1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION 

________________________________________________

: 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, : 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : Case No. 12-cv-02473 

: Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly 

SIMING YANG, PRESTIGE TRADE : 

INVESTMENTS LIMITED, CAIYIN FAN : 

SHUI CHONG (ERIC) CHANG : 

: 

Defendants. : 

_______________________________________________ : 

PLAINTIFF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S MOTION FOR 

REMEDIES AND FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT SIMING YANG 

Between March 14 and 15, 2012, 50,000 shares of Zhongpin, Inc. and more than 

1,900 call option contracts of Zhongpin stock were purchased in the Yang/Fan Sogotrade 

account. (Trial Tr. Jan. 8, 2014, pp. 285, 290-91, 311.) At trial, defendant Siming Yang took 

the stand and disclaimed knowledge of, or responsibility for, such trading. (Id. at 872-79.) 

He testified that the account, and the funds in it that were used to purchase Zhongpin 

securities, belonged not to him but to his co-defendant, Caiyin Fan. (Id. at 872-79) The jury 

didn’t buy it, as evidenced by their verdict finding Yang liable for two types of securities 

fraud: (1) front running and (2) making material misrepresentations in disclosures to the 

SEC. In connection with the latter fraud count, the jury also found Yang liable for violating 

the disclosure requirements of Section 13(d) and Rule 13d-1 of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). 
2 

 After Yang traded for his personal account, he then caused his hedge fund, Prestige 

Trade Investments Limited (“Prestige”) to buy millions of shares of Zhongpin stock. (Trial 

Tr. Jan. 6, 2014 at pp. 306-07.) As SEC accountant John Kustusch testified at trial, 

Prestige’s trades represented 40.7% of the total market trading volume in Zhongpin stock 

from March 15 through March 23, 2012. (Id.) Predictably, Prestige’s ravenous appetite for 

Zhongpin stock had an unmistakable impact on the price. Over the course of 7 trading days 

– between March 15, when Prestige began its buying spree, until March 23, after it had 

finished buying 3 million shares of Zhongpin stock – the stock price spiked 15.5%. (Ex. 1, 

Kustusch Declaration ¶ 6.) Critically for present purposes, this run-up in the price of 

Zhongpin stock – the focus of the disgorgement analysis discussed below – all preceded the 

March 27 announcement of the proposed buyout by Zhongpin’s CEO. (Trial Tr. Jan. 6, 

2014 at pp. 301-07.) And because Yang bought for himself before he bought for Prestige, he 

was the real beneficiary of that pre-announcement spike – to the tune of about $150,000. 

(See Ex. 1, Kustusch Declaration ¶ 10.) 

 Prestige’s ownership interest in Zhongpin stock soon exceeded 5%, which triggered a 

disclosure obligation under Section 13(d) and Rule 13d-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 (“Exchange Act”). In Prestige’s resulting Schedule 13D filings with the SEC, Yang 

– while acknowledging his status as a reporting person – nonetheless failed to disclose his 

front-running in Zhongpin securities. (See Pl.’s Trial Exhibit 103, Schedule 13D Item 5(c).) 

Instead, he lied, misrepresenting that he had not bought or sold Zhongpin stock during the 

previous 60 days. (Id.) The jury found that he made that misrepresentation either knowingly 

or recklessly.
3 

Based upon both the jury’s finding that Yang committed securities fraud and the 

supporting evidence established at trial, in this motion the SEC seeks: (a) a permanent 

injunction enjoining Yang from continued violations of those securities laws for which the 

jury found him liable (Section I below); (b) disgorgement of $151,432 (Section II); 

(c) prejudgment interest of $8,911.59 (Section II); and (d) civil monetary penalties of 

$750,000 (Section III).

I. THE COURT SHOULD PERMANENTLY ENJOIN YANG 

FROM VIOLATING THE SECURITIES LAWS OF WHICH THE 

JURY FOUND HIM LIABLE. 

