 |
Home | Previous Page | |
|
||
 |
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTSIn the Matter of Emergent Health Corp.On September 30, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced the temporary suspension, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), of trading in the securities of Emergent Health Corp. (Emergent), of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania at 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 30, 2009, and terminating at 11:59 p.m. on Oct. 13, 2009. The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of Emergent because questions have arisen regarding the company's issuance of stock and trading in the company's stock. The Commission cautions broker-dealers, shareholders, and prospective purchasers that they should carefully consider the foregoing information along with all other currently available information and any information subsequently issued by the company. Further, brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that, pursuant to Rule 15c2-11 under the Exchange Act, at the termination of the trading suspension, no quotation may be entered unless and until they have strictly complied with all of the provisions of the rule. If any broker or dealer has any questions as to whether or not he has complied with the rule, he should not enter any quotation but immediately contact the staff in the Division of Trading and Markets, Office of Interpretation and Guidance, at (202) 551-5777. If any broker or dealer is uncertain as to what is required by Rule 15c2-11, he should refrain from entering quotations relating to Emergent securities until such time as he has familiarized himself with the rule and is certain that all of its provisions have been met. If any broker or dealer enters any quotation which is in violation of the rule, the Commission will consider the need for prompt enforcement action. If any broker, dealer or other person has any information that may relate to this matter, they should immediately contact Eric R. Busto, Assistant Regional Director, Miami Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission at (305) 982-6362. (Rel. 34-60745) SEC and CFTC Chairmen Issue Update On Harmonization ReportThe chairmen of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced today that they anticipate, in two weeks, the two agencies will issue a report that will address key areas in which their regulatory schemes are different. The chairmen also expect the report will recommend legislative and regulatory actions to address those differences where appropriate. On June 17, 2009, the White House released a White Paper on Financial Regulatory Reform calling on the CFTC and SEC to "make recommendations to Congress for changes to statutes and regulations that would harmonize regulation of futures and securities." Subject to consideration of the Commissions, a report is expected to be issued on October 15 to address harmonization of futures and securities regulation. It is anticipated that the report will include discussion of the following issues:
In addition, the chairmen expect that the report will contain recommendations to Congress and the President designed to (1) strengthen their respective enforcement powers; (2) enhance and harmonize customer protection standards; and (3) establish an ongoing coordination and advisory process. "We must continue to build upon the progress we are making to reduce regulatory arbitrage, avoid unnecessary duplication and close regulatory gaps," said SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro. "We are fully committed to continuing on the path toward reform." "The CFTC and the SEC have been working very closely to best tailor our regulations in the best interest of the American public," CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler said. "I look forward to reporting to Congress and the President on identifying substantive changes that both agencies can make to close regulatory gaps, address inconsistencies and ensure that any overlap best serves the public." In addition to extensive discussions between the agencies, the two regulatory bodies held their first ever joint public meetings earlier this month. The meetings sought to solicit views from industry participants, experts, and the public on the current regulatory scheme, harmonization of the agencies' rules and recommendations for changes to statutes and regulations. The agencies also solicited written comments to further assist their deliberations. (Press Rel. 2009-211) ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGSIn the Matter of Torque Engineering Corp.An Administrative Law Judge has issued an Order Making Findings and Revoking Registrations by Default (Default Order) in Torque Engineering Corp., Administrative Proceeding No. 3-13597. The Order Instituting Proceedings alleged that Respondents failed repeatedly to file required annual and quarterly reports while their securities were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Default Order finds these allegations to be true and revokes the registrations of each class of registered securities of Torque Engineering Corp., Transcoastal Marine Services, Inc., Transfinancial Holdings, Inc., Transwest Energy, Inc., Trend Vision Technologies, Inc., and Tricord Systems, Inc., pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. (Rel. 34-60740; File No. 3-13597) Securities and Exchange Commission Orders Hearing on Registration Revocation or Suspension Against Eight Public Companies for Failure to Make Required Periodic FilingsThe Commission today instituted public administrative proceedings to determine whether to revoke or suspend for a period not exceeding twelve months the registration of each class of the securities of eight companies for failure to make required periodic filings with the Commission:
