Source: https://www.compliance.ai/enforcement-report/january-25-2020/
Timestamp: 2020-06-03 16:31:21
Document Index: 502970595

Matched Legal Cases: ['in Fine', 'in Fine', '§ 6', '§ 180', '§ 13', '§ 6', '§ 166', 'in Fine', '§ 77', '§ 78', '§ 240', '§ 77', '§ 78', '§ 240', '§ 77', '§ 240']

Financial Enforcement Actions | Week of January 25 to January 31 - Compliance.ai
Compliance.ai > Regulatory Activity Reports > Enforcement Reports > Financial Enforcement Actions | Week of January 25 to January 31 Sign Me Up
Financial Enforcement Actions | Week of January 25 to January 31
Respondent: Citizens Bank, N.A.
Violation: Citizens systematically violated TILA and Regulation Z by failing to properly manage and respond to consumers’ credit card disputes and fraud claims... Read More
Respondent: Vyera Pharmaceuticals, LLC
Violation: The Federal Trade Commission has filed a complaint in federal district court against Vyera Pharmaceuticals, LLC, alleging an elaborate anticompetitive scheme to preserve a monopoly for the life-saving drug, Daraprim. The Commission vote to issue the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed on January 27, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York... Read More
Respondent: T&M Protection Resources, LLC, ) a limited liability corporation
Violation: Respondent failed to comply with the requirement to obtain, through self-assessment or outside compliance review, an attested verification statement that the assertions it had made about its Privacy Shield privacy practices during the time it participated in the program were true and that those privacy practices had been implemented... Read More
Respondent: Swell Vans Limited
Violation: SVL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that SVL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether SVL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner... Read More
Respondent: Aberdeen Recycling Ltd
Violation: ARL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that ARL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether ARL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner... Read More
Respondent: Forward Leasing Ltd.
Violation: FLL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that FLL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether FLL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner... Read More
Respondent: Fab Cars Norwich Ltd.
Violation: FCNL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that FCNL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether FCNL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner... Read More
Respondent: Gravity Motor Group Limited
Violation: GMGL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that GMGL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether GMGL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner... Read More
Respondent: Auto Wheels Car Sales Ltd.
Violation: AWCSL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that AWCSL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether AWCSL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner... Read More
Respondent: Thomas Auto Limited
Violation: TAL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that TAL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether TAL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner... Read More
Respondent: Exigotrade Ltd.
Violation: EL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that EL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether EL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner... Read More
Respondent: Southampton Cars Limited
Respondent: Epos Up Limited
Violation: EUL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that EUL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether EUL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner... Read More
Respondent: Gosforth Car Centre Ltd.
Violation: GCCL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that GCCL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether GCCL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner... Read More
Respondent: Pixma Group Ltd.
Violation: PGL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that PGL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether PGL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner... Read More
Respondent: GMAC Plumbing and Gas Services Ltd.
Violation: GPGSL is failing to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, in that the Authority is not satisfied that GPGSL is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances, including whether GPGSL managed its business in such a way as to ensure that its affairs were conducted in a sound and prudent manner... Read More
$260,000.00 in Fines
Respondent: Daniel R. Castoriano
Violation: Between September 2018 and May 2019, Castoriano exercised discretion without written authorization in a customer account when executing six transactions, in violation of FINRA Rule 3260(b), NASD Conduct Rule 2510(b) and FINRA Rule 2010... Read More
Respondent: Thomas S. Martin
Violation: Between July 2016 and May 2017 (the "Relevant Period"), Martin exercised discretion without written authorization in four accounts maintained by four separate customers to make 19 trades. As a result, Martin violated NASD Rule 2510 and FINRA Rule 2010... Read More
Respondent: Keith T. Rich
Violation: Between February 21, 2019 and June 24, 2019, (the "Relevant Period"), while registered with FINRA through PFS and JPMS, Rich engaged in an outside business activity without providing prior written notice to PFS or JPMS. Rich acted as a loan referral agent for a third-party company ("Company A") that provided alternative business loans. As a result of the forgoing, Rich violated FINRA Rules 3270 and 2010... Read More
Respondent: Paulson Investment Company, LLC.
