SEC News Digest, May 16, 2011

	Home \| Previous Page

Commission announcements

Commission Adds NRSRO Employment Transition Report Submission Capability to Website

The Commission today updated its public website to enable nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSROs) to submit reports about certain employment transitions and for such reports to be made public as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

NRSROs are required to report to the Commission when they know (or can reasonably be expected to know) of a person who was associated with the NRSRO within the past five years who obtains employment with any obligor, issuer, underwriter, or sponsor of a security or money market instrument, for which the NRSRO issued a credit rating during the past 12 months prior to such new employment (a “covered company”). This “employment transition” reporting obligation applies when a covered company hires an individual who was:

a senior officer of the NRSRO
participated in any capacity in determining credit ratings for a covered company
supervised an employee that participated in any capacity in determining credit ratings for a covered company

The Commission will make such information publicly available on the Commission’s web page for NRSRO related matters — located at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/ratingagency.htm — will feature a new heading: “Employment Transition Reports.” This heading is an active link that will take NRSROs to a page setting forth instructions on how to submit an employment transition report. In addition, links to existing employment transition reports filed by NRSROs will be available to the public through the Employment Transition Reports link.

NRSROs will submit the employment transition report by completing fields through a process that is similar to the existing web-based process for submitting public comments. The fields will request the name of the NRSRO, the name of the covered company, the role of the covered employee, and the date of separation between the covered employee and the NRSRO. The SEC's Division of Trading and Markets will assist NRSROs with questions regarding submissions of employment transition reports. The Division's Office of Interpretation and Guidance answers questions submitted by e-mail and telephone. You can submit a question by email at tradingandmarkets@sec.gov or you can contact the Office of Interpretation and Guidance by telephone at (202) 551-5777.

Enforcement proceedings

In the Matter of George B. Doherty

On May 13, 2011, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order and a Civil Penalty against George B. Doherty.

The Order finds that Doherty caused GSI Group, Inc. to recognize revenue from certain significant transactions in its Semiconductor Systems segment that materially impacted GSI’s financial results even though revenue recognition was prohibited pursuant to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The Order also finds that, in April 2008, Doherty learned that GSI may have failed to provide unique, customized, factory automation software, for which it did not have vendor specific objective evidence of value, in connection with the sale of six semiconductor systems to a Taiwanese customer and, accordingly, may have improperly recognized nearly $5 million in revenue during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2007. In addition, the Order finds that, in connection with the sale of several production systems to a Korean customer, Doherty incorrectly concluded that an as yet undeveloped multiple pulse laser was substantially similar to a single pulse laser that GSI had previously sold, even though he possessed information indicating that the two lasers were in fact not substantially similar. The Order further finds that, as a result, Doherty caused GSI to improperly recognize over $16 million in revenue from these sales during the first and second quarters of fiscal year 2008.

Based on the above, the Order requires that Doherty cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-11, 13a-13, and 13b2-1 thereunder, and that he pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $20,000.00 and disgorgement of $9,846 plus prejudgment interest of $1,330, for a total payment of $31,176. Doherty consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings in the Order. (Rel. 34-64496; AAE Rel. 3281; File No. 3-14384)

In the Matter of Peter DiSessa

The Order finds that DiSessa and others caused GSI Group, Inc. to recognize revenue from certain significant transactions in its Semiconductor Systems segment that materially impacted GSI’s financial results even though revenue recognition for each of these transactions was prohibited pursuant to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The Order also finds that, during fiscal year 2007, DiSessa entered into a side agreement that materially altered the terms of an arrangement between GSI and a Korean customer in a way that made the revenue from the transaction not eligible for inclusion in GSI’s financial statements at that time, and he failed to disclose those terms to GSI’s financial staff or external auditors. In connection with that same transaction, DiSessa signed a memo prepared by GSI’s corporate controller indicating that GSI had vendor specific objective evidence of value for an undeveloped laser when, in fact, DiSessa knew or should have known that it did not. The Order further finds that, as a result, during the first and second quarters of fiscal year 2008, GSI improperly recorded in its books and records and reported in its filings with the Commission over $16 million in revenue that should have been deferred to later quarters or fiscal years. In addition, the Order finds, during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2007, DiSessa also caused GSI to improperly recognize nearly $5 million in revenue from a Taiwanese customer, even though he knew or should have known that GSI had not completed all the necessary customized software automation, a fact that made the revenue ineligible for recognition at that time under GAAP.