 Given the jury’s verdict finding that Yang violated the antifraud provisions of the 

Exchange Act and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) – as well as the 

reporting requirements of Exchange Act Section 13(d) – an order permanently enjoining 

him from violating such laws is appropriate once the SEC demonstrates a “a reasonable 

likelihood of future violations.” SEC v. Michel, 521 F. Supp. 2d 795, 830 (N.D. Ill. 2007) 

(quoting SEC v. Holschuh, 694 F.2d 130, 144 (7th Cir. 1982)); 15 U.S.C. §78u(d)(1); 15 

U.S.C. §80b-9(d).1 

By committing securities fraud and violating Section 13(d) and Rule 13d-1 of the 

Exchange Act, Yang “caused injury to other market participants who sold stock without 

knowledge of [his] holdings.” SEC v. First City Financial Corp, Ltd., 890 F.2d 1215, 1230 

 

1

 Courts adjudicating a defendant’s likelihood of future violations have considered such 

factors as (1) the gravity of harm caused by the offense; (2) the extent of the defendant’s 

participation and his degree of scienter; (3) the isolated or recurrent nature of the infraction 

and the likelihood that the defendant’s customary business activities might again involve 

him in such transactions; (4) the defendant’s recognition of his own culpability; and (5) the 

sincerity of his assurances against future violations. Holschuh, 694 F.2d at 144. The 

Commission need not establish the existence of any one factor, however, in order to 

demonstrate a likelihood of future violations. SEC v. Church Extension, Inc., 429 F. Supp. 2d 

1045, 1048 (S.D. Ind. 2005). 
4 

(D.C. Cir. 1989). In this regard, “Section 13(d) is not a mere ‘technical’ reporting provision; 

it is, rather, the ‘pivot’ of a regulatory scheme that may represent the only way that 

corporations, their shareholders and others can adequately evaluate . . . the possible effects 

of a change in substantial shareholdings.” SEC v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 837 F. Supp. 

587, 607 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (quoting First City, 890 F.2d at 1230 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). Section 

13(d) is thus “a crucial requirement in the congressional scheme, and a violator . . . 

improperly benefits by purchasing stocks at an artificially low price because of a breach of 

the duty Congress imposed to disclose his investment position.” First City, 890 F.2d at 1230. 

That a securities professional intentionally lied to the SEC in his public disclosures cuts to 

the core of the regulatory scheme embodied in the federal securities laws. 

The jury also found Yang liable for front-running, which in turn required a finding 

that he “knowingly purchased stock or options of Zhongpin for his personal account before 

purchasing Zhongpin stock for Prestige and that Mr. Yang did so to obtain a personal 

financial benefit without disclosing to Prestige the purchases and the conflict of interest 

created by the purchases.” (Jury Instructions, ECF No. 243, pp. 11-12.) 

Beyond the severity of these violations is the manner in which Yang engaged in such 

fraud. In furtherance of his misdeeds he engaged in rampant deception, lying to Sogotrade 

and Interactive Brokers to open the accounts that he used to trade; lying to Baron Capital, 

his employer, to hide his trading activity; and lying to the SEC (and the investing public by 

extension) in the two false Schedule 13Ds he caused to be filed. In the Schedule 13D filings 

Yang not only failed to disclose his personal Zhongpin trades; he affirmatively represented 

that he did not hold any other Zhongpin securities. (See Pl.’s Trial Exhibit 103, Schedule 

13D Item 5(c).) Moreover, the jury found that Yang either knew or at the very least was 
5 

reckless in not knowing of the false information in the public filings. (Jury Instructions, ECF 

No. 243, pp. 13-14.) 

It is precisely “this type of intentional, knowing conduct, as opposed to more minor, 

technical violations, for which injunctions are reserved.” SEC v. Ginsburg, 362 F.3d 1292, 

1305 (11th Cir. 2004); see also SEC v. Payne, No. 00-CV-1265, 2011 WL 693630, at *3 (S.D. 

Ind. Feb. 18, 2011) (“Although no single factor is determinative the degree of scienter bears 

heavily on the decision to issue an injunction.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) 

As a 37 year-old securities professional with an indisputable passion for investing, 

Yang will have ample future opportunities to break the securities laws. SEC v. Olins, 762 F. 

