HEDGE FUND MANAGER AGREES TO PAY $1.8 MILLION FOR ALLEGED ROLE IIN INSIDER TRADING CASE

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

California Hedge Fund Manager Agrees to $1.8 Million Settlement in Galleon-Related Insider Trading Case

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has entered a final judgment approving a $1.8 million settlement between the SEC and hedge fund manager Douglas F. Whitman and his firm Whitman Capital in a case that arose from the SEC's investigation of widespread insider trading perpetrated by Raj Rajaratnam of Gallon Management and other hedge fund managers.

In its February 2012 action, SEC v. Douglas F. Whitman et al., 12-CV-1055 (SDNY) (JSR), the SEC alleged that Whitman and Whitman Capital illegally traded based on material nonpublic information obtained from Rajaratnam associate Roomy Khan, who was Whitman's friend and neighbor. Khan tipped Whitman with confidential details about Polycom Inc.'s fourth quarter 2005 earnings and Google Inc.'s second quarter 2007 earnings prior to the public announcements of those financial results by the companies. Khan had received the material non-public information that she conveyed to Whitman from a high-ranking executive at Polycom and from an employee of an investor relations firm retained by Google. According to the SEC complaint, hedge funds managed by Whitman Capital reaped over $900,000 in ill-gotten gains by trading on Khan's illegal tips.

On August 21, 2012, in the parallel criminal case arising out of the same facts, Whitman was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and two counts of securities fraud. On January 29, 2012, Whitman was sentenced to two years in prison, followed by one year of supervised release, and ordered to pay forfeiture of $935,306, and a $250,000 criminal fine.

The final judgment in the SEC action permanently enjoins Whitman and Whitman Capital from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. It also requires Whitman and Whitman Capital to jointly and severally disgorge $935,306, and orders Whitman to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $935,306. Pursuant to the final judgment, Whitman's civil disgorgement liability will be offset by his obligation to make criminal forfeiture of the same amount. The imposition of the civil penalty is in addition to the criminal fine that has been assessed. Separately, Whitman has also agreed to be barred from the securities industry.

FATHER AND SON HEDGE FUNDERS CHARGED WITH FRAUD BY SEC

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., April 20, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Boston-based father-son duo of hedge fund managers and their firms with securities fraud for misleading investors about their investment strategy and past performance.

The SEC’s investigation found that Gabriel and Marco Bitran raised millions of dollars for their hedge funds through GMB Capital Management LLC and GMB Capital Partners LLC by falsely telling investors they had a lengthy track record of success based on actual trades using real money. In truth, the Bitrans knew the track record was based on back-tested hypothetical simulations. The Bitrans also misled investors in certain hedge funds to believe they used quantitative optimal pricing models devised by Gabriel Bitran to invest in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and other liquid securities. Instead, they merely invested the money almost entirely in other hedge funds. GMB Capital Management later provided false documents to SEC staff examining the firm’s claims in marketing materials of a successful track record.

The Bitrans agreed to be barred from the securities industry and pay a total of $4.8 million to settle the SEC’s charges.

“The Bitrans solicited investors by touting an impressive track record and a unique investment strategy, and they lied about both,” said David P. Bergers, Director of the SEC’s Boston Regional Office.

According to the SEC’s order instituting settled administrative proceedings, Gabriel Bitran founded GMB Capital Management in 2005 for the stated purpose of managing hedge funds using quantitative models he developed based on his academic optimal pricing research to trade primarily ETFs. He and his son Marco Bitran solicited potential investors with three primary selling points:
Very successful performance track records based on actual trades using real money from 1998 to the inception of the hedge funds.

The firm’s use of Gabriel Bitran’s proprietary optimal pricing model to trade ETFs.
Gabriel Bitran’s involvement as founder and portfolio manager of the funds.
The SEC’s order states that over a period of three years, the Bitrans raised more than $500 million for eight hedge funds and various managed accounts while making these misrepresentations to investors. In order to market the hedge funds, GMB Management and the Bitrans created performance track records beginning in January 1998 showing double-digit annualized return without any down years. They distributed these track records to potential investors in marketing materials, and told investors that they were based on actual trading with real money using Gabriel Bitran’s optimal pricing models. In reality, the Bitrans knew their representations were false and the track records were based on hypothetical historical investments. For two of their hedge funds, they created track records showing annualized returns of 16.2 percent and 11.7 percent with no down years, and told investors the returns were based on actual trading when in fact they were based on hypothetical historical allocations to hedge fund managers.

According to the SEC’s order, investors were misled to believe their money was being invested according to Gabriel Bitran’s unique quant strategy when in reality certain GMB hedge funds were merely investing predominantly in other hedge funds without his involvement. For example, investors in two GMB hedge funds were told that Gabriel Bitran spent 80 percent of his time managing the funds and was involved in reviewing trades in the funds on a daily basis. However, he actually had no role in the management of either fund. Both funds experienced a series of losses at the end of 2008, and GMB eventually dissolved them. When a possible financial fraud at the Petters Group Worldwide was reported in late September 2008, the two hedge funds’ investments in a fund that was entirely invested in the Petters Group became illiquid. However, GMB did not disclose to investors that it had been impacted by the Petters fraud, instead sending investors a letter stating that “a swap instrument that the Fund entered into seeking to realize a higher return on a portion of its uninvested cash” had become illiquid because “one of the parties underlying the swap instrument is currently experiencing a credit and liquidity crisis, in conjunction with other alleged factors.” Furthermore, the two GMB funds suffered significant losses in hedge funds that had invested with Bernard Madoff. These investments in funds that ultimately invested with the Petters Group and Madoff were made contrary to what GMB investors were told.

According to the SEC’s order, during an SEC examination of GMB Capital Management, the firm produced a document that the Bitrans claimed was a real-time record of Gabriel Bitran’s trades since 1998. In fact, the document was false and created solely for the purpose of responding to the SEC staff’s request for the books and records that supported GMB’s performance claims.

The GMB entities and the Bitrans neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings in settling the charges. They agreed to pay disgorgement of $4.3 million. Gabriel and Marco Bitran also agreed to pay $250,000 each in penalties and be barred from the securities industry, and the GMB entities will be censured. The SEC’s order requires the Bitrans and the GMB entities to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 204, 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rules 204-2(a)(16) and 206(4)-8 thereunder.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Kerry Dakin, Kevin Kelcourse, and Kathleen Shields of the Boston Regional Office. Paul Prata, Elizabeth Ward, and Milton Pepin of the Boston Regional Office worked on the SEC’s examination. Stuart Jackson of the SEC’s Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation assisted in the investigation.

SEC CHARGES HEDGE FUND WITH INSIDER TRADING IN GOOGLE

The following excerpt is from the SEC website: “Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a hedge fund manager and his Menlo Park, Calif.-based firm for their involvement in the insider trading ring connected to Raj Rajaratnam and hedge fund advisory firm Galleon Management. The SEC alleges that Douglas F. Whitman and Whitman Capital illegally traded based on material nonpublic information obtained from Rajaratnam associate Roomy Khan, who was Whitman's friend and neighbor. Khan tipped Whitman with confidential details about Polycom Inc.'s fourth quarter 2005 earnings and Google Inc.'s second quarter 2007 earnings prior to the public announcements of those financial results by the companies. Whitman Capital reaped nearly $1 million in ill-gotten gains by trading on Khan's illegal tips. "Whitman engaged in what even he termed 'slimeball' activity and together with Khan brought new illicit meaning to the maxim 'help thy neighbor,'" said George S. Canellos, Director of the SEC's New York Regional Office. Sanjay Wadhwa, Associate Director of the SEC's New York Regional Office and Deputy Chief of the Market Abuse Unit, added, "This action should send a strong signal that the SEC will continue to pursue every angle of the Galleon investigation to hold accountable those who have undermined the integrity of our markets by engaging in illegal insider trading." According to the SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, the inside information about Polycom and Google used by Whitman is the same information that the SEC has previously alleged Khan provided to many of her hedge fund contacts, including Rajaratnam as well as Robert Feinblatt and Jeffrey Yokuty at Trivium Capital. The SEC alleges that Khan illegally tipped Whitman in January 2006 with information about Polycom's quarterly financial results, and she noted that these details were nonpublic and acquired from a source at Polycom. Whitman Capital accumulated 132,263 shares of Polycom stock in the next two weeks. When the company announced its results on January 25, Whitman Capital liquidated its entire Polycom position for a profit of more than $360,000. On at least one later occasion, in September 2008, Whitman asked Khan to contact her Polycom source to obtain inside information about the company's upcoming earnings so the two could "short it." When Khan rebuffed Whitman citing a fear of getting caught, Whitman suggested that she use "Skype" to avoid detection. Whitman later stated that he would stop speaking to Khan if she wasn't going to be a "slimeball" anymore. The SEC further alleges that Khan illegally tipped Whitman with inside information about Google's quarterly financial results shortly before the company's post market-close earnings announcement on July 19, 2007. At Whitman's insistence, Khan identified her Google source as an employee of an investor relations firm used by Google. Whitman Capital funds then purchased 2,761 Google put option contracts based on the tip from Khan. On July 20, Whitman Capital closed the put option positions and generated ill-gotten profits of more than $620,000. Afterwards, Whitman sent Khan a large floral arrangement to thank her for the tip. The SEC's complaint charges Whitman and Whitman Capital with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint seeks a final judgment permanently enjoining the defendants from future violations of the above provisions of the federal securities laws, ordering them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and ordering them to pay financial penalties. The SEC has charged 30 defendants in its Galleon-related enforcement actions, which have exposed widespread and repeated insider trading at numerous hedge funds and by other traders, investment professionals, and corporate insiders located throughout the country. The insider trading occurred in the securities of more than 15 companies for illicit profits totaling more than $91 million. The SEC's investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by John Henderson and Joseph Sansone - members of the SEC's Market Abuse Unit in New York - and Diego Brucculeri and James D'Avino of the New York Regional Office. Kevin McGrath and Valerie Szczepanik will lead the SEC's litigation effort. The SEC thanks the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their ongoing assistance in the matter.”

SEC ALLEGES INSIDER TRADING SCHEME IN DELL AND NVIDIA CORPORATION

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

“On January 18, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York charging two multi-billion dollar hedge fund advisory firms as well as seven fund managers and analysts involved in a $78 million insider trading scheme based on nonpublic information about Dell’s quarterly earnings and other similar inside information about Nvidia Corporation.

The charges stem from the SEC’s ongoing investigation into the trading activities of hedge funds. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York today announced criminal charges against the same seven individuals.

The SEC alleges that a network of closely associated hedge fund traders at Stamford, Conn.-based Diamondback Capital Management LLC and Greenwich, Conn.-based Level Global Investors LP illegally obtained the material nonpublic information about Dell and Nvidia. Investment analyst Sandeep “Sandy” Goyal of Princeton, N.J., obtained Dell quarterly earnings information and other performance data from an insider at Dell in advance of earnings announcements in 2008. Goyal tipped Diamondback analyst Jesse Tortora of Pembroke Pines, Fla., with the inside information, and Tortora in turn tipped several others, leading to insider trades on behalf of Diamondback and Level Global hedge funds.

According to the SEC’s complaint, the illicit gains in the Dell insider trades exceeded $62.3 million, and the illicit gains in the Nvidia insider trades exceeded $15.7 million. For his role in the scheme, Goyal was paid $175,000 in soft dollar payments that were deposited in a brokerage account of an individual affiliated with him.
The SEC alleges that after obtaining the inside information from Goyal in advance of Dell’s first and second quarter earnings announcements in 2008, Tortora tipped his portfolio manager at Diamondback, Todd Newman of Needham, Mass. Newman traded on the information on behalf of the Diamondback hedge funds he controlled. Tortora also tipped Spyridon “Sam” Adondakis, an analyst at Level Global. Adondakis tipped his manager Anthony Chiasson, who then traded on the inside information on behalf of Level Global hedge funds. During this time period, both Adondakis and Chiasson lived in New York City.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Tortora also tipped two others at firms other than Diamondback or Level Global with the Dell inside information: Jon Horvath of New York City and Danny Kuo of San Marino, Calif. Horvath caused insider trades at his firm that resulted in approximately $1.4 million of illicit gains. Kuo similarly caused the firm where he worked to execute profitable insider trades in Dell securities.
The SEC further alleges that Kuo also obtained inside information about Nvidia Corporation’s calculation of its revenues, gross profit margins, and other financial metrics in advance of the company’s first quarter 2010 earnings announcements, which was made in May 2009. Kuo again caused his firm to trade on inside information. Kuo’s insider trades in Dell and Nvidia resulted in approximately $270,000 in ill-gotten gains. Kuo also tipped Tortora at Diamondback and Adondakis at Level Global with the nonpublic information about Nvidia. Tortora again tipped Newman, who made more insider trades on behalf of the Diamondback hedge funds. The illegal trades in Dell and Nvidia securities resulted in $3.9 million in illicit gains for Diamondback. At Level Global, Adondakis tipped Chiasson who made the insider trades on behalf of those hedge funds. Chiasson’s insider trades in Dell and Nvidia resulted in approximately $72.6 million of illicit gains for the Level Global hedge funds.

The SEC’s complaint charges each of the defendants with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and, additionally, charges Goyal, Tortora, Newman, Adondakis, Chiasson, Horvath and Kuo with aiding and abetting others’ violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC’s complaint seeks a final judgment ordering the defendants to disgorge their ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, ordering them to pay financial penalties, and permanently enjoining them from future violations of these provisions of the federal securities laws.”

BANK CONVERSION OFFERING SCHEME GETS SEC'S ATTENTION

October 31, 2011
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Drake Asset Management, LLC and
The following excerpt is from the SEC website:
Oliver R. Grace, Jr., Civil Action No. 11-CV-01905 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 2011)
SEC Charges New York-Based Hedge Fund Adviser and its Co-Owner for Scheme to Evade Group Purchase Limits in Several Bank Conversion Offerings
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the filing of a civil injunctive action against Drake Asset Management, LLC (Drake), of Glen Head, NY, and Oliver R. Grace, Jr., of Hobe Sound, FL, for conducting a scheme to evade the group purchase limits of the public offerings of seven banks that were converting from mutual to stock ownership. The SEC’s complaint alleges that, from 2003 through 2007, Grace knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose his association with certain entities, including hedge funds managed by Drake, which participated in the offerings alongside Grace. Under Grace’s direction, Drake also knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose the hedge funds’ association with Grace. By failing to disclose these associations, the Drake hedge funds and Grace were able to acquire stock that exceeded the offerings’ group purchase limits, in violation of offering terms and banking regulations. The complaint alleges that Drake and Grace, to conceal their relationships and group activity from converting banks and their underwriters, arranged for the hedge funds and Grace’s other associated entities to take steps to prevent the banks from associating these group orders. Over the course of the scheme, Drake and Grace generated $610,781 in ill-gotten gains. Because the seven offerings at issue were oversubscribed, the scheme harmed other bank depositors by limiting the amount of stock available to them.

The SEC’s complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, charges Drake and Grace with violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Drake, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, has consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining it from violating the abovementioned provisions and imposing a civil monetary penalty of $175,000. Grace, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, has consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from violating the abovementioned provisions, ordering him to pay $838,285 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest, and imposing a civil monetary penalty of $150,000. The settlements are subject to approval by the Court.