Based on the above, the Order requires that DiSessa cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13b2-1, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder, and that he pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $25,000 and disgorgement of $10,140 plus prejudgment interest of $1,370, for a total payment of $36,510. DiSessa consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings in the Order. (Rel. 34-64497; AAE Rel. 3282; File No. 3-14385)

In the Matter of GSI Group, Inc.

The Order finds that from at least 2004 through at least June 2008, GSI improperly recognized revenue on certain transactions even though revenue recognition was prohibited pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles. Further, the Order finds that the improper revenue recognition resulted in part from a deficient system of internal controls that included no clear procedures to determine what deliverables the company owed its customers and whether it had met those deliverables, along with a lack of understanding of the relevant accounting principles among key employees. In addition, for at least two material transactions that occurred in 2007 and 2008, certain GSI employees engaged in misconduct by causing GSI to recognize revenue when they knew or should have known that the revenue should not have been recognized. The Order also finds that, as a result, GSI overstated revenues by a total of approximately $1.9 million or 0.7% in 2004, $3.5 million, or 1.4%, in 2005; $43.1 million, or 16.6%, in 2006; $15.0 million, or 5.0%, in 2007 (including by $16.1 million, or 23.9%, for the fourth quarter of 2007); and by approximately $7.8 million (12.7%) and $3.3 million (5.6%) during the first and second quarter of 2008.

Based on the above, the Order requires that GSI cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future 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. GSI Group consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings in the Order. (Rel. 34-64498; AAE Rel. 3283; File No. 3-14386)

Commission Revokes Registration of Securities of Commercial Mortgage Resources Corp. For Failure to Make Required Periodic Filings

On May 16, 2011, the Commission revoked the registration of each class of registered securities of Commercial Mortgage Resources Corp. (Commercial Mortgage) for failure to make required periodic filings with the Commission.

Without admitting or denying the findings in the Order, except as to jurisdiction, which it admitted, Commercial Mortgage consented to the entry of an Order Making Findings and Revoking Registration of Securities Pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as to Commercial Mortgage Resources Corp. finding that it had failed to comply with Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder and revoking the registration of each class of Commercial Mortgage’s securities pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act. This Order settled the proceedings brought against Commercial Mortgage in In the Matter of Commercial Mortgage Resources Corp., et al., Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-14356.

Brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that Exchange Act Section 12(j) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

No member of a national securities exchange, broker, or dealer shall make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to effect any transaction in, or to induce the purchase or sale of, any security the registration of which has been and is suspended or revoked . . . .

For further information see Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings and Notice of Hearing Pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, In the Matter of Commercial Mortgage Resources Corp., et al., Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-14356, Exchange Act Release No. 64339, April 26, 2011. (Rel. 34-64499; File No. 3-14356)

In the Matter of Heath M. Biddlecome

On May 16, 2011, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) as to Heath M. Biddlecome (Biddlecome). The Order finds that Biddlecome was the founder and president of California Wealth Management Group, d.b.a. IFC Advisory (IFC Advisory), an investment adviser registered with the Commission from June 2005 to November 2010. The Order further finds that on May 5, 2011, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, entered a final judgment by consent against Biddlecome in the civil action entitled SEC v. Homestead Properties, L.P., et al., Case Number SACV09-01331, permanently enjoining Biddlecome from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, and aiding and abetting violations of Section 204 of the Advisers Act.

The Order finds that the Commission’s first amended complaint (complaint) alleged that from June 2007 to at least November 2009, Biddlecome managed an investment fund, Homestead Properties, L.P. (Homestead), that raised over $9.8 million from 36 investors, including advisory clients. The complaint alleged that Homestead’s offering materials stated that Homestead would use investors’ money for real property investments. However, according to the complaint, in October 2008, Biddlecome, undisclosed to investors, used $4.5 million of investor funds to engage in speculative short term trading with the Homestead funds. The complaint also alleged that Biddlecome misrepresented that Homestead would engage an accounting firm to annually audit Homestead’s books, that interests in Homestead would be sold through registered broker-dealers, and that the source of investor distributions would relate to Homestead’s accrued net profits. Instead, Homestead did not engage an auditing firm until two years after the offering began and no audit was ever completed, and Homestead did not sell interests through a broker-dealer and thus no broker-dealer had oversight of the offering. Homestead also had no accrued net profits, and thus paid investor distributions with money from investors’ capital contributions. Lastly, the complaint alleged that Biddlecome sold unregistered securities, was not associated with a registered broker-dealer in selling the Homestead offering, and failed to produce certain requested records to the Commission’s examination staff.

