Source: https://www.compliance.ai/enforcement-report/june-06-2020/
Timestamp: 2020-07-07 15:47:22
Document Index: 187651720

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 56', '§ 53', '§ 1681', '§ 45', '§ 1681', '§ 45', '§ 45', 'in Fine', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 5', 'in Fine', 'in Fine']

Financial Enforcement Actions | Week of June 06 to June 12 - Compliance.ai
Compliance.ai > Regulatory Activity Reports > Enforcement Reports > Financial Enforcement Actions | Week of June 06 to June 12 Sign Me Up
Financial Enforcement Actions | Week of June 06 to June 12
June 17, 2020 christian thaure
May 2020 Enforcement Action Summary
2 Enforcement Documents
Respondent: Kohl's Department Store, Inc.,
Violation: Plaintiff, the United States of America, acting upon notification and authorization to the Attorney General by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), pursuant to Section 16(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 56(a)(1), for its Complaint alleges: 1. Plaintiff brings this action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), and Section 621(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a), to obtain injunctive and other equitable relief and monetary civil penalties for Defendant’s acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and in violation of the Section 609(e) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(e)... Read More
Respondent: RCG Advances, LLC
Violation: Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. Acts or practices are unfair under Section 5 of the FTC Act if they cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 15 U.S.C. § 45(n)... Read More
Respondent: Brandon E. Copeland and E.B. & Copeland Capital, Inc.
Violation: The SEC's complaint alleges that, after the SEC instituted a settled order against Copeland in July 2019 for, among other things, making false and misleading statements to investors and barred him from the securities industry, Copeland immediately violated the SEC's order. Specifically, Copeland allegedly created, and associated with, Copeland Capital and failed to pay the ordered penalty. According to the complaint, Copeland and Copeland Capital committed a new fraud by promoting a new private fund on a public website that contained numerous material misstatements and omissions regarding the status and success of the fund, as well as Copeland's industry experience and disciplinary history with the SEC... Read More
Respondent: Paul Horton Smith, Sr.; Northstar Communications, LLC; Planning Services, Inc.; and eGate, LLC
Violation: The SEC's complaint, filed on May 19, alleges that from at least January 2018 through May 2020, Smith offered and sold securities in his company, Northstar Communications, LLC, and used his investment advisory firm, eGate, LLC, and insurance and estate planning company, Planning Services, Inc., to market the securities. As alleged, Smith and Northstar guaranteed investors he would generate annual interest payments based on investments in specified products, but failed to invest the funds raised as promised and instead used new investor funds to pay investor returns in a Ponzi-like fashion. According to the complaint, Northstar raised more than $5.6 million from at least 35 investors and paid $5.2 million to those investors as interest payments or principal returned... Read More
Respondent: Louis Navellier and Navellier & Associates, Inc.
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 Sections 203(e) and 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) against Louis Navellier and Navellier & Associates, Inc. (“NAI”, collectively,“Respondents”)... Read More
Respondent: Jason C. Nielsen
Violation: Nielsen also allegedly created the false impression of high demand for Arrayit stock by placing and subsequently canceling several large orders to purchase shares in a tactic known as "spoofing." According to the SEC's complaint, Nielsen made approximately $137,000 in six weeks, but based on questions regarding the accuracy and adequacy of publicly available information concerning Arrayit, the SEC temporarily suspended trading in Arrayit securities on April 13, 2020, before Nielsen was able to profit further from the scheme. The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, charges Nielsen with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 9(a)(2) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and seeks permanent injunctions, civil money penalties, a penny stock bar, and disgorgement with prejudgment interest... Read More
Respondent: Giga Entertainment Media Inc. et al.
Violation: According to the SEC's complaint, filed November 15, 2018, between February and August 2016, Giga Entertainment paid outside marketing firms to enhance the profile of the company's mobile app by downloading it from an online vendor. The complaint alleges that when the company stopped paying for downloads in August 2016, Nerlinger falsely told shareholders that the number of downloads continued to grow at the same rate. Further, Nerlinger, who had previously been convicted of mail fraud, allegedly lied and falsified documents to conceal his role with Giga from investors... Read More
Respondent: Dubovoy, et al.