Violation: Between May 2017 and April 2018, Paulson sold six private placement offerings claiming exemption from registration under Rule 506 of Regulation D, but without having established pre-existing, substantive relationships with the offerees prior to participating in those offerings. As a result, each of those sales constituted an unregistered distribution of securities in contravention of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, and, thereby, a violation of FINRA Rule 2010... Read More
Respondent: Randy T. Carpen
Violation: During an investigation by FINRA into allegations that Carpen excessively traded a customer account, Carpen failed to produce documents and information requested by FINRA staff pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210, in violation of FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010... Read More
Respondent: John Robert Barrows
Violation: Barrows willfully failed to timely amend his Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer ("Form U4") to disclose that he had been charged with a felony. By failing to timely amend his Form U4, Barrows violated Article V, Section 2(c) of FINRA's By-Laws, and FINRA Rules 1122 and 2010... Read More
Respondent: Kevin Kimball Meadows
Violation: Between January 2016 and December 2017 (the "Relevant Period"), Meadows excessively and unsuitably traded three accounts of a senior customer ("Customer A"), which resulted in a loss of approximately $39,671. By virtue of the foregoing, Meadows violated FINRA Rules 2111 and 2010... Read More
Respondent: Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC. (n/k/a Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC.)
Violation: Between March 2012 and March 2016 (the "Relevant Period"), Wells Fargo violated NASD Rule 3010(a) (for conduct prior to December 1, 2014) and FINRA Rules 3110(a)(for conduct on or after December 1m 2014) and 2010 by failing to reasonably supervise a former registered representative who excessively traded equity positions in three accounts belonging to a senior customer... Read More
Respondent: Antonio Gutierrez Puente
Violation: Puente refused to provide on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA staff pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210. Through this conduct, Puente violated FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010... Read More
Respondent: Lila Marie Stokkeland
Violation: During the period of May through June 2018 (the "Relevant Period"), Stokkeland electronically affixed customer signatures to 19 account opening documents she submitted to the Finn. By engaging in this conduct, Stokkeland violated FINRA Rule 2010. Stokkeland also violated FINRA Rules 4511 and 2010 by causing the Firm to maintain inaccurate books and records, in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("SEA" or the "Exchange Act") and Rule 17a-3 thereunder... Read More
Respondent: Kerry D. Wills
Violation: In May 2012, Wills borrowed $150,000 from a 90-year-old customer in violation of his employer member firm's procedures and FINRA Rules 3240 and 2010. In addition, Wills also accepted a gift of approximately $19,500 in luxury travel from the same elderly customer. Wills did not disclose the travel gifts on the Firm's gifts and gratuities logs, despite the requirement that he do so, in violation of the Firm's procedures and FINRA Rule 2010... Read More
Respondent: Mason Gann
Violation: Between August 2015 and January 2018, Mason Gann recommended and effected a risky options-trading strategy in the account of a retiree and senior investor who had limited income, modest retirement savings, and minimal investment knowledge. Gann lacked a reasonable basis for believing that his options recommendations were suitable for the customer, given what Gann knew about the customer's investment profile. Through this conduct, Gann violated FINRA Rules 2111 and 2010... Read More
$10,508,481.00 in Fines
Respondent: Edward S. Walczak
Violation: Walczak’s conduct alleged herein violated the following anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”) and Commission Regulations (“Regulations”): Sections 4o(1)(A), 4o(1)(B), and 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6o(1)(A)-(B), 9(1) (2018), and Regulation 180.1, 17 C.F.R. § 180.1 (2019).Plaintiff CFTC brings this action pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018), to enjoin Defendant’s violative acts and practices and to compel Defendant’s compliance with the Act. In addition, Plaintiff CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties and such other equitable relief, including but not limited to disgorgement and restitution, as this Court deems necessary and appropriate... Read More
Penalties: $10,508,481.00
Respondent: Catalyst Capital Advisors, LLC., and Jerry Szilagyi
Violation: Catalyst’s misstatements and those of its agents, including through the portfolio manager, violated Section 4o(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(B) (2012). Further, Catalyst failed to implement a supervisory system designed to ensure that statements made in its marketing materials and by its agents about risk management were consistent with how the Fund’s risk was actually managed. This failure violated Regulation 166.3, 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 (2019). As a control person of Catalyst who failed to establish an adequate system of supervision, Szilagyi is liable for Catalyst’s violations of Section 4o(1)(B) and Regulation 166.3... Read More