Supp. 2d. 1193,1196 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (the defendant “had an extensive history of securities 

trading” and was “in a position whereby he will be faced with decisions implicating the 

securities laws.”); SEC v. Savino, No 01-CV-2438, 2006 WL 375074, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 

(“Due to [the defendant’s] current occupation as a licensed securities professional . . . [he]is 

in a position to engage in further fraudulent conduct.”) 

Yang’s failure to recognize – let alone appreciate the gravity of – his misdeeds 

bespeaks his likelihood of future violations. Rather than owning-up to his securities laws 

violations, Yang has instead steadfastly denied any wrongdoing. (Trial Tr. Jan. 8, 2014, p. 

872-79; Trial Tr. Jan. 9, 2014, pp. 902-04.) An unfortunate corollary to such continued 

denials is his concomitant inability to meaningfully or sincerely assure this Court that he 

won’t engage in such misconduct going forward. As the Seventh Circuit has recognized, “the 

criminal who in the teeth of the evidence insists that he is innocent . . . demonstrates by his 

obduracy the likelihood that he will repeat his crime.” See SEC v. Lipson, 278 F.3d 656, 664 

(7th Cir. 2002). See also SEC v. Abernathy, 1:11–cv–00580, 2012 WL 7679270, at *5 (W.D. 
6 

Mich. Nov. 30, 2012) (“Defendants have never acknowledged the wrongful nature of their 

conduct, nor have they provided any assurances against future violations. The absence of 

such acknowledgments and assurances weighs in favor of a permanent injunction.”). 

Last—but by no means least—was Yang’s lack of candor at trial. He testified under 

oath that he did not purchase Zhongpin securities in the Yang/Fan Sogotrade account. 

(Trial Tr. Jan. 8, 2014, pp. 877-78.) But, as the jury determined, the evidence established 

otherwise. Detective Balzanto established that the trading in that account occurred in all the 

places Yang was present at the time such trades were executed. Moreover, Yang himself 

admitted that he signed the Sogotrade account opening document, and that the forms were 

submitted to Sogotrade from his email address. (Id. at 793-95.) Despite Yang’s concessions, 

he vehemently maintained that he had no control over the trades executed in the account. 

(Id. at 877-78.) The jury apparently found that Yang’s testimony in this regard was not 

believable; its verdict reflected the jurors’ unanimous assessment that it was Yang who was 

responsible for the trading in the Yang/Fan account. 

Courts adjudicating remedies in SEC enforcement actions have found that such 

demonstrable lack of candor is among the factors that presage future violations. See 

Holschuh, 694 F.2d at 145 (the defendant lacked candor and offered inconsistent positions at 

various stages of the proceedings); SEC v. First Jersey Sec., Inc., 101 F.3d 1450, 1478 (2d Cir. 

1996)(the defendant’s testimony was “belligerently evasive”); SEC v. Gunn, 3:08-CV-1013, 

2010 WL 3359465, at * 6 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2010) (“[I]f a defendant is dishonest, exhibits 

a lack of candor, or offers inconsistent testimony during the course of the action, an 

injunction is more likely to be warranted.”). 
7 

 In the final analysis, both the jury’s finding that Yang committed securities fraud and 

the supporting evidence elicited at trial reflect a high degree of likelihood of his future 

securities law violations. Accordingly, this Court should issue an order permanently 

enjoining Yang from violating the securities laws for which the jury found him liable. 

II. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER YANG TO DISGORGE HIS 

ILL-GOTTEN GAINS FROM HIS FRONT-RUNNING, 

WITH PREJUDGMENT INTEREST. 

Yang should be required to disgorge the profits he made owing to his front-running. 

SEC v. Jakubowski, No. 94 C 4539, 1997 WL 598108, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 19, 1997); SEC v. 

