. Accordingly, Super Micro prematurely recognized all 

revenue from embedded extended warranties at the time of sale.

B. Super Micro Understated Certain Expenses

Misuse of Cooperative Marketing Funds to Pay Unrelated Expenses

38. Under a policy implemented by Hideshima and his accounting team, Super Micro’s 

customers often were entitled to cooperative, or “co-op”, marketing funds based on their purchases 

of product from Super Micro. As Super Micro stated in its SEC filings, which were signed by 

Hideshima, as well as in internal written policies for which Hideshima was responsible, these funds 

were to be used for co-op marketing activities undertaken by Super Micro’s customers. The 

customers were entitled to receive reimbursement for a portion of the cost of these activities. 

39. At the time of each sale to customers who were entitled to receive co-op marketing 

funds, Super Micro accrued a liability and recorded an offsetting debit to contra revenue and 

marketing expense. These liabilities were to pay for future marketing activities that customers 

would perform. In reality, however, Super Micro improperly reduced the liabilities to avoid 

recognizing a variety of expenses unrelated to marketing. 

40. Super Micro used co-op marketing funds, without customer approval, for a variety 

of purposes that were unrelated to marketing. For instance, Super Micro misused these funds to (a) 

pay shipping costs that were the responsibility of Super Micro; (b) pay to store goods at third-party 

facilities when customers were not prepared or willing to accept the goods before quarter end; (c) 

recoup Super Micro losses in connection with goods that had been returned by customers (e.g., in 

instances where the replacement products were more expensive); (d) pay for product repair costs 

requested by customers that had extended warranties; (e) pay for Christmas gifts given to 

customers; (f) cover customer short-pays (i.e., instances where invoices were not paid in full); and 

(g) pay for installation services that Super Micro performed for its customers. Hideshima knew coop funds were used for non-marketing purposes and, in certain instances, he proposed that co-op 

funds be used for non-marketing purposes. 

41. In using co-op marketing funds for purposes unrelated to marketing, Super Micro 

understated its expenses and liabilities. Specifically, Hideshima should have recorded or caused 
9

others to record expenses when Super Micro incurred costs unrelated to marketing. Instead, 

Hideshima knowingly circumvented the company’s internal accounting controls by approving a 

practice where Super Micro reduced its co-op marketing liability account and did not record any 

expense. 

Overvaluation of Inventory 

42. Super Micro engaged in two additional practices over the course of several years, 

which Hideshima implemented, which systemically overstated inventory and understated expenses 

in Super Micro’s books and records and publicly reported financial statements. First, Super Micro 

failed to reduce inventory and record a research and development expense when its engineers used 

inventory for internal purposes, as was required by GAAP. Second, Super Micro improperly 

continued to keep inventory on its books that had been provided to customers for testing purposes 

even when those products were never returned, as well as instances where it shipped items as 

replacement products to its customers. These practices resulted in an understatement of cost of 

sales and overstatement of gross profit. 

C. Super Micro was Required to Restate Years’ Worth of Financial Statements Included 

in Commission Filings 

43. On August 3, 2017, Super Micro filed a Form 8-K with the Commission, which 

Hideshima reviewed, announcing its operating and financial results for the fourth quarter of FY 

2017. Several weeks later, Super Micro announced, in a filing signed by Hideshima, that it would 

be unable to file its FY 2017 Form 10-K on time. On September 15, 2017, Super Micro disclosed 

that it was performing an audit committee review to permit its auditor to complete its audit of the 

financial statements. In November 2018, Super Micro determined that its previously filed financial 

statements from 2015 through 2017 could not be relied upon. Super Micro did not file any annual 

or quarterly reports from the time it filed its Form 10-Q for the third quarter of FY 2017 until May 

2019, when Super Micro filed its FY 2017 Form 10-K. 

44. In May 2019, Super Micro filed its Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2017 

and amended its Form 10-Q filings to restate its financial statements for the first three quarters of 

FY 2017. The FY 2017 Form 10-K also restated the financial statements for FYs 2015 and 2016. 

The restatements substantially impacted the company’s revenue/net sales, gross profits, operating 

income and net income previously recorded in its books and records and previously reported in its 

filings with the Commission. 

45. Hideshima approved and signed all of the annual and quarterly reports containing 

misstated financial statements that were ultimately restated. He also reviewed and approved

current reports that included misstated financial statements. 

46. During the periods in which Hideshima signed annual and quarterly reports 

containing misstated financial statements, he sold Super Micro stock at a profit. 
10

Violations

47. As a result of the conduct described above, Respondent violated Section 13(b)(5) of 

the Exchange Act, which provides that no person shall knowingly circumvent or knowingly fail to 

implement a system of internal accounting controls or knowingly falsify any book, record, or 

account.

48. As a result of the conduct described above, Respondent violated Rule 13b2-1 of the 

Exchange Act, which prohibits a person from, directly or indirectly, falsifying or causing to be 

falsified any book, record, or account subject to Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act.