Based on the above, the Order bars Biddlecome from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, and from participating in any offering of penny stock, with the right to reapply for association after three years. Biddlecome consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings in the Order, except as to the Commission’s jurisdiction over him and the entry of the injunction, which he admitted. (Rel. 34-64500; IA-3205; File No. 3-14387)

In the Matter of Armando Ruiz and Maradon Holdings, LLC

On May 16, 2011, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 15(b) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 9(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (Order) against Armando Ruiz and Maradon Holdings, LLC (Maradon). The Division of Enforcement alleges that Ruiz defrauded investors in connection with an offering of securities purportedly issued by Maradon, an entity that Ruiz controlled. Ruiz raised approximately $817,500 from nine investors, all of whom were friends or family members, by purporting to sell to them shares of preferred stock or other equity interests in Maradon. During the time that he was selling these interests, Ruiz was, and still remains, a registered representative associated with Legend Securities, Inc. (Legend), a registered broker dealer. Legend was not involved in the Maradon offering, and the Division of Enforcement therefore also alleges that Ruiz acted as an unregistered broker dealer.

In addition to representing that the investors were purchasing an equity interest, Ruiz told the investors that their funds would be used to help develop Maradon into a financial services company serving the Hispanic community. Ruiz’s representations were false because: (i) Maradon was an LLC and could not issue stock and, in any event, the staff has not found any record of Maradon properly issuing membership interests to the investors; and (ii) Ruiz used the vast majority of the offering proceeds to pay personal expenses and trade securities, rather than fund the development of Maradon’s business.

Based on the above, the Division of Enforcement alleges in the Order that Maradon violated, and Ruiz willfully violated and committed and caused Maradon’s violations of, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, which prohibit fraudulent conduct in the offer and sale of securities and in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Based on the above, the Division of Enforcement also alleges that Ruiz willfully violated Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, which prohibits a broker or dealer from effecting transactions in, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of, any security unless such broker or dealer is registered with the Commission. A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determined whether the allegations contained in the Order are true, to provide Ruiz and Maradon an opportunity to dispute the allegations, and to determine what sanctions, if any, are appropriate and in the public interest. The Administrative Law Judge shall issue an initial decision no later than the 300 days from the date of the service of the order. (Rels. 33-9209; 34-64501; IC-29672; File No. 3-14388)

In the Matter of Legend Securities, Inc. and Salvatore Caruso

On May 16, 2011, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Pursuant to Sections 15(b) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order (Order) against Legend Securities, Inc. (Legend) and Salvatore Caruso (Caruso). The Order finds that Legend, a registered broker-dealer, failed to make and keep current certain specified books and records related to its business and failed to furnish promptly those books and records to representatives of the Commission when requested. Specifically, Legend did not keep current records of “all agreements pertaining to the relationship between each associated person” and the broker-dealer, including records related to each associated person’s compensation arrangement. In June 2009, during the course of an examination, the Commission’s broker-dealer inspection staff (BDIP Staff) requested that Caruso, Legend’s chief compliance officer, provide the personnel file for an associated person of Legend. Some of the requested personnel records for the associated person were missing, including records relating to the associated person’s compensation arrangement. Caruso had the associated person re-create the missing records, and Caruso then produced those documents to the BDIP Staff. As a result of the conduct described above, Legend willfully violated Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 thereunder and Caruso willfully aided and abetted and caused Legend’s violations.

Based on the above, the Order (i) censures Legend and orders Legend to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 thereunder, and pay a civil monetary penalty of $50,000; and (ii) censures Caruso and orders him to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 thereunder, and pay a civil monetary penalty of $25,000. Legend and Caruso each consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings in the Order, except jurisdiction, which each admitted.