Randy, 38 F. Supp. 2d 657, 674 (N.D. Ill. 1999). This Court enjoys broad authority to order 

such disgorgement. Jakubowski,1997 WL 598108, at *2. “The SEC is only required to show 

that the amount of disgorgement is a ‘reasonable approximation’ of the profits that the 

defendant reaped from his wrongful conduct.” Randy, 38 F. Supp. 2d at 674. The burden 

then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the approximation is not accurate. Id. 

Throughout such burden shifting, however, “the risk of uncertainty [in calculating 

disgorgement] must generally fall on the defendants, whose illegal conduct created the 

uncertainty in the first instance.” SEC v. Antar, 97 F. Supp. 2d 576, 578-79 (D.N.J. 2000); 

SEC v. Great Lakes Equities Co., 775 F. Supp. 211, 214 (E.D. Mich. 1991), aff’d, 12 F.3d 214 

(6th Cir. 1993) (“[A]ll doubts concerning the determination of disgorgements are to be 

resolved against the defrauding party”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Here, Yang’s disgorgement amounts to $151,432, as established in the declaration of 

SEC accountant John Kustusch. (Ex. 1 ¶¶ 8-10). This sum constitutes a reasonable 

calculation of Yang’s ill-gotten gains, as it reasonably approximates the profits he personally 

made buying and selling in Zhongpin securities during the relevant timeframe. 
8 

Yang’s actual gains precisely traceable to his malfeasance might have been 

somewhat more or somewhat less than $150,000 depending upon various intervening 

market-moving events. Such events could have goosed Yang’s profits above and beyond the 

impact of Prestige’s purchases of the stock. Or such events could have hurt the price of 

Zhongpin securities, in which case Yang’s front-running alone caused $150,000 in profits. 

The SEC has not commissioned an expensive, time-consuming events study to 

analyze such variables. Nor is that a prerequisite for Court-ordered disgorgement of illgotten gains in an SEC enforcement action. And for good reason. As the Third Circuit 

noted in SEC v. Teo, such a requirement would contravene the well-established proposition 

that “in proving Section 13(d) and 10(b) violations, the Commission need not prove 

reliance, nor must it show that any investor lost money as a result of the violation.” SEC v. 

Teo, --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 503455, at *9 (3rd Cir. Feb. 10, 2014). This reality – together with 

the “economic and social policies” served by SEC enforcement actions – underlies the 

SEC’s “reasonable approximation” standard for disgorgement. Id. See also SEC v. First City 

Financial Corp., 890 F.2d 1215, 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (“If exact information were obtainable 

at negligible cost, we would not hesitate to impose upon the government a strict burden to 

produce that data to measure the precise amount of the ill-gotten gains. Unfortunately, we 

encounter imprecision and imperfect information. Despite sophisticated econometric 

modelling, predicting stock market responses to alternative variables is, as the district court 

found, at best speculative. Rules for calculating disgorgement must recognize that separating 

legal from illegal profits exactly may at times be a near-impossible task.”); SEC v. Sierra 

Brokerage Services, Inc., 608 F. Supp. 2d 923, 970 (S.D. Ohio 2009) (“Courts are not required 

to engage in counterfactual scenarios to speculate about how much a defendants’ disclosure 
9 

violation inflated the market price of a security. . . . The SEC’s calculation is . . . a 

reasonable approximation of the profits causally related to the Promoter Defendants’ 

violations.”) (citations omitted); SEC v. Bilzerian, 814 F. Supp. 116, 121 (D.D.C. 1993) (“In 

many cases, separating legal from illegal profit is difficult. This is due to the inherent 

difficulty in predicting stock price responses to alternative variables. That is, separating price 

appreciation due to illicit activities from price appreciation which would have otherwise 

occurred is nearly impossible.”) (citations omitted).2

 Mr. Kustusch’s straightforward 

calculation based on the price of Zhongpin securities during the relevant period constitutes a 

reasonable approximation of Yang’s ill-gotten gains. 