Violation: The court entered final judgments enjoining the settling defendants from violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The final judgments order Arkadiy Dubovoy, Igor Dubovoy, Southeastern Holding, APD Developers, Momotok, Garkusha, and Khalupsky to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest, which is deemed satisfied by the restitution and forfeiture orders against the individual defendants in the parallel criminal actions. Memelland, which was not charged criminally, has agreed to pay disgorgement and a civil penalty. Collectively, the monetary liabilities imposed exceed $14 million... Read More
Respondent: chatAND, Inc., DTS8 Coffee Company, Ltd., and Greenfield Farms Food, Inc.,
Violation: BKCT (CIK No. 1499361) is a defaulted Nevada corporation located in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada with a class of securities registered with the Commission under Exchange Act Section 12(g). As of July 22, 2019, the common stock of BKCT (Symbol BKCT) was quoted on OTC Link (formerly Pink Sheets) operated by OTC Markets, Inc., had nine market makers and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3). BKCT has failed to comply with Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder because it has not filed any periodic reports with the Commission since the period ended April 30, 2016... Read More
Respondent: PowerTradersPress.com, Inc., et al.
Violation: The SEC's complaint, filed on July 12, 2017, alleged that Ronald Hardy and Anthony Vassallo, through boiler rooms they controlled, and together with Sergio Ramirez and other employees, engaged in a fraudulent scheme using threatening and deceitful sales tactics to pressure retail investors to purchase penny stocks. The defendants used information they learned about the victims' purchase orders to facilitate the placement of opposing sell orders to dump shares owned by participants in the fraudulent scheme. In a parallel criminal action, Hardy, Vassallo, and Ramirez pleaded guilty. Hardy was sentenced to 120 months in prison followed by three years' supervised release. Vassallo and Ramirez are awaiting sentencing... Read More
$250,000.00 in Fines
Respondent: Gain Capital UK Limited,
Violation: From at least February 6, 2014 to March 8, 2019 (“Relevant Period”), Gain UK, without being registered with the Commission as a retail foreign exchange dealer (“RFED”), accepted a limited number of customers who were located in the United States and not Eligible Contract Participants (“ECPs”) to open retail forex accounts. Gain UK also failed to diligently supervise the handling of an account for one of the non-ECP customers (“Customer A”) that was managed by an unregistered commodity trading advisor (“Trading Advisor”)... Read More
Respondent: David Wayne Mayer, Silver Star FX, LLC d/b/a Silver Star Live, And Silver Star Live Software, LLC,
Violation: Mayer also violated CFTC registration provisions, including Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa) (2018), and Regulations 3.12(a) and 5.3(a)(3)(ii), 17 C.F.R. §§ 3.12(a), 5.3(a)(3)(ii) (2019). 6. The acts, omissions, and failures of Mayer occurred within the scope of his employment, office, or agency with SSL and SSLS; therefore, pursuant to Section 2(a)(l)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(l)(B) (2018), and Regulation 1.2, 17 C.F .R. § 1.2 (2019), SSL and SSLS are liable for the acts, omissions, and failures of Mayer that constitute violations of the Act and Regulations... Read More
Respondent: Brett G. Hartshorn
Violation: Defendant violated the Regulations by accepting client funds in the his own name, failing to distribute a disclosure document to clients, and failing to produce to the Commission, in response to an administrative subpoena, documents that were required to be maintained by Defendant in his capacity as a CTA... Read More
Respondent: Craig L. Clavin and Lighthouse Futures, Ltd.,
Violation: Lighthouse Futures, through Clavin, and Clavin in his individual capacity, violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B), in that by use of the mails in sending checks of purported profits to Pool Participants, and other means or instrumentality of interstate commerce including emailing Pool Participants fraudulent reports, they employed or are employing a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud actual or prospective Pool Participants, or engaged or are engaging in transactions, practices, or a course of business which operated or operates as a fraud or deceit upon actual or prospective Pool Participants... Read More
Respondent: Erik J. Hass and Simply Gains, Inc.,
Violation: "During the Relevant Period, Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-(3), by, among other things: a. Falsely claiming to Pool Participants that Hass was a highly successful forex trader with a consistent track record of profitable trading; b. Falsely promising Pool Participants that their funds would be used to trade forex; c. Falsely promising Pool Participants that their funds would generate profits of 2% per month without possibility of losses of more than 20%; Falsely promising Pool Participants that additional returns would result in contributions to charities of their choosing... Read More
$1,870,873.01 in Fines
Penalties: $225,000.00
Respondent: Two Sigma Securities, LLC
Violation: On July 11, 2016, the Firm self-reported to FINRA Market Regulation staff that it had discovered certain system issues impacting the Firm's calculation of available securities for purposes of complying with the requirements of Rule 203(b)(1) of Regulation SHO pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (also known as the "locate" requirement) for approximately two years... Read More
Respondent: Adam James Makkai
Violation: Between December 2017 and March 2018 (the "Relevant Period"), Adam JamesMakkai improperly shared approximately $27,000 in commissions with an unregistered person. Specifically, while associated with LPL Financial LLC (the "Firm") (CRD No. 6413), Makkai shared commissions with an unregistered former colleague ("Representative A") who had been terminated by LPL in October 2017 for borrowing over $100,000 from an elderly Firm customer.