(Rel. 34-64502; File No. 3-14389)

SEC Charges Recidivist Jay Leboeuf and New Castle Energy LLC for Fraudulent Oil and Gas Offerings

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Jay L. LeBoeuf and New Castle Energy, LLC with conducting six fraudulent oil and gas-related offerings on May 11, 2011. Subject to the court’s approval, LeBoeuf and New Castle consented to permanent injunctions against future violations and to administrative bars from participating in the securities industry. In a related criminal case, (U.S. v. Jay L. LeBoeuf d/b/a New Castle Energy, LLC, 11 CR 37 (D. WY.), LeBoeuf entered a plea of guilty to one count of wire fraud.

As alleged in the SEC’s complaint filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, from at least July 2008 through June 2010, LeBoeuf conducted six oil and gas-related offerings by cold-calling thousands of potential investors nationwide, raising $540,000 from nine investors. As alleged in the complaint, LeBoeuf made misrepresentations to investors regarding the use of investor funds, the anticipated monthly returns and prior regulatory actions brought against him. LeBoeuf failed to properly manage the funds and used 70% of the funds for living expenses, to pay back child support, and to fund New Castle’s operations.

Without admitting or denying the Commission’s allegations, LeBoeuf and New Castle agreed to consent to the entry of a permanent injunction against future violations of these provisions and a court order directing them to pay disgorgement of $500,988.43 and prejudgment interest of $8,383.20, which will be deemed satisfied by the entry of an order of restitution in the criminal matter.

In the current action, the SEC's complaint alleges that LeBoeuf and New Castle violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b), and 15(a) (LeBoeuf only) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. [SEC v. Jay L. LeBoeuf and New Castle Energy, LLC, Civil Action No. 11-CV-187-J (D. WY.)] (LR-21969). On Feb. 28, 2011, LeBoeuf entered a plea of guilty to one count of wire fraud in a related criminal case being prosecuted by the Wyoming U.S. Attorney’s Office (U.S. v. Jay L. LeBoeuf d/b/a New Castle Energy, LLC, 11 CR 37 (D. WY.) and there is a sentencing hearing scheduled for May 27, 2011. [SEC v. Jay L. LeBoeuf and New Castle Energy, LLC, Civil Action No. 11-CV-187-J (D. WY.)] (LR-21969)

SEC Charges Connecticut-Based Hedge Fund Manager in Ponzi Scheme

On May 10, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Highview Point Partners, LLC, a Connecticut-based investment adviser, with engaging in a multi-year Ponzi scheme involving hundreds of millions of dollars. Highview was added as a defendant to a case the SEC previously filed in January 2011, and three hedge funds managed by Highview were named as relief defendants because, according to the SEC’s charges, they are in possession of funds tainted by the Ponzi scheme. After a hearing, the Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut, entered a consented-to order on May 13, 2011 temporarily freezing the assets of Highview and the three hedge funds it advises. A hearing on the SEC’s motion for a preliminary injunction is set for May 23, 2011.

The SEC previously charged Francisco Illarramendi and his unregistered investment advisory firm MK Capital Management LLC on January 14, 2011, and obtained an asset freeze against them, alleging that they had misappropriated at least $53 million in investor assets. The SEC subsequently amended that complaint on March 7, 2011, to allege that Illarramendi and MK Capital Management misappropriated investor assets and misused two hedge funds they manage for Ponzi-like activity in which they used new investor money to pay off earlier investors. Since the filing of the original complaint on January 14, 2011, Judge Arterton entered an order on January 28, 2011, freezing the assets of Illarramendi, MK Capital Management and several affiliated entities. On February 3, 2011, Judge Arterton appointed John J. Carney of Baker Hostetler LLP as the receiver in the case.

On May 10, 2011, the SEC filed a second amended complaint adding Highview as a defendant, and charging that Illarramendi conducted his alleged fraud while he was a partial owner of Highview, a Commission-registered investment adviser, and that he used the two advisory firms (Highview and MK Capital Management) in tandem to conduct the scheme. In particular, the second amended complaint alleges, among other things, that Highview Point Partners, acting through Illarramendi, misappropriated money from the three hedge funds it advised: Highview Point Master Fund, Ltd., Highview Point Offshore, Ltd., and Highview Point LP. The second amended complaint alleges that Illarramendi hid the misappropriation in the Highview hedge funds by misappropriating money from different hedge funds managed by MK Capital Management. According to the second amended complaint, this acted as a fraud on both sets of clients, in that Illarramendi used money from one set of investors to repay earlier investors.