In this Order, the Division of Enforcement (Division) alleges that the eight issuers are delinquent in their required periodic filings with the Commission. In this proceeding, instituted pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(j), a hearing will be scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge. At the hearing, the judge will hear evidence from the Division and the Respondents to determine whether the allegations of the Division contained in the Order, which the Division alleges constitute failures to comply with Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 or 13a-16 thereunder, are true. The judge in the proceeding will then determine whether the registrations pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12 of each class of the securities of these Respondents should be revoked or suspended for a period not exceeding twelve months. The Commission ordered that the Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding issue an initial decision not later than 120 days from the date of service of the order instituting proceedings. (Rel. 34-60742; File No. 3-13634) Securities and Exchange Commission Orders Hearing on Registration Revocation or Suspension Against Eight Public Companies for Failure to Make Required Periodic FilingsThe Commission today instituted public administrative proceedings to determine whether to revoke or suspend for a period not exceeding twelve months the registration of each class of the securities of eight companies for failure to make required periodic filings with the Commission:
In this Order, the Division of Enforcement (Division) alleges that the eight issuers are delinquent in their required periodic filings with the Commission. In this proceeding, instituted pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(j), a hearing will be scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge. At the hearing, the judge will hear evidence from the Division and the Respondents to determine whether the allegations of the Division contained in the Order, which the Division alleges constitute failures to comply with Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder, are true. The judge in the proceeding will then determine whether the registrations pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12 of each class of the securities of these Respondents should be revoked or suspended for a period not exceeding twelve months. The Commission ordered that the Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding issue an initial decision not later than 120 days from the date of service of the order instituting proceedings. (Rel. 34-60747; File No. 3-13635) Securities and Exchange Commission Orders Hearing on Registration Revocation Against Six Public Companies for Failure to Make Required Periodic FilingsToday the Commission instituted public administrative proceedings to determine whether to revoke or suspend for a period not exceeding twelve months the registrations of each class of the securities of six companies for failure to make required periodic filings with the Commission:
In this Order, the Division of Enforcement (Division) alleges that the six issuers are delinquent in their required periodic filings with the Commission. In this proceeding, instituted pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(j), a hearing will be scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge. At the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge will hear evidence from the Division and the Respondents to determine whether the allegations of the Division contained in the Order, which the Division alleges constitute failures to comply with Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder, are true. The Administrative Law Judge in the proceeding will then determine whether the registrations pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12 of each class of the securities of these Respondents should be revoked or suspended for a period not exceeding twelve months. The Commission ordered that the Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding issue an initial decision not later than 120 days from the date of service of the order instituting proceedings. (Rel. 34-60748; File No. 3-13636) SEC Charges the Former CEO of Florida Software Company With FraudOn September 29, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges against Michael A. Rivers, the former Chief Executive Officer of IBSG International Inc., alleging he directed IBSG to issue multiple press releases announcing fictitious software licensing agreements and to file periodic reports with the Commission that falsely recognized more than $23 million in revenues from the purported agreements. Rivers contemporaneously sold over one million shares of IBSG stock, generating approximately $1.23 million in illicit proceeds. The Commission's complaint alleges that, between January 2006 and January 2009, IBSG, which discontinued all of its operations earlier this year, marketed an Internet-based business software it had developed for small businesses. According to the complaint, Rivers directed IBSG to issue a series of press releases disclosing the purported sale of licenses for the software to various entities in South Africa, Hungary and Finland, as well as the revenues the company would allegedly generate from the licenses. The complaint alleges that, contrary to the press releases, the licenses either did not exist or that IBSG had agreed to waive the licensing and service fees required by the agreements. The complaint further alleges that Rivers directed IBSG to file periodic reports with the Commission that falsely reported the company had generated $23.4 million in revenues from the purported license agreements. In addition, the complaint alleges that Rivers, while directing IBSG to report the false license agreements and revenues, sold over one million shares of IBSG stock from brokerage accounts that he and he wife maintained in the name of a nominee company, Relief Defendant, ARKR Trust, LLC. The stock sales generated approximately $1.23 million in proceeds. The Commission's complaint charges Rivers with violating Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2, and