Yang should also pay prejudgment interest on the disgorged profits. The imposition 

of prejudgment interest “prevents a defendant from obtaining the benefits of what amounts 

to an interest free loan procured as a result of illegal activity.” Jakubowski, 1997 WL 598108, 

at *2. Prejudgment interest is generally calculated according to the underpayment rate 

published by the Internal Revenue Service. See, e.g. SEC v. Koenig, 532 F. Supp. 2d 987, 995 

(N.D. Ill. 2007). As of February 28, 2014, based on a disgorgement amount of $151,432, 

prejudgment interest amounted to $8,911.59. The methodology for this calculation is set 

forth in Paragraph 11 of the Kustusch Declaration. (Ex. 1 ¶ 11.) 

 

2

 Of course, Yang is free to offer a causation analysis. But as made clear in Teo, he would 

face a high hurdle: “The Appellants also asserted that the Best Buy tender offer was the 

direct, intervening cause of their profits. However, it was the Appellants’ burden to provide 

the District Court with evidence that the SEC’s approximation of profits was unreasonable. 

This burden is not simply one of carrying the ball back across the fifty-yard line by 

presenting a merely plausible alternative explanation for the profit. Rather, the defendant 

must adduce—at a minimum—specific evidence explaining the interplay (or lack thereof) 

among the violation(s) at issue, the market valuation of the stock at fixed points in time, and 

any other cause for the profits they assert were untainted by illegality. In so doing, they must 

account for the ambiguities, uncertainties and myriad market forces inherent to any analysis 

of fluctuations in stock pricing to credibly demonstrate the unreasonableness of the 

government’s proposed disgorgement.” Teo, 2014 WL 503455, at *13 (footnotes omitted).
10 

III. THE COURT SHOULD IMPOSE SUBSTANTIAL CIVIL PENALTIES 

AGAINST YANG. 

Pursuant to Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act and Section 209(e) of the Advisers 

Act, federal courts are authorized to impose monetary penalties for securities law violations. 

Civil penalties serve to protect investors and maintain the integrity of the nation’s securities 

markets. See S. Rep. No. 101-337, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1990). Standing alone, the 

disgorgement remedy “merely requires the return of wrongfully obtained profits; it does not 

result in any actual economic penalty or act as a financial disincentive to engage in 

securities fraud.” Jakubowski, 944 F. Supp. at 296 (quoting congressional legislative history 

regarding civil penalties provisions). By contrast, the imposition of civil penalties punishes the 

securities law violator while also deterring future violations. Id. 

The Securities Act and the Advisers Act set forth three tiers for determining the 

appropriate civil penalty amounts:3

TIER MAXIMUM PENALTY 

IS THE HIGHER OF 

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 

FOR APPLICATION OF 

2ND AND 3RD TIERS 

FIRST TIER 

(1) $7,5000 for a natural person or 

$75,000 for any other person; or 

(2) the gross amount of pecuniary 

gain to such defendant as a result 

of the violation. 

n/a 

 

3

 The applicable penalty amounts are periodically adjusted for inflation. The penalty 

amounts set forth in this table apply to the timeframe when Yang’s violations occurred, 

between March 3, 2009 and March 5, 2013. (See 17 C.F.R. §§201.1004 -201.1005 and, Table 

IV to Subpart E.) 
11 

TIER MAXIMUM PENALTY 

IS THE HIGHER OF 

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 

FOR APPLICATION OF 

2ND AND 3RD TIERS 

SECOND TIER 

(1) $75,000 for a natural person or 

$375,000 for any other person; or 

(2) the gross amount of pecuniary 

gain to such defendant as a result 

of the violation. 

“fraud, deceit, manipulation, or 

deliberate or reckless disregard of 

a regulatory requirement.” 

THIRD TIER 

(1) $150,000 for a natural person 

per violation or $725,000 for any 

other person; or 

(2) the gross amount of pecuniary 

gain to such defendant as a result 

of the violation. 

(a) “fraud, deceit, manipulation, 

or deliberate or reckless disregard 

of a regulatory requirement;” and 

(b) “such violation directly or 

indirectly resulted in substantial 

losses or created a significant risk 

of substantial losses to other 

persons.” 

Civil penalties may be imposed for “each violation” of the securities laws. As 

discussed below, in this case appropriate second tier and third tier penalties for each of 

Yang’s violations amounts to $750,000. 