The SEC’s second amended complaint charges Illarramendi, Highview Point Partners, LLC, and Michael Kenwood Capital Management, LLC, with violating Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, and also charges Highview Point Partners, LLC with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint also names the following entities as relief defendants, alleging that they received investor funds to which they have no right: Highview Point Master Fund, Ltd., Highview Point Offshore, Ltd., and Highview Point LP, Michael Kenwood Asset Management LLC, Michael Kenwood Energy and Infrastructure LLC, and MKEI Solar LP. In addition to preliminary emergency relief, the SEC’s complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest and penalties from the defendants, and disgorgement plus prejudgment interest from the relief defendants.

On March 7, 2011, Illarramendi pled guilty to several criminal counts in a parallel criminal action brought by the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut relating to the same misconduct as well as for obstruction of justice for deliberately misleading the SEC staff during its investigation. On May 4, 2011, Juan Carlos Guillen Zerpa, a Venezuelan accountant associated with Illarramendi, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to obstruct the SEC’s investigation for his role in creating false documents purporting to verify the existence of hedge fund assets during the SEC’s investigation.

The SEC’s investigation is ongoing. [SEC v. Francisco Illarramendi et. al, Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-00078 (JBA), USDC, D. Conn.] (LR-21970)

SEC Freezes Assets of Fraudulent Day Trading Scheme in San Diego Area

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an emergency enforcement action to halt a fraudulent scheme being conducted by John Clement of Encinitas, Calif., and his company Edgefund Capital LLC.

The SEC alleges that Clement ran a purportedly profitable day trading business out of his home and raised at least $2.1 million since August 2008 from 22 investors in the San Diego area. Clement hyped the profit potential by falsely promising returns of 1 to 2 percent per month to investors in his hedge funds (The Edgefund, LP and The Edge Fund Ltd., LP). He falsely claimed that the risk potential was limited because of his purported 5 percent stop-loss rule, and he falsely assured investors that they could request a return of their investments at any time upon written request. The SEC alleges that Clement has misappropriated and misspent all of the investor funds.

The Honorable Larry A. Burns, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California, granted the SEC’s requests for an immediate freeze of the assets of Clement and Edgefund Capital and an order prohibiting Clement and Edgefund Capital from destroying evidence. The court will hold a hearing later today, on the SEC’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

The SEC alleges that in order to conceal his fraud, Clement sent fabricated account statements to at least one investor that reflected an inflated fund balance of $8.2 million. In fact, the hedge fund accounts at that time were not even funded. Beginning March 29, 2011, Clement began telling investors that an SEC investigation had impacted his ability to communicate with them, frozen his bank accounts, and blocked his securities trading activities. Although the SEC was investigating Clement’s operations, he lied in his other assertions to investors.

The SEC’s complaint charges Clement and Edgefund Capital with violating the antifraud provisions, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, of the federal securities laws. In addition to the emergency relief, the complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Alka N. Patel and Solomon Mangolini in the Los Angeles Regional Office. Karen Matteson will lead the SEC’s litigation. [SEC v. John Clement & Edgefund Capital, LLC, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 11CV1034 LAB WVG] (LR-21971)

Self-regulatory organizations

Proposed Rule Change

NASDAQ OMX PHLX filed a proposed rule change under Rule 19b-4 (SR-Phlx-2011-65) regarding opening index option months and series. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of May 16. (Rel. 34-64480)

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Changes

A proposed rule change filed by NASDAQ OMX BX to amend BX Rule 3011 to reflect changes to a corresponding FINRA Rule (SR-BX-2011-026) has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of May 16. (Rel. 34-64484)

A proposed rule change filed by Chicago Board Options Exchange relating to orders qualifying for certain quantity-based fee waivers (SR-CBOE-2011-046) has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of May 16. (Rel. 34-64485)

A proposed rule change filed by The NASDAQ Stock Market (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066) relating to rebates and fees in Penny Pilot, NDX and MNX and Non-Penny Pilot options has become effective under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of May 16. (Rel. 34-64494)

Securities Act Registrations

Registration statements are not included in today’s Digest.

Recent 8K Filings

Form 8-K reports are not included in today’s Digest.

http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/2011/dig051611.htm

SEC News Digest