with aiding and abetting IBSG's 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. In its complaint, the Commission seeks a permanent injunction, an accounting, disgorgement, a civil penalty and an officer and director bar against Rivers. The Commission also seeks disgorgement against Relief Defendant, ARKR. The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Financial Services Board of South Africa, the Financial Supervisory Authority of Hungary, and the Financial Supervisory Authority of Finland with this investigation. [SEC v. Michael A. Rivers and ARKR Trust LLC, Case No. 6:09-CV-1674-ORL-35DAB (Middle District Fla.] (LR-21228) SEC Files Settled Books and Records and Internal Controls Charges Against AGCO Corporation For Improper Payments to Iraq Under the U.N. Oil for Food Program - - AGCO Agrees to Pay Over $18.3 Million in Disgorgement, Interest, and PenaltiesThe Securities and Exchange Commission today filed Foreign Corrupt Practices Act books and records and internal controls charges against AGCO Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. AGCO Corporation, headquartered in Duluth, Georgia, is a manufacturer and supplier of agricultural equipment. The Commission's complaint alleges that from 2000 through 2003, certain AGCO subsidiaries made approximately $5.9 million in kickback payments in connection with their sales of equipment to Iraq under the United Nations Oil for Food Program (Program). The kickbacks were characterized as "after sales service fees" (ASSFs), but no bona fide services were performed. The Program was intended to provide humanitarian relief for the Iraqi population, which faced severe hardship under international trade sanctions. The Program required the Iraqi government to purchase humanitarian goods through a U.N. escrow account; however, AGCO's subsidiaries' kickbacks diverted funds out of the escrow account and into Iraqi-controlled accounts at banks in Jordan. According to the Commission's Complaint: Prior to the Oil for Food Program, AGCO tried unsuccessfully to increase its market share in Iraq. AGCO's U.K. subsidiary, AGCO Ltd., marketed and negotiated the sale of agricultural equipment to Iraqi ministries. In December 2000, AGCO Ltd.'s business manager for Iraq learned from its Jordanian agent that the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture was demanding a kickback of ten percent of the contract value as a condition to awarding contracts to AGCO. The business manager and his supervisor agreed to the kickbacks, and the agent agreed to make the payments on AGCO's behalf. The agent asked AGCO to set up bank guarantees in favor of the agent to facilitate the payments. In a December 2000 e-mail, the agent stated that "the payments are in the 'interest of continuity of our solid position we are enjoying now.'" The fees AGCO normally paid to the agent were: (1) a flat rate commission; (2) a variable commission based upon the value of the equipment sold; and (3) an "After Sales" commission to allow the agent to establish and maintain an infrastructure in Iraq to support AGCO's farm machinery. However, beginning in early 2001, AGCO paid additional amounts to the agent to make the kickbacks. To conceal the scheme, AGCO's employees created a fictional account in its books and records denoted as "Ministry Accrual." The kickbacks were recorded in this account. The AGCO employees made it appear that the account was being used to pay the agent for his After Sales commissions. Thus, AGCO maintained and used two accounts, both of which were described as for the purpose of After Sales work. The accrual account was created by AGCO Ltd.'s marketing staff with virtually no oversight from AGCO Ltd.'s finance department. No one questioned the existence of the dual accounts. No one questioned why the Ministry Accrual account contained approximately ten percent of the contract value despite the fact that there was no contract in place requiring that such ten percent be paid to the ministry or anyone else. Unlike other payments to the agent, the Ministry Accrual payments were made by bank guarantee and in French francs or Euros instead of U.S. dollars. Marketing and finance employees in the U.K., Denmark, and France were all instrumental in the scheme. As part of the scheme, AGCO's subsidiaries concealed the kickback payments from the UN by secretly inflating UN contract prices by an artificial ten percent. Altogether, AGCO's subsidiaries paid approximately $5,912,393 in ASSFs on sixteen contracts. The ASSFs were inaccurately described as a "Ministry Accrual" for infrastructure repair in the company's books and records and were included among legitimate commission payments to AGCO's agent in Iraq. On at least two occasions, the Jordanian agent asked for and received funds for "car payments" related to business in Iraq, and AGCO employees did not obtain any documentation as to the appropriateness of these expenses or ask if the cars were going to government officials. In October 2002, an employee who set up bank guarantees for the agent knowing that the payments would be forwarded to the ministry warned AGCO Ltd. that "we do not want the auditors raising any questions on Iraq business!" In February 2002, AGCO's internal auditors noted numerous problems with AGCO Ltd.'s sales process, including the establishment of accrual accounts by the marketing department. However, AGCO failed to conduct a review of the accrual accounts that existed at the time of the report, and the Ministry Accrual account continued to be used in the scheme to make and record additional ASSF payments to Iraq. One AGCO Ltd. accounting employee described the Finance Department employees as "blind loaders" who input information into AGCO's books without any adequate oversight role. AGCO's legal department was aware that the company was conducting sales under the Program into Iraq, a sanctioned country, but failed to ensure that the sanctions or the UN rules and regulations were followed. In fact, AGCO's General Counsel's office assisted on at least one occasion with obtaining 661 Committee approval for an Oil for Food contract. The General Counsel's office then sent a letter to a London bank asking that money be paid to the Jordanian agent. AGCO failed to maintain an adequate system of internal controls to detect and prevent the payments and AGCO's accounting for these transactions failed properly to record the nature of the payments. AGCO, without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's complaint, consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining AGCO from future violations of Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and ordering AGCO to disgorge $13,907,393 in profits plus $2,000,000 in pre-judgment interest plus a civil penalty of $2,400,000. AGCO will also pay a $1,600,000 penalty pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, Fraud Section. AGCO will also enter into a criminal disposition in which the Danish State Prosecutor for Serious Economic Crime will confiscate over $600,000. [SEC v. AGCO Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-01865 (D.D.C.)(RMU)] (LR-21229) SEC Shuts Down Money Manager's $40 Million Fraudulent SchemeOn September 29, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a court order freezing assets and halting a scheme in which Decatur, Illinois-based money manager, William A. Huber, falsely portrayed himself to investors as a successful money manager who managed three private investment funds with assets over $40 million, consistently beating market indices through skillful trading and shrewd investments. In reality, he managed just $3 million in investor assets, frequently lost money on his trading and misappropriated investor funds to pay for his lavish bi-coastal lifestyle. The SEC alleges that William A. Huber reported false account balances to investors in three investment funds he controlled, stating that the funds held more than $40 million as of August 31, 2009. Huber's funds, however, held little more than $3 million in assets as of that date. Huber lost money on his trading throughout 2009, yet told investors that his trading had generated substantial returns. Huber collected performance fees he did not earn based on his false claims of returns in the funds he managed. Huber made Ponzi-like payments to investors by using newer investor funds to make investor redemption payments at inflated amounts. Huber also diverted investor funds for his personal benefit, including purchasing expensive homes for himself in Naples, Florida and La Jolla, California. The SEC further alleges that shortly after the arrest of Bernard Madoff, in an effort to conceal his fraud from investors, Huber sent his investors an email reassuring them that he managed his funds honestly and that his funds bore no resemblance to Madoff's scheme. Similarly, the complaint alleges that Huber lied to SEC staff members during their investigation of his activities, reporting false account balances to the SEC and claiming hedge fund investments that did not exist. The SEC's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago, alleges that Huber solicited investments in three different private funds he controlled: The Quarter Funds, L.P., The Symmetry Fund, L.P. and The Trimester Fund. Huber managed the funds through Hubadex, Inc., a Decatur, Illinois-based company that he controlled. The SEC's complaint charges Huber and Hubadex with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, and seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and the appointment of a receiver. The SEC's complaint also names as relief defendants Huber's wife and Huber's investment funds based on allegations that they received ill-gotten gains from Huber's fraud. The Honorable Ruben Castillo, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, granted the SEC's request for emergency relief, including an order permanently enjoining Huber and Hubadex from committing further violations of the antifraud provisions and an order freezing the assets of Huber, Hubadex and the relief defendants. Huber, Hubadex and the relief defendants agreed to the emergency relief requested by the SEC. [SEC v. William A. Huber and Hubadex, Inc.," Civil Action No. 09-cv-6068, USDC, ND IL, Eastern Division] (LR-21230) SEC Obtains Preliminary Injunctions Against Stock Distributors Stephen Carnes, Lawrence Powalisz and OthersThe Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that, on September 29, the Honorable Gregory A. Presnell of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered preliminary injunction orders by consent against Stephen W. Carnes, Lawrence A. Powalisz, their companies K&L International Enterprises, Inc., Signature Leisure, Inc., and Signature Worldwide Advisors, LLC (collectively, the Stock Distributors), as well as Jared E. Hochstedler and Enzyme Environmental Solutions, Inc. (Enzyme Environmental). The orders enjoin the defendants from violating Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act of 1933 for the duration of the litigation and, with respect to the Stock Distributor Defendants, order an asset freeze and a preliminary penny stock bar. The Court had already issued a temporary restraining order on September 25. The Commission's complaint, filed on September 24, alleges that the defendants engaged in an ongoing scheme to evade the registration provisions of the federal securities laws by selling billions of shares of stock issued by microcap companies to the investing public without adhering to the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act. According to the complaint, the scheme involved a series of transactions between the Stock Distributors and the microcap companies, including Enzyme Environmental (the Issuers), with the same essential characteristics: First, a Stock Distributor either purported to lend money to an Issuer or the Issuer identified a "debt" owed to its officer that the Issuer and officer assigned to the Stock Distributor. Second, to reduce or eliminate the loan or the assigned debt, the Issuer issued shares of its stock to the Stock Distributor. Third, before or after the stock issuances, the Stock Distributor paid the Issuer or an affiliate of the Issuer. Finally, the Stock Distributor immediately sold the shares into the public market. In two years, the Stock Distributors generated approximately $7 million in illegal profits, the complaint alleged. In addition to the emergency relief already obtained, the Commission is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and civil penalties against all defendants. The Commission is also seeking penny stock bars against the Stock Distributors. The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in the investigation of this matter. [SEC v. K&L International Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:09-cv-1638-Orl-31KRS (M.D. Fla.)] (LR-21231) SEC Files Fraud Charges Against Jason M. GenetOn September 30, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action against Jason M. Genet of Phoenix, Arizona, alleging that Genet participated in an elaborate stock manipulation scheme involving China Energy Savings Technology, Inc., a now-defunct Nevada company with purported operations in China. In its complaint, the Commission alleges that, among other things, Genet: (i) helped China Energy falsely obtain a listing on the Nasdaq National Market System by helping China Energy to give away shares to hundreds of persons, and thereby created the false and misleading impression that China Energy had a bona fide and active shareholder base; (ii) engaged in unregistered distributions of securities; and (iii) entered into secret arrangements to give away China Energy stock to persons who agreed to purchase China Energy stock in the market, and thereby created the false and misleading impression of active trading and interest in China Energy. In payment for his fraudulent activities, Genet received thousands of shares of China Energy stock, which he later sold into the artificially inflated market, realizing illicit profits in excess of $1.7 million. The Complaint alleges that Genet acted in concert with Chiu Wing Chiu, a Chinese national who secretly controlled China Energy. The Commission previously obtained judgments against Chiu and his associates for their conduct in the China Energy fraud. The Commission's complaint charges Genet with violating the antifraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws (Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933). The Commission seeks a permanent injunction against Genet prohibiting him from further violations of the securities laws, disgorgement of his ill-gotten gains, civil penalties and a penny stock bar. [SEC v. Jason M. Genet, Civil Action No. 09-cv-4215 (E.D.N.Y.) (Seybert, J)] (LR-21232) INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT RELEASESAdvisorOne Funds and CLS Investments, LLCAn order has been issued on an application filed by AdvisorOne Funds and CLS Investments, LLC exempting applicants from Section 15(a) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 18f-2 under the Act. The order permits the applicants to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements without shareholder approval. (Rel. IC-28932 - September 25) Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. and Schwab Strategic TrustA notice has been issued giving interested persons until Oct. 22, 2009, to request a hearing on an application filed by Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. and Schwab Strategic Trust for an order to permit (a) certain open-end management investment companies and their series to issue shares (Shares) that can be redeemed only in large aggregations (Creation Units); (b) secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated prices; (c) certain series to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of Shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of the series to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; and (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the series to acquire Shares. (Rel. IC-28933 - September 28) SELF-REGULATORY ORGANIZATIONSImmediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule ChangesThe Depository Trust Company filed a proposed rule change (SR-DTC-2009-15) under Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act, which proposed rule became effective upon filing, to make technical modifications to its Payment Order system in support of the industry wide Options Symbology Initiative. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of September 28. (Rel. 34-60704) A proposed rule change filed by NYSE Amex (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-64) relating to strike price intervals of $0.50 for options on stocks trading at or below $3.00 has become immediately 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 September 28. (Rel. 34-60720) Chicago Board Options Exchange filed a proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2009-067) under Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to bid/ask differentials. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of September 28. (Rel. 34-60727) Proposed Rule ChangesThe New York Stock Exchange filed a proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2009-96) permitting affiliation with NYFIX Millennium L.L.C. and NYFIX Securities Corporation pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of September 28. (Rel. 34-60737) The NYSE Arca filed a proposed rule change (SR-NYSEARCA-2009-84) permitting affiliation with NYFIX Millennium L.L.C. and NYFIX Securities Corporation pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of September 28. (Rel. 34-60738) The NYSE Amex filed a proposed rule change (SR-NYSEAMEX-2009-63) permitting affiliation with NYFIX Millennium L.L.C. and NYFIX Securities Corporation pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of September 28. (Rel. 34-60739) SECURITIES ACT REGISTRATIONSRECENT 8K FILINGS
http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/2009/dig093009.htm
|