$11,019,966.00 in Fines
Respondent: Robert S. “Lute” Davis, Jr.,
Violation: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against Robert S. “Lute” Davis, Jr. (“Respondent”)... Read More
Respondent: Gregory W. Anderson,
Violation: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against Gregory W. Anderson (“Respondent”)... Read More
Respondent: Steven M. Des Champs, CPA
Violation: The Commission found that Des Champs had been permanently enjoined by a United States District Court from future violations of Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 13a-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and from aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder in an action brought by the Commission. In its complaint in the injunctive action, the Commission alleged that Des Champs, as the Chief Accounting Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bally Technologies, Inc... Read More
Respondent: Catalyst Capital Advisors, LLC. and Jerry Szilagyi
Violation: Szilagyi failed reasonably to supervise the Senior Portfolio Manager within the meaning of Section 203(e)(6) of the Advisers Act, which authorizes the Commission to institute an administrative proceeding against a supervisor who has failed to supervise, with a view to preventing violations of the federal securities laws, another person who commits such a violation, if such person is subject to the supervisor’s supervision. As a result of the conduct described above, Szilagyi was a cause of CCA’s violations of Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder... Read More
Penalties: $511,485.00
Respondent: David Aubel and Robert Raa
Violation: The judgments enjoin Aubel and Raffa from future violations of the antifraud provisions of Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, the registration provisions of Section 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act, and the beneficial ownership disclosure provisions of Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13d-1 and 13d-2 thereunder and Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 16a-3 thereunder... Read More
Respondent: Aaron R. Andrew
Violation: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against Aaron R. Andrew (“Respondent”)... Read More
Violation: Matthes convinced his brokerage customers and advisory clients to invest in what he described as a safe investment that would earn a guaranteed minimum yield of 4% per year. As alleged in the complaint, the purported investment did not exist, and Matthes stole approximately $1.4 million for his personal use. Matthes allegedly stole an additional $1 million by making unauthorized sales and withdrawals from his customers' variable annuities. To cover up his fraud, Matthes allegedly created fake account statements and paid approximately $170,000 in Ponzilike payments... Read More
Respondent: Gary R. Smith
Violation: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against Gary R. Smith (“Respondent”)... Read More
Respondent: Erik Rhodes
Violation: On September 25, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Notice of Hearing against Respondent Erik Rhodes (“Rhodes” or “Respondent”)... Read More
Respondent: Charles N. Nilosek
Violation: Nilosek, through Position Benefits, offered and sold Woodbridge securities. None of Woodbridge’s securities offerings were registered with the Commission. Respondent Nilosek be, and hereby is barred from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization; and Pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act Respondent Nilosek be, and hereby is barred from participating in any offering of a penny stock, including: acting as a promoter, finder, consultant, agent or other person who engages in activities with a broker, dealer or issuer for purposes of the issuance or trading in any penny stock, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock... Read More
Respondent: Paramount Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a Live Abundant
Violation: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against Paramount Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a Live Abundant (“Respondent”)... Read More
Respondent: Eric Landis
Violation: Landis and an entity he controlled, Ridgeview Capital Partners LLC, allegedly orchestrated a scheme to manipulate trading in at least 97 microcap stocks, which included placing thousands of manipulative trades over the course of three years... Read More
Respondent: Philip E. Riehl
Violation: Riehl violated, and unless enjoined will continue to violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)] and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule lOb-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R § 240.1Ob-5]... Read More
Respondent: Alex C. Procopio, Mark S. Zouvas, and Christian R. Hansen
Violation: Procopio, Zouvas, and Hansen violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c), 77q(a)(1), and 77q(a)(3); Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b); and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b5(c), 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a) and 240.10b-5(c). In addition, Defendant Zouvas violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2); and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(b), 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b)... Read More