By sharing commissions with an unregistered person, Makkai violated FINRA Rules 2040 and 2010... Read More
Respondent: David Austin
Violation: From January 16, 2019 through March 19, 2020 (the "Relevant Period"), while associated with J.P. Morgan, Austin converted approximately $144,000 from three customers of J.P. Morgan's affiliated bank in violation of FINRA Rule 2010... Read More
Respondent: John W. Loofbourrow
Violation: From December 14, 2014 through April 25, 2019 (the "Relevant Period"), Loofbourrow failed to conduct the review of outside business activities ("OBAs") that FINRA Rule 3270 requires... Read More
Respondent: Bradley Scott Kyburz
Violation: Kyburz willfully failed to disclose that he had been charged with, pleaded guilty to, and convicted of, a felony offense through the timely filing of an amended Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer ("Form U4")... Read More
Penalties: $1,615,373.01
Respondent: SagePoint Financial, Inc.
Violation: From January 2013 through December 2017 (the Relevant Period), SagePoint failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures (WSPs) that were reasonably designed to supervise the suitability of representatives’ recommendations to customers for early rollovers of Unit Investment Trusts... Read More
Respondent: Dee Dee Brooks
Violation: Between July 2016 and December 2017 (the "Relevant Period"), Brooks engaged in undisclosed and unapproved private securities transactions totaling more than $1.77 million. Brooks's conduct violated FINRA Rules 3280 and 2010... Read More
Respondent: Matthew Vincent Muratori
Violation: In connection with FINRA’s investigation into Muratori’s potential involvement in the conversion of funds from a senior customer’s accounts, FINRA staff issued Muratori requests to provide documents and information and on-the-record testimony pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210. Muratori refused to provide the documents and information and
testimony... Read More
Respondent: Joe M. Allbright
Violation: Between May and September 2017, Allbright engaged in undisclosed and unapproved private securities transactions totaling $502,000. Allbright's conduct violated FINRA Rules 3280 and 20 I 0. In addition, between February 200 I and September 2017, Allbright engaged in two outside business activities for compensation without providing prior written notice to his employer member firm. This conduct violated NASD Rules 3030 and 2110, and FINRA Rules 3270... Read More
Respondent: Hector Luis Luna
Violation: In September and October 2018, Luna assisted a Firm customer in naming Luna's wife and adult children as beneficiaries on the customer's life insurance policies. Luna concealed his conduct from the Firm, thereby circumventing Firm policies that prohibited representatives or their family members from serving as beneficiaries on any customer insurance policy. By virtue of this conduct Luna violated FINRA Rule 2010... Read More
£64,046,800.00 in Fines
Penalties: £64,046,800.00
Respondent: Lloyds Bank PLC, Bank of Scotland plc, and The Mortgage Business Plc
Violation: breached Principles 3 and 6 of the Authority’s Principles for Businesses in relation to their handling of mortgage customers in payment difficulties or arrears... Read More
Respondent: Simple Car and Van Ltd
Violation: SCVL has failed to respond adequately to the Authority's repeated requests for it to submit the Return, and has thereby failed to comply with Principle 11 of the Authority's Principles for Businesses and to satisfy the Authority that it is ready, willing and organised to comply with the requirements and standards under the regulatory system... Read More
Respondent: Heston Cars London Limited
Violation: HCLL has failed to respond adequately to the Authority's repeated requests for it to submit the Return, and has thereby failed to comply with Principle 11 of the Authority's Principles for Businesses and to satisfy the Authority that it is
ready, willing and organised to comply with the requirements and standards under the regulatory system... Read More
Respondent: Premier Motor Group Limited
Violation: PMGL has failed to respond adequately to the Authority's repeated requests for it to submit the Return, and has thereby failed to comply with Principle 11 of the Authority's Principles for Businesses and to satisfy the Authority that it is ready, willing and organised to comply with the requirements and standards under the regulatory system... Read More
Respondent: Motor Hut Ltd
Violation: MHL has failed to respond adequately to the Authority's repeated requests for it to submit the Return, and has thereby failed to comply with Principle 11 of the Authority's Principles for Businesses and to satisfy the Authority that it is
Respondent: Perfectalign Limited
Violation: PL has failed to respond adequately to the Authority's repeated requests for it to submit the Return, and has thereby failed to comply with Principle 11 of the Authority's Principles for Businesses and to satisfy the Authority that it is
Respondent: London Executive Cars Limited
Violation: LECL has failed to respond adequately to the Authority's repeated requests for it to submit the Return, and has thereby failed to comply with Principle 11 of the Authority's Principles for Businesses and to satisfy the Authority that it is