49. Super Micro violated the reporting provisions of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act 

by filing periodic and current reports on Forms 10-K, 10-Q, and 8-K that contained materially 

misstated financial statements. As a result of the conduct described above, Respondent caused

Super Micro’s violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11 

and 13a-13 thereunder, which require issuers to file accurate annual, current and quarterly reports, 

which include such further information as may be necessary to make the required statements not 

misleading.

3

50. Super Micro violated Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, which requires an 

issuer to make and keep books, records, and accounts which, in reasonable detail, accurately and 

fairly reflect the issuer’s transactions and disposition of assets. As a result of the conduct described 

above, Respondent caused Super Micro’s violations of Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act.

51. Super Micro violated Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, which requires an 

issuer to devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide 

reasonable assurances that: transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general 

and specific authorization; transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial 

statements in conformity with GAAP or any other criteria applicable to such statements, and to 

maintain accountability for assets; access to assets is permitted only in accordance with 

management’s general or specific authorization; and the recorded accountability for assets is 

compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with 

respect to any differences. As a result of the conduct described above, Respondent caused Super 

Micro’s violations of Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act.

IV.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate to impose the sanctions 

agreed to in Respondent Hideshima’s Offer.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

 

3 The Commission may institute cease-and-desist proceedings against any person held to 

be a cause of violations of the federal securities laws due to acts or omissions such person knew 

or should have known would contribute to the violation. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-3(a); Robert M. 

Fuller, 56 SEC 976, 984 (2003), pet. denied, 95 F. App’x 361 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
11

A. Pursuant to Section 21C of the Exchange Act, Respondent Howard Hideshima cease 

and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 13(a), 

13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a13 and 13b2-1 thereunder. 

B. Respondent shall, within 10 days of the entry of this Order, pay a civil money 

penalty in the amount of $50,000.00, disgorgement of $260,844.00 and prejudgment interest of 

$40,212.00 to the Securities and Exchange Commission. If timely payment of the penalty is not 

made, additional interest shall accrue pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §3717. If timely payment of the 

disgorgement and prejudgment interest is not made, additional interest shall accrue pursuant to 

SEC Rule of Practice 600. 

Payment must be made in one of the following ways: 

(1) Respondent may transmit payment electronically to the Commission, which 

will provide detailed ACH transfer/Fedwire instructions upon request;

(2) Respondent may make direct payment from a bank account via Pay.gov 

through the SEC website at http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ofm.htm; or 

(3) Respondent may pay by certified check, bank cashier’s check, or United 

States postal money order, made payable to the Securities and Exchange 

Commission and hand-delivered or mailed to: 

Enterprise Services Center

Accounts Receivable Branch

HQ Bldg., Room 181, AMZ-341

6500 South MacArthur Boulevard

Oklahoma City, OK 73169

Payments by check or money order must be accompanied by a cover letter identifying 

Howard Hideshima as a Respondent in these proceedings, and the file number of these 

proceedings; a copy of the cover letter and check or money order must be sent to Lisa Deitch, 

Division of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St., NE, Washington, DC 

20549-5010.

C. Pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a Fair Fund is created 

for the disgorgement, prejudgment interest and penalties referenced in paragraph IV.B above (the 

“Hideshema Fair Fund”) and the Hideshema Fair Fund shall be added to the Fair Fund established 

in the Commission’s related proceeding, In the Matter of Super Micro Computer, Inc., Admin. 

Proc. No. 3-19927 (instituted August 25, 2020) (“Super Micro Fair Fund”). The Super Micro Fair 

Fund will be distributed to affected investors in accordance with a Commission-approved plan of 

distribution in that proceeding. 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 
12

purposes. To preserve the deterrent effect of the civil penalty, Respondent agrees that in any 

Related Investor Action, he shall not argue that he is entitled to, nor shall he benefit by, offset or 

reduction of any award of compensatory damages by the amount of any part of Respondent’s 

payment of a civil penalty in this action ("Penalty Offset"). If the court in any Related Investor 

Action grants such a Penalty Offset, Respondent agrees that he 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 Securities and Exchange Commission. 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 Respondent by or on behalf of one or more 

investors based on substantially the same facts as alleged in the Order instituted by the 

Commission in this proceeding.

V.

It is further Ordered that, solely for purposes of exceptions to discharge set forth in Section 

523 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §523, the findings in this Order are true and admitted by 

Respondent, and further, any debt for disgorgement, prejudgment interest, civil penalty or other 

amounts due by Respondent under this Order or any other judgment, order, consent order, decree 

or settlement agreement entered in connection with this proceeding, is a debt for the violation by 

Respondent of the federal securities laws or any regulation or order issued under such laws, as set 

forth in Section 523(a)(19) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(19).

By the Commission.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary