Articles Tagged with Short Sale

Published on:

By

On September 16, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced the latest sanctions in a continuing enforcement initiative against certain hedge fund advisers and private equity firms that have participated in an offering of a stock after short selling it during a restricted period in contravention of SEC rules.

The SEC last year announced the initiative to enhance enforcement of Rule 105 of Regulation M, which is designed to preserve the independent pricing mechanisms of the securities markets and prevent stock price manipulation.  Rule 105 typically prohibits firms or individuals from short selling a stock within five business days of participating in an offering for that same stock.  Such dual activity typically results in illicit profits for the firms or individuals while reducing the offering proceeds for a company by artificially depressing the market price shortly before the company prices the stock.

The SEC’s investigations targeted 19 firms and one individual trader in the latest cases engaged in short selling of particular stocks shortly before they bought shares from an underwriter, broker, or dealer participating in a follow-on public offering.  Each firm and the individual trader have agreed to settle the SEC’s charges and pay a combined total of more than $9 million in disgorgement, interest, and penalties.

Pursuant to this enforcement initiative, the SEC’s Enforcement Division works closely with FINRA and the SEC’s National Exam Program to identify potential violations of Rule 105.  Enforcement staff seeks trading data and certain other relevant information from traders and expedites these cases by using uniform methodologies for determining trading profits and deciding appropriate penalties.

This latest round of administrative proceedings for Rule 105 violations included the following organizations with the monetary sanctions as indicated below:

  • Advent Capital Management – The New York-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $75,292, prejudgment interest of $3,836.36, and a penalty of $65,000.
  • Antipodean Advisors – The New York-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $27,970, prejudgment interest of $702.83, and a penalty of $65,000.
  • BlackRock Institutional Trust Company – The California-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $1,122,400, prejudgment interest of $22,471.13, and a penalty of $530,479.
  • East Side Holdings II – The New Jersey-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $26,613, prejudgment interest of $397.38, and a penalty of $130,000.
  • Explorador Capital Management – The Brazil-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $83,722, prejudgment interest of $6,936.65, and a penalty of $65,000.
  • Formula Growth – The Canada-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $42,488, prejudgment interest of $4,255.15, and a penalty of $65,000.
  • Great Point Partners – The Connecticut-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $43,068, prejudgment interest of $1,529.13, and a penalty of $65,000.
  • Indaba Capital Management – The California-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $194,797, prejudgment interest of $11,990.79, and a penalty of $97,398.59.
  • Ironman Capital Management – The Texas-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $21,844, prejudgment interest of $382.66, and a penalty of $65,000.
  • James C. Parsons – An individual trader who lives in New York City agreed to pay disgorgement of $135,531, prejudgment interest of $3,063.90, and a penalty of $67,765.72.
  • Midwood Capital Management – The Massachusetts-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $72,699, prejudgment interest of $5,248.19, and a penalty of $65,000.
  • Nob Hill Capital Management – The California-based firm made sworn statements to the Commission attesting to a financial condition that makes it unable to pay any penalty.
  • RA Capital Management – The Massachusetts-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $2,646,395.21, prejudgment interest of $73,394.16, and a penalty of $904,570.84.
  • Rockwood Investment Management (also known as Rockwood Partners LP) – The Connecticut-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $156,631, prejudgment interest of $9,222.16, and a penalty of $72,135.23.
  • Seawolf Capital – The New York-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $192,730, prejudgment interest of $7,842.28, and a penalty of $96,365.
  • Solus Alternative Asset Management – The New York-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $39,600, prejudgment interest of $895.22, and a penalty of $65,000.
  • SuttonBrook Capital Management – The New York-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $70,000.
  • Troubh Partners – The New York-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $262,744, prejudgment interest of $39,315.13, and a penalty of $106,651.15.
  • Vinci Partners Investimentos – The Brazil-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $283,480, prejudgment interest of $23,487.08, and a penalty of $141,740.
  • Whitebox Advisors – The Minnesota-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $788,779, prejudgment interest of $48,553.49, and a penalty of $365,592.83

Pillsbury’s Investment Funds Team regularly advises clients on how not to show up on lists such as these.

Published on:

By

Written by:  Jay B. Gould

On September 17, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced enforcement actions against 23 firms for short selling violations as the agency increases its focus on preventing firms from improperly participating in public stock offerings after selling short those same stocks.  The enforcement actions are being settled by 22 of the 23 firms charged, resulting in more than $14.4 million in monetary sanctions.  

The SEC’s Rule 105 of Regulation M prohibits the short sale of an equity security during a restricted period, which is generally defined as five business days before a public offering – and the purchase of that same security through the offering.  The rule applies regardless of the trader’s intent, and promotes offering prices that are set by natural forces of supply and demand rather than manipulative activity.  The rule is intended to prevent short selling that can reduce offering proceeds received by companies by artificially depressing the market price shortly before the company prices its public offering.

The firms charged in these cases allegedly bought offered shares from an underwriter, broker, or dealer participating in a follow-on public offering after having sold short the same security during the restricted period.   

“The benchmark of an effective enforcement program is zero tolerance for any securities law violations, including violations that do not require manipulative intent,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, Co-Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “Through this new program of streamlined investigations and resolutions of Rule 105 violations, we are sending the clear message that firms must pay the price for violations while also conserving agency resources.” 

The SEC’s National Examination Program simultaneously has issued a risk alert to highlight risks to firms from non-compliance with Rule 105.  The risk alert highlights observations by SEC examiners focusing on Rule 105 compliance issues as well as corrective actions that some firms proactively have taken to remedy Rule 105 concerns.

In a litigated administrative proceeding against G-2 Trading LLC, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement is alleging that the firm violated Rule 105 in connection with transactions in the securities of three companies, resulting in profits of more than $13,000.  The Enforcement Division is seeking disgorgement of the trading profits, prejudgment interest, penalties, and other relief as appropriate and in the public interest.  

The SEC charged the following firms in this series of settled enforcement actions:

  • Blackthorn Investment Group – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $244,378.24, prejudgment interest of $15,829.74, and a penalty of $260,000.00.
  • Claritas Investments Ltd. – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $73,883.00, prejudgment interest of $5,936.67, and a penalty of $65,000.00.
  • Credentia Group – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $4,091.00, prejudgment interest of $113.38, and a penalty of $65,000.00.
  • D.E. Shaw & Co. – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $447,794.00, prejudgment interest of $18,192.37, and a penalty of $201,506.00.
  • Deerfield Management Company – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $1,273,707.00, prejudgment interest of $19,035.00, and a penalty of $609,482.00.
  • Hudson Bay Capital Management – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $665,674.96, prejudgment interest of $11,661.31, and a penalty of $272,118.00.
  • JGP Global Gestão de Recursos – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $2,537,114.00, prejudgment interest of $129,310.00, and a penalty of $514,000.00.
  • M.S. Junior, Swiss Capital Holdings, and Michael A. Stango – Agreed to collectively pay disgorgement of $247,039.00, prejudgment interest of $15,565.77, and a penalty of $165,332.00.
  • Manikay Partners – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $1,657,000.00, prejudgment interest of $214,841.31, and a penalty of $679,950.00.
  • Meru Capital Group – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $262,616.00, prejudgment interest of $4,600.51, and a penalty of $131,296.98.00.
  • Merus Capital Partners – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $8,402.00, prejudgment interest of $63.65, and a penalty of $65,000.00.
  • Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $144,898.00, prejudgment interest of $11,642.90, and a penalty of $68,295.
  • Pan Capital AB – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $424,593.00, prejudgment interest of $17,249.80, and a penalty of $220,655.00.
  • PEAK6 Capital Management – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $58,321.00, prejudgment interest of $8,896.89, and a penalty of $65,000.00.
  • Philadelphia Financial Management of San Francisco – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $137,524.38, prejudgment interest of $16,919.26, and a penalty of $65,000.00.
  • Polo Capital International Gestão de Recursos a/k/a Polo Capital Management – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $191,833.00, prejudgment interest of $14,887.51, and a penalty of $76,000.00.
  • Soundpost Partners – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $45,135.00, prejudgment interest of $3,180.85, and a penalty of $65,000.00.
  • Southpoint Capital Advisors – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $346,568.00, prejudgment interest of $17,695.76, and a penalty of $170,494.00.
  • Talkot Capital – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $17,640.00, prejudgment interest of $1,897.68, and a penalty of $65,000.00.
  • Vollero Beach Capital Partners – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $594,292, prejudgment interest of $55.171, and a penalty of $214,964..
  • War Chest Capital Partners – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $187,036.17, prejudgment interest of $10,533.18, and a penalty of $130,000.00.
  • Western Standard – Agreed to pay disgorgement of $44,980.30, prejudgment interest of $1,827.40, and a penalty of $65,000.00.
Published on:

By

Written by Michael Wu

Market regulators in France, Italy, Spain and Belgium, in coordination with the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), have decided to extend their current short selling ban that was enacted on August 11, 2011.  A summary of the action taken by each regulator is summarized below.

France.  The Autorité Des Marchés Financiers (“AMF”) extended the ban until November 11, but will determine whether to lift the ban by the end of September.  The AMF press release can be found here.

Italy.  The Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (“Consob”) extended the ban until September 30.  The Consob press release can be found here.

Spain.  The Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (“CNMV”) also extended the ban until September 30.  The CNMV press release can be found here.

Belgium.  The Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) is continuing its indefinite ban on short selling.

In addition, Greece’s Hellenic Capital Market Commission (“HCMC”) will reassess before the end of September its current short selling ban that is in effect until October 7.  The HCMC press release can be found here.

Other European countries have not implemented a short selling ban.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould

On November 16, 2010, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) instituted public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Thrasher Capital Management, LLC (“Thrasher”) and its Chief Executive Officer and Managing Member, James Perkins, pursuant to Sections 203(e), 203(f) and 203(k) of the U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”).  The proceedings were instituted because (i) Thrasher, a SEC-registered investment adviser, failed to make available to the SEC the books and records that Thrasher was required to make available under Section 204 of the Advisers Act and (ii) Thrasher’s Form ADV contained untrue statements of material facts regarding its client base and its ownership.  The SEC Order indicates that Thrasher did not respond to the SEC Examination Staff to contact them, which precipitated the SEC issuing a subpoena in order to compel cooperation.  The SEC also found material discrepancies in Thrasher’s Form ADV that could have been easily remedied with only a minimum of compliance oversight.  As a result of such conduct, the SEC found that Thrasher willfully violated Section 204(a) of the Advisers Act, which requires advisers that use the mails or interstate commerce to maintain and make available to the SEC certain books and records and Section 207 of the Advisers Act, which prohibits any “person” (defined to include advisers, such as Thrasher) to “make any untrue statement of a material fact in any registration application or report filed with the [SEC] under section 203 or 204, or willfully to omit to state in any such application or report any material fact which is required to be stated therein.”  Perkins was found to have willfully aided and abetted and to have caused Thrasher’s violations of Sections 204(a) and 207 of the Advisers Act.

In anticipation of the institution of the proceedings, Thrasher and Perkins submitted an Offer of Settlement (“Offer”), which the SEC accepted.  In connection with the Offer, the SEC ordered that (i) Thrasher and Perkins cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 204(a) and 207 of the Advisers Act; (ii) Thrasher’s investment adviser registration be revoked; and (iii) Perkins be suspended from association with any investment adviser for nine months.  No monetary penalty was imposed on Perkins because he submitted a sworn Statement of Financial Condition along with other evidence and has asserted that he is unable to pay a civil penalty.

Investment advisers, whether registered with the SEC or a state, should view this particular enforcement action as an example of how not to interact with their primary regulator.  When the SEC or a state Securities Commission asks for information, advisers should respond promptly and professionally.  Additionally, with the new disclosure requirements that will be required in 2011 under the new “Brochure Rule,” advisers must be vigilant to maintain the accuracy of their disclosures in both their filings with regulators and their communications to clients.  The settlement of this enforcement action by Thrasher is now a material proceeding that must be disclosed to all current and potential clients.  Investment advisers should make every effort to avoid a similar fate and can do so with an effective compliance program that is appropriate to the business of each adviser.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould

On March 10, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted amendments to Rule 201 and Rule 200(g) of Regulation SHO (“Rules”).  In order to give certain exchanges additional time to modify current procedures for conducting single-priced transactions for covered securities that have triggered Rule 201’s circuit breaker and to give industry participants additional time for programming and testing for compliance with the requirements of the Rules, the SEC has extended the compliance date for both Rules from November 10, 2010 to February 28, 2011.  A full text of the adopting rule is available here.