The jury found that Yang’s false 13D filings violated two free-standing statutory 

provisions: (1) the antifraud provision of the Exchange Act, Section 10(b); and 

(2) the disclosure requirements of Exchange Act Section 13(d). For each statute, there were 

two violations – one for each of the false Schedules 13D filed with the Commission. 

Therefore, for Yang’s false Schedules 13D, the Commission seeks a civil penalty of 

$300,000, an amount equal to a second tier penalty for four violations. 
12 

Second tier penalties are appropriate for the false filing claims in light of the jury’s 

finding that Yang “committed a fraud in connection with his filing of the Schedule 13D 

form.” (Id.) This finding comfortably conforms to the malfeasance for a second tier penalty, 

that is, “fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory 

requirement.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3).

For Yang’s front-running, the Commission seeks civil penalties equal to $450,000, 

an amount equal to a third tier penalty for three violations. Yang’s front running was 

comprised of myriad trades, but the SEC has not sought to construe each such purchase as 

its own “violation” for penalties purposes. Instead, from these many trades three broad 

categories have been identified for purposes of quantifying appropriate civil penalties for 

Yang’s front-running: (1) Yang’s purchase of stock on March 14; (2) Yang’s purchase of call 

options on March 14; and (3) Yang’s purchase of call options on March 15. 

Third tier penalties are appropriate for Yang’s front-running because imbedded 

within the jury verdict was a finding that he either “(a) employed a device, scheme, or 

artifice to defraud Prestige or its clients, or (b) engaged in transactions, practices, or courses 

of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon Prestige or its clients.” (Jury Instructions, 

ECF No. 243, pp. 10-11.) This finding reflects the requisite “fraud, deceit, manipulation, or 

deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement” for third tier penalties. 15 

U.S.C. § 80b-9(e). The jury verdict also satisfies the other requirement for third tier 

penalties, that is, that “such violation directly or indirectly resulted in substantial losses or 

created a significant risk of substantial losses to other persons.” Id. The jury necessarily 

found that Yang knowingly purchased stock in order to “obtain a personal financial benefit 
13 

without disclosing to Prestige the purchases and the conflict of interest created by the 

purchases.” (Jury Instructions, ECF No. 243, pp. 11-12.) 

The Court enjoys broad discretion to assess civil penalties. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3). 

To determine appropriate penalties, a court may consider the need for deterrence; 

defendant’s acceptance of responsibility; defendant’s net worth; the flagrancy of his 

violation; and other sanctions already imposed for the same conduct. SEC v. Michel, 06 C 

3166, 2008 WL 516369 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2008). These factors weigh decidedly in favor of 

significant penalties – particularly considering the flagrance and degree of Yang’s 

malfeasance. The jury found that Yang, a securities professional, engaged in widespread 

deception for the express purpose of breaking the securities laws. To state the obvious, 

securities professionals must be deterred from dishonesty in the purchase and sale of 

securities. 

This is all the more true for Yang given his lack of contrition for, or even so much as 

his simple acknowledgment of, his misconduct. There can be no doubt that going forward, 

Yang will continue focusing his undivided attention on the buying and selling of securities. 

Given this certainty, the Court’s message to Yang in the wake of the jury verdict must be 

clear and unmistakable. Such a message includes as a necessary ingredient civil penalties 

well in excess of Yang’s ill-gotten gains. 
14 

CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, the Court should order (a) a permanent injunction corresponding 

with the securities law violations that were the subject of the jury’s finding of liability; 

(b) disgorgement of $151,432; (c) prejudgment interest of $8,911.59; and (d) civil monetary 

penalties of $750,000 – $450,000 for front-running (a third tier penalty for each of three 

violations) and $300,000 from the false Schedule 13D filings (a second tier penalty for each 

of four violations). 

Dated: February 24, 2014 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

 

 /s/ Jonathan S. Polish 

 Jonathan S. Polish 

U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission 

175 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 900 

Chicago, IL 60604 

Phone: (312) 353-7390 
EXHIBIT 1